UK to recognise Palestine as a state in September - unless Israel meets conditions
The UK follows France, which recently said it would also recognise Palestine as a state before the UN conference in September.
Ireland, Spain and Norway all officially recognised a Palestinian state last year.
Britain has long maintained that recognising Palestine as a state must be on condition of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
More than 200 MPs, including Labour chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee Emily Thornberry, have called on Foreign Secretary David Lammy to immediately recognise a Palestinian state.
However, Sir Keir Starmer had previously indicated he would not budge on the issue, saying he "very strongly" believes the only long-term solution to the Israel-Gaza conflict is a two-state solution.
Other Labour ministers had said recognising Palestine as a state would undermine Britain's position as an impartial broker in the war.
Ministers have previously said they were committed to recognising a Palestinian state but would only do so "at a time that is most conducive to the peace process".
Just before last summer's election, Sir Keir said recognising Palestine as a state could jeopardise the UK's relationship with the US.
The US, under Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, have maintained a veto policy when it comes to recognising a Palestinian state at the UN Security Council.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App . You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
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
Gaza latest: Netanyahu claims Starmer ‘appeasing terrorists' over pledge to recognise Palestine unless war ends
'It's outrageous': A Palestinian take on Starmer's announcement Sir Keir Starmer has angered some Palestinians following his conditional threat that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine. Palestinian activists, international charities, and British MPs have condemned what they call the use of Palestinian statehood as a 'bargaining chip'. 'It's outrageous that our right to statehood is being made conditional on the actions of the very regime that's occupying and killing us,' West Bank resident and activist Mohammad Hesham Hureini told The Independent. 'Recognition of Palestine shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip. It's a basic right, not something we have to earn by waiting for Israel to stop its violence,' he added. 'The world shouldn't be bargaining with Israel while a genocide and famine are unfolding in Gaza. 'What's needed is real international pressure to stop the crimes—not more conditions placed on Palestinian rights that should have been recognized long ago.' Alex Croft30 July 2025 05:01 Britain 'joining the momentum' for Palestinian statehood, says Paris French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot has written on social media site X that Britain was "joining the momentum initiated by France for the recognition of the state of Palestine". "Together, through this pivotal decision and our combined efforts, we are putting an end to the endless cycle of violence and reopening the prospect of peace in the region," Mr Barrot said. "Nothing can stand in the way of a just and clear idea." Alex Croft30 July 2025 04:00 'Everyone is horrified' by conditions in Gaza: UK Chancellor Speaking before joining the UK's emergency cabinet meeting, the UK Chancellor said 'everyone is horrified' by conditions in Gaza, but declined to comment on whether the UK would recognise a Palestinian state. 'It is vital that humanitarian aid can get into Gaza and it is also essential that the hostages - who've been held since the 7 October 2023 - are released,' Rachel Reeves told the BBC on a visit to a mine in Cornwall. Ms Reeves said she did not want to 'pre-empt' the discussions but added: 'This government is committed to a two-state solution in the Middle East, with a safe and secure Israel sitting alongside a viable, and peaceful, Palestinian state.' The emergency meeting is currently underway. Alex Croft30 July 2025 03:01 Why have two Israeli rights groups decided to accuse their country of genocide? Earlier we brought you the news that two major rights groups in Israel, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, have accused their country of genocide for the first time. The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticice Israel's conduct in Gaza. Guy Shalev, director of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, said the Jewish-Israeli public often dismisses accusations of genocide as antisemitic or biased against Israel. "Perhaps human rights groups based in Israel, and coming to this conclusion, is a way to confront that accusation and get people to acknowledge the reality," he said. Israel asserts that it is fighting an existential war and abides by international law. It has rejected genocide allegations as antisemitic. It is challenging such allegations at the International Court of Justice, and it has rejected the International Criminal Court's allegations that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant committed war crimes in Gaza. Both face international arrest warrants. Alex Croft30 July 2025 02:00 Trump disagrees with Starmer recognition but refrains from criticising him Donald Trump has disagreed with, but avoided criticising, moves by French president Emmanuel Macron and British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer to potentially recognise a Palestinian state. 'That's OK,' he said of Sir Keir and Mr Macron's positions. 'But you know, it doesn't mean I have to agree.' The US president was speaking while on Air Force One, as he travels back to the US following a five day trip in Scotland. He says he did not discuss recognition with Sir Keir during their bilateral meeting on Monday. Alex Croft30 July 2025 01:00 Young mother struggles to breastfeed 11-month old son in Deir Al-Balah Noura, 27, carefully cradled her 11-month toddler while waiting in line to get him screened for malnutrition at CARE's primary healthcare centre in Deir Al-Balah. He has already missed some of his developmental milestones like crawling and teething. 'My son is supposed to be drinking formula milk, but there is none to offer. I give him an empty feeding bottle just to distract him,' Noura told CARE. 'I am barely able to breastfeed him, my milk has almost dried up because I'm also not eating well.' Alex Croft30 July 2025 00:00 Recognition 'rewards Hamas for 7 October', says Reform Recognising Palestine as a state only serves to reward Hamas for its actions on the 7 October, a Reform spokesperson has said. The spokesperson told The Telegraph: 'Recognising Palestine as a state does little more than reward Hamas for their actions on October 7. 'This decision is being made at the wrong time and is a knee-jerk reaction by Keir Starmer to appease the hard left forces inside and outside of his party.' Alex Croft29 July 2025 23:30 Davey: Palestine recognition should not be used as a bargaining chip Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey has criticised the government's use of Palestinian statehood as a bargaining chip with Israel. 'Recognition of the state of Palestine should not be used as a bargaining chip,' Sir Ed wrote on X. 'It should have happened months ago. We also need far greater action to stop the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, including fully ceasing arms sales and implementing sanctions against the Israeli cabinet.' Alex Croft29 July 2025 23:10 Corbyn: 'Palestinian statehood is not a bargaining chip' Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who now leads the Independent Alliance of MPs in parliament, has responded to Sir Keir Starmer's Palestinian statehood announcement. 'Palestinian statehood is not a bargaining chip. It is not a threat,' Mr Corbyn wrote on X. 'It is an inalienable right of the Palestinian people. 'Our demands on this shameful government remain the same: end all arms sales to Israel, impose widespread sanctions, and stop the genocide, now.' Alex Croft29 July 2025 22:57 Saudi Arabia and France call on UN countries to support declaration on two-state solution Saudi Arabia and France on Tuesday called on countries at the United Nations to support a declaration that outlines "tangible, timebound, and irreversible steps" towards implementing a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. The seven-page declaration is the result of an international conference at the UN this week - hosted by Saudi Arabia and France - on the decades-long conflict. The United States and Israel boycotted the event. "We call on you to support this document before the end of the 79th session of the General Assembly by contacting the missions of Saudi Arabia and France in New York," Saudi foreign minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud told the conference on Tuesday. "Following the ceasefire, a transitional administrative committee must be immediately established to operate in Gaza under the umbrella of the Palestinian Authority," it reads. The Palestinian Authority currently exercises limited self-rule in the West Bank under Israeli occupation. Alex Croft
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
An effigy of refugees, burned by a crowd: this is where Europe's brutal fantasy of border control has led us
The burning of an effigy of refugees on a boat to the cheers of a riled-up crowd in Moygashel, Northern Ireland shows where we are today. A decade has passed since Europe's border crisis in 2015 and the shock caused by the image of Alan Kurdi, whose little body was found washed up on a Turkish beach. Sentiments of welcome and solidarity were short lived and have given way to a seemingly never-ending obsession in Europe with 'stopping the boats' and reducing the number of migrant arrivals. In the decade since Angela Merkel's 'we can do it', we have become used to hearing that 2015 must not be allowed to happen again. Across Europe, politicians routinely vow to fight migration, 'smash' smuggling gangs, ramp up border controls and build up detention and deportation capacities. A much-criticised migration pact was agreed upon while the annual budget of Frontex, the EU border agency, has seen a staggering increase, from €97.9m in 2014 to €922m in 2024. Entire border zones have become militarised and the guarding of borders has been 'externalised' so that non-EU countries can prevent migration on Europe's behalf. In this past decade, we have also become desensitised to the inevitable consequences of such repressive policies in terms of human suffering and loss. Reports and images of people forced into Libyan torture and rape sites, described by German diplomats as 'concentration camp-like' in 2017, no longer prompt a public outcry. Neither do the deaths of thousands in the Mediterranean every year or the criminalisation of activists who seek to avert mass drowning. Shipwrecks have become so common that they hardly make it into the news. What does make the news, however, is the discourse on migration that characterises it as an emergency. Often dominating headlines, it has become a permanent feature, a sort of enduring state of exception that far-right forces capitalise on. Instead of offering alternative visions of migration, parties of the so-called 'centre' or 'mainstream' amplify such crisis talk, catering to simplistic control fantasies and offering one solution only: more borders. Whether it's the Christian Democrats or the Social Democrats in Germany, Labour in the UK or Emmanuel Macron's government in France, mainstream parties seek to outdo parties to the right of them by pushing increasingly extreme and racist narratives, at times dangerously close to invasion and 'great replacement' conspiracies. In January, the French prime minister, François Bayrou, spoke of a 'feeling of submersion' in view of the migrant presence in France. In May, the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, suggested that the UK was at risk of turning into an 'island of strangers'. In June, the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, claimed on Fox News that the past decade's migration to Germany had led to 'imported' antisemitism, so that fighting antisemitism meant fighting migration. Promising to solve societal problems through repressive migration policies and more borders, these 'centrist' or even 'progressive' political leaders are selling a dangerous fantasy. In a world riven by war, genocide, economic disparity, a climate catastrophe and growing authoritarianism, borders will never succeed in averting people's desire and need to migrate or flee. Indeed, the fantasy of borders is met, time and again, by reality: ongoing migration. Distracting from the inability to address any of the structural issues underpinning migration and displacement, and in ever-greater desperation, we are being served 'border spectacles' – performative but nonetheless violent and racist acts of exclusion, demarcating those who supposedly belong and those who do not. In the long shadow of the 'crisis' of 2015, we see intersecting developments across Europe that should worry us. First, a shift to the far right and growing authoritarianism. In Germany, the extremist Alternative for Germany (AfD) has comfortably established itself as the largest opposition party, at times leading in the polls, as do the Reform UK and National Rally parties in the UK and France respectively. Supposedly mainstream political parties have not only failed to stop the rise of the far right, they have contributed to mainstreaming their rhetoric and authoritarian policies. More than that, by intensifying migration cooperation with repressive regimes outside Europe, they have contributed to the rise of authoritarianism elsewhere. Tunisia serves as one of many examples where Europe's financial and political support has strengthened the security apparatus of its authoritarian leader, Kais Saied, who himself has spewed great replacement theories on migration. Second, a shift away from the idea of a 'post-national' community. The constant promise that borders will solve migration has reinforced the illusion that renationalisation is the answer. The departure of the UK from the EU, whose disastrous 'taking back of control' in fact prompted an increase in migration post-Brexit, may be the most obvious example. Sign up to Headlines Europe A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day after newsletter promotion However, throughout the EU, we see an increase in 'borderisation' – the erection of barriers and border controls between member states – as a way to supposedly reclaim 'lost' sovereignty. The very core of the European project – internal freedom of movement – is at risk and points to a growing estrangement from the idea of Europe as a post-national community. Third, an assault on legal norms and institutions. The normalisation of anti-migration violence, including through mass pushbacks, has led to a clear erosion of human rights. Indeed, some EU member states have legalised human rights violations at borders while Greece decided to temporarily suspend asylum altogether this July. International institutions meant to protect refugees, including the UN refugee agency, have been under assault while we see a concerted hollowing out of international rights standards and the gradual death of asylum. Even if the European obsession with borders fails to do what is desired – effective deterrence – it has real and dangerous consequences, for those seeking refuge and for us all. The burning of an effigy of refugees is what happens after a decade of dehumanisation. In the intervening years, many – from the supposed centre to the far right – have implanted a dangerous border fantasy that will continue to divide, hurt and kill. Dr Maurice Stierl is a migration and border researcher at the University of Osnabrück, Germany
The Guardian
a minute ago
- The Guardian
Starmer hopes his ‘pathway to peace' will end war in Gaza. History suggests he may struggle
The former British prime minister Harold Macmillan once said that there was no problem in the Middle East because a problem has a solution. Keir Starmer is the latest incumbent in No 10 to try to prove Macmillan wrong through a plan that has been described by Downing Street as 'pathway to peace' for Gaza and the wider region. The record of Britain's previous interventions do not augur well. The famous commitment drafted by the then British foreign secretary Sir Arthur James Balfour, to 'view with favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people', was integrated into Britain's UN mandate over Palestine between 1923 and 1948 and paved the way for the birth of Israel. But the declaration contained a key qualification: nothing should be done to prejudice the 'civil and religious rights' of Palestine's 'existing non-Jewish communities'. Britain afforded Israel de facto recognition on 30 January 1949, in the last stages of the first Arab-Israeli war, and de jure recognition on 27 April 1950. For many Palestinians, the second part of the Balfour promise is yet to be made good. In the Arab nationalism of the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Britain saw a destabilising force that might subvert pro-western states such as Jordan. For Israel, Nasser was a threat for allowing Palestinian militants permission to launch attacks against it from the Gaza Strip, then controlled by Egypt. Matters were brought to a head when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal Company on 26 July 1956. Under a secret agreement, Israel agreed to attack Sinai, the Egyptian peninsula between its western border and the canal. British and French forces would then intervene to 'separate the combatants', seizing control of the canal zone. The Anglo-French element was a debacle. The Israeli part of the plan went well. Israeli forces captured Sinai in its entirety, destroying three Egyptian divisions. From then on Israel was considered to be a major fighting force by the west. Britain exported arms to it from the 1960s in the belief that a strong Israel would reduce the chance of further war in the region. In the aftermath of the six-day war in 1967 between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria and Jordan, Britain played a key role in drafting United Nations security council resolution 242. It embodies the principle that has guided most of the peace plans that have followed – the exchange of land for peace. The resolution called for the 'withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict', such as Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 'respect for and acknowldgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force'. It would come to be criticised for being vague and for its depiction of the Palestinian people as lacking national rights, describing their cause as the 'refugee problem'. Britain's role as a key mediator was overtaken by the US when President Jimmy Carter brought the Egyptian leader, Anwar Sadat, and the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, together at Camp David. The plan sought to set up a 'self-governing authority' in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to eventual 'final status' talks. The European and British perspective was voiced in the Venice declaration of 1980 issued by the then European Economic Community. 'The Palestinian people … must be placed in a position, by an appropriate process defined within the framework of the comprehensive peace settlement, to exercise fully its right to self-determination,' it said. It further added that the Palestine Liberation Organisation must be involved. This was controversial as the PLO was at this stage calling for Israel's destruction. It prompted criticism from the US. But even under the solidly pro-Israel leadership of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, British policy was to avoid straying too far from the European consensus. Major in 1995 became the first western leader to meet Yasser Arafat inside the Palestinian Authority area which had been created through the Oslo accords overseen by the US president, Bill Clinton. The second intifada, an uprising which raged from 2000 to 2004, took place after Arafat did not agree to the terms of the two-state proposals tabled by the-then Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, and Clinton. The intifada overlapped with the 'war on terror' that followed the 9/11 attacks. Tony Blair used his close relationship with the US president George W Bush to issue the 2003 roadmap peace plan that would resolve all issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005 through implementation of a two-state solution. It failed. After leaving Downing Street, Blair was appointed as the envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East. The quartet consisted of the UN, the EU, the US and Russia. Blair sought to develop the Palestinian economy and improve governance but struggled to make headway. He resigned after nearly eight years in the role, with Palestinians criticising what they saw as his closeness to Israel. Britain's policy under the succeeding prime ministers – Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak – has been criticised for reciting the mantra that a two-state solution is the only way forward without expending energy or political capital on the goal.
