Starmer has chance to right a historical wrong
Feverish debate over recent months has centered on whether the UK and France will recognize the state of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron said in February that recognition was 'not a taboo.' France and Saudi Arabia were due to hold a conference on the two-state solution in New York in June, but it was delayed by Israel's aggression against Iran. Instead, it is being held this week. But the UK's position has been far from clear? Will Prime Minister Keir Starmer agree to join in or will he delay?
No country in the world has more of a history of grappling with the issue of Palestine than Britain. It was, after all, the author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which it pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It did not mention a second state in that declaration. London had to grapple with this as the mandatory power all the way up to 1947, when it handed the issue over to the newly formed UN to resolve.
In November of that year, the UN General Assembly voted for partition. The UK abstained on that resolution. However, its exit from Palestine was one of the low points of its Middle Eastern colonial era. It made little or no attempt to thwart the war that started even before its troops had left.
Palestinians argue that, given all this, Britain has a particular historic responsibility toward Palestine. It should, many argue, be in the vanguard of pushing for the creation of that second state.
It was not until the Venice Declaration of 1980 that European powers including the UK committed to acknowledging the Palestinian right to self-government. Even after that, it was many years before Britain had any formal relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Successive governments acted merely as backing vocalists to the US position on most aspects of the Palestinian question.
With the Oslo Accords of 1993, the expectation that a peace process would lead to a Palestinian state grew. Britain and other donor states invested heavily in this option and aid to the fledgling Palestinian Authority grew as a result. It was all under the rubric that this would lead to a two-state solution, a secure Israel side by side with a state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders.
The Palestinian leadership shifted its strategy after the Second Intifada to pushing for recognition. The UNGA approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in 2012 and the state of Palestine also started applying for membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court.
In 2014, the UK government's position was outlined by then-Foreign Secretary William Hague, who said that London 'reserves the right to recognize a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.'
On Oct. 13, 2014, a debate took place in the House of Commons with a votable motion: 'That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.' The result of the vote was 274 to 12, a majority of 262 in favor of recognition. This was not binding on the government of the time but was a clear signal of parliamentary opinion. The low number of opponents to the motion indicated that few politicians were willing to oppose it in public.
Significantly, this motion was backed by the leader of the Labour Party at the time, Ed Miliband. He said that recognition was 'right, just, fair and in line with the values' of his party. This tied Labour to supporting recognition. Contrary to widespread belief, it was not his pro-Palestinian successor, Jeremy Corbyn, who first made this move.
Keir Starmer inherited this stance when he became Labour leader after the election defeat in 2019. But he made a significant change in Labour's position prior to the 2024 election. The manifesto committed the party to recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process. It stated: 'We are committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.'
The lack of clarity was deliberate. The decision on timing would be in the hands of the prime minister.
As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv.
Chris Doyle
Debate endured as to whether these positions meant that Israel had veto power. Linking recognition to the state of a peace process, when the official Israel government policy was not to enter into negotiations, meant this was, in effect, exactly the case.
Everything changed after Oct. 7, 2023. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. This has included a drive to recognize Palestine.
In May 2024, Ireland, Norway and Spain recognized Palestine. Israel withdrew its ambassadors from those states. Larger European states such as the UK rejected the opportunity to join this move.
This brings us to the present. Faced with Macron's announcement that France will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the focus returns to Starmer. He is facing considerable pressure to make the move immediately.
Cabinet ministers are reported to have lobbied Starmer on recognition. They include Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Foreign Secretary David Lammy is also likely to have been backing this move.
Now, 221 members of Parliament from nine parties have written to Starmer expressing their support for such a move. More than 130 of these are his own Labour MPs. Others are backing this letter even now. London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced his support, as did the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. The Financial Times quoted a senior Labour official as stating: 'The block on this is Keir himself as well as his senior advisers. They want to stay close to the US.'
Public opinion is more supportive of recognition than opposed. Recent polls indicate a large number of 'don't knows' but, in a June survey, 64 percent of Labour voters said they believe that the UK should recognize Palestine. Only 2 percent of these voters opposed any recognition. This highlights that Starmer would have the backing of the base of his political party if he were to go ahead.
What is holding Starmer back? The obvious answer is the US. Starmer is desperately keen to stay on constructive terms with American President Donald Trump. He will pick his battles with him — and it is unlikely one will be over the recognition of Palestine. There is also the issue of the hangover of the Corbyn era, when the Labour Party was swamped by accusations of antisemitism and lost considerable support within the British Jewish community. Starmer and his circle do not wish to relive that experience. Some argue that it is also Starmer's strongly held personal belief.
Two arguments seem to hold sway in 10 Downing Street. Firstly, that recognition would not bring peace any closer. The second is the Israeli line that this rewards Hamas and its atrocities. The counterargument is that, far from rewarding Hamas, it is the Palestinian national movement that would be boosted.
Is Starmer's position reversible? He has made U-turns on significant domestic policy, so it is possible. One argument is that if Starmer does not do this jointly with France, then in what circumstances would he do it? France would offer diplomatic cover and encourage other states to do the same.
On the other hand, Starmer is in many ways already treating Palestine as a state in all but name. Back in May, he met with PA Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa in Downing Street with both flags on display as if Mustafa was head of a state government.
Would UK recognition even matter? Israel seems to think so, as does the US. This explains their forthright condemnation of any state that recognizes Palestine.
Supporters of the move believe that this matters too. It would mean official recognition — decades too late perhaps — that Palestinians do have a right to self-determination, that they have national rights and that, just like Israelis, they have a right to a state of their own. Acquiring statehood would also have legal benefits for Palestinians.
Any UK recognition would be largely symbolic. However, if the UK were to recognize Palestine, it would be recognizing a state under occupation. That matters because it demonstrates that this 58-year-old Israeli occupation has to end — and the failure to do so must have consequences.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
UK shift on Palestine reinforces a historical fact
The UK recently departed from decades of foreign policy, announcing plans to recognize Palestinian statehood unless Israel takes immediate action to address the crisis in Gaza. This announcement, coming alongside France and Canada's similar moves, marks a growing shift in international support for Palestine as the UN General Assembly approaches in September. The UK's announcement, while following France and Canada's lead, is notably different in its conditional nature. The Starmer government made it clear that it would proceed with recognizing Palestine as a state only if Israel agrees to a series of significant actions. These include a ceasefire in Gaza, a commitment not to annex the West Bank, and a pledge to work toward a credible, long-term peace process aimed at achieving a two-state solution. This move has been welcomed by many in the international community, yet it has also faced significant criticism, particularly given the UK's historical role in shaping the very conditions that have led to the conflict. Before British rule, the region now known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, specifically the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, reorganized in 1872. This area was part of the larger Ottoman province of Syria, but was granted a special administrative status. It was only with the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1920 that the term 'Palestine' began to take on its modern political meaning. Under British administration, the land was known as Mandate Palestine, with Britain trying to balance its dual commitment to both the Zionist movement and the local Arab population. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by the British foreign secretary at the time, expressed 'support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine,' leaving a historical record of British diplomatic recognition of a territory named Palestine. Despite its longstanding presence in the region, Britain has never officially recognized Palestine as a state — until now. This shift is significant, but it comes with a complex legacy. During the First World War, Britain entered into negotiations with Sharif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. In exchange for Arab support, Britain promised Arab independence, a commitment later known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. Though the specific interpretation of Palestine's status in this agreement has been a point of contention, this is another colonial-era record of official British utilization of the term, Palestine. While Arabs saw it as a promise for the independence of Palestine, Britain later argued that Palestine was excluded from this promise due to its strategic importance and other conflicting commitments, such as the Balfour Declaration. These historical British footnotes regarding Palestine statehood have shaped the Palestinian cause just as they have defined the very recognition of the territory itself. During the British Mandate for Palestine, Britain assumed administrative control with the aim of helping the region transition toward self-governance. One of the notable steps taken by the British was the establishment of the Palestinian passport system, which formally recognized Palestinians as residents of the Mandate, though not as a sovereign nation. These passports, issued under the Passports and Immigration Regulations, granted Palestinians some travel and residency rights, but they did not recognize Palestine as a distinct nation-state. In the first decade of the Mandate alone, about 70,000 of these documents were issued. In the context of Palestine's century-long struggle, the issuance of these documents supports one more time British utilization of the term Palestine. While the UK's announcement to recognize Palestine is a significant diplomatic step, it must be understood within the context of Britain's historical involvement in shaping the region's political landscape. Besides, this recognition carries significant geopolitical and diplomatic implications. Both the UK and Canada have tied their recognition of Palestine to specific actions from Israel or the Palestinian Authority, such as halting the expansion of Israeli settlements and agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza. In doing so, they are responding to the urgent need for change in the region, while at the same time pushing for conditions that reflect their vision of a lasting, sustainable two-state solution. The UK's recognition, in particular, carries considerable diplomatic weight as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. If the UK follows through, it will join France, Canada, and several other nations in formally recognizing Palestinian statehood as the world gathers in New York this September. For the Palestinian Authority, this recognition is particularly pertinent as it legitimizes the organization's aspirations for a sovereign state and enhances its standing on the international stage. UK recognition carries considerable diplomatic weight. Zaid M. Belbagi In addition to this diplomatic shift, the UK has committed significant resources to alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The UK government pledged £60 million ($80 million) in humanitarian aid in July 2025 alone, focusing on healthcare, food, water, shelter, and emergency services. This includes funding for UK-Med field hospitals, which have treated over 500,000 people during the conflict. The UK has coupled its recent diplomatic overture with a continued program of humanitarian assistance. However, this diplomatic announcement raises questions about the future of UK-Israel relations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted strongly to the announcement, accusing the UK of rewarding 'Hamas' monstrous terrorism,' which signals potential strain in the longstanding bilateral relationship between the two nations, historically tied by economic, political, and diplomatic agreements. By the end of Q1 2025, total trade between the UK and Israel reached £5.8 billion, with Israeli investment in the UK contributing an additional £1 billion in gross value and creating about 16,000 British jobs. With an updated free trade agreement expected following the launch of talks in 2022, the UK's shift in policy could challenge the foundation of this economic partnership. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made the UK's recognition of Palestine conditional, requiring Israel to take substantive steps to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, allow UN aid, halt annexations in the West Bank, and commit to a sustainable peace process aimed at reviving the two-state solution. The British government has made it clear that recognition will be upheld if these conditions are not met. However, given the current stance of Netanyahu's government, it seems unlikely that these conditions will be accepted, making the recognition of Palestine increasingly probable in the coming months. As such, the UK's recognition of Palestine before September seems all but certain, confirming what has been a historical fact.
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
EXPLAINER: Can Lebanon disarm Hezbollah?
Lebanon's cabinet has told the army to draw up a plan to establish a state monopoly on arms in a challenge to the Iran-backed Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah, which rejects calls to disarm. WHY IS THERE A PUSH TO DISARM HEZBOLLAH NOW? Israel pummelled Hezbollah last year in a war sparked by the conflict in Gaza, killing many of its top brass and 5,000 of its fighters before a November truce brokered by the United States. That deal committed Lebanon to restricting arms to six specific state security forces, and further stipulated that it should confiscate unauthorized weapons and prevent rearmament by non-state groups. In the months since, a new Lebanese government vowed to confine arms across the country to state control, Hezbollah's main arms route was cut when its Syrian ally Bashar Assad was ousted in December and Israel attacked its sponsor Iran in June. The government is facing pressure from Washington and Hezbollah's domestic rivals to act swiftly amid fears that Israel could intensify air strikes on Lebanon. Despite November's ceasefire, Israel has continued to carry out strikes on what it says are Hezbollah arms depots and fighters, mostly in southern Lebanon. HOW IS THE UNITED STATES INVOLVED? In June, US envoy Thomas Barrack proposed a roadmap to Lebanese officials to fully disarm Hezbollah in exchange for Israel halting its strikes on Lebanon and withdrawing its troops from five points they still occupy in southern Lebanon. But Hezbollah and its main Shiite ally the Amal Movement, led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, say the sequencing should be reversed, with Israel withdrawing and halting strikes before any talks on Hezbollah's arms. Washington has grown impatient, demanding the Beirut government make the first move with a formal commitment to disarm Hezbollah. WHY IS HEZBOLLAH SO WELL-ARMED? After Lebanon's 15-year civil war ended in 1990 Hezbollah, founded by Iran's Revolutionary Guards in 1982, was the only group allowed to keep its weapons on the grounds that it was fighting Israel's occupation of the country's south. After Israel withdrew in 2000 the group did not give up its arms, arguing its ability to fight was still a critical element of national defense against future Israeli aggression. A ceasefire agreement after a war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006 was backed by a UN resolution demanding the disarmament of all militant groups — but Hezbollah again kept its weapons, accusing Israel of having violated other parts of the truce deal, which Israel denies. Hezbollah took over parts of Beirut in fighting in 2008, underscoring its dominance. The group exercised decisive sway over state affairs in the following years as its power grew. WHAT DOES HEZBOLLAH SAY AND COULD THERE BE CIVIL STRIFE? Hezbollah has called the government's decision to ask the army to draw up plans to disarm it a 'grave sin' that 'fully serves Israel's interest.' Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem rejected each clause in Barrack's roadmap and when he spoke on Tuesday, dozens of motorcycles with men carrying Hezbollah flags drove around the group's stronghold in Beirut's southern suburbs — a show of its enduring strength. Hovering over any attempt to force Hezbollah to disarm is the spectre of previous bouts of civil unrest, including the 2008 fighting, triggered by the government's attempt to shut down the group's military telecoms network — an important facility for the group, but still less central than its arms. WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL COMPLICATIONS? Lebanon's power-sharing system apportions public sector posts — including in parliament, the cabinet and other roles — to different religious sects according to quotas. The system is meant to ensure no sect is cut out of decision making, but critics say it leads to political paralysis. Shiite representation in both parliament and cabinet is dominated by Hezbollah and its political ally Amal. Two Shiite ministers were traveling during Tuesday's cabinet session, and the other two walked out in the final moments as the decision was being taken. Qassem has said any government decision would require a national consensus and may challenge the legitimacy of cabinet decisions taken without Shiites. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? The cabinet decision gave the army a deadline to submit a disarmament plan to the government by the end of August. Another session scheduled for Thursday will discuss Barrack's proposal. Some Lebanese parties may keep trying to find a workaround that avoids a confrontation between Hezbollah and the state while warding off heavier Israeli strikes.
Al Arabiya
3 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
At least 10 killed, 14 wounded in South Sudan cattle raid
At least 10 people have been killed and 14 wounded in a cattle raid in South Sudan, officials said Wednesday, weeks after the United Nations said cattle raids had killed hundreds since December. The impoverished nation, which gained independence in 2011, is once again seeing politically and ethnically driven violence even as it recovers from a civil war between 2013 and 2018. Clashes over access to resources and cattle rustling are frequent in the poverty-stricken east African nation, which also faces extreme droughts and floods. President Salva Kiir also recently declared a six-month emergency in Warrap State and Mayom County after a surge of violent inter-communal cattle raids. The attack on Tuesday evening by armed assailants in Central Equatoria State's Mangala area targeted herders who had transported some 5,000 cattle to a nearby market for sale. James Monday Enoka, spokesperson for the South Sudan police service, told AFP that 10 people were killed, including two security personnel deployed to guard the cattle, six civilians, and two attackers. Fourteen people were wounded, including five of the assailants, he said. 'The attackers ambushed the security forces guarding the traders and made away with an unknown number of cattle, though early estimates suggest more than 3,000 were stolen,' he said. The incident sparked condemnation and fears of renewed inter-communal tensions. Enoka said preliminary investigations suggested the attackers may have been armed youth from neighbouring Bor County of Jonglei State. The police said the assailants claimed the cows were stolen from them, and were now being sold by the traders. Gola Boyoi Gola, Chief Administrator of the Greater Pibor Administrative Area, condemned the attack. Such incidents impacted trade, discouraging those who had chosen to peacefully work rather than cattle raiding, he said. Authorities said the situation was now under control, with officers pursuing the attackers and cattle. In June, the United Nations said cattle raids and revenge attacks had killed hundreds in escalating intercommunal violence since December.
