Lammy makes Britain a global laughing stock

To alienate a key ally, as Foreign Secretary David Lammy has done to Israel with his decision to suspend some arms export licences, may be a sign of sheer incompetence. But to act in a way that also disadvantages the US, the country’s most important strategic partner, shows that he is fast becoming a liability.

Even before Labour’s landslide victory, concerns were raised about Lammy’s erratic behaviour and speculation arose that Sir Keir Starmer would choose a more credible figure such as Douglas Alexander or Peter Mandelson to represent British interests on the world stage.

Lammy’s childish musings about former US President Donald Trump, whom he memorably called a “neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath”, his historic opposition to maintaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent and his antipathy towards Benjamin Netanyahu are hardly the actions of someone who will boost Britain’s global standing.

For example, Lammy’s decision to withdraw Britain’s objection to the International Criminal Court’s request for an arrest warrant against Netanyahu – one of his first acts in office – resulted in the Israeli prime minister refusing to meet with the foreign minister when he visited Jerusalem last month to get an update on the stalled ceasefire talks in Gaza.

Britain and Israel supposedly enjoy a close strategic partnership on a number of key security challenges, such as the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme, so the unnecessary rift that Lammy has caused by failing to speak out against the potential prosecution of an ally is not only short-sighted: it also risks undermining our own national security.

Given the strong reaction to his decision to suspend certain arms exports to Israel, Starmer risks making his government a laughing stock by his decision to maintain Lammy’s appointment to a senior position of state.

Israel’s condemnation of the decision, which Netanyahu called “shameful,” was to be expected, although Lammy’s intervention will have little impact on Israel’s military firepower given the small size of the British-Israeli arms trade.

Perhaps more worrying, however, is the unnecessary coldness that Lammy’s antics have generated in Washington, where the Biden administration has made clear that its own review of Israel’s military conduct has found no evidence that the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law – the main justification for the British decision to suspend the arms licenses.

Causing unnecessary friction with the United States is worrying on many levels, not least because our national security depends to a large extent on the protection offered by our so-called “special relationship” with America.

While disagreements inevitably arise even among close partners, when it comes to confronting major global threats such as Iran and Russia, it is crucial that allies present a united front so that their opponents do not view publicly expressed disagreements as a sign of weakness.

Lammy’s willingness to take punitive action against Israel, on the same day that it buried the victims of another atrocity committed by terrorists backed by Iran, will surely be seen by Hamas – and its Iranian backers – as an indication that Britain no longer feels obliged to support Tel Aviv’s right to self-defence.

The Israeli government’s indifference toward Israel at a time when Israelis are battling Iranian-backed opponents on several fronts – in Gaza, southern Lebanon and Yemen, to name a few – comes at a time when Israeli government support for Ukraine is also perceived to be declining.

As Ukrainian forces record their most successful battlefield deployment in many months, the Kremlin will interpret Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s criticism of Starmer for slowing down arms deliveries to Kyiv as an indication that Britain – like many other Western allies – is rapidly losing interest in the conflict.

The impression that Labour wants to scale back Britain’s international engagement, especially in terms of support for former allies, is reinforced by the warning that now that Starmer is firmly established in Downing Street, the government appears to have no intention of delivering on its promise to strengthen Britain’s defence capabilities.

During the election campaign, Starmer and co were so desperate to swear their credibility on national security that they told voters they would seek to increase defence spending to at least 2.5 per cent of GDP. Now that Labour is in power, things are very different. Defence Secretary John Healey is warning that the MoD must “play its part” as Labour’s self-imposed austerity takes shape.

It will be interesting to see how our American allies will assess this blatant about-face – not least because Starmer used his first major speech on the international stage – at NATO’s 75th anniversary celebrations in Washington in July – to call on all NATO member states to meet the UK’s impressive spending target of 2.5 per cent.

Americans have every right to conclude that Starmer’s rhetoric was nothing more than empty words from an empty man.

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.