Self-Preservation, Not Self-Determination?

Mike Gapes, Chris Leslie, Gavin Shuker, Angela Smith and Chuka Umunna all voted with Grahame Morris in 2014, and no one who went on to join Change UK voted against his motion, so perhaps that was really all about something else? Indeed, there was only a vote at all 11 years ago because Jeremy Corbyn and Mike Wood acted as tellers for the Noes, since the opponents of Palestine recognition had failed to do so, hoping thereby to prevent their own humiliation. There turned out to be 12 of them, of whom five were members of the DUP. From the SDP-minded wing of the angels, Richard Johnson writes:

Yesterday, Keir Starmer announced the UK’s recognition of a Palestinian state, a move the BBC described as “a significant change in government policy”.

Commentators were quick to suggest that the decision reflects pressure from backbenchers concerned about losing support to the Greens and independent candidates motivated by British foreign policy, but this does not tell the whole story.

While it is true that many Labour MPs have faced intense lobbying on this issue from constituents and local members, it would be wrong to attribute Labour’s position simply to these recent pressures. Recognition of a Palestinian state has been Labour policy for over a decade. What is perhaps most remarkable is that Starmer has actually followed through with this commitment — given his tendency to jettison policies that could be read as too “Left-wing”.

It is well-known that Jeremy Corbyn, Keir Starmer’s predecessor, is a passionate supporter of Palestinian statehood, and this issue is central to his nascent political project. But, so was Jeremy Corbyn’s predecessor, Ed Miliband. As early as 2012, Miliband confirmed that a Labour government would back Palestinian recognition, and ahead of the 2015 general election, he told The Times he would support recognising Palestinian statehood within the first year or two of a Labour government.

Miliband’s support for Palestinian statehood in the early 2010s was widely felt across the Labour Party. In 2014, the Labour MP for Easington Grahame Morris proposed the backbench motion, “That this House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.” The motion commanded supporters from expected quarters, with most Labour MPs giving supportive speeches. But so too did several Conservatives, including Nicholas Soames, who said “I am convinced that recognising Palestine is both morally right and in our national interests.”

Ultimately, 274 MPs voted for the motion, with just 12 opposed. The government had instructed its own MPs to abstain, but Labour had placed a one-line whip in favour.

Palestinian statehood, then, does not sit neatly in Labour’s internal factional divides. They have been misled in this impression by the fact that rhetoric about Israel became central to the factional disputes in the Corbyn years. But it would be a mistake to think that the MPs who felt that some Corbyn supporters’ criticism of Israel had gone too far were not opponents of Palestinian statehood. Even Mike Gapes, a perennial thorn in Jeremy Corbyn’s side, spoke and voted for the Palestinian statehood motion in 2014.

Starmer’s support for Palestinian statehood is therefore not a capitulation to the Labour Left. Rather, it reflects the realisation of a long-standing party policy. Most Labour MPs have historically supported statehood — as a point of principle, not as the outcome of some further negotiations.

The policy is unlikely to move the dial on the conduct of the Israeli government, but from Labour’s perspective, the decision to recognise statehood has not been a question of whether it has any impact on Israeli conduct. In 2014, Labour’s Shadow Minister for the Middle East said, “We are clear that Palestinian statehood is not a gift to be given, but a right to be recognised.”

So, while electoral pressures have played an important and perhaps even decisive role in Keir Starmer’s calculation about whether to declare Palestine a state, it cannot be said that the Labour Party has only just arrived at this position in the wake of the 2024 election. Labour MPs can now be happy that their own principled beliefs and the leader’s electoral calculations have, for once, aligned.

And from the more Workers Party-minded wing of the angels, Paul Knaggs writes:

An Alibi in Advance: Western Leaders’ Belated Recognition of Palestine

The UK has formally recognised Palestine as an independent state, Keir Starmer announced on Sunday, in a move the government hopes will demonstrate commitment to peace while easing domestic political tensions. Canada and Australia made similar declarations ahead of a UN General Assembly conference in New York.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately condemned the announcement as “absurd” and “a reward for terrorism.” Starmer insisted otherwise, promising further sanctions against Hamas leadership and declaring the terrorist group would play no role in a future Palestinian government.

“Let’s be frank, Hamas is a brutal terror organisation,” Starmer said. “Our call for a genuine two-state solution is the exact opposite of their hateful vision. This solution is not a reward for Hamas, because it means Hamas can have no future, no role in government, no role in security.”

Yet his conclusion revealed the reality that forced this belated action: “The man-made humanitarian crisis in Gaza reaches new depths. The Israeli government’s relentless and increasing bombardment of Gaza, the offensive of recent weeks, the starvation and devastation are utterly intolerable. Tens of thousands have been killed, including thousands as they tried to collect food and water. This death and destruction horrifies all of us. It must end.”

On two things we agree: this war is horrifying and bring the hostages home… on both sides!

However, throughout this announcement, the biggest concern appears to be self-preservation, not self-determination. Of course, we welcome recognition of Palestinian statehood, but it comes dripping with the blood of nearly two years of slaughter.

A Bid for Absolution: The Cynical Timing of the Palestine Recognition

It comes after a conservative estimate of 67,000 deaths, the majority women and children. It comes after Gaza has been reduced to rubble. It comes after the UN proclaimed Israel is committing genocide. It comes far too late to matter to those buried beneath the ruins.

More than 150 countries, including France, are expected to recognise Palestine by week’s end, though some will attach conditions. The United States, now effectively opposed to a two-state solution, has rejected the UK move entirely.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hedged his recognition with conditions: “Further steps, including the establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening of embassies will be considered as the Palestinian Authority makes further progress on commitments to reform.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney echoed Starmer’s defensive posture: “Recognising the state of Palestine, led by the Palestinian Authority, empowers those who seek peaceful coexistence and the end of Hamas. This in no way legitimises terrorism, nor is it any reward for it.”

The timing is telling. This announcement comes seven decades after the end of the British mandate in Palestine and the formation of Israel, and only after Netanyahu’s military campaign became so ferocious, so contemptuous of international law, that even complicit Western governments could no longer maintain their pretence of neutrality.

While Downing Street doesn’t portray this as punishment of Israel, the step would never have been taken if the Gaza offensive had been conducted with any regard for Palestinian life or international humanitarian standards.

Israel’s foreign ministry rejected what it called the “one-sided” recognition, warning it could destabilise the region, as if the systematic destruction of Gaza represented stability.

The sceptic in me recognises this for what it is: a desperate attempt by Western leaders who armed, funded, and diplomatically shielded Israel’s campaign to create a reference point for future absolution. They hope that decades from now, historians will point to this moment and overlook how these same leaders stood silent, bomb after bomb, death after death, declaring Israel’s right to self-defence while Palestinians were denied the right to exist.

Recognition without consequence means nothing. Where are the sanctions against Israel for violations of international law? Where is the arms embargo? Where is the accountability for those who enabled this catastrophe? Empty gestures cannot rebuild Gaza’s hospitals or resurrect its children.

This announcement represents not moral clarity but political calculation, a government more concerned with managing its conference season than addressing the genocide it helped facilitate.

Recognition, then, is welcome. But it is also hollow. For those leaders who armed Israel, shielded it at the UN, and cheered it on as the bombs fell, this sudden conversion carries the stench of political expediency. They will point to this day and say, “See? We stood for Palestine.” But history will remember that they stood for Israel first, and only moved once the genocide was undeniable.

The sceptic in me cannot help but ask: is this recognition a step toward justice, or simply an alibi?