Est-ce que l'angle mort de Keir Starmer à Gaza salira son héritage au Moyen-Orient ?

As the United Kingdom prepares for a transition in leadership, questions are mounting over whether outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s handling of the Gaza crisis may overshadow his tenure in the Middle East. With the UK’s current Prime Minister set to step down soon, critics argue that his administration’s reluctance to strongly criticize Israel’s military operations in Gaza, compared to its firm stance against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has raised concerns about perceived double standards. Experts suggest that Starmer’s approach to the situation in Gaza might affect his legacy in the region. Despite being a lawyer known for advocating human rights and the rule of law, Starmer and his Attorney General, Richard Hermer, have been more vocal about Russia’s actions than Israel’s. This contrast has led some analysts to question whether the UK has maintained a consistent standard in applying international law. Critics point out that the UK, often seen as a global leader in upholding the rule of law, has been relatively silent on the heavy civilian toll in Gaza, where approximately 74,000 Palestinians have died. Analysts believe that a stronger response from the UK could have made a significant impact on the situation. Hugh Lovatt of the European Council on Foreign Relations noted that the lack of equal treatment between the Israeli and Russian occupations is a concern, especially given Starmer’s emphasis on the rule of law. Former Jerusalem honorary consul Sir Vincent Fean criticized the UK’s stance, suggesting that the principles applied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should also apply to Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Miran Hassan of the Labour Party’s Middle East Council emphasized that the UK missed an opportunity to take a leading role in addressing Israel’s actions on the global stage. He also highlighted a potential lack of expertise among the immediate team surrounding Starmer regarding Middle Eastern affairs. Despite these criticisms, Starmer and Hermer acknowledge the complex relationship with Israel, recognizing it as an ally. This alliance may have influenced their decision-making process, particularly considering Starmer’s election as a response to the anti-Semitic controversies during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. In addition to the criticism of insufficient condemnation of Israel’s actions, the UK has faced scrutiny for its hesitance to confront Israel following the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion, which deemed Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories unlawful. The UK Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, mentioned that while the UK respects the ICJ’s findings, it retains the autonomy to decide how to adhere to international law. However, she acknowledged that the incoming Prime Minister would need to consider how to respond to such rulings. Charlotte Leslie, chairwoman of the Conservative Middle East Council, pointed out that previous governments have struggled with maintaining consistency in their approaches to international law issues. She suggested that Starmer might either be unaware of the reports or feel that it is not his role to determine how to handle such matters. As the UK moves forward with its new leadership, the debate over Starmer’s Middle East legacy continues. The upcoming Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, faces the challenge of addressing these concerns and potentially reshaping the UK’s approach to international relations in the region.