Why Starmer missed the mark with Palestine recognition
Conditions on Hamas include immediately releasing Israeli hostages and an acceptance that they will play no part in governing Gaza.
This is progress and a major shift in the UK's foreign policy. Previously, the UK Government's stance was that a long-term peace plan had to be in place before recognition could be on the table.
Starmer now says that the plan is to work towards a 'two-state solution', where an independent state of Palestine is established alongside Israel.
Read more:
Realistically, this is not a genuine attempt to recognise the state of Palestine.
This, simply, is politics. It is an attempt to appease both sides while attempting to force Israel's hand to put an end to the suffering in Gaza.
But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is amongst the highest profile voices arguing that doing so would reward Hamas for the devastating October 7 attacks in 2023.
Hamas are also unlikely to back a deal that diminishes their political power.
This is a conflict that has been raging in the Middle East since the early 20th century. There is, clearly, no easy solution to the Israel and Palestine tensions.
Britain's imperialist role in Palestine undoubtably influenced the conflict. It had control over the region between 1917 and 1948 before withdrawing and leaving a bitter and lasting war.
The Balfour declaration helped create the Jewish homeland of Israel, but the UK equally promised Palestinians the right to their own land and peace.
So what could be behind Starmer's change of policy, and why now?
Read more:
The internal pressure is growing on Starmer to act on the Gaza crisis. More than 250 MPs – over a third of the House of Commons - have signed a cross-party letter to pressure the Prime Minister into the move.
These conditions are unlikely to be agreed by either the Israeli government or Hamas and any internal win Starmer gets from this move could be short-lived.
By placing conditions on Palestine's recognition, Starmer looks weak.
On Tuesday, a UN-backed organisation warned there was mounting evidence of famine in Gaza.
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) said: "Latest data indicates that famine thresholds have been reached for food consumption in most of the Gaza Strip and for acute malnutrition in Gaza City."
That tells us that there are innocent children in Gaza who do not have until September for Starmer to make up his mind.
Starmer is giving decision makers around 60 days to act on his conditions - if they don't, where will we be then?
The recognition of Gaza cannot become a political game and Starmer must be decisive in his action. But for now, he missed the mark.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Spectator
Merz's Palestinian disaster
Friedrich Merz may have restored Germany's diplomatic credibility internationally, but his latest foray into Middle Eastern statecraft shows the Chancellor has fundamentally misunderstood both the nature of the Palestinian project and Germany's own moral obligations. Like Keir Starmer, by threatening to recognise Palestinian statehood if Israel fails to meet certain conditions, Merz has managed the remarkable feat of getting the entire equation backwards – demanding concessions from a democracy under siege while offering rewards to the very terrorists holding German citizens hostage. The moral inversion is breathtaking. At this moment, Hamas continues to hold German hostages, yet Merz's diplomatic energy is focused on extracting promises from Jerusalem. This represents either profound strategic confusion or calculated domestic pandering. Neither is particularly flattering to a leader who prides himself on clear-eyed realism. The fundamental flaw in Merz's approach stems from a misreading of Palestinian nationalism itself. Unlike other national movements that have eventually embraced pragmatic statehood, Palestinian political culture has consistently defined itself through resistance rather than construction. When offered statehood in 1947, 2000, and 2008, Palestinian leadership rejected each opportunity, preferring the romantic purity of perpetual struggle to the mundane compromises of governance. This isn't accidental, it's structural. Palestinian political identity has been forged in the crucible of rejection. The movement's most celebrated figures are those who said 'no' most dramatically, not those who attempted to build functioning institutions. Recognising this 'state' before its leadership demonstrates any capacity for actual statecraft is rewarding dysfunction. Germany's own historical responsibilities should make this equation obvious. Having once perpetrated history's most systematic attempt at Jewish extermination, Germany now possesses perhaps the world's clearest moral obligation to ensure Israel's survival. That this needs stating in 2025 suggests how thoroughly contemporary German politics has been captured by fashionable sentiment over historical responsibility. The timing of Merz's gambit is particularly unfortunate, coming as it does when 28 western nations have just issued a statement criticising Israeli conduct while offering Hamas barely a paragraph's worth of mild rebuke. This represents a fundamental misallocation of outrage. Western fury should be directed at the terrorists who initiated this conflict, not the democracy attempting to end it. That Germany has so far refused to join this misguided chorus is one bright spot. The Christian Democrats have reportedly resisted pressure to sign the international statement, recognising that moral clarity sometimes requires swimming against the tide of international opinion. Merz would do well to extend this principled stance to his Palestinian recognition threats. The domestic political calculations behind Merz's position are transparent but troubling. Germany's streets have witnessed months of demonstrations demanding Palestinian recognition, often featuring the curious spectacle of progressive activists marching alongside supporters of one of the world's most reactionary movements. The ideological contradictions are stark – advocates for LGBTQ rights and gender equality rallying for a cause whose leaders execute homosexuals and subjugate women as state policy. Yet rather than exposing these contradictions, Merz appears to be accommodating them, following the same pattern exhibited by other western leaders facing similar domestic pressures. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's trajectory offers a cautionary example: despite his initial attempts to make Labour more Israel-friendly after Jeremy Corbyn's tenure, Starmer has increasingly bent to activist pressure. With his approval ratings plummeting, domestic considerations clearly influenced Britain's decision to join the 28-nation statement criticising Israel while barely acknowledging Hamas's role as the conflict's instigator. In Berlin, Friedrich Merz now continues to represent an astonishing continuation of Angela Merkel's fatal tendency to mistake the preferences of vocal activist minorities for democratic mandates. The result is policy shaped by those who shout loudest rather than those who vote most thoughtfully. The strategic implications extend far beyond Palestine. By signalling that German policy can be influenced by street pressure, Merz invites every future international controversy to be fought out on German streets rather than in German institutions. This is precisely the kind of imported conflict that responsible statesmen should be preventing, not encouraging. More fundamentally, Merz's approach reveals a continued misunderstanding of Germany's role in the world. Having spent decades as Europe's economic powerhouse while remaining diplomatically cautious, Germany now possesses the influence to shape international outcomes – but only if it exercises that influence responsibly. Threatening premature recognition of a Palestinian state whose leadership remains committed to Israel's destruction squanders that influence for no strategic gain. The Chancellor's calculation appears to be that conditioning recognition on Israeli behaviour provides him with maximum flexibility. He can appear tough on Israel to satisfy domestic critics while avoiding immediate consequences by setting conditions unlikely to be met. This kind of diplomatic triangulation might work in normal circumstances, but the Middle East has a way of exposing such clever-by-half positioning. If Merz genuinely wishes to contribute to Middle Eastern peace, the formula should be obvious: demand that Hamas release all hostages immediately and unconditionally, renounce violence permanently, and demonstrate genuine commitment to peaceful coexistence. Only then should questions of recognition arise. Anything else represents rewarding terrorism while punishing its victims. The uncomfortable truth that Merz seems reluctant to acknowledge is that any viable Palestinian state must be built without Hamas in power – not alongside it, not in partnership with it, but in explicit opposition to it. Hamas's foundational charter doesn't merely call for Israeli withdrawal from disputed territories; it demands the complete extinction of the Jewish state and, by extension, the elimination of Jews and Christians from the Middle East entirely. This isn't tactical positioning that might evolve through negotiation – it's theological imperative that defines the organisation's very existence. For a leader of the Christian Democratic Union to contemplate legitimising a political entity dominated by forces explicitly committed to Christian as well as Jewish extermination represents not just strategic blindness but a betrayal of the very values his party claims to represent.
Leader Live
24 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Ministers ‘believe' Palestine recognition is compliant with international law
Business minister Gareth Thomas described the decision as a 'political judgment' after a group of peers warned it could be in contravention of international law. Some 38 members of the House of Lords, including some of the UK's most eminent lawyers, have written to Attorney General Lord Hermer about the Prime Minister's announcement. As first reported by the Times newspaper, the peers warned Sir Keir Starmer's pledge to recognise Palestine may breach international law as the territory may not meet the criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. Asked whether recognising Palestine is compliant with international law, Mr Thomas told Times Radio: 'Yes, we believe it is. 'In the end, recognition of another state is a political judgment and over 140 countries have already recognised Palestine, and we're determined to do so in September if Israel does not end the violence in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and agree to a lasting route towards a two-state solution, and to no annexation in the West Bank.' In their letter to Lord Hermer, the peers said Palestine 'does not meet the international law criteria for recognition of a state, namely, defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states'. There is no certainty over the borders of Palestine, they said, and no single government as Hamas and Fatah are enemies. Mr Thomas told Times Radio there is a 'clear population' in Palestine and 'we have made clear that we think you would recognise the state of Palestine, and that state of Palestine would be based on the 1967 borders'. In their letter, seen by the PA news agency, the peers added: 'You have said that a selective, 'pick and mix' approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. 'Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the Government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law.' Lord Hermer has previously insisted a commitment to international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of the Government's approach to foreign policy. Among the respected lawyers to have signed the letter are Lord Pannick – who represented the previous government at the Supreme Court over its Rwanda scheme – as well as KCs Lord Verdirame and Lord Faulks. Sir Keir announced earlier this week that the UK could take the step of recognising Palestine in September ahead of a gathering at the UN. The UK will only refrain from doing so if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two month, the PM said.
Rhyl Journal
24 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Farage calls for ‘tech answer' to protecting children online
The Reform UK leader was this week accused by a Cabinet minister of being on the side of 'people like Jimmy Savile' over the party's pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act. Speaking on LBC, Mr Farage described the comments, made by Technology Secretary Peter Kyle, as 'absolutely appalling'. During the phone-in, the Clacton MP took questions about his opposition to the Online Safety Act and new Government demands that social media companies tackle illegal content and activity online, along with content that is harmful to children. George Nicolaou, from Cheshunt in Hertfordshire, said his 15-year-old son Christoforos was 'murdered by predators to an attack propagated through social medias three years ago'. He described the law as a 'matter of life and death' for some families. Mr Farage replied: 'If age verification of itself was able to prevent incidents and tragedies like this, I would, George, 100% support it. 'But the problem is it doesn't, because of the VPN route.' VPNs or virtual private networks can enable internet users to circumvent the new rules, by masking a user's digital identity. 'There has to be a tech answer around this,' Mr Farage added. 'I don't know what it is, certainly the Government doesn't know what it is, but there has to be a tech answer of some kind, and we need to try and find it.' Mr Farage also said: 'We're talking about, how do we protect young people? 'How do we stop them accessing dangerous, violent content, or worse? 'I'll tell you what, George, here's the real danger – that if you go through a VPN, you can then access content on what's called the dark web, which is even worse than what you can find online now.' Mr Kyle told Sky News earlier this week: 'I see that Nigel Farage is already saying that he's going to overturn these laws. 'So you know, we have people out there who are extreme pornographers, peddling hate, peddling violence. Nigel Farage is on their side. 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Mr Farage said: 'Most 13-year-olds are more tech savvy than Peter Kyle and the people that drew up this legislation didn't know what they were doing. 'We have to have a fresh look.' The Reform UK leader alleged the Government was 'setting up an elite police force to monitor what people say about illegal immigration and migrant hotels'. He added: 'This legislation is the biggest threat to free, open debate and speech we've ever seen.'
