An elderly woman wearing a keffiyeh clutches a photograph of a child.

Next to her, a young man holds a placard that reads, “Freedom for Palestine.”

Behind them, a horizon filled with flags, voices, and history.

A sea of people, 600,000 demonstrators, according to official estimates, floods central London.
The photograph hardly conveys the scale of the crowd.

The atmosphere is charged. There is anger—intense, but restrained.
There is mourning, etched into their expressions. But something stronger pulses beneath it all: unity and conviction.

This was not just a protest. It was a powerful reminder of a historic wound that remains open for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, 77 years after the Nakba.

Pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrate on Westminster Bridge in London, Britain, May 17, 2025. REUTERS/Yann Tessier

From the heart of Embankment to the gates of Downing Street, demonstrators marched across the city with banners, chants, and rhythm, calling on the British government to take a definitive stance on the ongoing oppression of Palestinians.

In the hours that followed, the demonstration became a catalyst for political developments.
After more than a year and a half of war in Gaza, it appeared Britain had reached a breaking point in its stance toward Israel.

In Parliament, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy delivered unusually forceful speeches.

Sir Keir described the suffering in Gaza—especially among children—as “intolerable,” and condemned Israel’s decision to allow only minimal humanitarian aid, calling it “utterly inadequate.”
He said he was “horrified” by the prospect of further military escalation.

David Lammy echoed this tone, calling the situation in Gaza “abominable” and denouncing Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s proposal for the cleansing of Gaza’s civilian population as “monstrous.”

This shift in rhetoric marks a clear hardening of the British government’s position.

But what’s driving this change?

The Labour Party’s relationship with the Palestinian cause spans decades—marked by shifting currents, both hopeful and turbulent.

Pro-Israeli counter demonstrators attend a march in London, Britain, May 17, 2025. REUTERS/Yann Tessier

Today’s Prime Minister inherited a party shadowed by accusations of antisemitism, a period during which leftist ideals were at times distorted by unchecked rhetoric.

Many within Labour believe the Jeremy Corbyn era—intense, passionate, and often chaotic—gave rise to voices that avoided scrutiny and lapsed into ambiguity.

Since 2020, Starmer has worked to rebuild trust and make Labour a safe space for British Jews.
Gradually, that trust began to return—not fully, but cautiously.

Then came October 2023: the Hamas attacks, the Gaza bombings—a spark that reignited deep, unresolved tensions.

Starmer treaded carefully, knowing that every word would be scrutinized. He called for a ceasefire, emphasized humanitarian aid, but stopped short of endorsing immediate recognition of a Palestinian state—unlike in 2019, when the party had made that promise.

The July 2024 elections revealed cracks. In Islington North—Jeremy Corbyn’s former stronghold—the Labour-backed candidate lost (Labour 34.4% vs. Independent Corbyn’s 49.2%).
In Bristol and Leicester, where the Green Party made gains, Gaza’s echoes were heard in silence.

Starmer knows the ground beneath him is unstable.
If peace doesn’t come, and Gaza remains an open wound, dissent within Labour won’t remain quiet.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa hold a meeting in Number 10 Downing Street in London, Britain, April 28, 2025. James Manning/Pool via REUTERS

Glen O’Hara, Professor of Modern and Contemporary History, Oxford Brookes University

How has Labour’s stance on Zionism and Palestinian rights shifted since the 1980s, and what role has internal party culture played in these shifts?
From the 1940s to the 1970s there were many, especially at the top of Labour, who were very sympathetic to the new state. Indeed, many Labour people saw themselves as the ‘natural’ party of an Israel founded on socialist ideals. That started to change during the 1970s and 1980s, in part because the New Left came to see Israel as a “pro-American” and “imperialist” state, and in part due to Israel’s continued military operations and settlements in the Occupied Territories. Today, although UK Labour Ministers take a pragmatic view they believe to be ‘balanced’, most Labour activists are far more sympathetic to Palestinian rights and nationhood than they are to Israel.

How successful has Starmer been in convincing British Jews that Labour is a safe and credible political home again?
Starmer’s rapid and ruthless actions against those perceived to be soft on antisemitism have for the most part reassured British Jews that he understands just how frightened they felt about Labour’s previous leadership. He will likely be very careful to maintain that relationship.

How does Starmer balance support for Israel’s security with calls for Palestinian statehood and aid for Gaza?

There’s not a vast amount the UK can do on its own, but in alliance with others, and particularly France as we’ve seen in recent days, it is another indication of how unpopular Israel’s government has become that the government in London has

hardened its rhetoric about Israel’s ongoing actions in Gaza. Moral pressure and language may not matter very much, but they do make an impression, and they can make a difference – even if it’s only a small one.

Professor Victoria Honeyman, Professor of British Politics, Pro-Dean for Student Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, Editor of British Journal of Politics and International Relations, University of Leeds

The Labour Party finds itself in an extremely difficult position. On the one hand, it has a long-standing stubborn minority streak which can tend towards antisemitism. The voracity of that small group depends on the leader – how tough they are with it, how in control of the party they are. Traditionally, the party has performed well in larger Jewish communities and therefore it wants to keep those voters domestically. Being of Jewish faith or background does not automatically make someone a supporter of Israel but some are, and for many individuals this is a live issue.

On the other hand, domestically the Labour Party has done well in areas of the country which have larger non-white communities. This means that in areas where voters have familial ties to countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh or Middle Eastern nations, this is a hot topic and not a distant one. Indeed, for many voters Palestinian issues are a moral issue so it comes up on the doorstep in lots of areas.

Because of the ease with which Judaism and Zionism can be combined this is a delicate issue and requires careful handling, something which party politics does not encourage. The party want to keep hold of their voters, be they supporters of Israel, Palestine, Jewish or non-Jewish and therefore tends to tread a middle-line which satisfies almost no-one.

Obviously internationally, the big issue is the US. Israel is one of the few international issues where the UK and the US don’t tend to see eye to eye (see, for example, the use of the veto at the UNSC) although the peace is usually kept by Britain remaining relatively quiet on activity.

Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations, University of Oxford

The recent speeches by Starmer and Lammy, reprimanding Israel for the new military offensive in Gaza and for blocking humanitarian, are unprecedented in their severity.

But there is still a huge gap between British rhetoric and British actions.

Suspending trade talks with Israel is a concrete measure but a very mind one.

Only a comprehensive arms embargo would close the gap between words and deeds.