That our Prime Minister isn’t very good at politics was, until now, no more than one of those British political eccentricities, to be filed for reference under the self-deprecating category of “What are we like?”
Keir Starmer’s misjudgment and tendency to reverse position on any and every topic – often leaving previously loyal MPs isolated and abandoned, after steadfastly defending a policy position that their leader had then reversed while they weren’t looking – largely inflicted damage on the Government and the Labour Party. Which hardly matters in the grand scheme of things.
But now Starmer’s strategic incompetence threatens to have much wider geopolitical consequences. It’s all fun and games until somebody loses an eye…
The Government’s decision to recognise Palestine – the name, rather than any specific country with actual borders, capital or government – follows Starmer’s usual pattern: just a few weeks ago the Government seemed determined to resist demands from some of its MPs to formally recognise Palestine. But true to form, one round-robin signed by more than 100 Labour MPs later, the Prime Minister reversed his position. But he has done so in the most ham-fisted, damaging and absurd ways imaginable, even for him.
No doubt some bright intern in Number 10 thought that what emerged from the Cabinet yesterday was incredibly clever. And so might others have thought, until they actually read it. The Government has managed to annoy both sides in the Hamas-Israel conflict by agreeing to formal recognition of Palestine, but only if certain conditions are made. And all of these conditions have been imposed on Israel, not on the perpetrators of the massacre that sparked the current violence.
So here is the latest triumph in British international diplomacy as crafted by the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy: we will recognise Palestine as a state, but only as a punishment for Israel if it fails to secure a ceasefire with Hamas terrorists. If the Islamists, however, manage to obstruct a ceasefire agreement – for example, by refusing to release the hostages that are still languishing in Gaza – they will be rewarded with international recognition.
A primary level child could see the problem with such a “solution” but it seems to have escaped our Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Not only has he created perverse incentives for Hamas to extend the fighting in Gaza for a couple of months, but he has also made the release of Israeli hostages, many of whom have already been murdered in captivity, less likely. And instead of presenting Palestinian recognition as a positive step towards long-term peace, Starmer has framed it as a punishment for its neighbour.
And consider the Prime Minister’s conditions on which he will bestow his munificent recognition of Palestine: Israel must agree to a ceasefire, commit to a long-term peace, allow the UN to restart the supply of aid to Gaza and make no new annexations in the West Bank. Notice anything? The absence of anything?
He could have demanded the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages. He could have demanded that the new state of Palestine commits to fair and free elections and to formally recognise the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself. He could have insisted that Palestine’s “government”, if it ever gets around to electing one, would cease all military action against Israel.
But no. All Labour’s obligations are on the democratic country – the British ally – that suffered the worst pogrom of Jews in history since the Second World War, not on the perpetrators of that massacre.
The pro-Palestinian movement, already deeply suspicious of Starmer and his government, will be unhappy that he has even attached conditions to recognition, while supporters of Israel in its fight against Islamist terrorism will be further discouraged by Starmer’s actions. So as well as betraying an ally and giving succour to the worst kind of terrorist on the planet, our Prime Minister has disappointed and enraged both sides of the dispute.
And all for the sake of recovering a few votes from formerly loyal Labour supporters in the Muslim community.
Such incompetence cannot be forgiven this time. If it were not for the fact that one of those around the Cabinet table who claim, unconvincingly, to support this policy would replace him, then it might be better for Starmer to resign sooner rather than later.
That our Prime Minister isn’t very good at politics was, until now, no more than one of those British political eccentricities, to be filed for reference under the self-deprecating category of “What are we like?”
Keir Starmer’s misjudgment and tendency to reverse position on any and every topic – often leaving previously loyal MPs isolated and abandoned, after steadfastly defending a policy position that their leader had then reversed while they weren’t looking – largely inflicted damage on the Government and the Labour Party. Which hardly matters in the grand scheme of things.
But now Starmer’s strategic incompetence threatens to have much wider geopolitical consequences. It’s all fun and games until somebody loses an eye…
The Government’s decision to recognise Palestine – the name, rather than any specific country with actual borders, capital or government – follows Starmer’s usual pattern: just a few weeks ago the Government seemed determined to resist demands from some of its MPs to formally recognise Palestine. But true to form, one round-robin signed by more than 100 Labour MPs later, the Prime Minister reversed his position. But he has done so in the most ham-fisted, damaging and absurd ways imaginable, even for him.
No doubt some bright intern in Number 10 thought that what emerged from the Cabinet yesterday was incredibly clever. And so might others have thought, until they actually read it. The Government has managed to annoy both sides in the Hamas-Israel conflict by agreeing to formal recognition of Palestine, but only if certain conditions are made. And all of these conditions have been imposed on Israel, not on the perpetrators of the massacre that sparked the current violence.
So here is the latest triumph in British international diplomacy as crafted by the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy: we will recognise Palestine as a state, but only as a punishment for Israel if it fails to secure a ceasefire with Hamas terrorists. If the Islamists, however, manage to obstruct a ceasefire agreement – for example, by refusing to release the hostages that are still languishing in Gaza – they will be rewarded with international recognition.
A primary level child could see the problem with such a “solution” but it seems to have escaped our Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Not only has he created perverse incentives for Hamas to extend the fighting in Gaza for a couple of months, but he has also made the release of Israeli hostages, many of whom have already been murdered in captivity, less likely. And instead of presenting Palestinian recognition as a positive step towards long-term peace, Starmer has framed it as a punishment for its neighbour.
And consider the Prime Minister’s conditions on which he will bestow his munificent recognition of Palestine: Israel must agree to a ceasefire, commit to a long-term peace, allow the UN to restart the supply of aid to Gaza and make no new annexations in the West Bank. Notice anything? The absence of anything?
He could have demanded the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages. He could have demanded that the new state of Palestine commits to fair and free elections and to formally recognise the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself. He could have insisted that Palestine’s “government”, if it ever gets around to electing one, would cease all military action against Israel.
But no. All Labour’s obligations are on the democratic country – the British ally – that suffered the worst pogrom of Jews in history since the Second World War, not on the perpetrators of that massacre.
The pro-Palestinian movement, already deeply suspicious of Starmer and his government, will be unhappy that he has even attached conditions to recognition, while supporters of Israel in its fight against Islamist terrorism will be further discouraged by Starmer’s actions. So as well as betraying an ally and giving succour to the worst kind of terrorist on the planet, our Prime Minister has disappointed and enraged both sides of the dispute.
And all for the sake of recovering a few votes from formerly loyal Labour supporters in the Muslim community.
Such incompetence cannot be forgiven this time. If it were not for the fact that one of those around the Cabinet table who claim, unconvincingly, to support this policy would replace him, then it might be better for Starmer to resign sooner rather than later.