UK faces cross-Atlantic backlash as Starmer weighs recognizing a Palestinian state, Lammy says move won’t aid Gaza

LONDON — Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce a decision to recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly, a move that has prompted sharp criticism from within the Conservative Party and from allies abroad. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said the step would not directly ease the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and warned that it could come at a cost to Britain’s standing with long-standing allies, including the United States and Israel.

Lammy told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that recognition could not wait for the “perfect conditions” and that the Palestinian Authority has long sought the move as part of a path toward a two-state solution. He emphasized that relief for children and civilians would come through humanitarian aid, not political recognition, and added that any potential hostage releases would depend on a ceasefire rather than formal recognition.

The plan has intensified talk of a wider diplomatic rift. Donald Trump, during a state visit to the U.K., said he disagreed with Starmer on recognition, highlighting the sensitivity of the issue for U.S.-U.K.-Israel ties as Washington seeks to coordinate a unified stance on Gaza policy. In an earlier appearance on Sky News, Lammy also blamed the Netanyahu government for aggravating tensions, arguing that its actions in Gaza and settlement expansion have complicated Britain’s ability to shape outcomes in the region.

Legal and political critics have floated the possibility of substantial financial repercussions for Britain should a Palestinian state be established and subsequently seek reparations for land lost after Britain relinquished control in the post-World War II era. Some international-law scholars have estimated damages in the vicinity of £2 trillion, noting that the Palestinians are invoking international law to demand compensation for land controlled by Britain from 1917 to 1948. Experts cautioned that even as a legal starting point, such figures would be unprecedented and highly contentious.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has signaled that reparations could be pursued in international forums, arguing that Britain’s former mandate over the territory entitles the Palestinian people to compensation. The figures cited by some scholars are not universally accepted, but they have energized arguments among critics who say recognizing a state now could set a costly precedent for the U.K. government and taxpayers. The debate has become entangled with broader questions about reparations for colonial-era wrongs and the British government’s historical role in the region.

Hostage families who were abducted in the October 7 attacks have written to Starmer to condemn the decision, arguing that recognition could complicate efforts to secure their loved ones’ release. In an open letter, they said Hamas had already celebrated the recognition and warned that it could hinder negotiations for a ceasefire and the return of captives. Several families described the decision as a dangerous shift that would embolden Hamas in the absence of a simultaneous path to hostages’ freedom and civilian protection.

The political backlash has included strong warnings from within the Conservative ranks. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch described recognition as “rewarding terrorism,” while the U.S. government has warned of “disastrous consequences” for the transatlantic partnership and for intelligence-sharing arrangements with Israel. Nigel Farage, head of Reform UK, argued that Hamas and a Palestinian state are inseparable at this stage, calling Starmer’s move a surrender to terrorism and a betrayal of Israel.

Analysts note that the United States’ concerns reflect a broader risk: recognition could complicate ongoing discussions about a ceasefire and a return to a two-state framework, especially if it is perceived as conceding Palestinian unilateral statehood without a credible settlement on security, borders, and humanitarian access. Critics warn that the move could complicate U.S. political calculations during an election year and strain cooperation on security operations in the region.

Some within the government have argued that recognizing a Palestinian state could empower negotiations by acknowledging the PA as a legitimate interlocutor and signaling a commitment to a two-state solution. Others warn it could undermine security and intelligence-sharing arrangements that Britain has long relied upon with Israel, and may trigger retaliatory measures by actors who oppose territorial concessions or recognition without a lasting ceasefire.

There is also a legal debate about reparations and the practical implications for Britain’s finances. Robert Jenrick, the party’s justice spokesman, has framed reparations for Palestine as a potential “Chagos 2.0” scenario, referencing Britain’s controversial surrender of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and the legal battles over compensation. He said that reparations could amount to billions or more and insisted that taxpayers should not bear such costs. Critics say this framing underscores a broader concern: recognizing a Palestinian state could open Britain to a wave of legal and financial actions abroad, tied to historical governance.

Prime Minister Starmer’s team has signaled that sanctions on Hamas could accompany recognition, reflecting a position that the militant group should have no role in governing a future state. The administration’s position echoes prior statements from Starmer that recognition would come with conditions, including a credible commitment to a ceasefire in Gaza and renewed prospects for a negotiated two-state framework.

The debate comes amid a broader conflict in Gaza, where Israel has continued a military campaign that rights groups warn is causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Proponents of recognition argue that a formal, respected Palestinian state could help international diplomacy and pressure toward a ceasefire, though opponents caution that such a move could be misread as tacit approval of violence or destabilizing for security arrangements in the region.

As Westminster weighs the potential consequences, government officials have stressed that any move would be contingent on conditions being met and would occur in coordination with international partners. The UN General Assembly session this week is seen as a pivotal moment, with observers watching closely for how the UK translates its policy into concrete actions and how allies respond to a decision that could reshape the diplomatic landscape in the Middle East and beyond.

The timing of the possible announcement—aligned with Starmer’s UN appearance—adds another layer of complexity. It comes as the government faces sustained criticism from opposition voices who argue that recognizing a Palestinian state without a genuine and enforceable ceasefire and a credible peace process would be a misstep. It also places the UK in a delicate position with the United States and with Israel, which have urged caution and have signaled that the move could complicate security and intelligence ties.

In London, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle cautioned against hastily changing long-standing policy without a clear, practical plan for humanitarian relief, hostage negotiations, and a durable peace process. The coming days will reveal whether Starmer proceeds with recognition, how the move is framed in diplomatic language, and what operational steps the government will take to address the dual demands of international legitimacy for a Palestinian state and the urgent needs of civilians in Gaza.