Starmer faces pushback for opening door to Palestinian statehood
The UK will only refrain from doing so if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire and signs up to a long-term, peace process over the next two months.
Hamas, the Palestinian militant group, must immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and 'accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza', Sir Keir also said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
"Starmer rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism & punishes its victims.
A jihadist state on Israel's border TODAY will threaten Britain TOMORROW.
Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails. It will fail you too. It will not happen."
— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) July 29, 2025
But the PM's announcement rewards 'Hamas's monstrous terrorism', his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, claimed.
In a statement on social media site X, Israel's prime minister added: 'Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails.'
Donald Trump, who met Sir Keir on Monday and discussed measures to end the starvation faced by Gazans, suggested the pair had not talked about recognising Palestinian statehood.
But Mr Trump said he did not mind the PM 'taking a position' on the issue.
This was a contrast with his reaction to Emmanuel Macron's announcement that France will recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September, which the US president said would make no difference.
Other figures within the US administration have taken a harder line on recognising Palestine.
US state department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce suggested a UN conference called to discuss recognising a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution was a 'publicity stunt' and called it a 'slap in the face' to the victims of the October 7 attacks.
She also suggested that the UK announcement could risk 'rewarding Hamas'.
Sir Keir said the Government's 'primary aim' was getting aid into Gaza and getting hostages released when asked why UK recognition of the state of Palestine was conditional.
He added he was 'particularly concerned that the very idea of a two-state solution is reducing and feels further away today than it has for many, many years'.
While Sir Keir signalled the UK could back away from recognising a Palestinian state if his conditions are met, No 10 is understood to believe that such a two-state solution would also proceed from negotiations towards a sustained peace.
The UK and its allies need to see 'at least 500 trucks entering Gaza every day' to deliver aid, the Prime Minister added, and are together 'mounting a major effort to get humanitarian supplies back in' by air and by land.
Sir Keir spoke with a series of world leaders throughout Tuesday, including Mr Netanyahu, and King Abdullah II of Jordan, whose nation is leading efforts to airdrop aid into Gaza.
About 20 tonnes of aid have been dropped by the UK and Jordan in recent days, according to Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Recognising Palestinian state would destabilise international law, Starmer told
Sir Keir Starmer has been warned that recognising a Palestinian state would 'destabilise' the international legal order. Malcolm Shaw KC, a leading lawyer, said that the recognition plan 'would create a troublesome precedent and could well challenge and ultimately destabilise an international system founded upon a common understanding of what it is to be a state'. The fresh legal opinion, seen by The Telegraph, was circulated to the Prime Minister, Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and dozens of influential Labour MPs. It was commissioned by Lord Mendelsohn, the Labour peer, in response to Sir Keir's decision to recognise a State of Palestine in September unless Israel meets certain conditions. The warning comes after Hamas made it clear it will not disarm unless an independent Palestinian state is established. The militant group took the step of issuing a statement 'in response to media reports quoting US envoy Steve Witkoff, claiming [Hamas] has shown willingness to disarm'. It said: 'We reaffirm that resistance and its arms are a legitimate national and legal right as long as the occupation continues. 'This right is recognised by international laws and norms, and it cannot be relinquished except through the full restoration of our national rights - first and foremost, the establishment of an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.' Hamas added that Mr Witkoff's trip on Friday to a Gaza aid distribution site was 'designed to mislead public opinion, polish the image of the occupation, and provide it with political cover for its starvation campaign and continued systematic killing of defenceless children and civilians in the Gaza Strip'. Mr Shaw's legal opinion says the Prime Minister's plan to recognise the state of Palestine is 'premature and may have unintended consequences' and that it 'confuses and distorts' any attempt at a peaceful two-state solution. 'A prize for precipitating war' He describes Sir Keir's decision to make statehood dependent on the behaviour of Israel, a 'third country', as 'remarkable'. 'This is exceptional and, frankly, not in keeping with the tenor of the relevant international principles,' he wrote. 'Recognition at the current time will be seen as a prize for precipitating the war on Oct 7 2023 with its attendant rapes and massacres.' Mr Shaw also argues that the Palestinian territories 'do not currently satisfy' the criteria for a state. Some 40 peers warned this week that recognising Palestine in the process set out by the Prime Minister would be illegal. They included Lord Pannick KC and Lady Deech, both respected lawyers and patrons of UK Lawyers for Israel, an association of British lawyers who are supportive of Israel. Lord Hermer is understood to have disagreed with their arguments and dismissed their claim. But Mr Shaw's opinion could pile further pressure on the Government to reconsider its legal position with regards to recognition. He further argues that since both Israel and the Palestinian territories are still bound by the Oslo Accords, the agreement that remains the legal framework that governs the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, proper recognition at this time is not possible. Mr Shaw, who is the author of a standard legal textbook on international law, is currently representing Israel in its International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against South Africa, which argued that Israeli forces had committed genocidal acts in Gaza. While Sir Keir has always agreed to the principle of recognising a Palestinian state at some point, he was reluctant to do so until his surprise announcement this week. The Prime Minister appears to have been influenced by a number of factors, including the worsening starvation crisis in Gaza, pressure from international allies such as Emmanuel Macron, and increasingly vocal calls for immediate recognition from his own MPs. The setting up of a rival Left-wing political party under Jeremy Corbyn which calls for an independent Palestinian state may have also put pressure on Sir Keir to act. On Saturday, protesters from the activist group Youth Demand blocked roads in the Holland Park and King's Cross areas of London as they called for an immediate British trade embargo on Israel. On Thursday, Labour MPs supportive of Israel reportedly clashed with Jonathan Powell, Sir Keir's national security adviser, in a meeting about the recognition announcement.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
At long last, John Swinney has seen what grown-up politics is about
Mr Swinney and his fellow SNP ministers routinely like to churn out anti-Trump rhetoric seemingly because they think that'll garner them a few votes. But the reality of grown-up politics in which Mr Swinney has been obliged to indulge for just a few hours is that dialogue, pragmatism and diplomacy are key weapons in the armoury of a successful politician, not the kind of puerile sidelines sniping that's characteristic of the [[SNP]]. [[Donald Trump]] isn't my cup of tea either, but let's not forget that he leads the world's largest economy. I'm certain Keir Starmer has multiple reservations about Mr Trump, yet he, unlike Mr Swinney, heads up a sovereign state and has both a domestic and international remit – he can't wallow in Swinney-style futile populist virtue-signalling. Martin Redfern, Melrose. Knocking Labour off course Labour is on the way to running out of road for its long-term ambitions. All the MPs were elected on the same ticket with a destination in view and a driver to steer them in the right direction. They all want to reach the same destination but many of them differ with the driver on how fast they should proceed and what is the best route to reach their goal. It all boils down to how much they trust the driver and whether they can accept his gradualist approach. In today's world it would appear that everyone knows better than the people in charge and would like to impose their opinions on the ones whose skill got them on to the bus of government. In every walk of life you have to tailor your ambitions to fit in with the means at your disposal to hit those heights. Furthermore no one wishes to be compared to reckless teenagers who scream from the back of the bus for the driver to go faster, to take chances or to take a more direct route. Paying attention to excited MPs could lead to totalling the whole project the Government is trying to put in place. Do those MPs really want to jeopardise their chances of a second term in government with their short-sighted perspectives by showing that they cannot see the woods for the trees? Failure to take the global picture into consideration will run their bus off the road with regard to the Government's ambitions to improve the running of the UK for every level of the electorate. There is an old Roman tale about how the different organs and functions of the human body need to work together in harmony to achieve its desired results. It would be well worth the time of Labour MPs to reflect upon that. Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs. Read more letters Why not protest something important? So activists have been dangling themselves off the Forth Road Bridge over another issue which is of marginal, if any, concern to the rest of us ("Police arrest 10 Greenpeace activists after bridge protest", July 27). When have we seen such activists glueing themselves to the highway, roosting on motorway gantries, or dangling from bridges and buildings over anything that matters to the Many? Over out of control immigration? The housing shortage? The cost of living crisis? Lack of opportunities for our young people? The epidemic of stabbings and other lawlessness? The answer, of course, is that the narcissistic Few are completely indifferent to the plight of ordinary people. Whether they perform as Just Stop Oil, Climate Rebellion, Stand Up To Racism, or under whatever name, the extreme demands and their callous disregard for the interests of the Many are always the same. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. Such a sad life story Richard Holloway's life story ("The Bishop who abandoned God", July 27) is one of the saddest I have read. He is caught up in an orthodox version of the Christian world, and seemingly missing the most basic and fundamental uniqueness of this faith; put off by tradition and hypocrisy that he encountered in the various stages of his religious career. It strikes me that his experience of religious life is strikingly similar to the religious pomposity of the Pharisees of the 1st century, when Jesus was alive. Their religion was one of rules and regulations, burdensome traditions and rituals that were impossible to follow. They made life so difficult for the layperson, and were 100% convinced they were right. Their superiority and controlling natures led them eventually to crucify Jesus Christ, whom they hated with a vengeance, because he did not fit in with their version of religion. Richard Holloway appears to be very knowledgeable about various religions, yet he clearly has missed the whole theme of the Bible, that God, the Creator, loves his creatures with an unending love, yet seeks truth and justice from his people. A God whose love is so immense that, to deal with the root problem of the human race, "sin", he allowed his one and only Son, Jesus, to die on that cross... taking all the pain and sorrow and evil of the world upon himself. This is, I admit, a profound mystery; yet it is the foundational truth that resonates throughout the whole Bible. This same God does not ask us to "obey rules" or to "follow religious traditions"... He asks us to trust him, and to commit our lives to him... he longs for a relationship with us humans; longs that we speak with him, listen to him, and experience the love, the joy, and the peace that comes with him. Trying, as so many do, like Richard Holloway, to follow Christ's teaching without following Christ, is actually impossible, for his teaching demands impossible standards that only he can help us meet, in the strength he provides. I could go on and on, for Richard Holloway's story is so incredibly sad. He says "religion left me"; but Jesus Christ says, "I came to seek out and to rescue those who are lost in this world" – and that is all of us. He has not yet given up on Richard Holloway, and my earnest prayer is that he will truly find the Lord, who died for him, and who was raised from the dead. Now, that truth makes Jesus unique, and worth following. May God bless Richard Holloway, and all who are yearning for truth, and true fulfilment; these are found in God himself. Alasdair HB Fyfe, Carmunnock. Richard Holloway, former Bishop of Edinburgh (Image: Newsquest) Reasons behind Russia's actions Ronald Cameron (Letters, July 27) says that "Ukraine has come close to destroying the Russian war machine". Mr Cameron has got it the wrong way round. Russia has come close to destroying Ukraine' s army. Ukraine is in the position Germany was in in 1944, fighting losing battles, the war effectively lost, but continuing to lash out with deadly but strategically pointless missile strikes. The writing is on the wall for President Zelenskyy and his gang. Mr Cameron repeats the false claim that Russia is going to invade Nato's eastern border, but the fact is that Russian fears invasion from the West more than we fear them. In 1812 Napoleon burned Moscow. In 1854 Britain and France invaded Crimea. In 1918 Germany invaded Russia and Russia lost one million square miles of territory at the subsequent Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Britain, Canada and the United States invaded Russia between 1918 and 1925. In 1941 German forces were at the gates of Moscow and on their retreat destroyed virtually everything. President Eisenhower, then Supreme Commander Allied Forces in Europe, wrote: "When we flew into Russia, in 1945, I did not see a house standing between the western borders of the country and the area around Moscow." Declassified official documents record that in February 1997 the then Prime Minister John Major said: "If I were Russian I too would be concerned that Nato might move up to Russia's borders." Since then Nato has expanded to 32 countries. Russia warned repeatedly from 2008 that Ukraine's admission to Nato was a red line. The coup of 2014 which brought a nationalist government hostile to Russia to power resulted in a civil war between the eastern Russian-speaking provinces and the Kiev regime, which bombed and shelled them for eight years. Russia invaded in their support and to prevent Nato forces on a border which geographically is difficult to defend. Flying the Ukraine flag is risible. William Loneskie, Lauder. • Ronald Cameron contradicts himself. First he writes that "we" (presumably the UK) must do "everything possible" to support Ukraine, but then "there are plenty of better things to spend the money on". Come on, money can't be spent twice, so which is it to be ? George Morton, Rosyth. Off pat Rab McNeil's excellent article on Dougie MacLean ('Singer made every ex-pat yearn for home … and a pint', July 27) was interesting but its headline ignored the fact that an ex-soldier is someone who used to be a soldier, an ex-teacher is someone who used to be teacher and an ex-pat is someone who used to be a pat. If text space is so scarce that an abbreviation for expatriate is needed, it is expat, no hyphen being involved. Peter Dryburgh, Edinburgh.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The US attacks on Iran have backfired horribly – but a path to peace is still possible
Hanging is the preferred method of execution in Iran, although stoning and crucifixion offer alternative options for an ever-vengeful theocracy. Death by hanging is not necessarily quick. Strangulation and suffocation can take several minutes. The UN says more than 600 people have been judicially murdered so far this year. Iran has more executions per capita than any country in the world. Since June's US and Israeli attacks, growing numbers of victims are political dissidents. Fifty days on, nothing remotely positive has resulted from the illegal bombing raids and missile strikes mounted by the US president, Donald Trump, and Israel's leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, despite their boasts of world-changing success. Iran's nuclear facilities were not obliterated, as Trump claimed. Tehran has not abandoned uranium enrichment. The regime did not fall, despite Netanyahu's call for an uprising. If anything, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is more defiant. He has since launched a new crackdown on opponents, hence the executions. Deploring last weekend's hanging of political prisoners Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani, Amnesty International linked their fate to the US-Israeli attacks. Arrested in 2022, the two men were charged with rebellion and 'enmity against God'. They were tortured, forced to sign confessions and sentenced last year after a five-minute trial. The decision to execute them now 'highlights the authorities' ruthless use of the death penalty as a tool of political repression in times of national crisis to crush dissent and spread fear', Amnesty said. Hundreds have been arrested since June in a regime drive to unmask spies and collaborators, real or imagined. Glaring intelligence failures that, for example, allowed Israel to locate and bomb a national security council meeting, injuring Iran's president, Masoud Pezeshkian, are officially blamed not on gross incompetence but supposed fifth columnists. Iran's parliament wants to expand use of capital punishment. Up to 60 political prisoners face execution. This typically harsh reaction by clerical hardliners around Khamenei, and within the judiciary and Revolutionary Guards, comes despite a surge in patriotic sentiment after the attacks, which reportedly killed at least 935 people, mostly civilians, and injured more than 5,000. By intensifying repression, the regime squandered a chance to harness public anger, not least against Britain and European governments that turned a blind eye. US-Israeli actions have had other far-reaching, negative consequences. The attacks breached the UN charter and international law, as the Brics group of 'global south' countries noted. They led Tehran to suspend UN nuclear inspections. They exacerbated US-Europe divisions. And, ironically, they increased the likelihood of Iran building a bomb for self-defence. Iran insists it does not possess and does not want nuclear weapons. For all Israel's vaunted intelligence capabilities, neither Netanyahu nor anyone else has definitively proved otherwise. The decision to attack was based on a guess, driven by fear and hatred. It caused serious physical damage, but did not change mindsets. Iran is adamant it will continue to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. The bombing was a bust. Trump's angry threat to strike again is confirmation of failure. What this reckless act of aggression did do is encourage rogue states such as Russia to believe they, too, may attack other countries with impunity. It reinforces the belief in Iranian ruling circles, and not only among rejectionist factions, that the west cannot be trusted and a closer alliance with China is necessary. It strengthens the hand of hardliners whose fondness for regional proxy warfare, and recently documented covert operations against Britain, has entrenched Iran's pariah status. Historically speaking, Iran was and is an avoidable tragedy – one of the west's worst-ever geostrategic own goals. Unthinking support for the shah helped spur the 1979 revolution. The subsequent, far from inevitable ascendancy of conservative clerics plus abiding, irrational US animosity, feeding off memories of the humiliating Tehran embassy siege, rendered the rift permanent. Europe tried and failed to chart a middle path. In 2018, Trump reneged on the US-, UN- and EU-ratified nuclear deal with Tehran and reimposed sanctions. This last of many disastrous policy mistakes led directly to today's impasse. With wiser heads, it could have been very different. All parties to this conflict should study the French Enlightenment philosopher Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu, a foe to tyranny in all its forms. Writing in his 1721 bestseller Persian Letters more than 300 years ago, he issues an impressively prescient warning about what were then imaginary weapons of mass destruction. 'You say that you are afraid of the discovery of some method of destruction that is crueller than those which are used now,' his fictitious Persian traveller Usbek writes to a friend. 'If such a fateful invention came to be discovered, it would soon be banned by international law. By the unanimous consent of every country the discovery would be buried.' In the sense that nuclear weapons are outlawed, Usbek's optimistic prediction was correct. But not 'every country' complies. If the US and Israel are sincere about preventing Iran acquiring the bomb, they should set an example and reduce, and ultimately eliminate, their nuclear arsenals. They should stop threatening renewed attacks. And they should back talks on a regional nuclear pact, as proposed by Iran's former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Only then, perhaps, will Tehran come in from the cold. Only then, perhaps, will its paranoid leaders stop hanging innocent people. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
