Keir Starmer found himself politically cornered on Palestine. More than a third of the cabinet, including Angela Rayner, David Lammy, Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood, privately – and in Wes Streeting’s case, publicly – pushed for faster recognition of statehood. Over 130 Labour MPs signed a letter to the Prime Minister demanding the same. Only a month after the welfare vote debacle, Starmer could not afford to become isolated from his party once more (recall how Tony Blair’s support of Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon hastened his downfall).
The result was an emergency cabinet meeting yesterday and the dramatic announcement that the UK will recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel abides by a ceasefire and commits to a two-state solution (a shift that Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s national security adviser, prepared the ground for in the US last week). Support for Palestinian statehood in principle isn’t new – it first became Labour policy under Ed Miliband in 2014 – but this plan most certainly is.
Until yesterday, the government’s stance was that recognition was dependent on a prior ceasefire and a long-term peace plan (including the release of Israeli hostages by Hamas). In short, non-recognition of Palestine was the default outcome.
Now this position has, in effect, been reversed: a ceasefire is no longer a precondition, making recognition by far the likeliest result. In practice, government sources make clear, they do not expect Israel to follow the UK’s conditions (Benjamin Netanyahu has never favoured a two-state solution). While there are still “demands” on Hamas, including the release of the hostages and the acceptance of a ceasefire, it’s telling that these are not being presented as conditions (though No 10 emphasises that “we will judge both parties on their progress before making a final decision in September”).
Not for the first time in Starmer’s premiership, it’s a nuanced position that has managed to upset both sides for different reasons. “Starmer rewards Hamas’s monstrous terrorism & punishes its victims,” Netanyahu declared last night, a critique echoed by Nigel Farage and much of the British right (though No 10 will be relieved by Donald Trump’s unusually phlegmatic response: “That’s OK, it doesn’t mean I have to agree”). Hostage families have warned that “the UK’s approach risks disincentivising Hamas from releasing the hostages”.
Meanwhile, a striking array of left and liberal figures, including Ed Davey, Jeremy Corbyn and the Greens’ likely next leader Zack Polanski all level the same charge at Starmer: that he is treating Palestinian statehood as a “bargaining chip”. Labour critics take much the same view: recognition should have been both faster and unconditional. “It’s certainly not a moral awakening, more a strategic repositioning,” one prominent MP tells me.
Downing Street insists that Starmer’s move is both principled – he regards Palestinian statehood as an “inalienable” right – and pragmatic: the announcement is timed to advance peace amid a humanitarian catastrophe.
But the danger is clear: that a decision driven by politics may have all too few political benefits.
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here
[See also: One year on, tensions still circle Britain’s asylum-seeker hotels]
Content from our partners
Related
