UK’s New Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice is Former BDS Activist

New UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has appointed “Free Palestine” activist Shabana Mahmood as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. She claims to have gotten pushback for not being sufficiently pro-Palestinian, and yet is no friend of Israel, either. “Labour’s new Justice Secretary was accused of encouraging ‘mob rule’ at pro-BDS protest,” by Jane Prinsley, The Jewish Chronicle, July 7, 2024:

The UK’s new Secretary of State for Justice has a history of supporting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel and attending anti-Israel marches.

…However, she has stood by the Labour leadership’s position on Gaza since October 7, often at great risk to her voter base.

In a letter to her Birmingham Ladywood constituents dated October 13, she denounced the Hamas attack: “I unequivocally condemn the despicable actions of Hamas, who targeted innocent Israeli civilians. The hostages must be returned.

“These atrocities were committed by terrorists who do not seek peace and have set back the just cause of Palestinian freedom and statehood, which I have supported my whole life.”

She insisted that “international humanitarian laws” must be followed “at all times.”

In March this year, she called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and accused Israel of killing innocent civilians.

“I have always supported a diplomatic process to stop the killing of innocent civilians, get humanitarian aid in and get the hostages out,” Mahmoud wrote in a March letter to constituents.

“But it is clear that diplomatic processes have not made sufficient progress. The conduct of this war has been intolerable, with a disproportionate level of attacks on innocent people that has rightly been the deliberations in international courts.”

Mahmood also said that during the campaign she had been “harassed and intimidated” for standing for Labour, seen by a section of the Muslim community of being insufficiently pro-Palestinian….

But let’s get to the heart of the matter: Mahmood’s decade-old demand, never retracted as far as I know, that the UK should boycott products made in the Israeli settlements. The UK has a lot to lose if it puts such a policy in place. The UK is Israel’s third most important trading partner; if Israel, in response to sanctions, decides to buy a good deal less from the U.K., its third-largest trading partner after the EU and the U.S., who is harmed more? And what would be the reaction of the American government, or of American companies, or American consumers, to such sanctions on Israel imposed by the UK?

If Israel, which has many ties with high-tech companies in the U.K., were to end that cooperation, that would harm the UK’s high-tech sector far more than it would harm Israel. For there are many countries in the world that are eager to strengthen their ties to Israeli high-tech companies, including the U.S., China, and India. The “Start-up Nation” has many admirers paying court. There is also the effect that UK sanctions could have on Palestinians who are employed by Israeli companies in the West Bank settlements. The case of Sodastream is instructive. The company, originally located in the West Bank by its founder, partly in order to provide employment to Palestinians, became the victim of a successful BDS campaign to boycott its product. The company lost sales, and in response moved out of the West Bank to a new plant in the Negev – and more than 400 Palestinian workers lost their jobs. Meanwhile, the company itself has gone on to become a phenomenal worldwide success.

Shabana Mahmood — and anyone else in the UK who thinks that imposing sanctions on West Bank products is a good idea – has another think coming. What will be the effect on UK high-tech companies desirous of collaboration with Israeli scientists and companies? What will be the effect on trade, more generally, between the UK and Israel, should Israel choose to retaliate for sanctions placed on West Bank goods? What might be a possible effect, too, on UK trade with American companies, especially those in high-tech, so many of which have close and highly-valued ties to Israeli companies?

These are the practical reasons for not “punishing” Israel with sanctions.

But even more important are the legal, historic, and moral claims of Israel to the West Bank. These are the claims that so many continue maddeningly to ignore; many do out of ignorance, while others don’t want those claims to be known. Shabana Mahmood may be beyond rational argument, but I allow myself to believe that Keir Starmer would listen to the argument justifying Israel’s extension of its sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. He has not studied the history of modern Israel; he is, I’m afraid, ignorant of the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine, and remains unaware of the territories assigned to that Mandate by the League of Nations, does not realize that the UN recognized the continuing relevance of the Mandate for Palestine in Article 80 of the U.N. Charter. Nor does he appear to know about the significance of UN Resolution 242, as lucidly and eloquently explained by its author, Lord Caradon – a resolution that gave Israel the right to retain any territories won in the Six-Day War that it needed if it was to have “secure [i.e., defensible] and recognized boundaries.”

Let’s give Keir Starmer that short course in the history of modern Israel that might provide him with quite a different view from what he hears so often, not just from Shabana Mahmood, but from politicians in both main parties, reporters for the BBC, pundits at the newspapers. We’ll provide that beginning at 4PM Eastern time this afternoon.