Starmer says U.K. will recognize Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire
Mr. Starmer called ministers together for a rare summertime Cabinet meeting to discuss the situation in Gaza.
He told them that Britain will recognize a state of Palestine before the United Nations General Assembly, 'unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a two state solution."
Britain has long supported the idea of an independent Palestinian state existing alongside Israel, but has said recognition should come as part of a negotiated two-state solution to the conflict.
Pressure to formally recognize Palestinian statehood has mounted since French President Emmanuel Macron announced that his country will become the first major Western power to recognize a Palestinian state in September.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
30 minutes ago
- The Wire
The ‘Symbol of Shame' an Israeli Minister Saw in Biafra 55 Years Ago Haunts His Nation Today from Gaza
Eitay Mack But inside Israel, starvation due to its conduct in Gaza is being denied, just as the pandemic was some years ago. In a plenary session of the Knesset held on January 14, 1970, Israel foreign minister Abba Eban addressed the war in Biafra: 'Greater and more terrible than the suffering of war was the disaster of the siege, whose victims were civilians – most of them children – who came into the world only to live a brief and tragic life full of torment. Upon the people of Biafra was fulfilled the horrifying verse from the Book of Lamentations: 'Those killed by the sword are better off than those who die of hunger'.' Eban added, 'The Biafran child – with his swollen belly, emaciated limbs and wide, pleading eyes – became the symbol of this generation's shame.' To many around the world today, Israel's conduct in the war in Gaza is seen as the shame of our own generation. In August 1968, Emmanuel Ron, Israel's chargé d'affaires in Lagos at the time, reported that senior figures in Nigeria's federal government – who were suppressing the Biafran rebellion – defended themselves against international criticism by saying: 'Starvation is a legitimate weapon in warfare. It was used as a lawful method by the advanced nations in their wars, and there is no reason Nigeria should act differently'. Similarly, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government and its supporters claim that Israel is being unfairly criticised by the international community for the blockade it has imposed on Gaza. Israel has avoided seriously addressing international criticism – shared by most Western democracies – and confronting undisputed facts: On March 2, the Netanyahu government completely halted the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza; It subsequently approved an aid plan that, from the outset, promised only a 'minimum amount of food'; and even during the limited implementation of this plan, Israeli forces killed hundreds of starving human beings who came to receive food. Meanwhile, a disturbing 'national sport' has emerged in Israel: the debunking of photographs coming from Gaza. This campaign involves officials, journalists, influencers and others, all working to discredit visual evidence of suffering rather than addressing its root causes. The investigation carried out by participants in this 'sport' is not complicated, as in many cases information about the pre-existing health conditions of the children and infants shown in the footage has already been published by the international press or shared by their families and doctors in Gaza. The widespread surprise is difficult to understand – naturally, it is logical that the first victims would be individuals from at-risk groups, with pre-existing health issues and weakened immune systems, who require specialised food and medical care and are especially vulnerable to the consequences of the overall health deterioration affecting the entire population densely concentrated by Israel. Therefore, the denial of the starvation in Gaza most closely resembles the denial of the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel. Back then, too, there were those who conducted 'investigations' to reveal to the public that hospitalised patients and the deceased had pre-existing health conditions. This was despite the fact that the Ministry of Health was transparent on the issue and its representatives repeatedly emphasised that the pandemic posed a particular danger to these individuals and other at-risk groups. The reality created by a series of reckless decisions made by Netanyahu's government has even managed to penetrate the walls of the White House. US Vice President J.D. Vance stated, 'I don't know if you've all seen these images. You have got some really, really heartbreaking cases. You've got little kids who are clearly starving to death … Israel's got to do more to let that aid in.' President Donald Trump remarked, 'We can save a lot of people, I mean some of those kids. That's real starvation; I see it and you can't fake that […] I want to make sure they get the food.' In response, the Netanyahu government paradoxically claims that there is no hunger. However, if hunger does exist, it blames solely Hamas and the UN. Despite this, the government has agreed to airlift humanitarian aid and allow additional ground routes for aid to enter the Gaza Strip. This must not be a temporary gimmick designed merely to ride out the wave of criticism until global attention shifts elsewhere. After 21 months of war, the health damage to the starving people in Gaza is cumulative, and small, short-term relief will not be enough to repair it until Israel enforces the next halt. Consistently, polls show that most Israelis support ending the war and the release of all hostages held in Gaza. However, this is not enough. Until the long-awaited end of the war, these same Israelis must also raise their voices about how the war is being conducted and demand the removal of all barriers to the free entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. An Israeli citizen cannot claim that the Netanyahu government does not represent them while remaining silent in the face of one of its most immoral and brutal actions. There were times when the Knesset thought the same way. On July 22, 1968, it passed a resolution regarding the war in Biafra, calling on the warring parties to 'allow the transfer of substantial aid to those in need, by land, sea and air. Until the conflict is resolved, essential aid to save the lives of women and children, and to ensure food and assistance for the Ibo population and other tribes who are starving and suffering, must not be blocked.' This was true for Biafra then, and it is true for Gaza today. Eitay Mack is an Israeli human rights lawyer and activist who represents Palestinian victims of terror. This article first appeared on the Hebrew media platform The Seventh Eye. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Mint
36 minutes ago
- Mint
Has the world entered the era of ‘slowbalisation'?
Under Trump 2.0, it appears that even the fig leaf of environment sensitivity has been dispensed with, and a robust and aggressive protectionist stance is the strong flavour of his Second Coming. In the EU, German and French industrial policies include huge subsidies and protectionist 'Buy European' clauses. India's 'Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan' (self-reliance campaign) and 'Vocal for Local' programmes are illustrative of the rapidly changing global economic landscape. Inherent in this new phase is the risk of deglobalization. A December 2022 Goldman Sachs report, The Path to 2075: Slower Global Growth, But Convergence Remains Intact, covering 104 countries, underlines that two decades of emerging markets convergence has resulted in a more equal distribution of global incomes. But while income inequality between countries fell, income inequality within countries has risen. This poses a major challenge to the future of globalization. The Economist, on the other hand, argues that we have entered the 'slowbalisation' era: World trade rose from 39 per cent of the world GDP in 1990 to 61 per cent in 2008, and fell to 58 per cent by 2019, mostly because of a slowdown in trade from emerging markets. Cross-border investments and bank credit flows are down too…. Services are playing a growing role in global value chains. Trade flows based on labour-cost arbitrage are declining in some value chains. And global value chains are becoming more knowledge-intensive. The question posed by Marcos Troyjo, former president of the New Development Bank (NDB), in 2021 is still as relevant as it was four years ago—'With so much disconnect around the world, the question today is: will deglobalisation linger or are we walking into something else?' To this, we may add our own queries: What will be the defining characteristic of this different phase we are entering? Is globalization metamorphosing yet again? First, the purchasing power and relative economic clout of various nations are changing. As of end-2021, the combined GDP, measured in PPP terms, of the G7 was over 21 per cent less than that of the seven leading emerging economies, including China. This marks a historic and historical geo-economic shift with profound consequences for the wealth of nations and the well-being of their citizens. These consequences also relate to, as Adam Smith originally noted in his formulation of a comprehensive system of political economy, the fourth or final stage of commercial interdependence. One view is that emerging markets are increasing their commercial exchange with each other, and may offer a larger market for trade in the wake of creeping protectionism in OECD states. The second characteristic concerns how GVCs are being rerouted by the burgeoning presence of emerging economies. This phenomenon is much broader than global supply chains as consumption will also be impacted. Geopolitics is an important driving force in reconfiguring these new value chains. Equally, if not more, significant is the evolution of some of the world's most major economies. China, experts say, is no longer a low-cost country or a simple manufacturer of low-value-added goods; it has become one of the most important sources of FDI. It is leading the world in many state-of-the-art technologies, and accounts for an increasing share of high-technology embodied manufacturing products. As a result, some lower-value-added economic activity has migrated from China to neighbours such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar and Bangladesh, and a trickle to India. It is a phenomenon that is not new in history—in the 1970s and 1980s, the Asian Tigers displaced Japan as low-cost, low-wage manufacturers in the region. Simultaneously, international trade and investment agreements are influencing the rerouting of GVCs. A prominent example is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which was signed by 15 Asia-Pacific nations in November 2020. There is consensus among experts that in a trade system 'where the term 'international" applies to the exchange of goods even at an intra-firm level', it should come as no surprise that these trade agreements influence the flows of investment. The regional consolidation of trade in the post spaghetti-bowl era holds the danger of India being left out. Ambitious countries are also promoting domestic economic reforms that allow their economies to become more business-friendly, and open to FDI while being nimble about addressing core security concerns. A case in point is China, which announced in March 2024 that it would 'further shorten the negative list for foreign investment and implement pilot programs to ease access for global companies in the fields of scientific and technological innovation […] and broaden market access for foreign investment.' The PRC has also promised to remove restrictions on foreign participation in the manufacturing sector, and continues to increase its openness in hi-tech sectors such as telecommunications and healthcare. Its stated policy is that foreign financial entities will be granted greater access to the country's banking and insurance sectors, and the operational scope for foreign financial institutions will be expanded in China's domestic bond market as well. In parallel, the disarray in the WTO has been exemplified by the tariffs imposed on ally and adversary alike by Trump in 2025, which follow the unilateral imposition of higher tariffs on select commodity exports to China by the US in 2018, and the passing of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) by the EU in 2022. These measures are considered to be violative of the most favoured nation (MFN) principle of the organization. The US' virtual boycott of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has seriously dented the WTO's ability to oversee a rules-based multilateral trading order. The final issue impacting globalization is talent. In this context, talent means going beyond the economic theory of comparative advantage. 'Countries need to ask themselves: What can I do besides what I am already very good at?' This is also the basis of Michael Porter's compelling argument that it is 'competitive advantage' and not the traditional comparative advantage that drives world trade flows. Countries which build their competitive advantage through the accumulation of human talent, technology, and an ecosystem supportive of enterprise have outscored others which had a comparative advantage but could not convert it to their benefit. The striking contrast between Asian economies including China and their Latin American counterparts is ample proof of this phenomenon of the supremacy of competitive advantage. India will have to learn from this contrasting experience. Excerpted with permission from Rupa Books from Everything All At Once: India and the Six Simultaneous Global Transitions by Rajiv Kumar and Ishan Joshi.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Trump's first reaction after reports of India possibly halting Russian oil imports; 'I don't know if...'
Trump's first reaction after reports of India possibly halting Russian oil imports; 'I don't know if...' US President Donald Trump said it would be a 'good move' if India really stopped buying oil from Russia, although he was not sure if the news was true. When asked by news agency ANI, if he had any specific plans to talk to Prime Minister Narendra Modi or impose any penalties, Trump replied, 'I heard that India is not going to buy oil from Russia anymore. I don't know if that's true. But if it is, it's a good step. Let's wait and see what happens.' Earlier on Friday, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) clarified that India's energy purchases are guided by market dynamics and national interests, adding that the government is unaware of any specific developments regarding Indian oil companies pausing Russian imports. #WATCH | 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia. That's what I heard, I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens…' says, US President Donald Trump on a question by ANI, if he had a number in mind for the… — ANI (@ANI) August 1, 2025 These remarks come at a time when the US is putting more pressure on countries to stop trading with Russia, especially in oil, as part of its efforts to cut off money going to Moscow during the ongoing war in Ukraine. India is the world's third-largest buyer of oil and has been purchasing cheaper oil from Russia ever since Western countries put sanctions on Moscow in 2022. But according to media reports, Indian government-run oil companies have now temporarily stopped buying Russian oil. This is mainly because the discounts are not as big as before, and there are problems with shipping. However, the Indian government has not officially confirmed this yet. Trump's comment came after a week of strong criticism of India. On his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump criticized India for its high tariffs and tough trade rules. He also pointed out that India continues to buy oil and weapons from Russia. In response, the White House announced a 25 per cent tax on all goods exported from India to the US. They also said there would be an extra 'penalty' because of India's ongoing energy trade with Russia. Reacting to these developments, Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India's Ministry of External Affairs, stood by the country's close relationship with Russia. He said India and Russia have a strong and steady partnership built over many years. He also said India's relationship with the US is based on shared interests, democratic values, and strong ties between their people. Jaiswal added that he is confident the two countries will continue to work closely together, even during this tough time.
