Lammy is picking a needless fight with America

The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them.
That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries.
Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia.
At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel.
Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense.
National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East.
Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism.
The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed.
Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons.
The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK.
Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'.
The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes.
Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history.
Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'.
Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests.
In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla.
At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies.
It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy.
The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons.
The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

36 minutes ago

• The Independent

Palestine Action to be banned after break-in at RAF base

The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base, the PA news agency understands. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'.

Daily Mail​

39 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

MARK HALPERIN: Netanyahu has seduced Trump by exploiting his biggest weakness... but here's what will derail the leaders' bromance

Let us now praise famous men — and the famously transactional friendships they foster. Benjamin 'Bibi' Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel and amongst the world's longest-running acts in the global political circus, has always possessed a singular talent: the ability to both infuriate and seduce American presidents, often simultaneously.

Daily Mail​

40 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Sunny Hostin leaves The View hosts speechless as she defends Iran and complains about Israel

The View 's Sunny Hostin found herself at odds with her co-hosts this week during a fiery debate about the legality of Israel 's preemptive strikes on Iran. Hostin, a former federal prosecutor, argued that Israel's bombings violate international law and needed to be done 'diplomatically.' But co-hosts Alyssa Farah Griffin, Sara Haines, and Joy Behar weren't buying it, given Iran's own heinous track record. All three pointed out how Tehran is the world's leading funder of terrorism, and that it does not play by the conventional rules of foreign policy. 'Well, Iran's launched tons of missiles against Israel in the last few years,' Griffin said Wednesday. 'That is fine, but you have to do that legally and under international criminal law,' Hostin replied. The remark led Behar to note: 'I'm not sure Iran does things legally.' Hostin continued to push back, but once the dust settled, she turned to the camera to assure viewers she was not anti-Semitic. 'Under international law, Israel should not be preemptively striking another country,' she explained. 'We really need to have a bird's-eye view of what's going on. 'If that's okay for Israel to do, if that's okay for our president to do, is that okay for another country to do to us?' she added, leading Behar to point out the threat Iran poses to Israel. 'Well think of it this way,' Behar said. 'What if Canada was saying - was going to build a nuclear bomb and they threatened to kill us all. What would we do?' 'You have to do it diplomatically, Joy - you can't just bomb a country,' Hostin shot back. 'What's so diplomatic about having a nuclear bomb and threatening another country?' Behar replied. Hostin responded by saying Iran 'doesn't necessarily' have nuclear weapons at this point. 'No, but they're building it,' Behar declared. 'Obama acknowledged that they were building,' Griffin added. Hostin, however, continued to blame Trump for the conflict. At this point Haines looked to have had enough and questioned how Hostin could defend the rights of the Iranian government given its funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. 'Israel has had a target on its back its entire existence from every terrorist organization known to man, and Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism,' Haines argued. 'Doesn't mean you can proactively bomb a country,' Hostin fired back. 'I'm not going to defend the legal-ness of a terrorist nation that's been funding people killing people for decades and say, well, they didn't follow the rules,' Haines continued. 'They've never followed rules'. Co-host Whoopi Goldberg stressed that such issues are why global organizations like the United Nations exist. 'Which is why I recommend what's going on right now because the US is not actively involved,' Haines said. Griffin pointed out that Iran has launched ballistic missile attacks on US forces in Iraq as recently as three years ago. 'They have attacked Israel, preemptively,' the former Trump aide added. 'They are a terrorist nation.' Hostin went on to ask: 'So, we should do what they do?' Griffin asserted that it was up to the Iranian people to rid themselves of their regime. 'Can I just say this so I don't get a bunch of hate mail - criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic,' Hostin concluded 'I am criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu. I am criticizing Israel. I am not an anti-Semite. But, under international criminal law, what is happening now is not legal. That's the line.'