PNN – At the same time as the competition between British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Labor Party leader Keir Starmer is heating up on the eve of holding the general elections on July 14 and making new promises, surveys show that the positions of the two sides in the field of foreign policy and especially the developments related to West Asia are not very different.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network, Rishi Sonak and Keir Starmer have condemned the Al-Aqsa storm operation in line with other Western countries since the beginning of the Gaza war and declared their full solidarity with the Zionist regime. When Sonak traveled to the occupied territories, in a joint press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of the Zionist regime, he wished that this regime would defeat Hamas. In London, Starmer also claimed in controversial statements that the Israeli regime has the right to besiege the Gaza Strip and deprive the Palestinians of their basic human rights in order to defeat the Hamas front.
In an interview with LBC, he claimed: Israel has the right to do everything it can to return the hostages (Israeli prisoners) safe and sound. In line with the policy of the London government, he considered Hamas responsible for the suffering and problems of the Palestinian people.
When public protests in the UK increased over the increase in the number of Gaza martyrs, Sonak claimed that the ceasefire would reinvigorate the Palestinian resistance forces and that London would only support short-term interruptions in the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
As the leader of the party that is expected to present an alternative narrative to the government, Starmer, in line with Sonak’s position, claimed that the establishment of a ceasefire in Gaza would make Hamas bolder and endanger the security of Tel Aviv. Statements that met with a sharp reaction from members of the Labor Party and a wave of resignations from the representatives of various English city councils.
Tensions rose within the Labor Party when Starmer and Sunak last November instructed their party MPs not to vote against the Scottish National Party’s proposal to support a ceasefire in Gaza. Before the vote, eight senior representatives of the Labor Party resigned from their positions in the shadow government and, against Starmer’s order, voted in favor of the plan of the Scottish National Party.
With this trick, Starmer prevented the loss of more members of the Labor Party and the deepening of the rift in this party, but the public protests against his silence regarding the increase in the number of martyrs in Gaza did not calm down and continue.
At one point, to justify the position of the Labor Party, Starmer claimed that if this party wins the next general election and takes the helm of the government, it should be able to interact with the Israeli regime within the framework of diplomatic relations and negotiate at the same table. A claim that many insides do not agree with and want to cut ties with this regime and expel its ambassador from British soil.
British and American military aggression against the positions of the Yemeni army
The joint British and American military operation against the positions of the Yemeni army is one of the other areas where the analysis of the statements of the leaders of the two parties shows that there is no difference in the positions of the two sides. Rishi Sunak, after the participation of the British forces in the military attack against Yemen, during a briefing meeting with the Speaker of the Parliament, the leader of the Labor Party and a number of key elements of the government, informed them of the government’s action.
In a statement, a Labor MP complained about Sunak’s delay in informing Starmer without criticizing the Sunak government’s military action; But after the words of British Defense Minister Grant Shepps regarding the necessity of secrecy of this operation, the fever of criticism subsided.
Later, there were discussions about the necessity of obtaining parliamentary permission for British participation in foreign military operations, but it did not go anywhere, and the British-American military alliance continues to attack the Yemeni National Army.
Starmer also supported the British military attack on Yemen’s Ansarullah positions in a television interview last December by claiming that silence against the movements of the Yemeni National Army in the Red Sea is not permissible.
Recognition of the independent state of Palestine
Both the Conservative and Labor parties of England, in their alleged comments, mention the recognition of the independent state of Palestine as a necessity, but so far they have not presented a specific plan in this regard.
British Foreign Minister David Cameron claimed in February last month that the country is ready to recognize the independent state of Palestine to help realize the so-called two-state process. He claimed that London can officially recognize the independent state of Palestine after the establishment of a cease-fire in Gaza, without waiting for the results of long-term negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on a two-state solution.
When the Zionist lobby reacted to Cameron’s statements, Sonak announced in a speech in Parliament that there was no change in London’s position and adherence to the two-state solution was the country’s long-standing position.
The leader of the Labor Party has also claimed in a similar position that if he wins the elections, he will recognize the independent state of Palestine “at the right time” and in the framework of “peace talks”. In an interview with the BBC, Starmer claimed that it is very important to recognize Palestine as a country.
However, none of the two parties has set a deadline for recognizing the independent state of Palestine, and observers consider these words, which are made with the aim of gaining propaganda votes, to have no political value.
Sunak and Starmer’s positions towards Iran
The positions of the main rivals of the British elections do not make much difference towards Iran. From the story of the riots two years ago, to the baseless claims against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran’s response to the aggression of the Zionist regime, Sunak and Starmer have put forward the same positions with different literature.
The Sunak government has imposed a series of sanctions on the grounds of human rights and Iran’s alleged support of Russia in the Ukraine war. Ever since David Cameron took the helm of the Foreign Office, sanctions have been imposed jointly with the coordination of the United States.
Not long ago, David Cameron claimed in a parliamentary meeting with the heads of parliamentary committees that maintaining a minimal relationship between England and Iran is necessary to exchange messages directly. In response to the pressure to include the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the list of so-called British terrorist organizations, Cameron claimed: We have completely sanctioned the Revolutionary Guards. When I ask law enforcement, police, intelligence and others if this extra step in sanctions is necessary, the answer is no.
He claimed: While our diplomatic relations are almost brief, I say as someone who has had many conversations with Iran’s foreign minister, we can really have that conversation. When it comes to trying to stop the escalation of the conflict, when it comes to sending a very direct message to the Iranians, I want to have that conversation myself, I don’t want to call my French counterpart and say you can send this message to the Iranians.
From this point of view, whatever the result of the July 14 general election, it will not change the macro level of London’s foreign policy, and if the Labor Party takes the helm of the government according to the polls, we can expect Starmer to continue Sunak’s policies in the field of international relations.