Unravelling Starmer's ambiguity on Palestine

The statement Keir Starmer made on Tuesday announcing the government's intention to recognise the state of Palestine sounded as if it had been drafted and redrafted so many times that no one thought to check if it still made grammatical or logical sense.

- JOHN RENTOUL

Hence the initial confusion: does this mean Britain will recognise Palestine or not? The statement said the government would do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September “unless...” the Israeli government did four things. But one of the conditions listed was a commitment to a two-state solution, something to which Benjamin Netanyahu would never agree.

So it seemed clear that, whatever the deliberate ambiguities of the rest of the statement, recognition would be going ahead in September. It was a victory for those members of the cabinet who had been pushing for it - David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and others — with the support of the silent majority of Labour MPs.

Not that there was any triumphalism - unless you count Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying: “I think it’s great news” — because the situation in Gaza is so serious and the chances of recognition making a difference on the ground are so small. But there was no question that this was an important shift in government policy that had been brought about by quiet pressure behind the scenes from the parliamentary Labour Party.