UK will recognise Palestine in September unless Israel ‘takes steps' over Gaza
The Prime Minister recalled his senior team of ministers from their summer recess to discuss the situation in Gaza, where the population is facing a mounting famine, according to warnings from the United Nations.
A readout of the Cabinet meeting issued by Downing Street said Sir Keir told ministers 'now was the right time to move this position' on the two-state solution.
The readout continued: 'He said that because of the increasingly intolerable situation in Gaza and the diminishing prospect of a peace process towards a two-state solution, now was the right time to move this position forward.
'He said that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine in September, before UNGA (UN General Assembly), unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution.'
It comes after the Prime Minister had been under increasing pressure to recognise Palestine amid the warnings of starvation in Gaza.
Speaking from Downing Street's state dining room – sometimes used for press statements – the Prime Minister then told reporters that the Government will 'make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps'.
No should 'should have a veto over our decision', Sir Keir insisted.
Sir Keir said the British Government was focused on getting aid into Gaza and getting hostages released when asked why Palestinian recognition was conditional on Israel de-escalating the situation.
He added: 'This is intended to further that course, and it is done now because I am particularly concerned that the very idea of a two-state solution is reducing and feels further away today than it has for many, many years and, therefore, it should be seen in both of those contexts.'
While Sir Keir has suggested UK recognition of Palestine is conditional on the crisis not abating, No 10 is understood to believe that such a two-state solution would also proceed from negotiations towards a sustained peace.
The UK will keep working with its allies to 'end the suffering, get aid flooding into Gaza and deliver a more stable future for the Middle East', Sir Keir said, adding: 'Because I know that is what the British people desperately want to see.'
In a hardening of his language about the crisis in Gaza, the Prime Minister has claimed the British public is 'revolted' by scenes of starvation in the territory.
The UK and its allies need to see 'at least 500 trucks entering Gaza every day' to deliver aid, the Prime Minister added, and are together 'mounting a major effort to get humanitarian supplies back in' by air and by land.
The Prime Minister discussed a UK-led international plan to alleviate the crisis in Gaza with Donald Trump on Monday, when the US president acknowledged there was 'real starvation' in the territory.
Sir Keir has likened the plan he is working on with France and Germany to the coalition of the willing, the international effort to support Ukraine towards a lasting peace.
Amid international alarm over starvation in Gaza, Israel announced at the weekend that it would suspend fighting in three areas for 10 hours a day and open secure routes for aid delivery.
The UK confirmed it was taking part in airdrops of aid into the territory.
Aid agencies have welcomed the new measures but said they were not enough to counter the rising hunger in the Palestinian territory.
Sir Keir has been facing calls from a growing number of MPs to recognise a Palestinian state immediately.
More than 250 cross-party MPs have now signed a letter calling for ministers to take the step, up from 221 on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
Trump ‘pushing for all or nothing deal' on Gaza as Netanyahu ‘wants full occupation'
Donald Trump is pushing for an 'all or nothing' agreement to end the war in Gaza while Benjamin Netanyahu wants to occupy the entire Gaza Strip, according to reports. After months of ceasefire talks stalled, Mr Netanyahu and Mr Trump are reportedly working on a deal that presents Hamas with an ultimatum: release the hostages and agree to terms to disarm or the war continues. 'No piecemeal deals. That doesn't work,' US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly told hostage families in an audio leaked to Israeli news outlet Ynet. 'We think that we have to shift this negotiation to 'all or nothing' - everybody comes home,' Mr Witkoff was quoted as saying later in the recording. International leaders have ramped up pressure to reach a deal as Gaza faces widespread starvation and videos of two emaciated Israeli hostages circulated online. Domestic pressure in Israel has also been growing as the videos prompted thousands of people to protest in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to release the hostages and end the war. Nearly 600 retired Israeli security officials and former intelligence agency heads have written to Mr Trump urging him to put pressure on Israel to end the war in Gaza immediately. Mr Netanyahu is set to update his military plan for Gaza this week amid local media reports he wants to occupy all of the besieged enclave. 'The die is cast - we are going for a full occupation of the Gaza Strip,' senior officials close to Netanyahu is quoted as saying in Ynet. 'There will be activity also in areas where hostages are being held. If this doesn't suit the IDF Chief of Staff, he can resign.' An official was also quoted as telling Israeli Channel 12: 'The decision has been made… we are going to occupy the Gaza Strip.' The Jerusalem Post and i24NEWS also reported senior sources confirming plans for a full occupation. Mr Netanyahu's office has been approached for comment. Meanwhile, 'the worst-case scenario of famine' is playing out in Gaza, according to a UN-back food security agency. Israel has repeatedly denied that there are restrictions on aid or that there is a hunger crisis in Gaza. It blames Hamas for the suffering in Gaza and says it is taking steps to get more aid to Palestinians. In total, 289 airdrops have been conducted since Israel permitted them to restart two weeks ago, delivering 305 tonnes of aid. However officials in Jordan warned that they have had warehouses of aid for Gaza gathering dust since Israel reimposed its devastating blockade in March. More than 60,000 people have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
What is political gerrymandering and is it legal?
The recent departure of Democratic lawmakers from Texas, a strategic move to prevent the Republican-led Legislature from redrawing the state's congressional districts, highlights the enduring practice of gerrymandering in American politics. Coined over two centuries ago, the term "gerrymander" emerged in the US as a pejorative descriptor for the political manipulation inherent in legislative map-making. Its continued relevance is a testament to the fiercely competitive nature of American politics, where such tactics remain prevalent. Who is responsible for gerrymandering? In many states, like Texas, the state legislature is responsible for drawing congressional districts, subject to the approval or veto of the governor. District maps must be redrawn every 10 years, after each census, to balance the population in districts. But in some states, nothing prevents legislatures from conducting redistricting more often. In an effort to limit gerrymandering, some states have entrusted redistricting to special commissions composed of citizens or bipartisan panels of politicians. Democratic officials in some states with commissions are now talking of trying to sidestep them to counter Republican redistricting in Texas. How does a gerrymander work? If a political party controls both the legislature and governor's office — or has such a large legislative majority that it can override vetoes — it can effectively draw districts to its advantage. One common method of gerrymandering is for a majority party to draw maps that pack voters who support the opposing party into a few districts, thus allowing the majority party to win a greater number of surrounding districts. Another common method is for the majority party to dilute the power of an opposing party's voters by spreading them among multiple districts. Why is it called gerrymandering? The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing state Senate districts to benefit the Democratic-Republican Party. Some thought an oddly shaped district looked like a salamander. A newspaper illustration dubbed it 'The Gerry-mander' — a term that later came to describe any district drawn for political advantage. Gerry lost re-election as governor in 1812 but won election that same year as vice president with President James Madison. Is political gerrymandering illegal? Not under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: 'The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.' The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims could continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. But some state courts, including North Carolina's highest court, have ruled that they also have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering claims. Are there any limits on redistricting? Yes. Though it's difficult to challenge legislative districts on political grounds, the Supreme Court has upheld challenges on racial grounds. In a 2023 case from Alabama, the high court said the congressional districts drawn by the state's Republican-led Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black residents. The court let a similar claim proceed in Louisiana. Both states subsequently redrew their districts. What does data show about gerrymandering? Statisticians and political scientists have developed a variety of ways to try to quantify the partisan advantage that may be attributable to gerrymandering. Republicans, who control redistricting in more states than Democrats, used the 2010 census data to create a strong gerrymander. An Associated Press analysis of that decade's redistricting found that Republicans enjoyed a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years. But Democrats responded to match Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The adoption of redistricting commissions also limited gerrymandering in some states. An AP analysis of the 2022 elections — the first under new maps — found that Republicans won just one more U.S. House seat than would have been expected based on the average share of the vote they received nationwide. That was one of the most politically balanced outcomes in years.
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
Yvette Cooper says ‘crammed' small boats using shallow water launches behind rise in arrival numbers
Update: Date: 2025-08-05T08:43:24.000Z Title: Yvette Cooper Content: Good morning. Keir Starmer has invested a lot of effort in measures that will 'smash the gangs' and today the government is announcing the start of one of his big achievements in this area – a returns agreement, of sorts, with France. It is only a pilot, and the numbers are likely to be small, but the Conservatives never negotiated a deal of this kind when they were trying to stop small boat arrivals. (In fact, as a result of Brexit, they achieved the opposite.) Here is Jessica Elgot's story about the 'one in, one out' returns deal with France. And here is the Home Office news release. , the home secretary, has been giving interviews this morning. In media interviews, some politicians are keen to go on the offensive, by opening up new arguments or lines of attack. Cooper is the ultimate defensive player, smothering all awkward questions with splurge of officious, technocratic reasonableness. Journalists find it frustrating, because she tends to be a bit boring, but government spin doctors are happy because she never messes up. When Starmer and Emmanuel Macron announced the 'one in, one out' pilot last month, details about how it would work were sketchy. In her interviews this morning, Cooper did not reveal anything new about how the scheme would operate, arguing that, if she were to release this information, that might help the people smugglers evade the new regime. It has been widely reported that the scheme will start with about 50 people being removed per week, but Cooper would not even confirm this. On numbers, she told the Today programme: We are not putting an overall figure on this programme. Of course, it will start will lower numbers and then build, but we want to be able to expand it. We want to be able to increase the number of people returned through this programme. But Cooper did try to counter the key charge being thrown against the government – that all the 'smash the gangs' measures it is announcing are failing, because small boat arrivals are at record numbers. On the Today programme, when she was asked why arrival numbers have been soaring over the past year, Cooper cited two reasons. She said: What we've seen in the course of this year has been the change in tactics by the criminal gangs, and they've been doing two things. First of all, exploiting the French maritime rules, which have meant up until this summer, that the French authorities just could not intervene in French waters. That's why we've seen these disgraceful scenes of the loading of people into small boats in shallow waters, and then the French police unable to intervene according to their rules. And that's why it's so important that, as part of this agreement with France, France is changing their maritime rules, and that will be starting later this summer. The second reason is we're seeing [a] big increase in the overcrowding of the boats, so far more people being crammed into the boats. That is why we are seeking to change the law. We have the new border security bill going through parliament at the moment, bringing in the new offence of endangerment, so that people who are getting on overcrowded boats who are frankly putting other people's lives at risks, can themselves be prosecuted for getting on these overcrowded boats. Because it's those two factors that are particularly driving this. By citing these two factors as the explanation, and stressing that the government is addressing them, Cooper was implying that the government will be able to reduce arrival numbers. The Conservatives claim that she is wrong because only a Rwanda-style deterrent policy would work. In an overnight press notice, the party descibed the UK-France deal as the 'migrant surrender treaty' (using Boris Johnson's inflammatory Brexit rhetoric) and Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: Returning just 50 illegal immigrants a week, and probably less, will make no difference whatsoever. This amounts to just 6 per cent of illegal arrivals. Allowing 94% to stay in the UK will be no deterrent at all. This is a gimmick which won't work. The Rwanda removals deterrent, under which 100 per cent of illegal arrivals would be removed, was ready to go last summer but Labour cancelled it just days before it was due to start with no proper replacement plan. As a result, this year so far has been the worst ever for illegal immigrants crossing the channel. Only removing all illegal immigrants upon arrival will provide the necessary deterrent to stop the crossings. This is the Conservative plan, but Labour is too weak to implement it and as a result they have lost control of our borders. It's August, parliament is in recess, and there is almost nothing in the diary for today. This morning the Home Office will publish the text of the 'one in, one out' returns treaty with France. And Kemi Badenoch is doing a visit in her North West Essex constituency, where she will be restating the Tories' opposition to what they call Labour's 'family farm tax'. If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can't read all the messages BTL, but if you put 'Andrew' in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @ The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can't promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
