The Middle East crisis was Starmer’s first big test – has he risen to the occasion?

The spectre of 7 October has loomed large over the prime minister’s administration, writes Andrew Grice. One year on from the horrors of that day, does he have what it takes to meet the conflict head on?

Keir Starmer will doubtless continue to upset both sides in the fierce debate sparked by the endless Middle East crisis (PA Wire)

Normally, a foreign policy crisis afflicts a governing rather than an opposition party. It is usually easier for the latter to sidestep difficult decisions. Yet that was turned on its head for Keir Starmer, then leader of the opposition, after the Hamas-led attack on Israel a year ago.

While Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, presided over a largely united, pro-Israel Conservative Party, Starmer was slow to appreciate the longstanding sympathy for the Palestinian cause inside a more divided Labour Party.

The attack on Israel happened as Labour gathered for its annual conference in Liverpool. In his speech, Starmer got a standing ovation after declaring that “this action by Hamas does nothing for Palestinians. And Israel must always have the right to defend her people.”

His team believed the Middle East crisis underlined another contrast with the Jeremy Corbyn era – Starmer’s strength on national security – while Labour would no longer be seen as sympathetic to Islamist terror groups or allow any hint of antisemitism.

That all changed the following morning, when an exhausted Starmer did a round of media interviews. LBC’s Nick Ferrari asked him whether Israel’s response in Gaza was proportionate. “A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power, cutting off water, Sir Keir?” the presenter asked. The Labour leader replied: “I think Israel does have that right.”

Although he added that everything should be done within the bounds of international law, his apparent approval for power and water to be cut off went viral, causing huge upset inside Labour and beyond; this misstep still haunts Starmer to this day.

His team’s handling of the controversy made matters worse. It took until seven days after the interview for Labour to claim that Starmer had not said what many thought he had said: he was answering a question about Israel’s right to defend itself, not about power and water.

The damage had already been done. Many Labour councillors resigned in protest. Last November, Starmer suffered his most serious internal revolt since becoming party leader, when 56 Labour MPs backed a Commons motion calling for a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza, going further than the official Labour position of a “pause” and a “humanitarian corridor”. Ten shadow ministers, including Jess Phillips, resigned their posts. Shabana Mahmood, now the justice secretary, came very close to joining them.

Starmer realised he had to engage more fully with his MPs – not a part of the job he particularly enjoyed. Sue Gray, his chief of staff, was an important bridge-builder, ensuring daily meetings on the Gaza issue with shadow ministers, which kept Mahmood on board.

One Starmer ally told me: “He wasn’t rooted in the Labour tradition of supporting the Palestinians. This probably contributed to his mistake on LBC. His response was that this should never happen again. He wasn’t well versed on the Middle East, so he immersed himself in it and got on top of it.”

In public, Starmer was unrepentant. He rejected calls by Labour MPs for an immediate, permanent ceasefire, saying this did not make sense when Hamas continued to threaten violence in Israel. “When you’ve got hostages being held at gunpoint, when you’ve got children dying in Gaza, my focus is on them, not on the various different voices in the Labour Party, because that is where the real concern is,” Starmer said.

He maintained a bipartisan approach on Israel-Gaza with Sunak’s government. Crucially, he followed the line from Washington, knowing he would likely have to work closely with a US leader as prime minister. For Starmer, it was a test of his mantra to put “country before party”. One Starmer adviser recalled: “It was very important for him to be in the mainstream of international opinion in the US and most of the EU. He knew that people there would be looking at how he reacted.”

Despite the mounting carnage and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Starmer’s aides made a virtue out of his refusal to blink. Many in his own party were less impressed. Even natural allies like Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, went further than the official Labour line, calling for an end to the “collective punishment” of the Palestinian people.

In February, Starmer narrowly avoided a second Commons rebellion when Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, provoked uproar by not calling a vote on an SNP motion demanding an “immediate ceasefire”. Instead, MPs debated Labour’s proposal for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. This copied the evolving language of the UN and the other members of the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance – the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

When Starmer eventually called for an immediate ceasefire in May – along with the immediate release of the hostages and unimpeded aid into Gaza – it was too late for his critics.

Labour officials had brushed aside warnings that Starmer’s handling of the Gaza catastrophe would cost the party the votes of Muslims and others at the general election. Wes Streeting, now the health secretary, was one of those who pressed for a stronger line inside the shadow cabinet, and warned that Labour had a problem. He was right: his 5,218 majority in Ilford North was reduced to just 528.

As five pro-Palestinian candidates won seats, campaigning on other left-wing issues as well as Gaza, the biggest surprise was shadow cabinet member Jonathan Ashworth’s defeat in Leicester South. The threat to Labour is far from over: pro-Palestinian groups are confident of making further inroads at the next election.

In government, Starmer has seemed more prepared to stand up to Israel than he was in opposition. His government dropped the previous Tory administration’s plan to challenge the International Criminal Court’s application for an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Then, unusually, the Starmer government broke with Washington by halting 30 of the UK’s 350 arms export licences to Israel, a move condemned as “shameful” by Netanyahu. It looked like a compromise between the two sides of the Israel debate, which had both repeatedly turned their fire on Starmer. Neither was happy, with the Palestinian lobby calling for a total arms ban. Ministers insist the decision was legal, not political, and based on international law – something Starmer knows a lot about, having written textbooks on human rights legislation.

Almost a year on from the 7 October incursion, the Middle East hung like a cloud over last month’s Labour conference in Liverpool for the second year running, this time as Israel launched attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon. The 19th “national march for Palestine” took place in Liverpool on the eve of the conference. Starmer joined international calls for a 21-day ceasefire, but these were rebuffed by the uncompromising Netanyahu.

In his conference speech, Starmer again called for “an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the return of the hostages, and a recommitment to the two-state solution: a recognised Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel”. His address was briefly interrupted by a heckler who shouted “Children of Gaza” from the floor. Activists sprayed the words “genocide conference” onto a Labour banner.

Starmer will doubtless continue to upset both sides in the fierce debate sparked by the endless Middle East crisis. But he has learnt a painful lesson from his early mistake.