Is Keir Starmer already U-turning on Palestine?
Hence the initial confusion: did this mean Britain will recognise Palestine or not? The statement said the government would do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September 'unless…' the Israeli government did four things. But one of the conditions listed was a commitment to a two-state solution, something to which Benjamin Netanyahu would never agree.
So it seemed clear that, whatever the deliberate ambiguities of the rest of the statement, recognition would be going ahead in September. It was a victory for those members of the cabinet who had been pushing for it – David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and others – with the support of the silent majority of Labour MPs.
Not that there was any triumphalism – unless you count Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying: 'I think it's great news' – because the situation in Gaza is so serious and the chances of recognition making a difference on the ground are so small. But there was no question that this was an important shift in government policy that had been brought about by quiet pressure behind the scenes from the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Then questions started to be asked about the rest of the prime minister's statement: about the demand that Hamas release the hostages and the phrase 'no one side will have a veto' on the government's final decision in September. Did that mean that recognition of Palestine would be conditional on the release of the hostages?
When Starmer was asked, in a short encounter with journalists today, he wouldn't give a Yes or No answer to that question, which I take to be the equivalent of 'No'.
So I think British recognition will go ahead, unless something dramatic happens over the next month, such as Netanyahu ceasing to be prime minister of Israel.
I don't think Starmer wanted to make this change. But I think he was going to do it before Emmanuel Macron changed French policy on recognition last week. Macron set the context, and Mark Carney, the leader of the third G7 nation to make the switch, confirmed it with his announcement last night.
What mattered above all was the state of opinion among Labour MPs. Starmer can remember what happened to Tony Blair in July 2006 – and if he can't, Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, who was Blair's chief of staff, can remind him.
That was when Israel responded to Hezbollah's killing of two Israeli soldiers by invading Lebanon. Labour MPs wanted Blair to condemn this 'disproportionate' response. Blair refused. Labour MPs wrote letters demanding a change of leadership. Tom Watson, a junior defence minister, resigned.
By September, Blair was visiting a north London academy school to announce that the imminent annual Labour conference would be his last as prime minister – although he didn't actually leave office for another nine months.
Starmer, after a year in Downing Street, is in a similar position to Blair after nine years.
Blair, having already said he wouldn't fight another election, refused to bow to his party. 'If I had condemned Israel, it would have been more than dishonest,' Blair wrote in his memoir. 'It would have undermined the world view I had come to hold passionately. So I didn't.'
Starmer cannot afford such a devil-may-care attitude, so he has yielded to pressure from his MPs.
There have been some attempts to explain the shift in his position that I think are not quite right. He is trying to head off the Corbyn-Sultana party, it is said, especially in constituencies, such as his own, with a significant Muslim vote. These are factors, of course, although the Corbynites are not going to be assuaged by recognition of Palestinian statehood – Zarah Sultana thinks Starmer belongs in The Hague, presumably for the crime of disagreeing with her.
But the main reason Starmer has shifted his position is because Labour MPs demanded it. No prime minister can defy their parliamentary party for long on an issue that they care about. That is why Starmer U-turned on the winter fuel payment and on disability benefits, and it is why he has U-turned on this.
Whatever you may think of the right or wrong of the final position – and I can guess what Blair's view would be on each of them – the reason for it is that it is what the majority of Labour MPs want.
They want to recognise Palestine because they think it is a way to try to end the conflict in Gaza. Some of them may want to appease their constituents, but most of them are sincere in their horror of this unequal war – in which they reflect British public opinion generally.
Whatever anyone thinks of Starmer's decision, they should not be surprised by his instinct for survival.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Home Office tried to silence Robert Jenrick after small boat terror claims
The Home Office tried to silence Robert Jenrick after he said terror suspects had arrived in Britain on small boats. In an article for The Telegraph last year, Mr Jenrick, the former immigration minister, claimed that individuals linked to Islamic State had 'waltzed right in' to Britain across the Channel. It can now be revealed that a fortnight later, the Home Office's most senior civil servant reprimanded him over the disclosure. Sir Matthew Rycroft, the department's then permanent secretary, wrote to Mr Jenrick to tell him the information 'should not have been made public' and warned him against 'any further disclosure' of sensitive information from his time in government. On Saturday, critics said the move showed that the Government was trying to 'suppress' concerns about the security implications of mass migration. During his spell as immigration minister between October 2022 and December 2023, Mr Jenrick would have had access to sensitive information and security briefings, including about migrants crossing the Channel. The Home Office has neither confirmed nor denied the veracity of Mr Jenrick's claims and is understood to have had concerns that they could undermine national security. In his letter, Sir Matthew argued that the former immigration minister was bound by rules that prohibit the disclosure of sensitive information, including the ministerial code and the Official Secrets Act. Sir Matthew is also understood to have confirmed that Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, was personally aware that he was issuing the reprimand. The revelation comes amid wider concerns about the Government's attitude towards free speech, especially on contentious topics such as migration. This week it emerged that a secretive Whitehall 'spy' unit has been used to target social media posts criticising migrant hotels and 'two-tier policing'. That prompted the White House to say it was monitoring the situation surrounding freedom of expression in the UK 'closely and with great concern'. Allies of Mr Jenrick expressed concern that the Home Office was trying to deter him from speaking out on security concerns around migration. Bradley Thomas, the Tory MP for Bromsgrove, said: 'Any attempt by the Home Office to suppress news of such significant national security importance is a disgrace. 'Robert Jenrick resigned from the Home Office on a point of principle and he has been clear that mass migration has not been good for our country. 'Robert's principled stance has seen him consistently challenge the failings of the immigration system to keep our country secure and prosperous.' He said that Ms Cooper's 'implicit awareness' that the reprimand was being issued was 'a dereliction of her duty to the British people'. Lewis Cocking, the Tory MP for Broxbourne, said that the warning to Mr Jenrick represented 'political overreach from the Civil Service'. 'They shouldn't be telling an elected Member of Parliament what they should or shouldn't be saying about illegal immigration,' he said. 'It's just another example of why we need a total overhaul of the Civil Service, to get them back working in the interests of ordinary British people. 'Labour Ministers have failed to give me clear answers on how many small boat arrivals fail criminality checks, and this suggests they are working with civil servants to keep the reality of the situation hidden from the public.' Ministerial code Former ministers continue to be bound by the ministerial code, which sets out the standards for their conduct, after they have left office. Mr Jenrick is also on the Privy Council, which advises the sovereign on matters of state, and whose members are subject to extra confidentiality obligations. It is understood that it is not unusual for officials to remind both current and former ministers of their responsibilities under those rules. Mr Jenrick declined to comment. The news comes as Labour is under growing pressure over its handling of the small boats crisis, with the number of crossings this year having already topped 25,000. Officials were forced to send migrants to a controversial overflow hotel in Canary Wharf on Saturday after almost 900 arrived on Wednesday.
BBC News
25 minutes ago
- BBC News
Stourbridge MP investigated over late filing of overseas trip
Stourbridge MP Cat Eccles is being investigated by the parliamentary standards watchdog over claims that she was late declaring a trip to Israel and standards commissioner, Daniel Greenberg, announced that he was looking into a possible breach under rules about the declaration of an interest and the late registration of an the most recent filings, Eccles listed a trip to Israel and Palestine, sponsored by Labour Friends of Israel, with flights, accommodation and meals totalling £2, Eccles has been contacted for a comment. Parliamentary rules state MPs must "always be open and frank in declaring any relevant interest" and register such interests within 28 trip was listed as having taken place between 25 and 29 May but was registered with officials on 9 purpose of the visit was described as being for meetings with politicians, academics, activists and Express and Star reported on Saturday that a spokesperson for the MP said missing the deadline was due to an administrative error and there had not been any attempt to conceal the trip. Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump calls nuclear bluff of Russia's hawk-in-chief
Normally, when the US acts against Russia, Vladimir Putin is quick to respond in kind: sanction for sanction, travel ban for travel ban, expulsion for expulsion. 'Proportional reciprocation' and 'symmetrical response' are staples of the Kremlin lexicon, usually accompanied by howls of outrage, denouncing Washington's provocations. Yet since Donald Trump ordered two nuclear submarines to steam towards Russia on Friday – an unusually dramatic gesture for any US president and one that would typically signal a grave geopolitical crisis – Putin has been uncharacteristically silent. Were Putin to follow his own doctrines of reciprocity, Russian submarines would now be heading towards the United States and the world would be holding its breath. Instead, he has recognised the obvious: Mr Trump's move is more about theatre than altering the US nuclear posture. The president is playing a game all too familiar to the Russians. The Kremlin has been bandying about nuclear threats since even before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with none more loud than Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's clownish sidekick and chief social media warrior. This week, Mr Medvedev, who was Russia's president from 2008 to 2012 and prime minister from 2012 to 2020, called the latest US deadline for Moscow to accept ceasefire talks a 'step towards war', and warned Mr Trump that Russia possessed nuclear strike capabilities of last resort. It was this war of words that prompted Mr Trump to order nuclear submarines closer to Russia. In doing so, he has essentially called Russia's bluff and may well feel vindicated by the Kremlin's silence. The outrage instead came from pro-Kremlin military commentators in the Russian media, with one accusing Mr Trump of 'throwing a temper tantrum' while another dismissed the submarine deployment as 'meaningless blather'. But by swatting away Mr Medvedev's threats, the US president has given him a relevance he rarely enjoys – for all his mouthiness – either at home or abroad. Hailed by European optimists as a pro-Western reformer when he took over as president from Putin in 2008, Mr Medvedev styled himself as a tech-loving moderniser and defender of civil liberties In reality, he was never the champion of Russia's Western-oriented middle class that he pretended to be. He proved instead to be a mere placeholder while he helped Putin perform a constitutional sleight of hand that reset the clock on his presidency. Ordinary Russians likened the charade to Gogol's play The Government Inspector, in which a fraudster impersonates a powerful official only for the real inspector to appear in the final scene. Cynical though it was, most Russians accepted the ruse. Since Putin's return, Mr Medvedev has been sidelined, seeking relevance from the periphery by turning himself into an ever more bombastic caricature of his former self – one even Russians struggle to take seriously. Last year, The Insider, an anti-Kremlin investigative site, reported that Mr Medvedev's most 'unhinged' social media posts often appeared shortly after deliveries from his Tuscan vineyard arrived at his Moscow address. Rumours of Mr Medvedev's drinking have swirled for over a decade, growing louder as his fulminations against the 'bastards and degenerates' in Kyiv have intensified and footage emerged of him nodding off at a series of official events. Alcohol might explain part of his transformation from a Western-courting politician to someone who now denounces Western leaders as a 'pack of grunting pigs'. But it is more likely that he simply craves attention – and Mr Trump has just given it to him, even if the US president describes him as a 'failed' has-been. The real target of the submarine manoeuvre is almost certainly Putin himself – a man Mr Trump admires but has grown frustrated with because of his refusal to make concessions on Ukraine. Matters are coming to a head, with Mr Trump vowing to impose sanctions on Russia and tariffs on countries buying its energy unless Moscow agrees to a ceasefire by Aug 8. So far, Putin has remained unmoved, seemingly calculating that Washington will retreat from secondary tariffs, which would hurt Russia's energy-dependent economy but also carry significant diplomatic costs for Mr Trump. With time running out ahead of the real showdown, the submarine move should be seen as an attempt to ratchet up pressure on Putin. In that light, the Kremlin's silence looks less like a triumph for the US president than evidence that the Russian leader has not blinked – yet.
