For nearly two years, activists across the UK have demanded that their government impose serious sanctions, halt intelligence and military support, and cut diplomatic ties with Israel.
As Gaza continues to endure famine and mass slaughter, Keir Starmer appeared before the nation on July 29 to announce that the UK would recognise Palestinian statehood. But there was a catch. This recognition would be conditional. If Israel does not wish for it to happen, it simply needs to take Starmer’s ill-defined “steps” towards a ceasefire.
If Gaza were not in the grip of a second Nakba (or catastrophe), such a statement might belong in the comedy circuit. Though declining Labour approval polls almost compensate for it, if you’re looking for a quick laugh.
Nevertheless, it is important to ask in honesty, how much weight such a statement holds and whether it could actually pressurise Israel towards ending this slaughter.
In other words, is this a move that could deliver real, much-needed impact for Palestinians on the ground, or is it political lip-service that the citizens of the world have grown tired of?
I find it important to preface the attempted answer by stating that the very idea that Palestinian statehood should be conditional is, in itself, an insult to human dignity. It tells Palestinians that their lives are bargaining chips. They either die in humiliation, or they are recognised as less than human by Britain. In seeking to appear compassionate, Starmer exposes a deep political cowardice and a chilling disregard for humanity.
The details of his statement make this clearer. Starmer pledged that the UK would recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel took “substantive steps” to end the crisis in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, and commit to long-term peace.
Yet he offered no definition of “substantive.” He did not say how long a ceasefire must last, whether it must be enacted before September or simply promised, or what it would mean in practice.
If Israel announced on August 31 that it was “moving towards” a ceasefire while still withholding aid and still targeting civilians, would that satisfy the Labour government?
With a bar so low it is practically underground, there is endless room for Britain to continue shielding Israel from consequences while claiming a moral high ground. On 1 September, Starmer could simply tell the public that Israel’s ambassador had given “assurances,” and the promise of recognition would vanish.
There is also the matter of feasibility. Since October 2023, Gaza has seen just two pauses in massacres by Israel. The first, in November 2023, was a truce that lasted one week and was pressed for by the US. The second, in January 2025, came as Donald Trump took office; he was reported to have also pressed Israel directly. US influence is clear for all to see and was so decisively showcased in Trump’s stopping of an Israeli airstrike on Iran while the jets were mid-air.
But this time, Washington is not on board. The State Department condemned Starmer’s move as a “slap in the face” to the victims of October 7. Trump himself denied discussing the proposal with Keir Starmer, claiming that such a move would amount to “rewarding Hamas”. He further remarked that Starmer’s statement “doesn’t carry weight”. This can perhaps be seen in Israel’s actions since the statement.
On July 23, the Knesset voted 71–13 to fully annex the West Bank. Though largely symbolic, the move was a defiant answer to the UK and France’s flirtation with recognising Palestine earlier in the year. In May, Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer reportedly warned that West Bank annexation would follow any recognition.
Rather than wait to respond, Israel took pre-emptive action by voting to annex the West Bank. Ten days after Starmer’s announcement, Israeli ministers approved Netanyahu’s plan to occupy Gaza and annex it outright.
Not only does this demonstrate the complete ineffectiveness of Starmer’s statement, but it also highlights the remarkable decline of Britain’s soft power.
Even if Starmer were to follow through and recognise Palestine, it would seldomly alter the reality of starvation, the bombing of schools, and the slaughter of families. It would not end the sexual violence that still takes place against Palestinian prisoners, including children.
There’s precedent for why this is the case. One hundred forty-seven UN member states (out of 193 total) already do so, yet the genocide in Gaza unfolds in plain view for the world to see. Recognition alone is not a weapon capable of stopping ethnic cleansing.
The real levers of pressure are known to all, and have been since the 1948 Nakba: sanctions, the freezing of military aid, and the cutting of diplomatic relations. Instead of an empty national address, Germany has recently chosen to take one of those steps by freezing military exports to the Zionist occupation.
Starmer, while making those statements, continues to welcome Israeli army personnel and generals into the country. Even more revolting, the UK continues to fly planes over the Gaza Strip to provide military intelligence to the Zionist occupation. This takes place while the UK continues to roadblock Gazan students with unconditional offers to study in British Universities.
Starmer delivers the oldest trick in politics: make a bold-sounding statement with a ticking clock, then leave yourself every possible escape route. This is not leadership. It is performance. It is an act of moral evasion dressed as diplomacy, and it is the kind of behaviour that will define this Labour government as weak, dishonest, and complicit in history’s judgment.
Omar is an Egyptian-British PhD student at the University of Cambridge and a pro-Palestinian activist. Whilst his research focuses on immunology and disease, Omar has further interests in politics, religion, and sociology.
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com
Opinions expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of their employer, or of The New Arab and its editorial board or staff.