Starmer's recognition of Palestinian state triggers international backlash as Gaza crisis persists

London — Prime Minister Keir Starmer formally recognised a future Palestinian state on Sunday, aiming to keep alive a two-state solution amid the Gaza war. The government said the step was necessary to revive hope for peace and to ensure Hamas would have no role in any Palestinian government.

Israel immediately condemned the move, calling Starmer a modern-day appeaser and arguing that recognising statehood would reward terrorism with an enormous prize. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said such calls for a Palestinian state risked Israel’s existence and that there would be no state west of the Jordan River. He added that Israel would respond to the latest bid at the UN General Assembly in New York.

In Britain, political allies and critics weighed in; some lawmakers argued the gesture could appease Labour MPs and voters, while others urged a broader push to end hostilities and secure hostages’ release. The Knesset speaker Amir Ohana condemned the decision; May Golan, a government minister, said it legitimised a terror entity; the Board of Deputies of British Jews warned the move could hamper ceasefire efforts and the release of hostages.

On the same day, other Western governments signaled they were prepared to recognise Palestinian statehood at a summit this week. France, Portugal and Belgium were set to follow, while Australia and Canada had already aligned with the UK. The shift comes as the UK’s Foreign Office quietly updated pages to refer to Palestine instead of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in some cases.

Starmer, who in July pledged recognition if Israel did not end the ‘appalling’ Gaza situation, called the two-state solution the exact opposite of Hamas’s aims and pledged new sanctions on Hamas. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy acknowledged that recognition would not immediately halt the war or free hostages, saying any relief to civilians would come from humanitarian aid and a cessation of hostilities.

Within Britain, opposition figures criticized the move. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch called it a disastrous step that could leave hostages imprisoned in Gaza. Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel said Starmer capitulated to hard-left factions and lacked moral authority, while Shadow Attorney General Lord Wolfson argued the move did not advance peace, but referenced party politics. Former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove told Times Radio that the decision was diplomatically ridiculous and would paint Hamas as having a success.

Families connected to hostages and missing persons said the decision betrayed them; the Hostages and Missing Families Forum UK urged Britain to face Hamas rather than embolden it. The Board of Deputies of British Jews cautioned that the move could undermine calls for a ceasefire and hinder efforts to free hostages.

Analysts noted that the move reflects a broader international reshaping of positions ahead of a scheduled UN gathering, with several states expected to recognise a Palestinian state in the near term. The UK’s stance complicates the already tense diplomacy in the region, where Israel has insisted that any peace arrangement must address security concerns and ensure accountability for the October 7 attacks.

Starmer’s government stressed that the recognition would not be a reward for Hamas and insisted the state would be based on pre-1967 borders with shared capital in Jerusalem. It pledged further sanctions on Hamas and maintained that a two-state solution remained the goal, even as the world watches the humanitarian situation in Gaza deteriorate.

As the UN General Assembly resumes, the international community watches for possible shifts in recognition and the risk of further tensions, while aid agencies warn of the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the possibility of renewed hostilities in the weeks ahead.