Facts
On 11 October 2023 Keir Starmer was interviewed by Nick Farrari on LBC. Ferrari’s first question was “what is a proportionate response” to the 7 October attack on Israel? Starmer spoke for 37 seconds, asserting twice that “Israel has the right to defend herself.” Ferrari then asked: “A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power, cutting off water, Sir Keir?” Starmer answered: “I think Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation. Obviously, everything should be done within international law but I don’t want to step away from the sort of core principles that Israel has a right to defend herself and Hamas bears responsibility for these terrorist acts.”
The comment that Israel had the right to cut off power and water caused an immediate backlash. Labour councillors resigned. There were reports the party was haemorrhaging support among Muslim voters. Yet it was not until a week later that Starmer’s spokesperson first attempted to clarify the remarks, saying on 18 October: “If you listen to the tape, it was one of those things where there were overlapping questions and answers based on what had been being said before. The specific question beforehand was about Israel having the right to defend itself, which is something that we have repeatedly said and stand by.” This was simply false—the previous question had not been about Israel having the right to defend itself, but rather what would be a proportionate response from Israel, and the questions did not overlap.
Nine days after the original comment, on 20 October, with the backlash not subsiding, Starmer was compelled to try to row back his words himself, saying on camera: “I know that that LBC clip has been widely shared and caused real concern and distress in some Muslim communities, so let me be clear about what I was saying and what I wasn’t saying. I was saying Israel had the right to self defence and when I said ‘that right,’ it was that right to self-defence. I was not saying that Israel had the right to cut off water, food, fuel or medicines.”
This clarification was not plausible given that on the day of his comments to LBC, Starmer had given two other interviews in which he made similar points. Times Radio asked Starmer: “Will you support any action [Israel] takes in response to Gaza? Does that include the cutting off of water?” Starmer replied: “I want to be really clear: Israel has the right to defend herself in response to these awful acts of terrorism, coldblooded murder, and that is the in-principle position.” In another interview Starmer was asked whether Israel’s right to defend itself included “cutting off food, water, power to Gaza?” He answered: “Well, what we’ve seen is appalling and shocking acts of terrorism, the murder of men, women, children by Hamas, and so responsibility lies with Hamas and Israel has the right to defend herself and take action in relation to the ongoing hostage situation. Obviously, this is within the framework of international law.” Pressed again on whether that included “cutting off food, water, fuel to Gaza,” Starmer responded that “everything should be done in accordance with international law but I don’t think that we should deflect from the fact that the aggressor here, the terrorist acts are those of Hamas, and they bear responsibility for what is happening.”
If Starmer had not meant to say Israel had the right to cut off power and water, he was invited to say so several times on 11 October. He declined every opportunity. Furthermore, in subsequent days Labour shadow ministers appear to have been instructed to hold Starmer’s line. Appearing on BBC Newsnight on 12 October, a visibly uncomfortable Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, refused to say that cutting off food, water and electricity was against international law. On the BBC’s Sunday morning political TV show on 15 October, shadow foreign secretary David Lammy was asked by presenter Victoria Derbyshire: “The UN human rights commissioner says the imposition of sieges that endanger the lives of civilians is prohibited under international humanitarian law. Keir Starmer, your leader, a human rights lawyer, says Israel does have the right to impose a siege. Who is right?” Lammy did not answer, but neither did he deny that Starmer had said Israel had a right to impose a siege.
Six months later, on 30 April 2024, Starmer was asked again about his LBC comments in an appearance on ITV’s Good Morning Britain. He repeated his claim that his words “Israel does have that right” had referred to Israel’s right to self-defence, rather than to the siege he had been asked about, but went on to say: “I was not suggesting they had the right to cut off water or food, they do not have that right. I managed to have the opportunity to clarify that pretty quickly afterwards.” This last claim, that he had clarified his remarks quickly, was untrue. His new, unequivocal statement that “they do not have that right” can only mean that Starmer believed Israel breached international humanitarian law when it imposed a siege, which begs the question why he so steadfastly refused to say so over many months.
Verdict
Starmer claimed that “I was not saying that Israel had the right to cut off water, food, fuel or medicines.” Nick Ferrari asked “A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power, cutting off water, Sir Keir?” Starmer answered: “I think Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation.” Starmer did say that Israel had the right to cut off water and fuel. Furthermore, in subsequent days Labour shadow ministers appear to have been instructed to hold Starmer’s line.
We emailed Sir Keir Starmer’s office and Labour offering them the chance to respond. We received no response.
Additional Note
Starmer was accused of excusing war crimes. In the face of such a serious and morally grave charge, a swift clarification would be expected. Yet Starmer waited nine days before making one. Only when the political cost became too great did he relent, but the existence of other interviews in which he did not waver from his controversial remarks makes his rewriting unconvincing. Starmer either believed Israel had the right to impose a siege, or for reasons of political convenience wanted people to think that was what he believed.