Starmer to recall cabinet for emergency meeting on Gaza
The Government is under intense pressure from Labour MPs over its stance on the Israel-Gaza war as the humanitarian situation in the strip worsens.
Images of starvation have led to growing condemnation of Israel and calls for a ceasefire have intensified.
Sources told The Guardian of the Cabinet recall as they insisted the Prime Minister is 'horrified' by images of starving civilians.
They also told the newspaper that formally recognising a Palestinian state was a matter of 'when not if', days after French president Emmanuel Macron said he would use a speech in September to recognise Palestine.
Sir Keir is expected to push Donald Trump to take a tougher stance against Israel when they meet at the president's Turnberry golf course in Scotland later on Monday.
David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, will also attend a conference on the two-state solution in New York this week where the pathway to a Palestinian state is expected to be discussed.
Talks on a Gaza ceasefire have come to a standstill in recent days after the US accused Hamas of acting in bad faith.
Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's Middle East envoy, announced on Thursday that the US was bringing home its negotiators, saying Hamas 'clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire'.
He added the US would now 'consider alternative options to bring the hostages home', without clarifying what they would be.
A ramping up of aid supplies and the return of more Israeli hostages were expected to form part of any truce.
Angela Rayner is leading attempts in cabinet to persuade Sir Keir to formally recognise Palestine and a third of backbench Labour MPs have also pressed the Prime Minister to back the move.
He has previously disappointed them by insisting any recognition would have to come at a time when it would be most beneficial to any peace process.
He said on Thursday that Palestinians have an 'inalienable right' to a state of their own.
Pressure on Sir Keir is likely to intensify after Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana launched a new hard-Left party to challenge Sir Keir.
The pair have accused the Government of enabling genocide and are expected to link up with several independent pro-Gaza MPs.
Last week, a committee of MPs said Sir Keir should 'immediately' recognise a Palestinian state 'while there is still a state to recognise'.
The recommendation was made by Parliament's foreign affairs committee, led by Dame Emily Thornberry, the veteran Labour MP, in a new report on the Gaza conflict.
She told The Guardian of the talks: 'Netanyahu only listens to Trump, and even then only sometimes. But somebody has to talk to the Israelis and nothing is going to move in this awful situation without him.
'Trump needs to hear that he has the strength of 10 presidents, that only he can get a ceasefire.
'But it's high risk for Keir as it could anger him and it's not even clear whether it would work. But he has to try, this is the moment it has to be done.
'Trump also needs to hear that allies, including the UK, French and Saudis, are prepared to work together to put together peace proposals but they will only work if they result in two states: Israel and Palestine.'
Conservative MP Kit Malthouse, a former cabinet minister and critic of Israel, told the newspaper: 'Every moment of inaction is a deliberate choice. These two leaders hold the power to end the starvation and killings in Gaza, to halt the violence in the West Bank, and to bring the hostages home with a permanent ceasefire.
'If they fail to act, history will not only remember the atrocities, it will remember that they had the means to stop them and chose not to.'
Critics of immediate recognition have said that it should not happen until Hamas is removed from any leadership role in Gaza and all Israeli hostages are released.
Israel's government has characterised any recognition by the UK and France as a 'reward' for Hamas's Oct 7 2023 atrocities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Oil pauses rally as markets weigh Trump's ultimatum to Russia
NEW DELHI, July 30 (Reuters) - Oil prices took a breather in Asian trade on Wednesday after the previous session's spike of more than 3%, as investors awaited developments from U.S. President Donald Trump's tighter deadline for Russia to end the war in Ukraine. Most active Brent crude futures rose 8 cents, or 0.12%, to $71.81 a barrel by 0419 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude gained 8 cents, or 0.12%, to $69.29 a barrel. The Brent crude September contract expiring on Wednesday was up 18 cents at $72.69 per barrel. Both contracts had settled on Tuesday at their highest since June 20. On Tuesday, Trump said he would start imposing measures on Russia, such as secondary tariffs of 100% on trading partners, if it did not make progress on ending the war within 10 to 12 days, moving up from an earlier 50-day deadline. "The $4 to $5 per barrel of supply risk premium injected in recent days can be expected to be sustained, unless Putin makes a conciliatory move," said Vandana Hari, founder of oil market analysis provider Vanda Insights. The United States had warned China, the largest buyer of Russian oil, it could face huge tariffs if it kept buying, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told a news conference in Stockholm, where the U.S. was holding trade talks with the EU. JP Morgan analysts said in a note that while China was not likely to comply with U.S. sanctions, India has signalled it would do so, putting at risk 2.3 million barrels per day of Russian oil exports. The United States and the European Union averted a trade war with a deal for 15% U.S. tariffs on European imports, easing concerns about the impact of trade tension on economic growth and offering support to oil prices. In Venezuela, foreign partners of state oil company PDVSA are still waiting for U.S. authorisation to operate in the sanctioned country after talks last week, which could return some supply to the market, so easing pressure for prices to rise. "The oil market is keeping an eye on the U.S. trade deals and talks and on the Fed, but those are marginal influences on sentiment," Hari added. Despite President Donald Trump's objections, the U.S. Federal Reserve is expected to hold interest rates steady at its policy meeting later on Wednesday. On Tuesday, the International Monetary Fund raised global growth forecasts slightly for 2025 and 2026, but warned the world economy faced major risks, such as a rebound in tariff rates, geopolitical tension and larger fiscal deficits.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Starmer hopes his ‘pathway to peace' will end war in Gaza. History suggests he may struggle
The former British prime minister Harold Macmillan once said that there was no problem in the Middle East because a problem has a solution. Keir Starmer is the latest incumbent in No 10 to try to prove Macmillan wrong through a plan that has been described by Downing Street as 'pathway to peace' for Gaza and the wider region. The record of Britain's previous interventions do not augur well. The famous commitment drafted by the then British foreign secretary Sir Arthur James Balfour, to 'view with favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people', was integrated into Britain's UN mandate over Palestine between 1923 and 1948 and paved the way for the birth of Israel. But the declaration contained a key qualification: nothing should be done to prejudice the 'civil and religious rights' of Palestine's 'existing non-Jewish communities'. Britain afforded Israel de facto recognition on 30 January 1949, in the last stages of the first Arab-Israeli war, and de jure recognition on 27 April 1950. For many Palestinians, the second part of the Balfour promise is yet to be made good. In the Arab nationalism of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Britain saw a destabilising force that might subvert pro-western states such as Jordan. For Israel, Nasser was a threat for allowing Palestinian militants permission to launch attacks against it from the Gaza Strip, then controlled by Egypt. Matters were brought to a head when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal Company on 26 July 1956. Under a secret agreement, Israel agreed to attack Sinai, the Egyptian peninsula between its western border and the canal. British and French forces would then intervene to 'separate the combatants', seizing control of the canal zone. The Anglo-French element was a debacle. The Israeli part of the plan went well. Israeli forces captured Sinai in its entirety, destroying three Egyptian divisions. From then on Israel was considered to be a major fighting force by the west. Britain exported arms to it from the 1960s in the belief that a strong Israel would reduce the chance of further war in the region. In the aftermath of the six-day war in 1967 between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Britain played a key role in drafting United Nations security council resolution 242. It embodies the principle that has guided most of the peace plans that have followed – the exchange of land for peace. The resolution called for the 'withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict', such as Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 'respect for and acknowldgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force'. It would come to be criticised for being vague and for its depiction of the Palestinian people as lacking national rights, describing their cause as the 'refugee problem'. Britain's role as a key mediator was overtaken by the US when President Jimmy Carter brought the Egyptian leader, Anwar Sadat, and the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, together at Camp David. The plan sought to set up a 'self-governing authority' in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to eventual 'final status' talks. The European and British perspective was voiced in the Venice declaration of 1980 issued by the then European Economic Community. 'The Palestinian people … must be placed in a position, by an appropriate process defined within the framework of the comprehensive peace settlement, to exercise fully its right to self-determination,' it said. It further added that the Palestine Liberation Organisation must be involved. This was controversial as the PLO was at this stage calling for Israel's destruction. It prompted criticism from the US. But even under the solidly pro-Israel leadership of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, British policy was to avoid straying too far from the European consensus. Major in 1995 became the first western leader to meet Yasser Arafat inside the Palestinian Authority area which had been created through the Oslo accords overseen by the US president, Bill Clinton. The second intifada, an uprising which raged from 2000 to 2004, took place after Arafat did not agree to the terms of the two-state proposals tabled by the-then Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, and Clinton. The intifada overlapped with the 'war on terror' that followed the 9/11 attacks. Tony Blair used his close relationship with the US president George W Bush to issue the 2003 roadmap peace plan that would resolve all issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005 through implementation of a two-state solution. It failed. After leaving Downing Street, Blair was appointed as the envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East. The quartet consisted of the UN, the EU, the US and Russia. Blair sought to develop the Palestinian economy and improve governance but struggled to make headway. He resigned after nearly eight years in the role, with Palestinians criticising what they saw as his closeness to Israel. Britain's policy under the succeeding prime ministers – Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak – has been criticised for reciting the mantra that a two-state solution is the only way forward without expending energy or political capital on the goal.
The National
36 minutes ago
- The National
Victorian approach to welfare shames Labour
With more than seven million low-income families still going without essentials, the JRF's cost of living tracker shines the spotlight on just how acute this situation is for low-income families with three or more children, with almost nine in 10 going without the essentials, and the highest number of families in arrears or holding a loan for essentials since their tracking began. This is a terrible indictment of Keir Starmer's government – no progress, no change, the very opposite of what Labour promised. Indeed, what strikes me most is just how little has changed since they came into power – the SNP are still pushing the UK Government to scrap the two-child cap and implement a similar benefit to our transformational Scottish Child Payment; Westminster is still digging its heels in. READ MORE: Keir Starmer commits to recognising Palestinian state after intense pressure My former colleague Alison Thewliss was dogged in challenging the Tory government on the two-child cap; yet here we are under Labour, and the asks remain the same while the situation is getting worse. The JRF says their modelling does not include impacts of cuts to health-related elements of Universal Credit for future claimants currently working its way through parliament. Damning reports like this should focus minds ahead of the delayed publication of the Child Poverty Strategy, with its recommendation to get rid of the two-child cap and strengthen the foundations of the social settlement. But is the Government listening, are they reading these reports, are they paying attention to best practice elsewhere, i.e. in Scotland? (Image: PA) On paper Labour say they are – for instance, the secretaries of state for work and pensions, and for education, say in their foreword to the introduction ahead of this new strategy that there is a lot they can learn from action already taken in Scotland. But in the chamber, it's a whole other ball game. Not a week goes by that I don't think of that phrase 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' while I'm sitting in the House of Commons listening to what seems to be a coordinated strategy by Labour to attack the Scottish Government in Holyrood at every available opportunity even when the focus is very much on their own failures at [[Westminster]]. That's politics I hear you say, but it's more than that. In fact, I'd go as far to say it's like a kind of 'blame shifting' to use psychological terminology. A perfect example comes from just a couple of weeks ago, when the Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray MP, was answering questions in the chamber on the Government's Spending Review. My colleague, MP Stephen Gethins, challenged Murray on his party's failure to scrap the two-child cap only to be met with a defensive volley on the number of children that are homeless in Scotland. A little rudimentary digging on Shelter England's website and you can see that of course Murray failed to highlight that in England, there are 164,040 children living in temporary accommodation with their families, which is the highest number on record and represents a 15% increase in the last year alone. Additionally, there are 126,040 households in England experiencing homelessness in temporary accommodation, another record high and a 16% increase in 12 months. This is hardly a record to be proud of, and not a position of strength from which to point the finger at other governments. Fortunately, a decent amount of finger pointing has already been done by Labour's own MPs, with their welfare cuts described as 'Dickensian'. Those MPs have been punished subsequently, more blame shifting rather than addressing the key problem which is Labour's terrible policy decisions. And only one of them was a Scottish Labour MP, while the others continue to bow and scrape to Number 10. Even the UN has waded in to highlight how Labour's welfare cuts could threaten the human rights of disabled people. And this from a government led by a former human rights lawyer. It reminded me of the UN's comments on the Tory government's welfare policies, with the special rapporteur on extreme poverty describing 'workhouse' conditions and the 'systematic immiseration' of the British population thanks to austerity. Red or blue, it's the same old same old. Collaborating with Scotland on best practice on social security – not just with our Scottish Child Payment but with our efforts to reinstate the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners before Labour's major U-turn, and now our upcoming mitigation of the two-child cap – would change the narrative on Labour's Victorian approach to welfare. This would signal a more grown-up approach to politics than the current tribal mudslinging variety that Labour favours. Don't hold your breath. So, every time you hear a Labour MP, particularly the Scottish ones, have a poke at Scotland and the SNP Government at Holyrood, remember this coordinated blame shift. Because behind every snide and spurious comment about Scotland lies a truth that Labour can't deny – they're failing to make any progress, and fast. All the more reason for Scotland to be rid of Westminster for good.
