Keir Starmer under pressure over 'flawed' peace plan for Gaza as Labour MPs turn on PM over plans to recognise a Palestinian state
The Prime Minister was warned by all sides that his intention to recognise the state of Palestine unless Israel meets his conditions represented gesture politics and risked rewarding Hamas.
He faced demands to spell out if he will still go ahead with the move by September if, as expected, the terror group refuses to release the remaining Israeli hostages.
And the PM was accused of failing to say what borders the UK would recognise or if Hamas would be allowed to play any role in the proposed state.
Even some Labour MPs are now urging Sir Keir to reconsider his proposals.
Last night the Prime Minister also faced criticism for attaching conditions to the proposal from Labour's London mayor.
Sir Sadiq Khan told LBC: 'Recognition should not be a bargaining chip. It's an inalienable right of the Palestinian people.'
Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel told the Mail: 'Labour has failed to produce a coherent plan which specifies how the UK will end Hamas's reign of terror and disband from any future government.
'They have not mapped out which borders will be recognised by the UK, or which capital or government will be in charge. No thought has been given to the real diplomatic implications.'
Pro-Israel Labour MPs raised concerns with No 10 about the failure to set conditions on Hamas.
One told the Daily Mail: 'The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable because it's not the right time.'
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'This is about the Palestinian people. It's about getting aid in to those starving children.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
6 minutes ago
- BBC News
Kemi Badenoch: I don't identify as Nigerian any more
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has said she no longer identifies as Nigerian and has not renewed her passport since the early who was born in the UK, grew up in both Nigeria and the US. She returned to England aged 16 because of Nigeria's worsening political and economic climate, and to continue her on former MP and television presenter Gyles Brandreth's Rosebud podcast, she said she was "Nigerian through ancestry" though "by identity, I'm not really".Last year, Badenoch faced criticism from Nigeria's vice president who said she had "denigrated" the West African country. Badenoch, who lived in Lagos, spoke at length about her upbringing on the podcast. "I know the country very well, I have a lot of family there, and I'm very interested in what happens there. But home is where my now family is."On not renewing her passport, she said: "I don't identify with it any more, most of my life has been in the UK and I've just never felt the need to.""I'm Nigerian through ancestry, by birth, despite not being born there because of my parents... but by identity I'm not really," she added. Badenoch said when she visited the country when her father died she had to get a visa, which was "a big fandango".She said her early experiences in Nigeria shaped her political outlook, including "why I don't like socialism".As a child "I remember never quite feeling that I belonged there", she went on, saying she recalled "coming back to the UK in 1996 thinking this is home".At the end of last year, Badenoch was criticised for saying she had grown up in fear and insecurity in Nigeria, which was plagued by corruption. The country's vice president Kashim Shettima responded, saying his government was "proud" of Badenoch "in spite of her efforts at denigrating her nation of origin". A spokesperson for Badenoch rebuffed the criticism.
The Herald Scotland
31 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Viral photo of 'starving' child in Gaza is misleading
This has led President Donald Trump to say he wanted to boost U.S. humanitarian efforts in war-torn Gaza. Hamas terrorists in Gaza started the war on Oct. 7, 2023, when they attacked Israel, slaughtering and kidnapping hundreds of Israeli citizens. Palestinian civilians are now paying the price for those atrocities. Opinion: Trump is racking up GOP wins no one else could. What do Never Trumpers say now? "We can save a lot of people," Trump said July 28, while meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland. "I mean, some of those kids are - that's real starvation stuff. I see it, and you can't fake it." But what if you can? New York Times does damage control after misleading image The photograph of one mother and child in particular has created a firestorm. The New York Times published a lengthy report online about alleged starvation in Gaza on July 24, featuring 18-month-old Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq. Photos show a child in distress, with his bones painfully visible. His mother tries to comfort him. The Times then ran the story on its print front page July 25, with the photo of the child and his mother as the leading image. The caption says the child was "born healthy" but is suffering from "severe malnutrition." Yet, it turned out there was more to the story. Five days after the story was published, on July 29, The Times issued an editor's note (buried at the bottom of the article) as well as a brief statement on its communications social media page that offered readers much-needed context. The note "clarifies" that the child suffers from serious "pre-existing health problems." "We have since learned new information, including from the hospital that treated him and his medical records, and have updated our story to add context about his pre-existing health problems," a Times spokesperson said in the statement. "This additional detail gives readers a greater understanding of his situation." That's putting it mildly. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The Times certainly wasn't alone in running images of Mohammed. Others, including CNN, did as well. After all, a picture paints a thousand words. And these photos went viral, making Mohammed the face of starving children across Gaza. It also buoyed the narrative pushed by the media and progressives that Israel is at fault for blocking aid from flowing to the Palestinians in need. Opinion: Sydney Sweeney's jeans ad triggers liberals. She looks good. They don't. Too many journalists have abandoned truth for advocacy But thanks to the reporting of independent journalists and pushback from Israel officials, the truth has come out. The state of Israel posted on social media another photograph of the mother and child, which features the child's older brother, who appears healthy. The contrast makes it clear that there's much more contributing to Mohammed's condition than lack of food. "BBC, CNN, Daily Express, and The New York Times spread a misleading story using a picture of a sick, disabled child to promote a narrative of mass starvation in Gaza - playing into the hands of Hamas's propaganda war," the post states. Share your opinion: Are you concerned about starvation in Gaza? Should US do more to help? Tell us. | Opinion Forum Americans deserve the full story. For instance, David Makovsky, director of the program on Arab-Israel Relations at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recently pointed out on X that a United Nations report shows that "87% of its 2,010 food trucks in Gaza (85% by tonnage) from May 19-July 29 were 'intercepted' - either peacefully by crowds or forcefully by armed actors." In other words, Hamas is intercepting food meant for civilians. That's worth reporting. Trump is right to feel empathy for the innocent civilians in Gaza, especially the children. But it's Hamas who deserves the blame for their plight - not Israel. As Trump noted in a July 31 Truth Social post, "The fastest way to end the Humanitarian Crises in Gaza is for Hamas to SURRENDER AND RELEASE THE HOSTAGES!!!" The truth is that Hamas is using the suffering of those who live under its grip to try to achieve its aims. That's the real tragedy. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
