Is Starmer willing to recognise Palestine or not?

0:01This is a Global Player original podcast. This is the moment to act. So today, as part of this process, this is the moment to act. So today, as part of this process towards peace, I can confirm the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September, unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution. That is Keir Starmer laying out the new position of the UK government on recognition of a Palestinian state.

0:53It all sounds rather brilliant for about a minute, until you look more closely and then it all unravels. So the most fundamental question is, is what difference does it make if Britain recognises Palestine or not? And is this about principle or is it about party management? And is Israel going to take any notice anyway? Welcome to the News Agents.

1:24The News Agents. It's John. It's Emily. And after a 90-minute cabinet meeting called yesterday around three o 'clock, the news broke that Britain would recognise a Palestinian state. There is not a full stop after that. There is a clause. If. If it would recognise a Palestinian state around the time of the UN General Assembly, UNGA, which is normally mid-September, if Israel had not by then laid out a stable plan for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In other words, Stomber isn't arriving at statehood as an end goal for Palestine. He's using it. It sounds like a punishment, a stick with which to beat Israel for not falling into line behind what the international community wants to do.

2:27And this was David Lammy in New York after his boss broke the news, sounding like he had just made history. And so it is with the hand of history on our shoulders that his majesty's government therefore intends to recognise the state of Palestine when the UN General Assembly gathers in September here in New York. So there's a lot to unpick in what David Lammy said. I mean, for a start, the hand of history on our shoulder was the comment that Blair made just before the Good Friday Agreement, which brought priests to Northern Ireland. Arguably, that was the hand of history. And he preempted it by saying, this is not a town of soundbites.

3:19And then gave us the soundbite. And also, the other thing to say, and this goes back to what your introductory remarks said, Emily, about, you know, Starmer sounding as if this was a punishment, not a principle. Starmer's always had an opposition to the idea of recognising a state of Palestine because he said it was purely performative. It had no real meaning. And what were you doing? You were just sort of playing to a lobby by saying, we're going to recognise the state of Palestine. And listening to Lamy in the way that he did it, in a sort of rather, sort of, dare I say, pompous way, it sounded performative.

3:58It sounded exactly that which Starmer thought was why you shouldn't do it. I think we should look at the timing of this as well because the pressure has grown on Starmer. There are already 140 countries that have recognised Palestine. We will get on to what recognition actually means in a moment. But you could say there's a long list of countries that recognise Palestine without anything actually improving for Palestinians. So on the one hand, what does it actually do? But there are a growing number of Starmer's own MPs who heard Macron come out pretty strongly on Friday and say France is now one of those that's going to join the list and recognise Palestine in September at the United Nations General Assembly.

4:43And there was a lot of pressure from Starmer's own MPs, not just those on the left, not just what we might call the Sultana-Corbyn wing, but people, more and more centrist Labour MPs who just thought this is so obviously the right thing to do. Why is it taking you so long? And then, of course, there was the Turnberry meeting with Trump. And that's almost the bit that I find most uncomfortable, because we know from the minutes now that Starmer ran his idea past Trump to check it out with him before he said it. So in other words, what, we're getting sign off for our position on the Middle East and what we decide to do, even verbally as a country, from a US president?

5:30And we don't go until we know that he's OK with it? There is one other thing, though, which makes me think So this was not so much Britain acting alone unilaterally. This is the position we've reached. We're going to say now we'll recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly unless, you know, the following conditions are met. there are also arab countries including qatar saudi arabia and egypt have signed onto a statement at the un calling for hamas to disarm and end its rule of gaza in a bid to end the war in that territory and you kind of start to wonder whether there is actually a concerted move that israel will oppose which is to revive the two-state solution and the trouble with donald trump is that Donald Trump doesn't commit.

6:22Because I remember months ago him saying, well, whether it's a one-state solution, two-state solution, whatever solution they find is fine by me. You sound like Robert De Niro. And I look like Robert De Niro as well, actually. It's very confusing for me. Yeah, it is. I do think that there is an element in which there is a wider global move towards kind of, right, how do we start actually moving this forward? Yeah, we've got an immediate humanitarian concern of how we're going to alleviate the starvation in Gaza. But wider than that, we need to have a real diplomatic push as well. And part of that is to revive the two-state solution.

6:57But where does America stand on that? OK, that's really interesting because you are seeing a certain amount of method in the madness then. I have to say, when it dropped yesterday, I kind of thought, oh, that's clever. You know, it's not just recognition. It's got strings attached. And then within about five minutes, I just started thinking it's a really odd position because A, it suggests that recognition of Palestine is a punishment for Israel. In other words, one, it can make go away. It's like the naughty step threat. You know, you behave better and you'll be fine. And simultaneously, I guess, confers legitimacy on Hamas by suggesting that October the 7th can be rewarded ultimately, you know, for what has been done.

7:40But also, I mean, this is the really tricky bit. if Hamas do start to release the hostages, then they don't get their statehood recognised. In other words, if there is a viable peace plan, and this is what it's all been about, you know, in Starmer's words, substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and, you know, a ceasefire and a long-term sustainable plan. If those hostages get released, then what, Hamas has talked itself out of a... Out of recognition. Now, look, there are many who will tell you, don't be so naive. Hamas doesn't want a Palestinian state at all. The Palestinian state is for the Gazans, it's for the Palestinians.

8:19Hamas just wants to sow dissent and terror and horror throughout the whole region. And they do not have a political vested interest in anything that looks like sort of sustainable peace. We know that. But it still conflates so many things, sort of push and pull factors at the same time. It isn't a grand gesture of saying this is what we believe in now. It's saying, well, if you don't, then this. I also think that in the British Declaration of it, and Lamy at the United Nations said, you know, of course we must take a special interest in this because we made the Balfour Declaration back in 1917 when Arthur Balfour said there should be a Jewish homeland.

9:04I'm sorry, the globe has changed quite a bit since Balfour made the Balfour Declaration. in 1917. Then Britain did rule the waves. We had an empire. We ruled a huge area of the world and with a preeminent power of the world. And the idea that now we're still that sort of able to cast and shape the future. I just think there's a degree of delusion, post-imperial delusion. So do you think about all of that? OK, so that means you think Stammer's just talking to his own party, right? Or he just wants to put himself on the right side of the argument. I think there is an element of party management about this.

9:43Look, it is a fundamental change in British foreign policy, no doubt about that. And this does represent, you know, a bit of a break with the United States, whether with permission from Donald Trump or without permission from Donald Trump, further to what you were just saying a moment ago. But I think it was also about, OK, the party is restive. I've lost these votes on welfare reform. I've got to give them something. Christ, I don't want another major rebellion over this and motions being submitted to the Labour Party conference. So he's trying to head off internal party criticism, as well as feeling genuine outrage about what is happening in Gaza right now and the lack of response from Israel.

10:24Whether Israel takes any notice of Britain per se, of course, they'll say we're not going to. And, you know, they think it's monstrous. I do think Israel recognises now how much pressure it is under and how much international support it has lost and squandered since October the 7th by the way it has prosecuted its war, not just against Hamas, but seemingly against Palestinians. So I was with Israeli officials yesterday when this cabinet meeting was taking place, when the news came through. And I was really shocked, actually, by what I heard. And this was somebody trying to explain that there is this complete divide between the civil servants who are, if you like, at the coalface of what is going on.

11:14and they hear public opinion, they hear world opinion, and the ministers who are completely cut off from it. And this person said to me, they don't realise the depth of the level of the shit we are in. We are at the bottom of the pile. And I said, but what do you mean? That Netanyahu doesn't see that? That the ministers don't see that? You know, David Mentz, the spokesman, who goes out and sort of tries to sort of con the airwaves doesn't see that. And this person said, no, they're completely sealed off. They don't hear that stuff. We're dealing with it. You know, we sort of the people who are in embassies around the world, the people who are, you know, on the ground, sort of trying to be the advocates for Israel, kind of outside of Israel.

12:02Of course they get all this. Of course they hear all of it. But actually, inside the cabinet, they are completely oblivious to this. So when Netanyahu just like, it's literally like shift F7. You know, what has Starmer said? Oh, you're rewarding terror. Shift F7. Oh, you're anti-Semitic. Shift F7. Oh, you'll keep Hamas in line forever. he genuinely doesn't think that the dial is moving because from where he's sitting it isn't moving and i was quite interested we talked about this last week about the 80 percent of people who are against the war in israel right that was the thing in israel we understand that to be about 80 percent and i was talking through this number with an official the official and they said look i don't know if that's true.

12:49She said, you speak to people who live in Ashkelon, where they've had bombs, rockets going over their houses for 20 years. And they will tell you they are delighted by this war because now everyone in Israel gets to see what they had been living with for years, right, in the sort of the north of Israel. And then they said, look, it's all very well saying you're against the war. Maybe 80 % of people say you're against the war. But then you ask the next question, do you want to leave Hamas in charge, right? Or do you want the hostages to be sort of left in Israel? And nobody says, yes, that's fine with us.

13:24So you're only against the war as far as that first simple question is asked, which is you kind of want it to go away. But as soon as you're asking people what that actually means, does it mean abandoning hostages? Does it mean allowing Hamas to stay there? Does it mean sort of giving up your right to fight back anymore? I think people have a very different answer. And so all I'm trying to say is it seems to you, it seems to us, really obvious the level of, frankly, disgust there is towards the Netanyahu government right now. Everyone can see those pictures of starving children. Even Trump has been speaking about the pictures of starving children.

14:01But I don't think it's hitting home inside the cabinet. It is absolutely sealed off to public opinion. Well, I think that's such an interesting point, because I think that you talk about the civil service of Israel and the foreign service of Israel being all too aware and how could they not be given the protests that have taken place on capitals around the world about what's happened. And there is no way you can litigate favourably when there are starving children. I'm sorry, we are hardwired to think that starving children is a bad thing. Bloody right, it's an awful thing, it's shocking, It's morally repugnant.

14:41And of course, Israel is in a situation now where I think it will take generations for it to get back the reputation. And the breaches are taking place now in religious society with rabbis coming out and saying you cannot be doing this. I think that it is reaching through. But the political elite where survival is everything, see just the narrow terms of political survival. And it is horrendous, horrific that you've got so many Israelis who think this is shit. We've got to stop this. And yet somehow those in Jerusalem who are locked in government still think it's OK. It's the right thing to do.

15:23Anything else is surrender to Hamas. Well, we're going to dig deep now into that whole question of what recognition actually means. We bandy the word around. I have to say I'd be the first to say I don't actually know what it changes. I don't know legally what it shifts. We're joined by Pete Frankopan, the professor of global history at Oxford, author of The Silk Roads. Peter, what does it actually change? What does the definition, the recognition change in the way we would deal with Palestine? Well, normally the recognition of a state, the first thing it means is that you get a seat at the UN as one of the member states.

15:59And so that provides a membership of international treaties that allows you access to international law that currently is always left grey. Now, Palestine as a state is recognised by almost 150 of the UN's 193 members. So there's a degree to which that number pushing upwards means that there is a higher level of ability for Palestinians of all different persuasions, faiths and so on, to be able to have the rights to protect themselves against fundamental human rights. So membership of the UN is the first one. Second, it means in the case of the UK, that there'll be an upgrading from its representative in London to the full rank of ambassador.

16:37And ambassadorial protections provide all sorts of other things that, again, are useful from a legal point of view. I mean, what's odd about this one, I think, is that Starmer is fudging it by threatening to recognise and telling that Israel doesn't perform that he'll have no other choice. And in a way, that's the kind of doesn't solve any of the problems. I mean, normally a recognised state has internationally recognised boundaries. Like I said, it has membership of slightly arcane things like postal unions and so on, the ability to have its own domain names, things like that. But above all, it's to be able to protect itself from aggression from outside.

17:11So upgrading Palestine into a state means that it has access to be able to draw on other states and their ability to defend themselves. Does Palestine have recognition yet at the UN? What is the critical point where somebody says, right, Palestine, you're no longer on the waiting list to join your member? So one parallel example would be Taiwan that has had diplomatic relations with about 30 countries about 10 years ago. China's chipped those away over the last 10 years to take that down to about a dozen. And so diplomatic ties and a seat at UN requires the full assembly to give you recognition.

17:46And so Palestine sits alongside a whole load of other states, Eritrea, for example, of places that want to be recognized. And until they are fully ratified by the UN General Assembly. So that would be the moment at which a vote would be taken. So far, Israel has been able to protect that vote from and the United States has prevented that vote from actually taking place. So that's why that's why Starmer's given the UNGA or General Assembly in September as a kind of break point whereby something has to be done. But recognition of states is not as unusual as we think. I mean, in our own lifetimes, we've had all the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the 15 former constituent republics all being recognised.

18:22And often it's a fairly uncontroversial process. But if somebody wants to put their stick in the wheel, for example, recognition of Croatia or breakup of Yugoslavia, then things get very, very sticky because you need consensus. Have we ever recognised a state that didn't control any of its borders? Well, borders are often disputed. I mean, look at Ukraine, 20 % of its internationally recognised territory has been occupied by Russia. Britain and the United States and Russia guaranteed Ukraine's borders with the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. So we all keep printing maps that show Crimea as part of Ukraine, that shows Donetsk as part of Ukraine.

19:02Reality and legal status are two very different things. And so the challenge, I think, would be if a state of Palestine is recognised by everybody at the UNGA. and Trump was reasonably mellifluous about it yesterday. I think it's not completely clear what the United States is going to do, but if a Palestinian state is recognised by the international community, then it's where will its boundaries be? What does that mean for the West Bank? What does that mean for settlers? What does that mean for the things that have taken place in the last six months? But Stalin has given Israel an opportunity to put its house in order.

19:33And the question I think now will be trying to threaten Israel to say, you've got to allow food in, you've got to allow dignity, you've got to allow rights. it's an attempt by the UK to use a very small little lever to try to get Israel to perform. And I thought most of us who've been watching the horrors for the last couple of years are pretty doubtful that it's going to make any particular impact or going to change anything. I mean, presumably the only real veto power is held by the United States. I mean, Britain arguably as well, because as a permanent member of the Security Council, it could veto as well, although it looks like Britain is moving towards recognition.

20:06But Israel can't hold out by itself against this. Well, look, I think it depends what one means by Israel. If we're talking about the Netanyahu government, I mean, what I think has shifted in the last couple of months has been discussion in Israel. Netanyahu has not been enormously popular, as you've spoken about before, and the protests before the Hamas attacks against Netanyahu. I think that when you find serious and top-line Israeli think tanks using the word genocide for what the IDF have been doing, what the Israeli government have been doing, you can see that lots of Israelis are extremely uncomfortable, unhappy about what's being done in Gaza and in the West Bank too.

20:39So I think it's not just about Israel speaking as an individual country. It's about what comes next. And in that sense, recognition is a kind of it's tried to say that there is a diplomatic process to follow through. And that must be better than the use of a force of arms. But it looks to most people that some form of occupation of Gaza is likely, the West Bank likely to. You know, you can see IDF and its performance in southern Syria of trying to stoke up dissent within the Druze community with the pressure from the Jolani government, Al-Shara government. The more turbulence there is regionally, the better for Israel to shape the Middle East in the image that it wants.

21:18And I think there are lots of voices in Israel that recognise that that is coming at a price to Israel's international reputation. And that's going to take years to put right. So, you know, I think that there is a discussion, but a lot will be the decisions made by, unfortunately, a very small number of people around Netanyahu, particularly the far right who supported him, about what a settlement will look like. And the voice is whispering in Netanyahu's ear saying anything that you now concede will be a concession and these problems will brew up again. But that's a consequence of the way that the IDF have played the situation since 7th October.

21:49Just last thought, Pete, what's your hunch? Do you think come September, Stalin has put us on the path to recognition, whatever Israel does, because he knows that nothing will really change? Or do you think he sort of kept it loose enough to pull back? I don't think it matters what we say in the UK. I mean, I think that the mood in Europe has fundamentally changed. I think Macron was the first to talk about recognition. I think that's now de facto, that will be what happens. I think that the questions that are being stored up is that if a state of Palestine is recognised with no mention of what its boundaries will be, will they be the ones from before the 7th of October?

22:24Will Israel chip at those? Will there be a negotiation of what territory will be given up? Then I think that what we can do in the UK, that the horse bolted a long time ago and our ability to influence things, a lot I think flows as always through decisions made in Washington. And that's, I think, fundamentally not funnily enough fitted in with the horrors of what's happening in Gaza or even with Israel. It's about what does Saudi Arabia's role play within the reconstructed Middle East? That's been clear from the beginning of the Trump presidency that Saudi, to some extent, UAE and other Gulf states, but Saudi is the kind of place that needs to be brought on side, alongside Israel.

22:58And if that block falls into place, then the whole of the region looks from a US policy point of view to unlock with Iran, etc, etc. So it is part of a much bigger 3D piece. I think sometimes in Britain, we think about it as being the Republican Party, very high profile Jewish supporters, or Israeli sympathisers supporting US policy. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. What we can do in the UK, it's probably not an enormous amount. But Starmer, I don't think, has taken a line that is particularly helpful. We could be braver, and probably should be braver, of putting our money where our mouth is and to say that what we've been seeing has been one of the most horrific incidents of the last century.

23:32That's up against some pretty stiff competition. Peter Frankopan, thank you. Thanks for joining us. And after the break, we'll be asking, has Starmer bought peace with the Labour Party with this move? We'll be talking to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

23:52This is The News Agents. What joining us now is Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Nice to have you here, Emily. Before we get on to Palestine, you'll have seen the news in the last 10 minutes or so. So Palestine Action, I hope I'm not breaking this to you, that they've won permission to appeal against the UK ban as a prescribed organisation, which means essentially that the High Court can bring a judicial review against the government's decision now. Just tell us your thoughts on that. What does it mean? So what it means is, yes, that they can go to a full hearing and they will then have to argue their case and presumably the government will need to argue its case.

24:30The law on this is very widely drawn so that if you are committing criminal damage in order to try to change government policy, then that can be seen as a terrorist act. That seems fairly widely drawn. I mean, you mean correct? No, no, no. You mean it's too wide? I think it's widely drawn, yeah. Sorry, I'm turning into a lawyer again. But, yeah, so it is pretty wide. I don't think that that's the basis on which the government has prescribed this organisation, but I don't know the ins and outs of it. And the difficulty is because there are criminal cases, I think, in front of the courts at the moment, the government can't publicly say why they want it prescribed.

25:12Do you think it should be prescribed? Well, not if it's just because they're committing acts of criminal damage in order to try to change government policy. if they are doing more, which I have no idea whether they are or not, but if they are doing intimidation, violence against individuals in order to try to change government policy, then that is terrorism. Then there should be a debate about whether it's prescribed. I mean, is this a headache for the government right now, right? Can I just say, I didn't vote on it and I didn't know enough about it. So I'm not really the person to have on to be able to help you with this.

25:46Sorry. Let us move on to what Keir Starmer announced yesterday. Yes. the recognition of Palestine, if the various ifs that were attached to it, Israel don't do these things. It's a significant change in British foreign policy. Is it a change you welcome? It's very significant and absolutely I welcome it. I think that we have had too old-fashioned a policy, which is stick close to the Americans, hope that there'll be a peace process at some point during which we will recognise Palestine. I think things have changed and a new generation of politicians need to look at it again. And this is the right approach.