Why Starmer Moved To Betray America and Israel
Three factors explain British move to recognize Palestinian statehood
It took just 24 hours. Donald Trump had visited his Scottish golf resorts, Keir Starmer had proclaimed how closely the UK was aligned with US strategic aims and how we were the very closest of allies — and the very next day, the prime minister announced that Britain will recognize Palestine before September’s UN General Assembly unless Israel accedes to impossible conditions.
Starmer proclaims his support for Israel’s security knows no bounds but demands that, at a minimum, “the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a Two State Solution.”
Starmer sets no similar conditions for recognition on Hamas, although reiterating that they should release the hostages, disarm, and play no further role in the governance of Gaza. I am not convinced that even Britain’s government believes that the Islamist terrorists will be complying any time soon. The argument for not making these preconditions for recognition is sophistry of the highest order. It is that Hamas are terrorists (they are indeed rightly proscribed as such in the UK) and the British government does not negotiate with terrorists. It would thus be quite wrong to set them conditions as this would confer legitimacy on them.
What is going on?
Three factors are in play. Starmer is an extraordinarily expedient politician. He was happy to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow team when that anti-Zionist was Labour leader. But on taking over the party, Starmer proclaimed shedding Labour of the taint of antisemitism was his number one task. He was once committed to the socialist transformation of Britain, but now says backing business and going for growth is any government’s first duty.
But one thing he has never wavered on is his unswerving commitment to a certain understanding of international law and the intergovernmental legal institutions. Before becoming England’s chief public prosecutor, he carved out a successful career as a high profile left-wing lawyer, acting as an advocate for many progressivist causes.
And this commitment continues to manifest itself now Starmer is in office. Starmer is unwilling to do what needs to be done to bring down immigration numbers, because this would contravene rulings on the European Court of Human Rights. That reticence is likely to cost him his job in the long run. Starmer has also agreed a terrible deal at a cost of billions to the UK taxpayer to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius because of an advisory ruling of the International Court of Justice. (See, “Why U.K.’s Starmer Plans To Give Away Diego Garcia,” February 17, 2025.) And he won’t stand in the way of the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.
For Starmer the highest test of a nation’s morality appears to be upholding such rulings and the nostrums that underlie them. And this goes a long way to what is behind Starmer’s Palestine plans.
Secondly, Starmer is under pressure from many MPs to recognise Palestine. 220 MPs out of 650 signed a letter last month demanding speedy recognition. The Prime Minister is under pressure from within his own party on a whole range of issues from welfare cuts to public-sector pay demands, and clearly does not feel he can resist these demands across the board. He feels that Palestine recognition is something that he can give his backbenchers at relatively little cost to himself.
The demands for recognition, although much stronger on the Left, are not confined to that wing of the political spectrum. Back in June, eight Conservative MPs (out of 121) — some very senior and on the right of the party — demanded immediate recognition without any reciprocal conditions on Hamas.
Finally Starmer is fearful of the new party of Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. Since I wrote about it (“Britain’s Parliament Will Soon Have an Islamist Party,” July 21, 2025), this party has now been launched in embryo. Over 500,000 have signed up to it. This figure should be treated with some skepticism as the process requires no financial commitment and nothing more onerous than registering one’s email address. Nevertheless, it is larger than the membership of Labour, the Conservatives, or Nigel Farage’s Reform. Labour is rightly fearful that it will hemorrhage votes to this new entity and lose a whole swathe of heavily Muslim seats to it.
The combination of these factors is why the UK is about to embark on a move that is a betrayal of Israel and of America. It will prove damaging to Britain’s interests.
Michael Mosbacher is Associate Comment Editor at London’s Daily Telegraph. He is a past editor of Standpoint and The Critic, having co-founded both British magazines.
Know someone who would enjoy or benefit from reading The Editors? Please help us grow by forwarding this email along with a suggestion that they subscribe. Or send a gift subscription: