UK Faces Diplomatic Firestorm as Prosecutor Urgently Reviews Arrest Warrant for Israeli President 

Facing a major diplomatic and legal dilemma, the UK government is urgently reviewing an application for an arrest warrant against Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who is visiting London to meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The application, filed by the pro-Palestine group Friends of Al-Aqsa, accuses Herzog of war crimes for public comments made in October 2023 that they claim incited indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Gaza.

This places the new Starmer government in a difficult position, forcing it to choose between upholding its stated commitment to international law and risking a severe diplomatic rift with a key ally. The Crown Prosecution Service’s counter-terrorism division is conducting an urgent review, and its decision will be a significant test of the UK’s willingness to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction to a sitting head of state.

UK Faces Diplomatic Firestorm as Prosecutor Urgently Reviews Arrest Warrant for Israeli President 

In a move that pits the principles of international law against the hard realities of diplomatic statecraft, the United Kingdom finds itself at the centre of a profound legal and political crisis. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has confirmed the appointment of a senior specialist prosecutor to “urgently review” an application for an arrest warrant against Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who is currently in London for a high-profile meeting with Prime Minister Keir Starmer. 

This exclusive development, revealed by Middle East Eye, throws a massive wrench into the carefully choreographed machinery of international relations and forces the nascent Starmer government into an impossible dilemma just months after taking office: uphold its professed commitment to a “rules-based international order” or risk a devastating rupture with a key strategic ally. 

The Legal Gambit: From Protest to Prosecution 

The catalyst for this crisis is the pro-Palestine advocacy group, Friends of Al-Aqsa (FOA). On Tuesday, instructed by their legal team, FOA submitted a formal application to the CPS’s Counter Terrorism Division—the unit responsible for prosecuting core international crimes like war crimes and genocide—requesting an arrest warrant for President Herzog. 

The charges are grave: “aiding, abetting or procuring direct and indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objects.” This is not a symbolic gesture but a serious legal manoeuvre designed to test the UK’s commitment to the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows national courts to prosecute individuals for severe international crimes, regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrator. 

The CPS’s response, communicated via email and seen by MEE, acknowledges the urgency. Noting that Herzog is “imminently within the jurisdiction” and set to leave by September 12th, a senior specialist prosecutor has been tasked with a rapid assessment. While the CPS cautioned that FOA’s demanded deadline of 10am Wednesday was “challenging,” the very act of an urgent review elevates the application beyond the realm of political theatre and into a genuine legal proceeding. 

The Incriminating Words: A Statement Under the Microscope 

At the heart of the arrest warrant application are specific public remarks made by Isaac Herzog in October 2023, in the devastating aftermath of the Hamas-led October 7 attacks. In a statement that would later be cited by South Africa in its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Herzog made a sweeping assertion: 

“It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved? It’s absolutely not true. They could’ve risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime.” 

For the applicants, these were not the off-the-cuff comments of a politician under stress but a deliberate and dangerous form of incitement. FOA and their lawyers argue that this rhetoric, coming from the head of state, effectively dehumanized the entire population of Gaza, stripping them of their protected status as civilians under international law. They contend that this narrative was then adopted and acted upon by Israeli military command, providing a pseudo-legal and moral justification for the subsequent widespread bombardment and ground offensive in Gaza, which has resulted in massive civilian casualties. 

This legal argument transforms Herzog’s visit from a routine diplomatic engagement into a potential accountability moment. His presence on British soil, however brief, creates a narrow window for the UK judiciary to act where other international bodies, like the ICC (which has issued arrest warrants for other Israeli officials), have yet to see their warrants enforced. 

A Test of Principles for the Starmer Government 

The meeting between Keir Starmer and Isaac Herzog was undoubtedly intended to be a showcase of the UK’s steadfast support for Israel while allowing the new Prime Minister to gently navigate the fraught politics of the Gaza conflict behind closed doors. Instead, it has become a monumental test of character for his government. 

Keir Starmer, a former Director of Public Prosecutions himself, has built his political brand on a foundation of legalistic integrity and respect for the rule of law. His early premiership has repeatedly emphasised the need to return to a “rules-based international order.” Yet, within hours of this legal challenge emerging, hundreds of protesters gathered outside Downing Street and Herzog’s London hotel, demanding the UK live up to those very words. 

The choices before him are stark and unenviable: 

• Intervene Politically: The government could, in theory, exert pressure on the CPS to delay or dismiss the application, or ultimately grant Herzog diplomatic immunity as a head of state on an official visit. This would immediately spark accusations of hypocrisy and placing political convenience above international law. 

• Allow the Process to Proceed: To let the CPS make an independent, legal decision, even if it risks the unprecedented spectacle of police attempting to arrest a visiting head of state from a close ally. The diplomatic fallout would be instantaneous and severe. 

This dilemma is compounded by the UK’s chequered history with universal jurisdiction. A decade ago, the law was amended to make it harder for private groups to obtain arrest warrants for visiting foreign officials after Israeli figures like Tzipi Livni (then opposition leader) faced similar legal threats, causing significant diplomatic friction. This current case is a direct challenge to that amended framework. 

Beyond Symbolism: The Real-World Stakes of Universal Jurisdiction 

The urgent review in a Whitehall office is more than a legal technicality; it is a microcosm of a global struggle over accountability. For supporters of Palestine, this represents a rare opportunity to bypass the slow-moving and politically constrained international courts and seek justice through a domestic legal system that professes high ideals. 

Ismail Patel, Chair of Friends of Al-Aqsa, framed it as a corrective: “Britain has failed to defend and champion the rule of law. There is now an opportunity to correct the failings… Every official, no matter how senior, must be held accountable for attacks on civilians. There can be no immunity for such grave crimes.” 

Conversely, for Israel and its allies, such applications are widely viewed as acts of lawfare—using legal systems as a weapon to delegitimize a state and harass its representatives, often for ideological motives rather than genuine pursuit of justice. They argue it poisons diplomatic channels and makes dialogue impossible. 

The outcome of this “urgent review” will send a powerful signal. If the warrant is issued, it would be a seismic event, emboldening human rights campaigners worldwide and demonstrating that the long arm of justice can, in theory, reach the highest echelons of power. If it is denied on legal grounds, it will be seen as a victory for realpolitik. If it is perceived to have been quashed by political interference, it will irreparably damage the Starmer government’s credibility on the world stage. 

As President Herzog prepares to meet the Prime Minister, the shadow of the prosecutor’s review looms large over Number 10. The meeting will proceed, handshakes will be exchanged, and statements of enduring friendship will be read. But the unspoken question in the room will be the most pressing of all: in the clash between law and diplomacy, which will the UK choose? The world is watching.