UK will recognise state of Palestine unless Israel ends 'appalling situation' in Gaza
Speaking on Tuesday afternoon, Starmer set out the work that needs to be done between now and then, to prevent the UK from taking this step, including a huge increase in the supply of aid.
In an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, Starmer said the UK will join France in recognising the state of Palestine "unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution".
In recent days, the PM has faced pressure from political opponents, as well as those in his own party, after 255 MPs from nine seperate parties wrote a letter calling on the UK to act faster in recognising Palestine's statehood.
Last week, Starmer issued his strongest words yet on the worsening situation in the Middle-East and Tuesday's announcement calls with UK allies France and Germany and talks with the US President Donald Trump in Scotland this week.
The plan announced on Tuesday follows an emergency Cabinet meeting in Downing street, which ministers dialled into from their recess breaks.
After the meeting, No 10 briefed Labour MPs on what was discussed.
In recent days ministers have maintained the position that Labour will recognise Palestine as a state, as promised in their election manifesto - it was just a question of when.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, the prime minister said: "The suffering must end.
"I've always said that we will recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to a proper peace process at the moment of maximum impact for the two state solution.
"With that solution now under threat, this is the moment to act."
Experts have warned the amount of aid reaching the people of Gaza is a miniscule amount compared to what is needed to alleviate the humanitarian crisis.
Starmer said he discussed this with President Trump, adding the UK was "mounting a major effort to get humanitarian supplies back in.
"We need to see at least 500 trucks entering Gaza every day," he added.
The prime minister's announcement stops somewhat short of immediate recognition and is contingent on Israel failing to take the steps outlined by Starmer.
These include: Allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, committing to no annexations in the West Bank, agreeing to a ceasefire, committing to a long term sustainable peace.
Should Israel meet these commitments, the progress of which will be assessed in September, Starmer appeared to suggest the UK would not immediately recognise the state of Palestine, with the prospect of a more mutual two state solution now revived.
Speaking on the UK's expectations of Hamas, Starmer reiterated: "They must immediately release all of the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm, and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza."
The prime minister's announcement comes the same day as Gaza's Health Authority brought the death toll up to over 60,000 Palestinians in the 21-month conflict. Adding to this number, over night Israeli strikes killed more than two dozen people, mostly women and children, according to health officials.
About 1,000 of these people have been killed by Israeli fire while seeking aid since May, according to witnesses, health officials and the UN human rights office.
Israel, which controls large areas of Gaza where aid is distributed, says it has only fired warning shots at those who approach its forces.
Last week, experts warned the remaining population of Gaza is dangerously close to starvation, something Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied before being rebuffed by both Starmer and Trump.
Speaking from his golf resort, Donald Trump said his first priority was getting food to the people of Gaza, with Starmer saying the British public were revolted by the scenes they were seeing, calling them a humanitarian crisis.
Whilst the US President stopped short of stating his own postition on Palestinian statehood he did say he "didn't mind if he takes one," on Starmer's own stance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What's the best thing world leaders could do now? 'Let go' and 'embrace uncertainty'
If there is one thing that has marked the first year of Keir Starmer's premiership, it is a propensity for control – whether it's managing his own party, cracking down on civil liberties and protest, or instilling fear and anxiety in marginalised groups. For a centre-left party, the authoritarian strain Starmer has shown isn't exactly in line with the 'change' from the Tories that was promised. Governments seek to control populations, politicians seek to control their parties: this is nothing new and has been explicitly promoted since Machiavelli's The Prince was published in 1532. When leaders understand holding power as an end in itself, and see the method as controlling those they have power over, they block themselves from being able to bring about real change, because not 'losing control' becomes more important than any change they seek to create. And attempting to tightly control outcomes is ill suited to an increasingly complex and unstable world. At the same time, a different mode of control exists across the institutions that implement government policy. It is rules-based, promoted by steeply hierarchical structures fostering compliance, with rigid frameworks and inflexible mindsets, alongside a culture of overconfidence. These dynamics might seem benign or indeed necessary for a functioning bureaucracy. However, if out of balance, they can stifle the creative thinking and collaboration required to tackle complex challenges. Whether it is running consultations without the intention of deep engagement or listening, or an inability to incorporate the climate crisis into economic frameworks, by seeking to maintain control, institutions fall short of making meaningful change. Or to put it bluntly, key performance indicators and top-down thinking, combined with overzealous control freakery in government, will not have a chance of tackling climate breakdown, the cost of living crisis, the mental health epidemic or the loss of trust in politics. This situation of overlapping crises is what academics like to call a polycrisis, characterised by radical uncertainty and wicked complexity. Coming out of the pandemic, there has been increased discussion among policymakers recognising the need to acknowledge uncertainty. The value of this is clear: a report commissioned by the European Environment Agency and published in 2002 examined more than 100 years of policymaking, highlighting areas where uncertainty was not sufficiently acknowledged or taken into account when key decisions were made, such as during the BSE crisis. The authors concluded that, on many occasions, what was missing was the need for more humility in public policymaking about what was not known, stating: 'Decision-making is faced with the continual prospect of surprise. This is the condition formerly known as ignorance.' When institutions don't acknowledge what they don't know, they are left exposed and unprepared, and leaders obsessed with control and certainty block themselves from taking seriously differing perspectives. These dynamics are not well suited to a world that is being upended, with fascism and ecological collapse on our doorstep. However, the need for certainty and control isn't confined to the halls of power. Across psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, evolutionary biology and strands of spirituality, it is recognised that our brains are wired for certainty. Neuroscience studies show that the brain responds to uncertainty as a fear-based threat, triggering the threat response centre called the amygdala. There is an evolutionary survival reason for this, to detect and react to danger: 'How will I protect myself if I don't know what's coming at me?' Humans' over-alert threat response is also shaped by culture and society. We have a political-media establishment that is happy to pump out ready opinions that are not only factually baseless and untrue, but also provoke our threat response. And in times of economic decline and uncertainty, there is an opportunity for far-right groups to hijack and trigger emotional and psychological reactions towards marginalised groups. When imaginary fears are adopted and promoted by those in power, this isn't a mistake: it is a way to control. The dominant mode of power that continues to operate in society, and certainly in the Labour party today, is 'power over', which is built on control, domination and coercion. Leadership exerts pressure and stress, which can often make our amygdala threat response fire off. People become paranoid and go into overdrive trying to control everything. To an extent, I understand these responses. As an overconfident 27-year-old when I took on a director role, I certainly had an urge to control everything. I had to work hard against that tendency in order to lead in a collaborative way. The phrase 'holding uncertainty' was useful for me, because it meant I didn't always trust my first reaction in situations, or the narratives my brain was telling me. It reminded me to take on board different opinions, rather than simply dismiss them. Of course I made mistakes, but I was also open to examining my own controlling and perfectionistic tendencies. 'Embracing uncertainty' or 'letting go' has been mostly limited to the pages of self-help books, but letting go on an individual level doesn't make sense if you can't pay your rent, or your family is getting deported. However, if we apply it to our institutions, power centres, systems and structures, it can be a direction of travel against authoritarianism, moving us towards co-creation, pluralist thinking that goes beyond siloed categories, and building coalitions against the far right. We are a quarter of the way through this century, and the IPCC climate change report says that global temperature increase could be up to 5.7C by 2100, making much of the world unliveable. At the same time, fascism is on the rise. Renewing our democracies, shifting to a healthier culture, tackling the climate crisis and reorienting the economy will only happen if we shift our culture and institutions away from control. We need to let go. What have we got to lose? Fran Boait is a leadership coach, freelancer and writer
Reuters
40 minutes ago
- Reuters
Britain's AI hopes face harsh reality of high electricity costs
LONDON, Aug 7 - Britain's ambition to rev up its economy and tap the AI revolution faces the harsh reality that the abundant, clean and reliable electricity supply this requires is unlikely to materialise any time soon. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has laid out several major industrial policies aimed at reviving Britain's sluggish economy, including by pouring investment into the artificial intelligence industry, which the government says would increase productivity and create over $50 billion of gains per year. Data centres that power AI are, however, highly energy intensive, often requiring a stand-alone source of energy to operate. Electricity demand in the UK is set to grow from 319 terawatt hours in 2024 to 450 TWh in 2035, according to grid operator NESO, with power demand from data centres expected to triple over that period. But the government's current plans, opens new tab to meet these needs by modernising and expanding the country's ageing power system, particularly through low-carbon energy, could, paradoxically, complicate these efforts by further increasing Britain's already lofty energy costs. UK domestic power prices are among the highest of any developed economy. Wholesale electricity prices rose by 40% in the first half of 2025 from a year earlier to an average of $115 per megawatt hour, largely due to increased use of gas-fired power generation amid cold weather and reduced wind output, according to the International Energy Agency. That compares with average prices of $100 per MWh in Germany, $73 in France and $48 in the United States. The British government says it wants to reduce energy prices by minimizing the grid's reliance on volatile natural gas prices, boosting renewable power generation, battery storage solutions, transmission infrastructure and grid connections with neighbouring countries. But these upfront investments will – at least initially – raise the cost of energy for consumers. Offshore wind is the flagship of Britain's renewable energy strategy. The government aims to boost offshore wind generation capacity to 43-50 gigawatts by the end of the decade, from around 15 GW currently. Yet rising construction and financing costs led the government last month to increase the ceiling for the guaranteed price offered for offshore wind projects, or strike price, in this year's auction by 11% from the previous round. That followed a 66% rise in last year's auction. The actual strike price in the upcoming contract for difference (CfD) auction that starts this month could well be lower than the government ceiling. Danish developer Orsted in May halted the development of the 2.4 GW Hornsea 4 offshore wind project due to rising costs. Nuclear power is another low-carbon option the UK is exploring. The government announced on July 22 that it had secured investments to develop the Sizewell C nuclear plant in eastern England, Britain's second new nuclear plant in as many decades, which is expected to be operational by 2030. Nuclear power has the advantage of providing steady, low-carbon energy. But the current development cost of 38 billion pounds ($51 billion) for Sizewell is nearly double the initial estimate made earlier this decade, bumped up by inflation and higher material costs. Such cost overruns are quite common in nuclear projects. Focusing energy policy primarily on offshore wind and nuclear thus could further increase power bills, making British industry less competitive and voters less supportive of the energy transition. So does the government have any viable alternatives? Andrew Birch, CEO of OpenSolar, argues that Britain should fully liberalise its power market. This would mean removing subsidies such as CfDs and allowing the market to determine which forms of energy can most efficiently meet consumer needs. The idea has its merits, but given the crucial importance of energy to Britain's economy and security, particularly amid the energy transition and AI race, the government is unlikely to be willing to give up control. Another option would be transforming the UK's outdated, highly centralised power system into a digital operation built around many small generators and battery storage farms. That would have the added benefit of increasing the grid's efficiency. However, it would require billions of pounds in upfront costs. Of course, all of the infrastructure and investments could be assessed through general taxation rather than via energy bills, reducing consumers' sticker shock each month. But the only thing voters hate as much as high energy prices is higher taxes, so this option is unlikely to have significant political support. That would leave greater private-public partnerships and government debt-financed investment as possible solutions. The latter would need to be communicated clearly with markets to avoid any sustained backlash. UK investment in renewables, nuclear, batteries and transmission – if properly planned and executed – could ultimately pay off, but given all the challenges, the major benefits likely won't be seen for at least another decade, and this spells trouble for Britain's power-hungry AI ambitions. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Don't call rural voters Nimbys, Labour MPs tell Starmer
Sir Keir Stamer has been told to stop calling rural voters 'Nimbys' by Labour MPs representing rural seats. The Rural Research Group, which represents seats the party won for the first time at last year's election, branded the term 'toxic' and said may alienate voters in the countryside. Sir Keir and risked a further drop in the 'goodwill' shown by rural voters that handed Labour a historic election win last year. Labour has already been accused of betraying those voters by limiting inheritance tax relief for family farms in last year's Budget. The Prime Minister has regularly used the phrase, which means 'not in my back yard', to describe those he believes are blocking new housing and infrastructure which Labour sees as crucial to boosting economic growth. He said previously: 'For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges - using our court processes to frustrate growth. 'We're putting an end to this challenge culture by taking on the Nimbys and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation.' Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, the Labour MP who chairs the Labour Rural Research Group, said many people 'despise' the term. Ms Riddell-Carpenter told The Mirror: 'The term Nimby isn't just toxic, it's politically pointless. We win nothing by labelling people 'anti development' or 'anti growth'.' The Rural Research Group - set up to champion rural issues - published their first report on Wednesday on the attitudes of their countryside constituents. Their survey of 1,412 people found 56 per cent 'firmly do not see themselves as Nimbys'. More than 60 per cent also agreed developments in their areas should go ahead 'as long as it is delivered thoughtfully, and with consideration for local needs and identity'. The group's intervention will be seen as evidence of growing concern amongst rural MPs about Labour's poll ratings. Research group caucuses are becoming more popular in parliament, reflecting how Conservative factions sought to wield power under previous administrations. The Prime Minister has been told to show more recognition for rural identity, which Rural Research Group said had 'for too long been misunderstood and overlooked by policymakers'. A Rural Research Group poll showed that 65 per cent of voters have little trust in politicians. The MPs said: 'This should serve as a clear warning sign to all parties: disillusionment in rural Britain runs deep, and restoring trust will require more than promises - it must be backed by visible, long-term local action rooted in authenticity.'
