On Monday, November 13, Britain's Home Secretary Suella Braverman was fired after calling the pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the country “hate marches." Following her dismissal, changes were made in the government, and David Cameron, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, was appointed Foreign Secretary. Cameron is known for his pro-Israel positions, so this appointment benefits Israel in terms of the continued external legitimacy granted by Britain. Furthermore, although Braverman’s dismissal seems to signal fear of criticism regarding British support of Israel, it actually concerns internal political tensions, and the public and overt support for Israel continues.
Alongside the intra-coalition tensions in Britain, the issue of war has also permeated the British opposition. Keir Starmer, head of the Labour Party and leader of the opposition, continues to take a pro-Israeli line and support Israel's efforts against Hamas, although about 13 members of his party have expressed criticism – and one even resigned – due to his refusal to call for a ceasefire. This criticism is also echoed by Jeremy Corbyn, former head of the Labour Party who was replaced by Starmer, who has refused to define Hamas as a terrorist organization and has criticized the policies of his successor.
The internal political tensions and the huge demonstrations in Britain should thus not be seen as a sign of the weakening of the strong external legitimacy and British support for Israel. In the recent demonstrations, hundreds of people were arrested, and although they were directed against the British government, most of the senior officials in Britain continue to support Israel and adopt the narrative comparing Hamas to ISIS. It is evident that Britain has a desire to take an active part in maintaining the stability of the Middle East, and Israel should see it as an example of a European country that has remained loyal to its security and political interests since the beginning of the war, despite the danger of harming internal legitimacy in the face of domestic criticism.
ByGSpeech
On Monday, November 13, Britain's Home Secretary Suella Braverman was fired after calling the pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the country “hate marches." Following her dismissal, changes were made in the government, and David Cameron, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, was appointed Foreign Secretary. Cameron is known for his pro-Israel positions, so this appointment benefits Israel in terms of the continued external legitimacy granted by Britain. Furthermore, although Braverman’s dismissal seems to signal fear of criticism regarding British support of Israel, it actually concerns internal political tensions, and the public and overt support for Israel continues.
Alongside the intra-coalition tensions in Britain, the issue of war has also permeated the British opposition. Keir Starmer, head of the Labour Party and leader of the opposition, continues to take a pro-Israeli line and support Israel's efforts against Hamas, although about 13 members of his party have expressed criticism – and one even resigned – due to his refusal to call for a ceasefire. This criticism is also echoed by Jeremy Corbyn, former head of the Labour Party who was replaced by Starmer, who has refused to define Hamas as a terrorist organization and has criticized the policies of his successor.
The internal political tensions and the huge demonstrations in Britain should thus not be seen as a sign of the weakening of the strong external legitimacy and British support for Israel. In the recent demonstrations, hundreds of people were arrested, and although they were directed against the British government, most of the senior officials in Britain continue to support Israel and adopt the narrative comparing Hamas to ISIS. It is evident that Britain has a desire to take an active part in maintaining the stability of the Middle East, and Israel should see it as an example of a European country that has remained loyal to its security and political interests since the beginning of the war, despite the danger of harming internal legitimacy in the face of domestic criticism.