Starmer: Palestinians have inalienable right to statehood
The Prime Minister made the comment on Thursday evening as he came under growing pressure from Labour MPs over the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza.
In a statement, Sir Keir also condemned the 'unspeakable and indefensible' suffering in the strip and called it a 'humanitarian catastrophe'.
The Labour Government backs Palestinian statehood but has argued for months that it should be formally recognised at the right moment to further peace in the region.
The statement falls short of a promise to declare Palestinian statehood – something the French are pushing to be done next month.
Sir Keir said: 'We are clear that statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. A ceasefire will put us on a path to the recognition of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution which guarantees peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis.'
Cabinet ministers have reportedly been pushing privately for Sir Keir to announce UK recognition while Sir Sadiq Khan, Labour's London mayor, publicly joined the calls this week.
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.
A UN conference on the issue, planned for June but delayed by the Israel-Iran war, is now due to take place next week.
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 atrocities.
The US had been leading efforts to broker a Gaza ceasefire in recent months but Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, cut them off on Thursday.
He said the US was bringing home its negotiators, saying Hamas 'clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire'.
Mr Witkoff added that the US would now 'consider alternative options to bring the hostages home', without clarifying what they would be.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
‘One in four councils could lose money' under Government's funding proposals
Around a quarter of councils in England could lose money under the Government's proposed reforms to how local authorities are funded, analysis has found. A report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the changes would create big 'winners and losers' as ministers attempt to address perceived unfairness in levels of core funding across the country. Sir Keir Starmer's own council, Camden in north London, will be hit by the reforms when taking inflation into account, the IFS added. The think tank said Camden, along with other inner London boroughs including Westminster, will have less money to spend on services even if they increase council tax by the maximum amount allowed. Whitehall will provide a minimum level of funding, a so-called funding floor, for council leaders during the changes, but the IFS said overall cash for inner London town halls would be 11-12% lower in 2028-29 in real terms. The paper said: 'Around one in four councils would see real-terms falls in overall funding under the Government's proposals, with around 30 on the lowest funding floors seeing real-terms cuts of 11–12%. Conversely, another one in four councils would see real-terms increases of 12% or more.' The changes, which will come into effect from next year, are being consulted on by ministers. The Government plans to create a new methodology to assess local authority needs relatively and factor in population and deprivation. It will also assess need for adult and children's services. Overall spending will fall for 186 councils and rise by the same total sum for 161. One in 10 will see a fall in overall funding, while one in 10 will see an increase of 10% or more. The overall Government spend on local authorities will not change. The changes will be phased in across three years, from 2026/27 to 2028/29. Kate Ogden, co-author of the IFS report and a senior research economist with the think tank, said: 'England has lacked a rational system of local government funding for at least 12 years – and arguably more like 20. It is therefore welcome that the nettle of funding reform is being grasped, and some councils will benefit substantially under the new system. 'But the changes will sting for those councils that are assessed to currently receive too high a share of the overall funding pot, and so which lose out from moves to align funding with assessed spending needs.' The proposals are criticised in the report as 'not particularly redistributive to poor, urban areas of England'. It cites South Tyneside and Sunderland councils being among those to lose out from the reforms as slow population growth is accounted for. The report added: 'It is somewhat surprising that, on average, councils in the most deprived 30% of areas would see very similar changes in overall funding over the next three years to those for councils in the middle 40% of areas.' It noted that rural areas, which feared being badly hit by changes, will benefit from a 'remoteness adjustment' which will compensate areas with higher needs due to being far from large towns. London will gain the least, with a cash-terms increase in funding of 8% in the next three years. Analysis by the London Councils collective has highlighted the risk of the funding 'dramatically underestimating' needs for local services in parts of the capital. It noted the city has the highest rate of poverty in the country when housing costs are factored in. Outside the capital, the East Midlands (22%) and Yorkshire & the Humber (19%) are set to see the biggest increases in funding, with the South East set to see the smallest at 13%. However, the proposals have been criticised by youth charity the National Children's Bureau, which said it was 'significantly concerned' about the way the Government plans to work out needs for children's services. Ms Ogden added: 'The Government should consider giving highly affected councils which currently have low council tax rates greater flexibility to bring their council tax bills up to more typical levels to offset funding losses. 'More generally, reform of council funding allocations is just one part of the financial sustainability puzzle. Efforts to reduce demands on, and the cost of providing, local services through reform and the use of new technology will also be vital.' A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded means the link between funding and need for services has broken down, leaving communities left behind. 'That's why we are taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services, with the IFS recognising that our changes will better align funding with councils' needs.'
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Millions of households will be hit with council tax hikes to pay for Angela Rayner's Government funding reforms
Households in wealthy areas could be hit with huge council tax rises under Angela Rayner 's plans to divert more funding to deprived regions, experts warned last night. Reforms being brought in by the Deputy Prime Minister will mean many councils in the South – including London and the Home Counties – face swingeing cuts to their core budgets. Those in the Midlands and North can expect to see large increases. A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests the funding changes will see around a quarter of councils in England lose money in real terms – creating big 'winners and losers' as ministers try to address perceived unfairness in levels of funding across the country. However, the strength of cuts in wealthy areas that have historically kept council tax bills low means they will have less money to spend on vital services such as bin collections and elderly care – even if they increase bills by the maximum amount currently allowed. The report suggests that local authorities with low council tax that will lose funding should be able to make it up by hiking their rates on households even further. Kate Ogden, a senior research economist at the think-tank and the report's author, said: 'The Government should consider giving highly affected councils which currently have low council tax rates greater flexibility to bring their council tax bills up to more typical levels to offset funding losses.' Sir Keir Starmer's own council, Camden in north London, will be hit by the reforms when taking inflation into account, the IFS predicted. Overall spending will fall for 186 councils and rise by the same total sum for 161. One in ten will see a fall in overall funding, while one in ten will see an increase of 10 per cent or more. The overall Government spend on local authorities will not change, as the reforms are phased in across three years, from 2026/27 to 2028/29. London will gain the least under the changes with an increase in funding of 8 per cent in the next three years. Outside the capital, the East Midlands (22 per cent) and Yorkshire & the Humber (19 per cent) will see the biggest increases in funding, with the South East the smallest at 13 per cent. A spokesman for Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said it was 'taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services'.
Spectator
14 minutes ago
- Spectator
Mossad's secret allies in Operation Wrath of God
More than half a century ago Palestinian terrorists stormed the 1972 Munich Olympics, murdering two of the Israeli team and taking another nine hostage. The West German authorities, ill-equipped to deal with such incidents, agreed to fly the terrorists and their hostages to Egypt. Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, offered to mount a rescue operation. The Germans launched their own, resulting in the deaths of a police officer, four of the seven terrorists and all the hostages. One consequence was the Israeli government's Operation Wrath of God, a programme to assassinate any leaders or planners associated with the massacre. Ten missions were organised in Europe, each signed off by the Israeli prime minister Golda Meir on condition that no innocent bystanders were killed. There have been several books about the operation and a 2005 film by Steven Spielberg. Aviva Guttmann's account does not merely rehearse the stories, though each operation is outlined. Rather, she shows how the security services of European nations cooperated in identifying, monitoring and investigating international terrorists in general and how this aided Mossad in its pursuit of vengeance. Cooperation was via the Club de Berne, an intelligence exchange between eight countries founded in 1969 in response to the growth of international terrorism. Soon expanded to include other countries, among them Israel, it handled communications via encrypted telegrams (which Guttmann calls cables) using the code word Kilowatt. Guttmann found these communications in publicly available Swiss archives. She analyses each assassination, showing how the exchange of Kilowatt information helped Mossad identify and locate their targets, how the various security services learned about terrorist tactics, such as the recruitment or duping of young European women, and how hitherto unknown plots to murder or hijack were prevented. The first assassination was only a month after Munich. Wael Zwaiter, a young Palestinian translator in Rome, returned to his flat to find two men on the stairway leading to his apartment. They shot him 11 times, a bullet for each Munich victim. Journalistic opinion at the time and since concluded that Mossad got the wrong man – a bit-part player at best. But the Kilowatt telegrams show that he had an important logistical role. One operation that Mossad very definitely got wrong was in the small Norwegian town of Lillehammer in 1973 when they shot an innocent Moroccan waiter alongside his seven-months pregnant wife. Not only that, but the assassins were caught. Contributing factors to this debacle were an inexperienced, hurriedly assembled team and insufficient research – the poor man was confused with a real terrorist solely on photographic resemblance. Mossad teams generally comprised about 15 people – two to do the killing, two to guard them, two to organise cover and facilities, six to eight to research the target's routines and movements and two to communicate both within the team and back to Israel. Guttmann's principal concern – oft-repeated – is that European security services 'played a vital role in the organisation and execution of Operation Wrath of God'. The extent to which they did so knowingly is not always clear, although they could not have failed to know after Lillehammer. There is no doubt, though, that the information they exchanged with Israel (including their own investigations into Mossad killings) facilitated assassinations within their own borders. 'One would simply not expect Europeans to help kill Palestinians… Governments… failed in their duty to keep safe all citizens,' Guttmann notes. Her disapproval is evident throughout, though not explicitly stated or argued. This is a pity because the opposite case – whether it can be justifiable to murder those seeking to murder you – is nowadays too prevalent to be dismissed without argument. We witness its effects daily on our screens. She concedes, however, that all participants benefitted from the exchange and that Israel was itself a significant contributor. But in claiming that the various agencies 'did not need to respect the same normative considerations as official foreign policy lines' she implies that they acted independently or against their own governments' policies. On this side of the Channel at least, actions by the intelligence agencies, including exchanges with liaison services, require government approval. MI5 does not simply do what it likes. It is not the case that relying on 'foreign intelligence shows… weakness and dependency', as Guttmann says of Mossad. Nor are attributing information to 'friendly services within the region', or claiming a source has 'direct access', forms of boasting; they and other formulae are necessary and conventional guides to assessing reports. She is on firmer ground in questioning the effectiveness of targeted killings, as assassinations are now often called. In the short term they can be highly disruptive and satisfy an understandable thirst for revenge; but in the longer term leaders may be succeeded by those with renewed determination and security. Half a century on, the causes that prompted Wrath of God are with us still.
