British Palestinians call UK plan to recognise Palestinian state 'absurd and performative'
After recalling his cabinet ministers from parliamentary recess on Tuesday, the prime minister said the UK will recognise a Palestinian state by September if Israel agrees to end the "appalling situation in Gaza".
The British Palestinian Committee (BPC), which represents the experiences of Palestinians in the UK, sent Sir Keir a letter ahead of the meeting urging him to take actions they said could make a real difference to people in Gaza.
They had urged him to not recognise Palestine as a state, calling it "symbolic" and said it "will not end the genocide and must not be used to deflect from accountability".
After Sir Keir announced his plan to recognise Palestine, Dr Sarah Husseini, BPC director, told Sky News the plan is "absurd while Israel continues to exterminate and starve women, men and children".
She added: "What is needed is urgent accountability for the genocide in Gaza and an end to UK military support to the state committing these crimes.
"This performative announcement does little to allay the concerns of Palestinians in this country. It will not relieve the government of its legal duties, and it will not silence the calls from the British public to end British complicity in the atrocities being livestreamed to their phones."
2:39
The war has now been going on for 21 months after it was sparked by Hamas militants killing 1,200 Israelis and taking 250 hostages on 7 October 2023. The militant group still holds 50 hostages, of whom only 20 are believed to be alive.
Sir Keir had been under pressure from his own MPs and other UK political parties, notably since France last week said it will recognise Palestine as a state, but had resisted - saying recognition needs to be part of a wider peace plan.
He has also refused to say whether "genocide" is taking place in Gaza - a claim Israel has vehemently denied.
Israel paused fighting in three areas for another 10 hours today to help aid distribution, the third day it has done so amid mounting international condemnation of the scenes of hunger unfolding in Gaza.
David Mencer, a spokesperson for the Israeli government, said: "There is no intent, (which is) key for the charge of genocide... it simply doesn't make sense for a country to send in 1.9 million tonnes of aid, most of that being food, if there is an intent of genocide."
Israel also rejected Sir Keir's plan and accused him of pandering to his MPs and the French.
The Israeli foreign ministry said: "The shift in the British government's position at this time, following the French move and internal political pressures, constitutes a reward for Hamas and harms efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and a framework for the release of hostages."
In the BPC's letter, it had said the government has "not only a political and moral obligation, but a legal obligation" to take three steps.
They are:
• Preventing and punishing Israel's "genocide" in Gaza and to end "all complicity in it"
• Apply "immediate and comprehensive sanctions on Israel"
• Safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and assembly in the UK
More specifically, the group called on Sir Keir to end "all forms of military collaboration, urgently review all public contracts to ensure they are not aiding unlawful occupation or genocidal acts, and support universal jurisdiction mandates".
22:05
The group said these steps would help towards ending the starvation crisis in Gaza, which it said had been made possible "due to the impunity granted to" Israel and "compounded by the active military, economic and diplomatic support from states such as the UK".
They also accused the UK government of introducing "draconian legislation to limit the rights" of British citizens campaigning to end the atrocities "and British complicity in those atrocities" - in reference to Palestine Action being designated as a terrorist organisation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
26 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Mauritius ‘to receive £35bn' for Chagos deal over 99 years
Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel accused ministers of trying to 'cover up' the cost of ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, accusing them of using an 'accountancy trick' to price the deal at £3.4 billion. The higher figure, released after a freedom of information request to the Government Actuary's Department, is a nominal amount. Adjusted to account for inflation, the deal is thought to be worth an average £101 million a year in 2025/26 terms, lowering the value to around £10 billion in today's money. The UK Government has agreed to cede the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius but retain control of the military base on Diego Garcia. Ministers feared that without a deal, the base's future was in doubt amid challenges in international courts and tribunals. Dame Priti Patel said it was a terrible deal for the taxpayer (Stefan Rousseau/PA) 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers,' Dame Priti wrote in The Telegraph, which first reported the figures. 'But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Dame Priti also warned that 'instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4 billion – still a vast waste of money'. She described the £35 billion figure as 'mind-blowing', and labelled Foreign Secretary David Lammy as ''Calamity' Lammy'. Dame Priti accused him, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Attorney General Lord Hermer and special envoy for the negotiations Jonathan Powell of being 'the worst team of negotiators in history'. The figures, seen by the PA news agency, show that the Government used a Treasury principle to reduce the figure by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year to £3.4 billion. This 'social time preference', used since 2003, is based on the idea that taxpayers would prefer to get their return on the deal sooner rather than later.
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Thangam Debbonaire's virtue signalling is already outdated
It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall of Keir Starmer's holiday villa as he reads about the latest attempt by one of his own appointees to the House of Lords to resurrect the culture wars back home. Will the Prime Minister welcome the intervention by the Baroness Debbonaire of De Beauvoir Town in the London Borough of Hackney, who has called for the statue of Clive of India to be removed from its plinth outside the Foreign Office? Or will he have the political nous to recognise that the last thing this Government needs is a rehashing of the interminable and pointless arguments about statues that characterised the very weird summer of 2020? Baroness Debbonaire is a former MP for Bristol, where Black Lives Matter protesters physically removed a statue of Edward Colston, the slave trader, and dumped it into the city's harbour. The same Left-wing people removed Debbonaire herself from elected office at last year's general election, though she at least managed to avoid being similarly dumped into the sea. Instead she was elevated to the Lords, from where she now pontificates. Debbonaire has more of a stake in the fate of the Clive statue than most: she has Indian heritage on her father's side, and her claim that the statue's removal would improve relations with India cannot be immediately dismissed. On the other hand, with a historic trade agreement between Britain and India just agreed, relations don't seem to be being undermined by Clive's continuing presence in Whitehall. The whole debate about statues, like so many divisive culture war topics in the UK, began in the United States, where the legacy of slavery and the civil war continues to reverberate across American society. But British activists simply could not have allowed the Black Lives Matter bandwagon to pass by without some vigorous attempts to jump aboard. This has come with illogical, though entertaining, consequences for the English language. Protesters in London took to the streets demanding 'Defund the police!' and 'Hands up, don't shoot!' These phrases were relevant in America but utterly absurd in a British context. Now safely ensconced in the Lords, from whence she cannot be evicted by the displeasure of voters, Baroness Debbonaire wants to step back in time to resurrect old battles about which very few people still care. Like many who abhor even the memory of the British Empire, she risks pretending that individuals like Clive played no part in Britain's activities on the sub-continent, or at least allowing the current generation not to have to face the reality of the historical record. Once we have removed the statues and portraits of everyone who had a questionable role in the British Empire, it will become harder, not easier, to point an accusing finger at what was done to foreign peoples in our name. 'Clive who?' Alas, this looks suspiciously like virtue signalling on Baroness Debbonaire's part. Which raises a question over the whole point of appointments for life to the Lords: isn't a life in ermine supposed to relieve its denizens of having to suck up to voters?
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Palestinians don't need a state. We need justice
There are few things the pro-Israel side gets right. But on one point – the Palestinians' rejection of two states – they've been more-or-less correct. For me, and many others, the fundamental injustice of the establishment of the state of Israel – which occurred through massive, deliberate and purposeful ethnic cleansing designed to create a Jewish majority in historic Palestine – meant that Israel never really attained moral legitimacy among Palestinians. As Robert Malley and Hussein Agha write in their new book, Tomorrow Is Yesterday: 'deep down, most Palestinians, though ready to accept Israel's existence, have not accepted its historical legitimacy', a statement whose veracity I can attest to. I remember being a 15-year-old in Palestine. I remember being held up at checkpoints in the West Bank, and being unable to visit Jerusalem or Israel because of the color of my ID card, in effect, because of my race. I could see how unjust, how retrograde, the entire basis of Israel was. No amount of German or western guilt over the Holocaust would make accept the idea that Jewish supremacy in Palestine was somehow desirable, or just. I think that continues to be true for the overwhelming majority of Palestinians. Possibly, for the overwhelming majority of humanity in the post-colonial global south. That's not to say that the political process – which commenced in Madrid and Oslo –wasn't undertaken in good faith by sincere and earnest people. I know some of the negotiators on the Palestinian side, like Diana Buttu, a principled advocate for Palestinian rights for decades now. Daniel Levy, who negotiated for the Israelis, has been an outspoken opponent of Israeli apartheid and the genocide in Gaza, and a formidable critic of the peace process in the past 20 years. At its height in 1995, the Oslo process, which was supposed to produce a Palestinian state, but more importantly, an end to claims, commanded the support of two-thirds of Palestinians. Many of them, like my parents, were prepared to close a chapter on history, to swallow their grievances so that their children may live. Similarly, the Palestinian negotiators I've met in the past two decades each understood the basic deficit of justice, the imbalance in the ledger, but they sought to abort a conflict which has ravenously claimed the future at every turn. In many cases their intentions were honorable. And yet, the failure of the Peace Process was pre-ordained, readily apprehensible to anyone who lived in the Occupied Territories in the 1990s, when the settlements truly metastasized. It should have been obvious to anyone with a map and a history book, too. That's because Zionism, Israel's animating ideology, adheres to classically European colonialism, which continues to be the best framework for understanding Palestine/Israel. Writing in October 2003 in the New York Review of Books, the moral thinker and historian Tony Judt described Israel as 'an anachronism', essentially a throwback to the Belgian Congo or 18th century Australia. Israel's extermination of native life in Gaza is anachronistic, too. It rhymes, in the worst way. There were glaring structural reasons for Oslo's failure as well. The fact that many of the American negotiators were Zionists was under-reported, and under-appreciated. Dennis Ross, who led the American team, is a Zionist, indistinguishable to my eyes from Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, two former Israeli prime ministers. Bill Clinton, who was president at the time, recently referred to 'Judea and Samaria', coded Zionist language for the occupied West Bank. In effect, Oslo pitted a stateless people against two nuclear-armed states led by people who were fundamentally invested in Jewish supremacy in Palestine. Emmanuel Macron's decision to recognize a Palestinian state in September amounts to little, as Donald Trump noted. I do not know Macron's intentions, but the Palestinians have never really warmed to European and American condescension, which is implicit in every conditional statement, every contingent incrementalism. Mark Carney's strange, confused statement that Canada would only accept a 'Zionist Palestinian state' is grimly entertaining for anyone with a basic grasp of the issues. Anyone who isn't a dilettante, in other words. Now, in the midst of a genocide, the Palestinians are best served by abandoning any effort to attain self-rule in the Occupied Territories. A reorientation towards basic rights is overdue, along with recognition the Palestinian struggle was never really about a seat at the United Nations, representation in Unesco, or Fifa. The force of the Palestinian cause rests in one principle: justice. Two years ago I thought justice meant a single state with equal rights between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. But now, the Palestinians are confronted by a difficulty: no one is able to articulate what justice means in the wake of so much slaughter, of so many dead men, women and children, dead babies. The genocide has changed my perspective on the majority of Jewish Israelis, and once they retire their guns and mortars – as one day they surely will – we will have to reckon with the moral, and actual, wreckage of their century-long Sturm und Drang, their violent ejaculations, in Palestine. Ahmed Moor is a writer and fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace
