What's behind UK foreign policy change on Palestinian state? – DW – 07/31/2025
The new direction for the UK's foreign policy regarding the Middle East came shortly after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with US President Donald Trump in Scotland.
Just a day later, on July 29, Starmer interrupted his cabinet ministers' summer break for an emergency meeting, after which the policy turnaround was presented in London.
In a statement, Starmer, the leader of the center-left Labour Party, said the UK could recognize Palestine as a state as soon as September unless Israel's government moved toward meeting certain conditions, including a ceasefire, not annexing the occupied West Bank and committing to a long-term peace process.
Britain believes "statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people," Starmer said. His government is using the recognition of a Palestinian state as a means of political pressure to push forward the so-called two-state solution.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Until now, the UK has delayed its recognition of a Palestinian state in part because of the country's own historical responsibility. Between 1920 and 1948, Britain was the administrative power in Palestine, which had previously been part of the Ottoman Empire.
In 1917, the British government issued a statement — the Balfour Declaration, named after then-British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour — that said it supported the idea of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. The declaration was made without considering the rights of the Arab majority population there and the move went on to spark violence between local Arabs, immigrant Jews and the British administration.
Two years after David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, announced the establishment of the State of Israel, Britain recognized the country. But when it came to recognizing Palestine as a state, the UK regularly said that this had to be part of a peace deal. This was also strategic: Britain didn't want to jeopardize its relationships with the US or Israel.
But this historical position has come under ever more pressure. The ongoing conflict in Gaza — fighting there began in October 2023 after an attack on Israel by the Gaza-based militant group Hamas, that resulted in the deaths of around 1,200 people and the kidnapping of 251 — has sowed serious internal divisions in the UK.
In cities like London, Manchester and Glasgow, protesters regularly take to the streets in huge demonstrations calling for an end to the current conflict and Israeli occupation.
These popular protests are supported by many local trade unions as well as left-leaning political organizations, such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Stop the War group (the latter also opposes Europeans fighting in Ukraine).
Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has also called for an end to weapons deliveries to Israel. In late July, Corbyn announced he was starting his own political party "to take on the rich and powerful." Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party in 2020 after he said a report into antisemitism inside the party under his leadership had been exaggerated for "political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media."
According to a YouGov survey undertaken on 24-25 July, around two-thirds of Labour supporters agree with the UK government's decision to recognize Palestine. Of the general public, the YouGov poll found that 45% think it's a good idea.
In the British Parliament, 221 members have signed a letter calling for recognition of Palestine. Among the signatories were many Labour Party members. Ministers in Starmer's cabinet have also pushed in this direction.
Starmer appears to have given in to the pressure, at least partially. But he reiterated the UK's support for Israel and demands on Hamas in the government statement on Tuesday. "We have been unequivocal in our condemnation of those evil attacks, and our support for the right of the State of Israel to self-defence. Hamas must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to an immediate ceasefire [...] and commit to disarmament."
At the same time though, he was critical of the Israeli government's military offensive and its policies in Gaza. "Now, in Gaza, because of a catastrophic failure of aid, we see starving babies, children too weak to stand, images that will stay with us for a lifetime. The suffering must end," he told journalists.
While the United Nations and leading aid agencies have repeatedly warned of the increasing risk of starvation in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted there is no hunger in the enclave.
The most recent figures from the health authorities in Gaza indicate that more than 60,000 people have died in Gaza as a result of the Israeli military offensive. Almost half of the dead were women and children.
The Gaza health authorities are controlled by Hamas, which administers the enclave. However, the death toll is considered broadly reliable, including by the Israeli military, which has used the numbers in its own briefings. Israel has denied international journalists entry into Gaza since the beginning of Israel's siege, meaning DW has not been able to independently verify the death toll. A number of recent studies however, suggest it may actually be an undercount.
Starmer's decision to recognize Palestine may also be a reaction to the fact that France plans to do the same during the UN General Assembly in early September. As French President Emmanuel Macron explained in Paris late last week, France wants to revitalize a peace process there and put international weight behind a two-state solution.
Unlike Macron, though, Starmer is only holding out the threat of recognition if Israel fails to move toward a ceasefire. Observers have argued that it's more of a balancing act for the UK, something between taking a moral stand and taking careful account of foreign relations with the US.
Trump said he and Starmer had not, in fact, discussed a Palestinian state while in Scotland. Reacting to Starmer's announcement on Tuesday, Trump said, "I'm not going to take a position, I don't mind him taking a position." But later on, during his flight back to the US, Trump told reporters that Starmer was "rewarding Hamas."
Israel's Netanyahu has described Starmer's plan as "appeasement towards jihadist terrorists."
Currently, 147 out of 193 UN member states recognize Palestine as a state. However, what counts as a state is still disputed with different methods and prerequisites used to identify countries. Even so, several of the conditions usually accepted as necessary for a functioning state are presently not in place for Palestine. That includes a unified government, control over borders and security and clearly defined territory.
In the statement announcing his government's change of course, Starmer emphasized that the Hamas group must "accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza" in the future.To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
5 hours ago
- DW
Russia warns against 'nuclear rhetoric' amid Trump row – DW – 08/04/2025
The Kremlin has played down the significance of Trump repositioning US submarines in response to an inflammatory post by Dmitry Medvedev. The Kremlin on Monday urged a tamping down of nuclear rhetoric after US President Donald Trump reacted to threats leveled by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on social media. Medvedev took to social media last week, warning Trump of Russia's nuclear capabilities after the US president shortened a self-imposed deadline for Moscow to enter ceasefire negotiations with Ukraine or face serious consequences. Trump responded on Friday by announcing that two US "nuclear submarines" had been repositioned "in the appropriate regions" in response to his "highly inflammatory statements." On Monday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, "Russia is very attentive to the topic of nuclear non-proliferation. And we believe that everyone should be very, very cautious with nuclear rhetoric." Peskov added that Moscow has no interest in escalating the situation, noting it is clear that US nuclear submarines "are always on alert in any case," suggesting Trump's statement would not influence Kremlin behavior. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Medvedev, who served as Russian President from 2008-2012 and is now deputy chair of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, is widely seen as a provocateur for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has become known for releasing hardline statements since Moscow launched the war in Ukraine. Trump has previously told Medvedev to "watch his words." Russian President Vladimir Putin has leveled nuclear threats at Ukraine — which gave up its Soviet era nuclear arsenal in return for US, UK and Russian security assurances in 1994 — in an attempt to disrupt alliances between Kyiv, the West and NATO. Trump, who said he would end Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine on his first day in office, is currently threatening unspecified sanctions on Russia if Moscow does not take steps to end the war by Friday — something Russian President Putin has been unwilling to do. Trump has recently vented displeasure with Putinand has began threatening India and China with "secondary tariffs" for their energy and economic ties with Russia. On Sunday, Trump announced that he would be dispatching special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow on "Wednesday or Thursday" as the US administration continues in its efforts to secure a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Numerous previous meetings between Witkoff and Putin have so far not contributed towards Russia ending its ongoing invasion. Asked about what he wanted Witkoff to achieve in Moscow, Trump said, "get a deal where people stop getting killed." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
DW
6 hours ago
- DW
Afghan refugees in Iran: Deported to uncertainty – DW – 08/04/2025
More than 1.3 million Afghan refugees have been forced to leave Iran in 2025, according to the UN. For many, returning to Afghanistan means facing extreme hardship under the Taliban regime. Zahra's family fled Afghanistan to Iran almost 30 years ago. Today, the 23-year-old — who is married with a young daughter — lives in constant fear of deportation. Her husband, who also fled Afghanistan, works as an agricultural laborer. "He can be arrested at any time on his way to work or home and deported to Afghanistan, like so many others," said Zahra. According to a UN report published last month, 1.35 million Afghan refugees have been forced to leave Iran in recent months. Many were arrested and deported, while others returned voluntarily for fear of arbitrary arrest. Zahra, who was born and raised in Iran, only has a temporary residence permit. "I'm listed in my parents' family passport, which is valid until September," she explained. The travel document is checked regularly and renewed every six months. Even those Afghan refugees who have lived in Iran for generations — some now in their second or third — they are not granted Iranian citizenship. For over 40 years, people have been fleeing Afghanistan to escape war, poverty, and now the Taliban's rule. Many initially seek refuge in neighboring countries such as Iran or Pakistan, however, they are often among the first people to be blamed for pushing up unemployment and crime. After the recent 12-day war between Israel and Iran, Iranian authorities launched a large-scale deportation campaign against Afghans who they say are living in their country illegally. In response to the deportation campaign, more than 1,300 Iranian and Afghan activists, journalists, artists, and citizens have written an open letter to the Iranian government. They are calling for an immediate end to the repression of Afghan refugees, who are being arbitrarily arrested and deported. They also call on the Iranian people to oppose these attacks so that their silence is not perceived as complicity. Refugees have long complained about systematic and increasingly intense racist attitudes in society, which they say are being fueled by the authorities. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Negative media in Iran coverage shifts blame for social and economic problems onto refugees, fueling resentment among disadvantaged groups and turning them against the migrants. Zahra recalls that, as a documented refugee, she wasn't even given a place in school, on the grounds that there weren't enough places for locals. "The deportations in recent months have often been carried out without regard for international standards," argued Afghan human rights activist Abdullah Ahmadi. "Many of those deported were taken to the border overnight — without shelter, medical care, or adequate food. Some even had to pay for the journey themselves." Among the returnees are numerous families who returned to Afghanistan on their own initiative for fear of arbitrary arrest. Many of them say they have not received their outstanding wages or the deposits they paid for their apartments. In response to growing criticism, the Iranian authorities emphasize that they had asked all "illegal" refugees to leave the country six months ago. Nader Yarahmadi, head of the Center for Foreigners and Refugees at the Ministry of the Interior, told the state news agency IRNA in early July: "We announced in March that all illegal migrants must leave the country by July 15 at the latest." The increased number of irregular immigrants from Afghanistan following the Taliban's takeover has placed an enormous strain on the country's limited resources. In January, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi traveled to the Afghan capital, Kabul, to negotiate cooperation with the Taliban, including the deportation of refugees. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said in July that he was "ready to travel to Afghanistan to open a new chapter in relations between the two countries." His announcement was widely interpreted as possibly signaling recognition of the Taliban. However, Iran's Foreign Ministry later clarified that the statement was merely an expression of personal interest and there were no official travel plans. The mass deportations have led to growing criticism of Iran within Afghan society. "The current situation is not conducive to a diplomatic trip," according to international relations expert Ahmad Ehsan Sarwaryar. "In just 40 days, almost one million people have been deported. This is overwhelming basic services in western Afghanistan," he said. Sarwaryar supports the accommodation of returnees in the western Afghan city of Herat, where he has described a worsening humanitarian catastrophe. Almost 23 million people in Afghanistan already depend on humanitarian aid. Now hundreds of thousands of returnees are joining them, left without shelter, work, or prospects for the future. "My plan was always to return to Afghanistan after school and study there," Zahra told DW. "In Iran, I have to pay for my studies because I don't have an Iranian passport. The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in August 2021 and shattered my dreams." Four of her friends and acquaintances, who were deported from Iran with their families in recent months, now live together with their young children in a sparsely-furnished small house that has no electricity. Zahra and her family were forced to leave Iran 20 years ago. After a brief stay, they returned. Today, the 950-kilometer (590-mile) long frontier with Afghanistan — parts of which run through inaccessible, high mountain ranges — remains largely uncontrolled by Iranian authorities, making border crossings difficult to monitor. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
DW
6 hours ago
- DW
Germany to raise 'mother's pension' – DW – 08/04/2025
Germany is to give older parents a higher pension than before, thanks to the Bavarian CSU. But businesses and economists say the 'mother's pension' is an extra burden on younger generations. The Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister-party to Chancellor Friedrich Merz's conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), appears to have persuaded its big sibling to implement one of its own pet projects: Raising the pension subsidy for older parents — colloquially known as the or "mother's pension" — one year earlier than planned. The pension rise for parents who had children before 1992 comes with a price tag of around €5 billion annually and is now set to be implemented on January 1, 2027, despite major cuts elsewhere in Germany's federal budget. According to German media reports, the government still has a gap of some €172 billion ($198 billion) for its financial planning for the years 2027 to 2029. The planned rise in 2027 is the third of three steps and adds an extra half a percentage point to the pension — that works out at around €20 per child per month for children born before 1992. Previously, parents whose children were born after 1992 received a slightly higher percentage. CSU General Secretary Martin Huber called the move the "completion" of the mother's pension plan, and said that 10 million women would profit. "For many female pensioners, this rise makes a big difference," he told the news network. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Though the change will iron out a disparity between the pensions received by older and younger generations, experts say the measure does nothing to close the gender pay gap between men and women, or indeed overall inequality in the country. Despite the name, all parents are eligible for the "mother's pension," as are foster parents and grandparents, if the child lived with them for a significant amount of time. Peter Haan, specialist in state finance policy at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), and co-author of a study on the pension, thinks it's not an effective way to close the "gender pension gap." The key question, as far as Haan is concerned, is who actually benefits. It does, he admitted, make superficial sense for older mothers to get the same benefits as those who had their children after 1992. "But the pensions for that generation were significantly higher than for the younger generation," Haan told DW. "And secondly, it's a 'watering can' measure that is equal for all mothers, and so doesn't specifically do anything to combat poverty among older people." The €20 per child per month might certainly be useful for many older people with lower incomes, but the very poorest women won't profit from it anyway — because the "mother's pension" is actually deducted from any welfare benefits they receive. The mother's pension dates back to 2013, when the CSU pushed through the plan under Angela Merkel's government as a way to compensate parents — in practice mainly mothers — who took time off to raise children and therefore paid less into the pension system. Since then, the CSU has made the plan one of its key policies, not least because it is popular among its own Bavarian electorate — many of whom are older people. In the intervening years, keeping the mother's pension has been the CSU's line in the sand in negotiations with its coalition partners the CDU and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). "Backing down on this issue would be unthinkable for a CSU leader," political scientist Ursula Münch, director of the Tutzing Academy for Political Education in Bavaria, told DW. "If the other parties do not meet it, it will refuse to support their proposals while playing on public opinion in an ageing society." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video But the idea is also unpopular among Germany's business community, who have been hoping that Merz's conservative government would, instead of increasing pensions, do more to keep more people on the job market. "All this is going completely in the wrong direction," said Judith Röder of the Federal Association of Wholesale, Foreign Trade and Services (BGA). "Everything that leads to increased welfare spending is a problem, and anything that signals less employment in an ageing society is also bad. And the mother's pension is both of those things." "[Raising the mother's pension] is another signal that more and more tax money or social insurance money is being distributed to older generations at the expense of active workers," Röder told DW. "It has to be financed somehow, and this is just a big loan to be paid in the future." This money would be better invested in infrastructure, she added, which benefits both businesses and society at large, rather than a particular group. Röder also argued that older parents are already financially privileged, because they benefited from pension conditions that favored mothers in the past — for instance, before 1999, women could legally start drawing an old age pension earlier than men. According to Haan, there are cheaper ways to help older poor people, such as checking income and wealth so that only those who actually need it get the extra money. "If you really want to reduce the gender pension gap, you have to change the labor market relations between men and women, by promoting more participation on the labor market for women," said Haan. "For example, with better childcare." "In times when the state pension coffers are under pressure, it is difficult to take on such an expansion of costs," he concluded. "Especially for a measure like this. Of course, you can see the justification for it, but there are other measures that I think are more important."While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.
