Keir Starmer, the former shadow Brexit secretary, has recently been on the front line in defending Israel, describing the latest rounds of violence in the region as “solidarity.” What’s going on here? Just some more British political bingo to get the UK to mimic NATO, or have you just watched one too many Netflix drama series and wanted to be the geo-political hero??? In any case, Labour’s leadership position has prompted discussion about the meaning of the new direction of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy or what his words meant.

New “Special Relationship”?

Starmer’s backing for Israel can be interpreted as an attempt to get on track in line with the longstanding “special relationship” the UK has enjoyed with the United States. Yet again, though, it may well be part of a more excellent playing game to show that the Corbyn Labour Party presents itself as tough on defense and security, thereby joining the parade of a centrist, hawks-only approach that would flourish with the cheerleaders of NATO. After all, Brexit Britain wanted to strengthen its position on the world scene, and NATO seems such a ready-made way of doing that.

But is it just that kind of posturing à la NATO, or something else entirely? Starmer has been loudly and decidedly in favor of Israel’s right to defend itself, conveniently skipping the complexity of the issue concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Political loyalism is in danger of alienating some of the most fundamental Labour voters for whom Blair’s position appears very black and white. It denies the human angle to the problem. It seems not as a tactical move in political maneuvering but as a clumsy attempt to reopen the political game to those on the left wing and especially to the progressives within the Labour Party.

Is it All Too Simplistic?

In today’s world, geopolitical crises are dramatized by the media into convenient good-versus-evil stories. The statement by Starmer finds a comfortable fit in this reductionist narrative, much like a Netflix drama that might flatten complex political realities to suit easier consumption. Rather than a difficult and painful history of conflict between Israel and Palestine, he chooses a clear line to draw: that of solidarity with Israel. He may be following his favorite binge-worthies, who cast characters into stark categories: hero, the villain, and the supporting players.

However, Starmer is not playing in the world of Netflix; his words have real-world implications. His passionate advocacy for Israel will certainly not be missed by Muslim communities in the UK, already adverse to his vision following the bold distance he took from his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn’s pro-Palestinian stance. The alienation of such a vital bloc is dangerous as the general election inches closer.

Geopolitics or Grandstanding?

Starmer’s hawkish stance may also be interpreted as a move to strengthen his image as a strong leader before the international community. Now, world leaders generally play the role of the world’s peacekeepers or allies in times of crisis to gain domestic favor. Now, is this the most prudent route for a Labour leader? If Starmer is serious about mirroring NATO’s defense approach, he is in for a rude shock. NATO members have often had disagreements over Middle Eastern policy. Many European countries have taken a more balanced approach to the issues of Israel and Palestine.

Such a step also further questions whether Starmer’s public stance is mere facades to shift the focus away from the underlying issues within his party. For long-standing tensions in the internal Labour stand on foreign policy, it may try to quash dissent within ranks by painting himself as a protector of Israel.

Conclusion: Realpolitik or Political Theatre?

The more Keir Starmer shows his hand in solidarity with Israel, the more it feels like a kind of evening between good and realpolitik, the former being a defense policy that sounds suspiciously akin to those of NATO and the latter merely surfing the wave of geopolitical theatre. Only time will tell, but what’s clear is that the superficial simplicity of Starmer’s stance belies complexity—and like any Netflix drama, it is going to rile people for episodes to come.