Starmer's recognition of Palestine shows UK autonomy from Trump's US is vital
Starmer's recognition of Palestine shows UK autonomy from Trump's US is vital
Last Sunday, the UK officially recognised the state of Palestine. The same decision was taken by Australia, Portugal, and Canada.
The move preceded the 80th session of the UN General Assembly, which started in New York on 23 September, where France and Belgium followed with recognition of Palestine.
In his announcement, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: "Today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognises the State of Palestine."
Most probably, looking at the complete absence of any diplomatic activity in such direction, the UK decision seems more aimed at saving the two-state solution than reviving it; nevertheless, the relevant political message coming from London is that a just, fair, and lasting peace, for both Palestinians and Israelis, is achievable only through a two-state solution, no matter what Jerusalem and Washington might think in this moment.
It was a long, overdue decision for the UK. The country, after all, is at the origin of the so-called Palestinian Question since, in 1917, the then British government announced its intention to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine through the infamous Balfour Declaration.
It also came after more than 65,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli army and US mercenary forces, and after the shocking revelation that - according to IDF’s own estimates - 83 percent of them might be civilians.
Starmer had anticipated his decision over the summer when he declared that if Israel had not met a series of conditions, primarily a ceasefire in Gaza, and then a commitment not to annex any of the occupied West Bank, then recognition would follow.
Netanyahu’s government, of course, had no intention of honouring them; on the contrary, it is currently engaged in a full-scale ground invasion of Gaza City and expulsion of the population, while many members of his government state that they intend to annex the West Bank.
Unconditional support
Since Hamas’ attack on 7 October 2023, the UK government has been supporting Israeli actions in Gaza without reservations. Both the then Conservative administration led by Rishi Sunak, and, since July 2024, the Labour government led by Keir Starmer.
They have emphasised the Israeli narrative and its claimed right to self-defence over any other consideration related to the respect of the international law, international humanitarian law, and the principle of the proportionate use of force which were systematically violated by Israel.
For more than 18 months, the abysmal civilian casualties among the Palestinians, the unprecedented number of journalists and personnel of UN and other humanitarian organisations killed by the Israeli raids, the repeated forced transfers of population within Gaza, the block on humanitarian aid deliveries, the indiscriminate killing of starving people as they queued to get some food, together with the massive destruction of critical infrastructures did not sway the UK government from its appalling position.
The British prime minister
has to be praised for his
bold decision
In the last few months, however, the mounting casualties, the pressure of UK public opinion and civil society, the preliminary pronunciations of the International Court of Justice about the crime of genocide allegedly perpetrated by Israel, and the indictment of top Israeli leaders for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, have significantly affected the British authorities’ calculus.
For Starmer, a lawyer by profession before moving to his political career, the amount of legal evidence that has been accumulating must have become impossible to ignore, despite his denials that Israel was committing genocide, as he faced mounting pressure from his own party's MPs.
An additional element might have been the report released on 16 September by a UN commission of inquiry which said that there are strong grounds to conclude that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.
The British prime minister has then to be praised for his historic decision.
A challenge
The fact that Australia and Canada joined the UK is not a trivial one. Together with the US and New Zealand, they compose the so-called Five Eyes group which run a global intelligence gathering and sharing operation restricted to Anglo-Saxon countries which, in managing and sharing intelligence, is even more important than Nato.
It clearly shows that these three countries have dared to challenge the US on a very sensitive topic for Washington - its unwavering support for Israel.
The UK decision is even more important considering the context of the decades-old special relationship between the US and UK, where historically all British governments have operated within its unwritten rules, and avoided annoying the US with independent choices in foreign and security policy.
The last time the UK lobbied the US was more than two decades ago when, in the months preceding the Iraq war in 2003, then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair convinced George W Bush's administration to pursue the path of a UN resolution to authorise a regime change in Baghdad. The move failed and the US and the UK went on with the war illegally.
Finally, the UK has recognised the Palestinian state, a decision tremendously annoying for Netanyahu’s government, while the most pro-Israel US administration ever is sitting in Washington.
In other words, Starmer set an important precedent that could be invoked on other crucial topics.
The British prime minister faces two other important challenges which might define the role and the interests of the UK on the global stage:
The first is the critical relationship between Europe and the United States, especially in view of the highly controversial positions taken by the Trump administration, and its application of trade tariffs against European countries.
The second is the similarly critical issue of Europe's relationship with China in view of a parallel (or alternative) world order outlined by Beijing, together with those countries that are members of Brics and of the Shangai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), symbolised by the recent summit held in Tianjin, China, on 1 September.
Both the relationships involve far more important interests for the United Kingdom.
The first one, besides the important trade issues that the UK is trying to settle on its own with the US, is crucial for the decades-old, transatlantic alliance, particularly for the effort to help Ukraine against the Russian invasion, and to imagine a new security architecture in Europe, since the US’s commitment towards the defence of the continent now appears less certain.
As to China, it affects Europe’s relation with the fastest-growing economic region of the world, a huge market for the European economy - even bigger than the American one, not to mention the implications of the new world order that Brics and SCO members are trying to organise.
US diktat to Europe
US diktat to Europe, ie, either with me or with China, is an option that Europe should avoid at any cost because US markets will never be able to absorb the business that Europe will lose by deciding to de-couple from China.
So far, the UK and the EU have been quite attentive in not upsetting the Trump administration but at the same time careful in not openly breaking with China.
However, both London and Brussels should keep clear in mind the devastating message that the Trump administration has delivered regarding his reliability with allies after the shocking Israeli bombing of Qatar.
Probably it is time for the UK to explore the advantages of its strategic autonomy from the decades-old, and largely unsuccessful, special relationship with the United States.
The latter seems only interested in pursuing its own interests, even if it is to the detriment of its close allies; not to mention the open interference that US far right movements aligned behind Donald Trump are carrying out in the UK political process through their outrageous open support of Nigel Farage's Reform party.
A similar reassessment process is now also due in Brussels.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
