What would UK recognition of Palestine mean for crisis in Gaza?
Keir Starmer's announcement that the UK is prepared to recognise an independent state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly meeting in September has been awaited, at least by some in the region, for decades.
That's how long the idea of a two-state solution to the conflict at the heart of the Middle East has been in circulation. Lately, though, the term has felt hollow and lopsided.
There aren't two states at the negotiating table. When the Middle East peace process felt vibrant and hopeful, there were at least the makings of a Palestinian state. But peace is now a distant memory, and Gaza is in ruins, and starving.
So the Prime Minister's statement may have been symbolic, but it was still significant. There are now two members of the UN Security Council prepared to recognise Palestine – with the UK joining France in stating its intentions. As the former colonial power in the region, and the closest ally of the United States to do so, the UK's statement carries the greatest weight.
It's striking that Starmer chose to call his emergency cabinet meeting and make that statement, a day after meeting US President Donald Trump in Scotland. The US does not want its allies recognising Palestine – indeed, Trump pulled his negotiators out of ceasefire talks just days ago, saying Hamas doesn't want a deal.
But there has been a diplomatic and political shift taking place, as distressing images of starving children have emerged from Gaza, and warnings from aid agencies have grown about a looming, deadly famine.
The fact that Trump was willing to publicly disagree with America's ally, Israel, on the steps of his Turnberry golf resort, in front of the world's TV cameras, and say that children were going hungry in Gaza, showed just how far global opinion has shifted.
The UK Government now sees an opening to use recognition of Palestinian statehood as leverage, with Israel, but primarily with the US. Even before the threat of recognition was confirmed, the Israeli Government had begun loosening its grip on the flow of aid into Gaza. Under American pressure, the hope is that more aid will be allowed through – but according to aid agencies, it will have to be much more, to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.
At the same time, it's also true that yesterday's announcement was about domestic politics. A third of MPs have signed a letter demanding recognition of Palestinian statehood, most of them Labour MPs. Privately, a number of cabinet ministers are reported to agree. The Prime Minister couldn't ignore that pressure forever.
The SNP and Liberal Democrats argue that Palestinian statehood shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip; on the other side of the debate, the Conservatives and Reform agree with the Israeli Government that the announcement is a reward for Hamas and an incentive to hang on to the remaining Israeli hostages.
For Starmer's announcement to not just be symbolic – for it to be a return to a peace process in the Middle East, and the start of a two-state solution – a great deal else will have to happen.
The Prime Minister set conditions for both sides for British recognition of a Palestinian state to happen, that neither will be happy to agree to: abandoning claims on West Bank land for the Israelis; for Hamas, disarmament and its effective disbanding. From where things stand now, those demands don't seem realistic.
Ultimately, the decision over how this conflict unfolds, and whether it ends, rests with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Increasingly, world powers are coming to the conclusion that recognition of Palestine is the only way to get his attention.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
10 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Donald Trump's visit was a good thing for Police Scotland
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Well, well, despite all the scare stories, Donald Trump's four-day visit went exactly as planned. Contrary to the dire predictions of some, our policing system was not brought to its knees by a long weekend's work. If our community policing model could just survive the year of extractions caused by the 84/85 Miners Strike, it could surely withstand the extra demands of four days. It was, however, a tricky operation, with more than two venues and a lot of outside exposure for a president who has recently survived two assassination attempts, and appears to be 'catnip' for extremists. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But now that Air Force One is well away and the pointless placards put away 'til next time, we can safely reflect on the fact that the presidential visit has actually benefited our police service. Let me explain. READ MORE: Deer put down after being hit by police car in Aberdeenshire ahead of Trump visit Police Scotland officers guard the Trump Turnberry golf course ahead of Donald Trump's arrival in Scotland (Picture: Christopher Furlong) | Getty Images Ensuring match fitness Police Scotland, whether in its recent national incarceration or its old constituent forces, had a well-deserved reputation for the professional handling of major events. Next to London, Edinburgh had more major and royal events than any other city in the UK. The west of Scotland was also highly experienced. The continuous exposure to the ritual hate fest which is 'Old Firm' football ensures that police in and around Glasgow always knew how to control hostile crowds. But experience has a shelf-life and the preparedness of police forces to deal with complex and major events depends on 'match fitness'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The last truly major event in Scotland was the initial phase of the funeral of Queen Elizabeth in 2022, and, while it was logistically tricky, there was very little real threat. You have to go back to the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow the previous year to find a major event that tested all aspects of police planning and operations. But that was four years ago, and things change quickly at the top of policing. Almost all the senior officers involved in COP26 have now moved on and been replaced by officers, who though able have not actually been in the hot seat. For you can plan all you like, run exercises all day long, but there is no substitute for the real thing. Regardless of contingencies, things go wrong as soon as real people become involved. Small mistakes can turn into big problems, and before you know it you are reacting to incidents rather than driving the operation. Trump's habit of going 'off script' In the case of President Trump's visit, there were good points and bad. It was not a state visit with high-risk public processions in crowded streets. On the other hand, golf links, while remote, are vast open spaces and difficult to protect. Transport routes were also tricky, with lots of minor roads to be protected from disruption. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And the US Secret Service would have been on edge, with the recent assassination attempts and their president's habit of impromptu 'off-script' behaviour adding to the tension. But in the end, it all came good, as I was sure it would. The plan worked, and all the little things that went wrong were sorted quickly and without fuss. So congratulations to the event 'Gold Commander', Assistant Chief Emma Bond, and all her team. Another big job well done, lessons learned and valuable experience banked.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Spotlight on Keir Starmer's recognition of Palestine
I'm puzzled by the conditions Keir Starmer has set for Israel to meet, failing which he'll recognise Palestine as a state (UK to recognise state of Palestine in September unless Israel holds to a ceasefire, 29 July). Why does recognition depend on Israel's actions? Surely it should depend on Palestine's: commitments to abjure terrorism, disarm Hamas, hold democratic elections and, of course, to release the hostages. As for Israel, UK policy should be to impose draconian sanctions: if Israel continues to act like a pariah state, let it be treated as one. Without sanctions, there would probably still be an apartheid regime in South Africa. The UK must act now, not half-heartedly in September; thousands of children in Gaza can't wait until MaughanDunblane, Perthshire Like so many people in the UK, I thought that my despair and shame over the situation in Gaza could not be deepened. Keir Starmer achieved that. How like this prime minister to obfuscate further and kick any sense of decisiveness into the long grass of contingency. One might think that Britain has some special responsibility for recognising the state of Palestine, whose population it abandoned to the predations of its neighbour in 1948. What will be left of Gaza, the West Bank and its people by September? A genocide? A diaspora? The UK doesn't negotiate with terrorists, just with war Prof Graham MortLancaster University Soon after the atrocities of 7 October 2023 I heard someone on the radio say, with respect to Israel's imminent invasion of Gaza, 'Beware of being goaded by your enemy into doing what your enemy wants you to do.' Nearly two years on, the Israeli government seems hell-bent on creating a moral equivalence between itself and Hamas. If you become like your enemy, then your enemy has won. Thus, despite what it says about recent moves to recognise a Palestinian state, the Israeli government, more than any other, is 'rewarding' Hamas for its terrorist actions. The Rev Rob KelseyBerwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland It is impossible for us to know the depth of despair Palestinians must feel to hear western nations pontificating that we will not recognise them as a nation if their oppressors stop killing them. It seems this is the ultimate acknowledgment that they have no rights except those we deem to give them. We have expelled them from the land in which they lived to ensure that Europe didn't have the problem of resettling the thousands displaced by a European war. They are being attacked in Gaza and the West Bank with weapons supplied by western governments. They are being starved in Gaza to keep their oppressor-in-chief in office. And now our governments are praised for condescending to recognise the fact that they are a nation (that has existed for more than 1,000 years). How can we think we have any integrity left in our dealings with the oppressed?Michael McLoughlinWallington, London What will give greater weight to the call for a two-state solution is outlining the building blocks for establishment of a Palestinian state: for example, Gaza would be placed under UN control to allow for demilitarisation, the physical reconstruction and drawing up a basic law to guide the development of a constitutional WeirCape Town, South Africa Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
To compare Donald Trump to Teddy Roosevelt on nature protection is absurd
Simon Jenkins' article (He may talk rubbish but Trump has an eye for beauty, and that is a breath of fresh air, 1 August) was for the most part milquetoast Trump apologia, studded with the usual non-criticisms to give an impression of impartiality (yes, Trump does sometimes 'talk rubbish') and lauding one particular droplet in his firehose stream of insanity as some sort of visionary pronouncement (I would argue one of his more significant early actions was to economically attack my country, deride its sovereignty and muse on annexing us, but yes, restoring federal buildings is nice, too.) Where the article veered into insulting territory, however, was in comparing Trump to Teddy Roosevelt, claiming that both men 'seemed to care about America's natural environment, its forests and deserts, and a role for Washington in their custodianship'. To call this comparison absurd would be an understatement. Teddy Roosevelt was a committed conservationist who created the United States Forest Service; Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax. Roosevelt greatly expanded the national parks system; Trump opened up national parks in Alaska for oil drilling. Roosevelt created 51 wild bird reserves; Trump neutered the Migratory Bird Treaty Act at the behest of the fossil fuel industry. Roosevelt used executive orders to protect 600,000sq km of forest from logging and other exploitation; Trump used executive orders to try to bring back coal. Should I go on?Justin JoschkoOttawa, Ontario, Canada Imposing classical revival styles in federal architecture is the tool of dictators. To insinuate that Trump has any taste at all fails. His own ostentatious display of wealth by dipping everything that he surrounds himself with in cheesy gold paint is proof. The American Institute of Architects is on record against this mandate as being retrograde, and calls out this failure to promote forward-reaching design and creative Simmons Santa Fe, New Mexico, US Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. As I have driven across Kansas, Oklahoma and crossing into California from Arizona on Interstate 10, I smile when I see those turbines turning and think, ah, green energy, less pollution and saving the planet. They, to me, are beautiful, much better than coal belching pollutants into the AckersLeawood, Kansas, US How disingenuous to suggest that President Trump has any care for the aesthetic beauty of our environment, without noting his zeal for plundering the earth's resources to their limit for personal and private profit. Don't we all remember 'Drill, baby, drill'? His antipathy to wind turbines, regardless of where they are sited, owes more to his loathing for renewable energy solutions than it does to his concerns about aesthetic HutchesonCastle Carrock, Cumbria If Donald Trump has an eye for beauty, why did he destroy the sand dunes near Aberdeen in order to install his golf course? Cliff SaxtonLauzun, France
