Keir Starmer's Criticism of Israel: A Double Standard in International Law?

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Jul 18, 2026 ALN: The failure to criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza while condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked accusations of double standards and “cherry-picking” international law that may taint departing UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Middle East legacy, experts have said.

While the British leader and his Attorney General Richard Hermer denounced Moscow’s occupation, they have been less outspoken about Israel’s actions. This discrepancy has raised significant questions about the principles guiding the UK’s foreign policy and its commitment to human rights and international law.

Both Starmer and Hermer are seasoned lawyers who built their legal careers defending human rights and the rule of law. Lord Hermer has regularly promoted the rules-based order, stating in a speech only last week that “the UK should stand firmly by international law.” This makes the apparent inconsistency in their responses to international conflicts even more striking.

Double Standards

Analysts noted that when it became clear that Israel’s campaign in Gaza was causing heavy civilian casualties—approximately 74,000 Palestinians having died so far in the conflict—Mr. Starmer's government should have issued far greater criticism, as the UK is considered to be setting international standards for upholding the law. The scale of civilian suffering in Gaza has been unprecedented, and many argue that a stronger denunciation from the UK could have influenced the behavior of not just Israel, but also other nations observing the situation.

I don't think there have been double standards when it has come to this government to Israel, to Palestine and in particular to the Gaza conflict.

“If Starmer’s Britain had been stronger in their language towards Israel, that could have made a difference,” said Hugh Lovatt, of the European Council on Foreign Relations. Lovatt's comments underscore the belief among some analysts that the UK has a unique role to play in the international arena, particularly in the Middle East, where it has historical ties and influence.

“It is just a fact that those two occupations are not treated equally and they should be, particularly by someone who is so concerned for rule of law,” he added, referring to the contrasting responses to the situations in Ukraine and Gaza. This sentiment resonates with many who see a moral obligation for nations like the UK to uphold international law universally, rather than selectively.

Others have accused the Prime Minister, who is expected to be replaced by Andy Burnham on Monday, of double standards. “Let's call it the cherry-picking way,” said former Jerusalem honorary consul Sir Vincent Fean. “What applies to Russia with the invasion and occupation of parts of Ukraine should be considered for application to Israel,” he added, referring to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. This analogy highlights the perception that the UK is not applying the same rigorous standards to its allies as it does to adversaries, leading to a troubling inconsistency in its foreign policy.

Britain, argued Miran Hassan of the Labour Party’s Middle East Council, “had really missed its chance to be a leader” globally. “The UK should have taken a leading role in addressing Israel’s actions and convening on the world stage,” he said. This reflects a broader frustration among some political figures and analysts regarding the UK’s perceived reluctance to confront allies on human rights issues, which could undermine its credibility as a champion of international law.

Hassan also pointed to a “lack of experience within the immediate No 10 team” on the Middle East, suggesting that the government may not fully understand the complexities of the region or the implications of its foreign policy decisions. This lack of expertise could lead to missteps that not only affect the UK’s standing in the international community but also impact the lives of those affected by the conflicts.

But ultimately Mr. Starmer and Lord Hermer understood that “whether we like you or not, Israel is an ally,” Hassan added, and that would have influenced their thinking. The UK has historically maintained close ties with Israel, which complicates its ability to criticize Israeli actions without risking diplomatic fallout. This relationship is rooted in a variety of factors, including shared democratic values, economic ties, and strategic interests in the region.

Mr. Starmer was also elected leader in part to address the apparent anti-Semitism that gripped the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, which could have made the Prime Minister more reluctant to criticize Israel. The shadow of anti-Semitism within the party has been a contentious issue, leading to a cautious approach to discussions surrounding Israel and Palestine. This context complicates Starmer's position, as he must navigate the sensitivities surrounding these topics while also fulfilling the expectations of his role as Prime Minister.

Rules for All

But it is not only the accusation of failing to uphold international law that has drawn criticism. The perceived inconsistency in addressing human rights violations in different contexts raises questions about the UK’s commitment to a rules-based international order. Critics argue that selective condemnation undermines the very principles that the UK purports to uphold and damages its reputation on the global stage.

As Starmer prepares to step down, the scrutiny of his legacy in relation to the Middle East will likely continue, with many calling for a more balanced approach to international relations that does not shy away from holding allies accountable. The implications of this situation extend beyond Starmer’s tenure; they may influence the policy directions of his successor and shape the future of UK foreign policy in the region.

The debate surrounding the UK’s response to international conflicts is emblematic of broader discussions about the role of power, ethics, and responsibility in global governance. As the world grapples with complex geopolitical challenges, the need for a consistent and principled approach to foreign policy becomes increasingly evident. The UK's ability to navigate these challenges effectively will be crucial not only for its own standing but also for the stability and peace in regions like the Middle East.

In conclusion, the criticisms leveled at Keir Starmer and his administration regarding their approach to Israel and Palestine highlight the complexities of international diplomacy. The balancing act between maintaining strategic alliances and upholding human rights is fraught with challenges, and the consequences of failing to address these issues can have far-reaching implications. As the UK moves forward, it will be essential for its leaders to engage in a more nuanced and principled dialogue about international law and human rights, ensuring that their actions reflect a commitment to justice and equality for all.