Keir Starmer 'listening to hostages' as UK presses on with Palestine state plan
Keir Starmer has said the UK is 'steadfast' in its commitment to getting Hamas to release the remaining hostages after coming under pressure over his pledge to recognise a Palestinian state.
The Prime Minister said he was listening to concerns from hostages, including British Israeli woman Emily Damari, who was held captive by Hamas, who accused him of "moral failure". But he said the UK must "do everything we can to alleviate the human catastrophe in Gaza".
On Tuesday, Mr Starmer said the UK would recognise Palestine before the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel agreed to certain conditions, including taking steps to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and committing to a ceasefire. It comes as Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu 'completely lost it' with angry response to Keir Starmer.
The significant shift in the UK's position came after intense pressure from MPs and his own Cabinet amid public revulsion at scenes of starvation and suffering in Gaza. But the decision triggered alarm from hostage families over whether the UK would recognise Palestine while Hamas is still holding people captive.
Speaking to reporters in Swindon, Mr Starmer said: "I particularly listen to the hostages, Emily Damari, who I have spoken to - I've met her mother a number of times, and they've been through the most awful, awful experience for Emily and for her mother.
"And that's why I've been absolutely clear and steadfast that we must have the remaining hostages released. That's been our position throughout and I absolutely understand the unimaginable horror that Emily went through.
"Alongside that, we do need to do everything we can to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where we are seeing the children and babies starving for want of aid which could be delivered.
"That is why I've said unless things materially change on the ground, we'll have to assess this in September, we will recognise Palestine before the United Nations General Assembly in September."
Nearly 150 of the UN's 193 members have already recognised Palestinian state, and Canadian PM Mark Carney said that his government plans to take the step in September.
But a group of top lawyers warned it could break international law. In a letter to Attorney General Lord Hermer, some 40 cross-party peers said Palestine did not meet the legal criteria for recognition under a 1933 treaty known as the Montevideo Convention.
It says that under international law, a state must have a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the ability to conduct diplomatic relations with other states. The peers argued that there is no certainty over the borders of Palestine and no single government.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds hit back, saying they must "look at the levers the UK has" to deliver peace. "I think to be honest, with respect to those colleagues, that is missing the point somewhat," he said.
Mr Reynolds said no conditions had been placed on Hamas as the UK does not negotiate with terrorist groups. He said: "We've been absolutely clear: it's our longstanding position that the hostages have to be released.
"It's also our longstanding position that Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza or any Palestinian state. So those are our absolute conditions, but we will never be willing to negotiate with Hamas because they are a terrorist organisation."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Could Scotland just declare it is an independent state?
Doubtless, most people had never heard of the Montevideo Convention before last week. It had previously crossed my path but I had not given it much thought in the context of the cause of Scottish independence. However, now that it has appeared on the scene, it seems appropriate to do so. That, from my perspective, is because everything to do with economics is about power relationships. If Scotland is not a state in its own right, then the obvious question to ask is, can it have a power relationship? With the caveat that the Montevideo Convention was only signed by states from the Americas, it suggests there are four criteria for being recognised as a state – that the proposed state should have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states. READ MORE: I am a Palestinian. Keir Starmer's recognition plan is an insult The convention also says the political existence of a state is independent of any recognition of that status by other states. In other words, a state can declare itself to exist as a country, even if other countries do not recognise that fact. The question to be asked in this case is, then, whether or not Scotland meets these criteria? Firstly, Scotland very obviously has a population. What is more, official data confirming the size of that population is published on a regular basis. There would appear to be no doubt that it meets this criterion. Similarly, it would be very hard to argue that Scotland does not have a defined territory. I am aware some minor changes have taken place with regard to what part of the seabed might be Scottish, or not, in the last few decades, and this might still be up for negotiation. But the Montevideo Convention does make clear that it is not, in any case, essential that these borders be precisely defined if there is broad consensus about where they exist, and in the case of Scotland, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the case. That said, it has to be recognised that those two are the easy criteria to be settled under this convention, and that the next two might be a little more contentious. So, let's deal with them. Has Scotland got a government? It would seem to me that the answer to that is indisputable. Of course it has. What else is it that sits at Holyrood? And what else is the administration currently headed by John Swinney MSP? And why is it that he is called the First Minister of Scotland? And why else, for example, when meeting Donald Trump a week ago, was he treated as the leader of the Scottish Government? How could it be argued that Scotland hasn't got a government when, quite clearly, such a government was created through the devolution process, and the administration based in Edinburgh has the power to control significant areas of expenditure in Scotland, with such power being denied as a result to the government in Westminster? I have no doubt that lawyers could write lengthy books trying to argue this point either way but a simple observation of facts suggests that in practice, everyone in the UK, including the Westminster Government, recognises that there is an administration in Scotland which is properly called a government. What is more, it alone has decision-making powers over much in Scotland, to which it is responsible for the supply of services, and by which it is held accountable. It follows, as a matter of fact, that in a plain, straightforward political sense, Scotland must be recognised as having a government. It is important to note that when coming to that conclusion, the Montevideo Convention uses this logic when appraising such matters. It is based on political realities, and not on precise points of law. READ MORE: SNP members set for second meeting to challenge Scottish independence plan It is for that reason that the Montevideo Convention can say precise agreement on borders is not, for example, necessary, precisely so that legal objection for this reason can be circumvented. It does also, for this reason, say that a country might consider itself to be a state when others do not recognise it as such, again seeking to overcome legal objection on those grounds. It does, then, require decisions on the political substance of what is going on rather than worry about the precise legal arguments that could be used when deciding on an issue. And, there can be no doubt, given the substance of this matter, that Scotland has a government. The last question is, then, whether Scotland has the power to enter into relationships with other states in a way that only a state can? I would argue this is also the case. There will, no doubt, be Unionists who argue Scotland as it stands is no more than a glorified council, with no power to enter into relationships with other countries. But that would be nonsense. There are numerous signs Scotland is recognised as having such relationships. For example, it is internationally recognised for sporting purposes, and its national sports organisations are recognised as being capable of entering into international relationships. And, before anyone argues that this is peripheral, that cannot be said precisely because the Montevideo Convention does not refer to governmental relations as such, but does refer to international relationships. Even if, however, international government relationships have to be the focus, then Scotland very obviously has the power to enter into such relationships on its own behalf. It has a minister with responsibility for foreign affairs, and the Westminster government recognises their right to represent Scotland in the international arena. READ MORE: St Andrews rector demands formal apology and damages from uni So, for example, Scotland has for some time negotiated its own relationships with the EU and it is widely recognised internationally that Scotland's view on this matter differs from that of the [[Westminster]] government. In addition, it is clear that John Sweeney and Donald Trump did discuss international relationships last week, with the First Minister representing the Scottish Government and expressing an independent opinion. Once again, whatever the legal niceties, the simple fact is the world recognises that Scotland does have the capacity to enter into such relationships. In other words, all four of the Montevideo Convention requirements for Scotland to be recognised as a state are very clearly met. I think this is incredibly important. Saying so, I would refer readers back to the article that I wrote last week on the power of telling stories about Scotland, and the role that they have in creating a narrative about Scotland as an independent country. What the convention is saying is that Scotland, and the people of the country, have the right to say they are a state and that they should be recognised as such, whether or not the rest of the UK, and most particularly England, likes that fact. The Montevideo Convention does not give England the right to object. What it grants Scotland is the right to make that claim, irrespective of objections. If there is a story to tell about Scottish independence, this is it. The time has come for Scotland to declare itself a state, because it has the right to be recognised as such, and then it must make clear that this is the basis for its claim to have the right to be free from foreign control. How could anyone refuse?
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Keith Brown: UK can't ignore independence demand with SNP majority
Keith Brown, MSP for Clackmannanshire and Dunblane, told The National that an election victory for the party, coupled with a constitutional convention calling for Scotland's right to decide, would put pressure on the UK Government that it wouldn't be able to 'hide' from. We exclusively revealed how John Swinney has proposed a three-point independence strategy that will be put to members at the SNP conference in Aberdeen in October. And, part of the First Minister's plan will include a constitutional convention to be established ahead of the election to 'marshal support' for independence. READ MORE: I am a Palestinian. Keir Starmer's recognition plan is an insult Brown, who cosigned the motion with Swinney, told The National that he believes the strategy will make it impossible for Westminster to ignore demands for a second referendum. Swinney has set out that building support for independence, upping the pressure on [[Westminster]] to allow Scotland to assert its right to choose through a democratic referendum, and urging the public to vote SNP at the election, to deliver a majority of MSPs, would form the three prongs of his strategy. The [[SNP]] won a historic majority in 2011 under Alex Salmond, which led to the independence referendum in 2014. Asked about concerns that if the SNP did win a majority that Westminster would still refuse a Section 30 order, Brown said he 'genuinely' didn't think that would happen. 'I know some people do, and I understand the cynicism because of the way that Westminster's behaved,' he explained. (Image: Jane Barlow) 'But I believe if you get the convention campaign right, if you marshal that broad-based campaign … I'm talking about civic bodies in Scotland, I'm talking about companies in Scotland, individuals, every single MSP, MP, councillor, that believes in Scotland's right to decide, not necessarily independence, but Scotland's right to decide. 'I'm talking about the international opinion which supports the principle of self-determination.' He insisted that a majority combined with a civic push would provide an 'unquestionable' mandate. 'I think those two things together will mean that Westminster won't have the ability, they've nowhere to hide in relation to this,' he said. 'That's what I believe.' Prime Minister Keir Starmer has repeatedly said he would not allow an independence referendum to go ahead, but Brown queried how he would stand up to overwhelming public support. He added: 'I think Starmer is becoming weaker and weaker by the month, and you're seeing very strong movements around the rest of the UK, particularly in Wales, for countries looking for more self determination. 'I don't think Westminster can stand in the way of that tide, in my view. 'But they're the ones I have to answer for any continued intransigence, not those that want to exercise Scotland's rights.' The leadership motion calls for the 'immediate' establishment of a constitutional convention, which Brown said would begin ahead of the Holyrood 2026 election – but not before [[SNP]] members signed off on it. It comes as over 40 SNP branches backed a challenge to Swinney and Brown's strategy ahead of the conference. The rebel motion would support a pro-independence majority, including other parties in the total. (Image: PA) They argued that if the UK Government refused to negotiate, or weren't successful, then they would move to 'dissolve the Union'. Swinney and Brown's strategy does not include counting votes given to other pro-independence parties, but the depute leader insisted that this would not give the 'practical effect' that supporters of that strategy would want to see. 'You could have any number of parties that stand that say they support independence,' he said. 'You could have independent candidates standing on an independence platform, and they win a vote on the second of the list votes in the Scottish Parliament, there's no international bodies [that are] going to recognise that as a legitimate way forward to declare independence.' It comes as SNP members are set to hold a second rebel meeting against the leadership's strategy.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs
It comes as the UK Government has gone all in on the idea of growth through military spending. It was one of the key tenets of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) – which was published in June and accepted in its entirety by Labour. 'The SDR will help make defence an engine for growth—boosting prosperity, jobs and security for working people across the UK,' the document read. READ MORE: Keir Starmer's defence plan will not make UK safer, says ex-UN adviser Keir Starmer quickly announced the [[UK Government]] would open six new munitions factories, build up to 12 new nuclear-powered submarines and invest £15 billion in nuclear warheads – as well as a raft of other commitments. 'Through this strategy we will bring the whole of society with us, creating jobs, growth and wages for working people,' the Prime Minister said. In Scotland, meanwhile, Ian Murray launched a £250 million investment at the base housing the UK's nuclear weapons – HMNB Clyde at Faslane – in July, to be spent over the next three years to improve infrastructure at the site. The Scottish Secretary described the spending as a 'defence dividend' as he also talked up the economic impact of investing in the sector in Scotland, including through the Clyde 2070 programme, which will see billions pumped into the industry in the coming decades. But the extent to which this investment will positively impact Scotland and create jobs across the UK is a matter of debate. It's not that jobs won't be created, James Meadway – who is the host of the podcast Macronomics – told The National. Defence minister John Healey 'Look. If the government spends a bit more money on something in the real world, it will – other things being equal – mean that there is more economic activity,' the economist, who is also a member of the Progressive Economy Forum and a former economic adviser to the shadow chancellor, said. 'There'll be a bit more growth somewhere, there'll be a few more jobs somewhere. That's kind of what's going to happen.' He added: 'The trouble is it's just not very many for the obvious reason that if you look at military investment now and the kind of things that arms companies are producing – this is all really high tech stuff,' he said. 'This is not just churning out millions of shells or bullets. This is stuff that you use a great deal of high technology to produce, and that is also quite high technology. And if you are producing millions of shells, it's also now very capital intensive, rather than labour intensive, due to big machines making them.' Meadway added: 'And if you've got lots of high-tech stuff, like you're making drones and you're making quite sophisticated drones. It's capital intensive. You don't have many people employed doing it. You don't actually create many jobs and investment. 'So, as a starting point, if the Government is saying military spending, ramping up defence production will create more jobs, this is a bad way to do that.' He went on: 'The stuff that really creates jobs, it's actually probably fairly obvious. If you go to the NHS and you put more money into that, that means you're pretty immediately going to employ more nurses, more doctors, more people to your hospitals – all sorts of people working in a pretty labour-intensive healthcare occupation. 'Same thing goes for social care, same thing goes for education, to a significant extent. If you spend more on schools, you're going to need to employ more teachers. So, these things create lots of jobs. Military spending does not create lots of jobs.' Mark Seddon, a professor of economic history at Sheffield University and the director of the Centre for United Nations Studies, also suggested that defence spending was an inefficient way of creating jobs. READ MORE: 'Building new royal naval craft, ships and submarines at Govan or Barrow-in-Furness, that's got to be a good thing. I'm all in favour of keeping skilled jobs and expanding them in key sectors like that,' he said. 'But I'm not persuaded by this substantial increase in defence spending that it's going to actually result in a lot of jobs in Britain.' Seddon added: 'It's not just the [[UK Government]], but the EU – which to my mind is becoming synonymous with NATO – seem to have a policy, which is increasing military spending in an effort to save their economy. "I don't think it will, I think it makes life a lot easier for the extreme-right politically, and I don't think it's going to bring jobs in any large numbers into the industrial areas.'
