Officially, the UK is “proud” to be standing with Israel in its fight against Hamas. But it appears that as time goes on, officials are having less and less time for their Jerusalem counterparts.
After London’s Metropolitan Police was unfazed by Hamas supporters calling for “jihad, jihad, jihad” on the capital’s streets, the force is now investigating Israel over alleged war crimes in Gaza. Even Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who has faced pressure from his own party over the conflict in the Middle East, said Met leaders “will have to be held to account” for turning some of its resources to this area while failing to properly police surging knife and gun crimes.
Gideon Falter, the chief executive of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, also described the Met’s actions as “surreal,” suggesting it was using the conflict to “hide its abject failure” to police the streets of London. He added:
At a time when protesters are marching in London every week wearing Hamas-style headbands, shouting genocidal chants, calling for jihad against the Jewish state and inciting violent intifada with apparent impunity, the Met is concerned with acts of terrorism and allegations of war crimes halfway around the world, potentially even in contravention of the stated position of the British government.
Despite this and other criticism from parliament, parliament itself was last week flung into controversy over possible—and literal—Palestinian flag waving. A diary note circulated by the House of Commons suggested that Speaker Lindsay Hoyle would display the flag “in honour of [the] Palestine Ambassador” during his visit. It added that this was part of an initiative for “Speaker-led diplomacy.”
The note raised several questions, not least because Britain does not recognise Palestine as a state, and Palestinian diplomat Husam Zomlot, who Sir Lindsay was supposed to meet, does not have ambassador status.
But this is all academic; the fact such a welcome was considered was enough to spark a backlash. Iain Mansfield, director of research at Policy Exchange, the think tank which first pointed to this diary note, asked:
Should the Speaker be committing the entire House of Commons to such a controversial position on the current conflict? Is Speaker-led diplomacy really appropriate in this case? It is hardly impartial.
Parliament has since issued a series of confusing corrections, insisting that a “routine internal planning email” had been “sent in error,” and that “diary pressures” had led to the mixup.
Bob Blackman, vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on antisemitism, suggested however that the damage had already been done; that the diary note—withdrawn or not—“does not send the right sort of signals to people when there are still more than 100 hostages in the hands of Hamas or its terrorist supporters.”
