UK backs Palestinian state in move denounced by Netanyahu as Hamas celebration

In a development that escalated tensions across the Middle East and drew a sharp rebuke from Israel, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Sunday that the United Kingdom would formally support the creation of a Palestinian state as part of an effort to keep alive the prospect of a two‑state solution. Hamas immediately hailed the move as a victory for its cause, while Israel’s leadership branded it as appeasement and warned that recognizing a Palestinian state would amount to rewarding terrorism. Netanyahu reiterated that such calls would not be accommodated, stating there will be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan River and that any attempt to force one would be resisted.

Starmer asserted that the recognition was not a reward for Hamas, but a step intended to revive peace prospects and to place the push for a two‑state solution on a more formal footing. He argued that a future Palestinian state would be based on pre‑1967 borders with a shared capital in Jerusalem, and he promised new sanctions directed at Hamas as part of the broader effort to pressure the group. The prime minister also said the UK would keep a firm stance on Hamas, insisting the organization would have no role in any Palestinian government. In parallel, some Foreign Office pages reportedly shifted references from Occupied Palestinian Territories to Palestine, a change that reflected the government’s new stance while prompting debate about the implications for negotiations and humanitarian aid.

The announcement drew a swift and polarized response in Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu described the recognition as an attempt to reward terror and warned that it would have dangerous consequences for regional security. He also signaled that Israel would respond to what he called an attempt to impose a terror state in the heart of its land after he returned from the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Amir Ohana, speaker of the Knesset, went further, calling Starmer a modern‑day appeaser who chose dishonor. May Golan, a minister in the Israeli government, said recognizing a Palestinian state now would legitimize a terror entity and endanger not only Israel but the broader liberal world.

The stance drew expressions of concern and condemnation from British Jewish groups and hostage families. The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the move did not advance a ceasefire, free hostages, or reduce Palestinian suffering in Gaza and could undermine pressure on Hamas by presenting its violence as successful. Adam Ma’anit, a British cousin of murdered hostage Tsachi Idan, called the move a betrayal of hostages and their families, while the Hostages and Missing Families Forum UK said Britain’s approach risked emboldening Hamas instead of confronting it. In internal Conservative dissent, party leader Kemi Badenoch called the move disastrous, arguing it would leave hostages in Gaza and fail to alleviate the suffering of civilians. Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel accused Starmer of capitulating to hard‑left factions, and Lord Wolfson, the party’s former attorney general, warned that the gesture spoke more to Labour party politics than to any credible path to peace. Former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove told Times Radio that the decision appeared diplomatically misguided and risky, suggesting it framed Hamas as having achieved success.

Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy acknowledged the limits of the move, noting that it would not by itself end the Gaza conflict or secure the release of hostages. He told the BBC that humanitarian aid and a ceasefire would be decisive for alleviating the immediate suffering of civilians and for the prospects of hostage release, while the broader goal of a sustainable peace depended on real changes on the ground. In a broader arc, Starmer’s pledge from July to recognize Palestinian statehood if Israel did not address the Gaza crisis was cited by supporters as an indication of consistency, while critics argued it risked undermining Israel’s security and regional stability. As the Sunday announcements circulated, several Western governments—France, Portugal, and Belgium—were reported to be preparing to recognize a Palestinian state at a regional summit, following Australia and Canada in joining the UK on Sunday afternoon.

The international dimension underscored a pattern in which Western capitals weighed political symbolism against practical security concerns. Netanyahu framed the move as a dangerous precedent and a call to subside into accepting a future terror state, while proponents argued that formal recognition could help anchor a negotiated settlement and keep diplomatic channels open. Starmer argued that the two‑state framework remains the best path to peace and insisted that Hamas would have no legitimate role in a future Palestinian government, even as he acknowledged the difficult road ahead for civilians in Gaza and the need for humanitarian relief. He also noted that the proposed Palestinian state would be designed to meet security and governance standards that would prevent Hamas from regaining influence, and he pledged to monitor and enforce sanctions if necessary.

The evolving dynamic comes as the Gaza war enters its second year of hostilities, with hostage deals and ceasefire prospects repeatedly stymied by violence and mutual distrust. The question for many observers is whether recognition alone can translate into measurable gains on the ground, including improved access for humanitarian aid, a sustained ceasefire, and the safe release of hostages. While some governments hailed the move as a responsible step toward a realistic peace process, others warned that it could harden positions and complicate diplomatic efforts with Israel and its allies, potentially altering the balance of leverage in negotiations. The coming days will test how the UK and other Western partners reconcile their strategic goals with the immediate human costs of the conflict, and how Israel, the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, and Hamas respond to the new, formalized framing of the peace process.