British Palestinians call UK plan to recognise Palestinian state 'absurd and performative'
After recalling his cabinet ministers from parliamentary recess on Tuesday, the prime minister said the UK will recognise a Palestinian state by September if Israel agrees to end the "appalling situation in Gaza".
The British Palestinian Committee (BPC), which represents the experiences of Palestinians in the UK, sent Sir Keir a letter ahead of the meeting urging him to take actions they said could make a real difference to people in Gaza.
They had urged him to not recognise Palestine as a state, calling it "symbolic" and said it "will not end the genocide and must not be used to deflect from accountability".
After Sir Keir announced his plan to recognise Palestine, Dr Sarah Husseini, BPC director, told Sky News the plan is "absurd while Israel continues to exterminate and starve women, men and children".
She added: "What is needed is urgent accountability for the genocide in Gaza and an end to UK military support to the state committing these crimes.
"This performative announcement does little to allay the concerns of Palestinians in this country. It will not relieve the government of its legal duties, and it will not silence the calls from the British public to end British complicity in the atrocities being livestreamed to their phones."
2:39
The war has now been going on for 21 months after it was sparked by Hamas militants killing 1,200 Israelis and taking 250 hostages on 7 October 2023. The militant group still holds 50 hostages, of whom only 20 are believed to be alive.
Sir Keir had been under pressure from his own MPs and other UK political parties, notably since France last week said it will recognise Palestine as a state, but had resisted - saying recognition needs to be part of a wider peace plan.
He has also refused to say whether "genocide" is taking place in Gaza - a claim Israel has vehemently denied.
Israel paused fighting in three areas for another 10 hours today to help aid distribution, the third day it has done so amid mounting international condemnation of the scenes of hunger unfolding in Gaza.
David Mencer, a spokesperson for the Israeli government, said: "There is no intent, (which is) key for the charge of genocide... it simply doesn't make sense for a country to send in 1.9 million tonnes of aid, most of that being food, if there is an intent of genocide."
Israel also rejected Sir Keir's plan and accused him of pandering to his MPs and the French.
The Israeli foreign ministry said: "The shift in the British government's position at this time, following the French move and internal political pressures, constitutes a reward for Hamas and harms efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and a framework for the release of hostages."
In the BPC's letter, it had said the government has "not only a political and moral obligation, but a legal obligation" to take three steps.
They are:
• Preventing and punishing Israel's "genocide" in Gaza and to end "all complicity in it"
• Apply "immediate and comprehensive sanctions on Israel"
• Safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and assembly in the UK
More specifically, the group called on Sir Keir to end "all forms of military collaboration, urgently review all public contracts to ensure they are not aiding unlawful occupation or genocidal acts, and support universal jurisdiction mandates".
22:05
The group said these steps would help towards ending the starvation crisis in Gaza, which it said had been made possible "due to the impunity granted to" Israel and "compounded by the active military, economic and diplomatic support from states such as the UK".
They also accused the UK government of introducing "draconian legislation to limit the rights" of British citizens campaigning to end the atrocities "and British complicity in those atrocities" - in reference to Palestine Action being designated as a terrorist organisation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The situation in Gaza is dire – but Starmer should be clear about who is to blame
SIR – The situation in Gaza is awful and has been for some time. However, there are two sides in this war – Israel and the terrorist group Hamas, which, let's not forget, started this conflict with its brutal attack on Israel and the taking of 251 hostages. The Israeli response to Hamas has been devastating and the innocent people of Gaza are suffering. However, if Hamas truly cares about those in Gaza and wants to end this suffering, it should release all the remaining hostages and stop using hospitals, public buildings and aid centres for military purposes, thus risking them being hit as military targets. Rather than unilaterally recognising a Palestinian state (report, July 29), if Western leaders want an end to this conflict, they must make demands of Hamas, along with Israel – or else it won't happen. Alan Carter Newcastle upon Tyne SIR – Why is it that not one country that wants to recognise a Palestinian state has made it a precondition that the Palestinian Authority drop its 'pay to slay' policy? The so-called Martyrs Fund means that, every month, the Palestinian Authority gives money to Palestinian terrorists who are in Israeli prisons, for attacking Israelis. It also gives money to the families of Palestinians killed or injured during the course of attacking Israel – money which for decades was paid on the basis that, the more serious the attack or the longer the prison sentence, the higher the payment would be. Lynton Stock London NW7 SIR – We have two very different ongoing situations in the region. One is in Gaza and one is in the West Bank. While most are concentrating on Gaza, Israeli settlers are illegally taking over land in the West Bank and building settlements there. This crime gets very little coverage, but it matters: where else could a Palestinian state be set up but on the West Bank? Before that is possible, Israel has to stop the settler activities there. This is what our Prime Minister should be concentrating his efforts on. Herbert Chappell Woking, Surrey SIR – Puntland in north-east Somalia has a government, a constitution, established borders and effective state institutions. Despite years of wrangling, it is still not recognised internationally as a state. Yet the British Government is planning to recognise a state called 'Palestine', which has none of these things except a name. For an administration full of international lawyers, this is strange indeed. Jolyon Grey Cheltenham, Gloucestershire SIR – As countries seem to be queuing up to recognise a Palestinian state (report, August 1) it might be timely to remind certain politicians that some 25 countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Algeria, Iran, and Venezuela, do not actually recognise the state of Israel. Strange, that, since Israel does exist and, as it stands, Palestine's claim to statehood is ephemeral. Dr Gerald Edwards Glasgow
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Keir Starmer's not the issue. But nor were Johnson, May, Brown…
'The end is Nige.' That was how The Sun's front page reported my discovery, in 2017, that 'Nigel' had fallen off the official list of baby names. At the time, it seemed not just striking but symbolic: with Ukip at 2 per cent in the polls, and its former leader out of frontline politics, Nigel's best days really did seem to lie in the past. Last week, the list came out again. In the register office as in public life, Nigel was firmly back, with five boys both this year and last — one of whom even joined the Reform leader on the campaign trail in Clacton. Rishi was there, and Kemi too. But poor old Keir had disappeared. Again, the symbolism was irresistible. This time last year, Starmer was at his height as prime minister, delivering a muscular response to the riots that captured the national mood. But he has steadily become more and more disliked. Today, only 19 per cent of voters tell YouGov he is doing a good job, against 69 per cent who disagree. As of the latest polls, he is in the negatives even among Labour voters. • Top baby names in England and Wales revealed — but no new Keirs There are all sorts of reasons why this has happened — which you could fairly summarise as a bad hand, badly played. But what fascinates me is the familiarity of the Labour response. Back in the Boris Johnson days, and the Theresa May days, and the Gordon Brown days, any given setback would usually be accompanied by briefings about the flaws in the No 10 team. The prime minister, journalists would report, was deeply frustrated by the failures they saw, and would be reshuffling their team to get a personal grip. That, or the problem was that they had become overly dependent on — almost hypnotised by — a particular adviser or advisers. Now, with lessons learnt, we would see the real Boris. The real Theresa. The real Gordon. There are two intellectual traditions at work here — one old and one new. The new one is that a generation of politicians have grown up watching The West Wing, and in particular the scene where the struggling administration decides that it needs to cast off caution and pragmatism and allow Martin Sheen's president to be the campaigning, crusading figure who first inspired them: 'Let Bartlet be Bartlet!' goes the cry. But the second tradition is far older. Indeed, it's one of the oldest patterns in political history. In Britain, as in many other countries and cultures, it was not just treason but verging on heresy to criticise a divinely appointed king. So the discontented would always stress that their complaints were not about the wise and goodly monarch, but the evil counsellors around them. As late as the Civil War, the Roundheads blamed the outbreak of hostilities not on Charles I himself, but 'an abounding malignity in those parties and Factions; who doe still labour to foment Jealosies betwixt the King and this Parliament' — godless bishops, sinister Jesuits and treacherous nobles. It took six full years of war for them to adopt the literally revolutionary position that the blame truly lay with 'Charles Stuart, that man of blood'. Studying recent reporting, you can see exactly the same themes. We have had the briefing for and against the prime minister's favourite — aka his chief of staff. The reports of new blood being brought in to freshen things up. Accounts of how the prime minister will take a personal grip on the policy-making process, since decisions were reaching him too late in the day. (By miraculous coincidence, the main mistake cited, making cuts to welfare, was also hugely unpopular with Labour backbenchers.) We have had a cabinet awayday with excited talk of a 'progressive pivot', and rebuilding the government around the prime minister's personal obsession with 'life chances'. 'It was all very 'Let Keir be Keir',' claimed an anonymous minister. • Keir Starmer needs his authority back. Can a Blairite veteran help? But the problem for the government is that it's never the advisers. It's always the king. Just like it was for King John or Charles I or any of the others. Indeed, one of the peculiarities of the British state is that there are surprisingly few formal, institutional structures around the prime minister. Instead, Downing Street functions almost like a royal court, moulding itself around the personality of each new incumbent. And once set, that mould is surprisingly hard to break. Certainly, it is a lot easier to list the excitable articles about prime ministerial relaunches, revamps and resets than examples of such resets actually working. Ironically, for all her intractable reputation, one of the few to manage it is arguably Margaret Thatcher, who retooled her administration in 1981-2 after receiving perhaps the most wounding memo ever sent to a PM by their underlings. ('Your own management competence, like that of most of your colleagues, is almost non-existent … You break every rule of good man-management. You bully your weaker colleagues. You criticise colleagues in front of each other and in front of their officials…').As for 'let Keir be Keir', who will Keir actually be? We've been told, over the years, that the Starmer mission is all about service, or change, or radicalism, or necessary decisions. But it feels like a series of attempts to project a personality, and a narrative, on to a blank screen. Recently, on the train back from Kyiv, my colleague Josh Glancy asked Starmer about standing in the spotlight of history. The PM, he wrote, bristled impatiently: 'I don't do all this self-analysis bit. I thought you'd picked that up a year ago. You're still desperately trying to get in there. Come on.' Starmer's position is that his job is not to construct fancy theories. It is to sit down and do the work — to make decision after decision until there are no more problems left to solve. But all truly successful politicians tell a story about themselves. Whitehall, too, works best when everyone can buy into a single shared narrative, imposed from the centre. Starmer not only hasn't done that, but actively resists it. The result, to steal a put-down from Bismarck, is that he ends up seeming like a Sphinx without a riddle. And the government ends up with a majority but no mission. It may be that the PM can turn things around — that by the time he leaves office, maternity wards will be packed with little Keirs, Morgans and Angelas. But I can't help feeling that progressive Keir will soon be discarded alongside change Keir, growth Keir, and tough decisions Keir with kung-fu grip. Because if there's one lesson from history for our leaders, it's that the fault lies not in their advisers, but in themselves.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Plans for new offence to crack down on promoting Channel crossings online
The offence would also outlaw the promise of illegal working being promoted online and could carry a large fine. (PA Graphics) It comes as the Government grapples with a record number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel. On Wednesday, arrivals passed more than 25,000 for the year so far, a record for this point in the year. Assisting illegal immigration to the UK is already a crime, but officials believe the changes will give more powers to police and other agencies to disrupt criminal gangs. According to analysis by the Home Office, around 80% of migrants arriving to the UK by small boat told officials they used social media during their journey, including to contact agents linked to people smuggling gangs. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral. 'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media. We are determined to do everything we can to stop them, wherever they operate. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described anyone who sells the 'promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral' (Jacob King/PA) The National Crime Agency already works with social media companies to remove posts promoting crossings, with more than 8,000 taken offline in 2024. NCA director general of operations Rob Jones said the proposed new offence will give them more options of how to target gangs and their business models. Previous cases that could have been targeted under the proposed offence include a Preston-based smuggler jailed for 17 years for posting videos of migrants thanking him for his help. Albanian smugglers who used social media to promote £12,000 'package deals' for accommodation and a job in the UK on arrival would also be in scope. The Conservatives said it was 'too little, too late' and that only their proposal to automatically deport people who enter Britain via unauthorised routes can tackle small boat crossings. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Tinkering at the edges won't fix the problem. 'Labour still has no clear plan to deter illegal entry, no effective enforcement and no strategy to speed up removals. This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing. 'The only clear and enforceable plan is the Conservative Deportation Bill, a no-nonsense strategy that allows us to detain illegal arrivals immediately and remove them without delay. The British public deserve focused action, not more of Labour's dithering.'
