UK to recognise Palestine as a state in September

[SomeWomanSomewhere]

"Unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation".

Source: Reuters

It is largely symbolic but it does mean the tide is turning!

Also: interesting to see that they frame it as largely contingent on Israeli behaviour

I know exactly how Palestinians have been dehumanised. Needless to say in YOUR opinion the IDF are not part of it which is frankly ridiculous.

You worry about Starmer a lot in your posts.

The press reported an updated statement from Hamas.

You worry about Starmer a lot in your posts.
Isn't that just a tad rich coming from you?

But yeah, funnily enough, Starmer is relevant to the topic of the thread, and is relevant to me responding to you when you directly ask me:

"I think you were talking about Starmer making a good decision earlier. What do you think of the new set of demands from Hamas?"

I don't think playing UK partisan games is helpful in the context of the conflict, particularly where they are based on misunderstandings or inaccuracies, and I'm happy to point that out.

Why I don’t care if he’s criticised, you do.

It seems your primary focus on all this is Starmer and whether people think he’s doing well or not.

There was a new statement from Hamas. It’s highly relevant to the situation even if you go into protect Starmer mode.

I responsed to a direct question, from you, about the merits of Starmers' approach in light of the "new" demands. Do you really think it's fair to then criticize me for referencing Starmer in my reply?

And - again - it is a new statement that does nothing but reaffirm Hamas's existing and repeatedly-expressed positions. You wrongly thought otherwise (I do believe mistakenly).

When posters then thought that maybe the "Jerusalem" demand was new (which, again, it wasn't), some pivoted to criticizing Starmer on that narrower basis instead:

"Yep. The whole of Jerusalem is the new demand after Macron and Starmer kindly said they were rewarding these sub human scum..."

While I happen to think it a good one, people can absolutely Starmer and the UK's current approach - but its an important issue and one that deserves to be discussed in factual, sensible terms with due perspective, not through the lense of hyper-partisanship.

As to me as a defender-of-Starmer, I made clear in my first post that (1) I think Starmer's approach on this issue makes sense, (2) I find him hugely underwhelming domestically, (3) I generally think he's doing a good job on international affairs.

If my more detailed views on Starmer are somehow important then sure: for me, he's an okay PM (particularly by reference to recent standards) but insufficiently ambitious to improve the UK's domestic fortunes and, through manifesto promises and pre-election pledges, has boxed himself into a place where he can only tinker around the edges, sometimes resulting in policy that is entirely disingenuous (the NI contribution rise, for one).

He will lose the next election.

But he did receive (due) bipartisan applause on the Ukraine issue and has secured the best trade terms with the US of any country in the G20, and I generally find him to be doing a good job in foreign affairs - particularly given current global volatility.

To add: as someone who does often (not always) vote Labour - I will gladly (and often do) defend Starmer in relation to Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and antisemitism.

The news covered the statement. It was new if you have an issue with Hamas issuing statements take it up with the terrorists.

The press covered it widely. Again feel free to write strong letters on that score.

Jerusalem v East Jerusalem is something I wanted clarification on, so asked here. If it upsets the pp due to Starmer then so what

On another note I question whether we are negotiating with terrorists when generally this isn’t done.

On a grand scale, with horrific brutal filming of hostages in the mix.

Yes - I know the news covered the statement, I read about it, I dont have an issue with that.

You asked about what I thought about "the new set of demands" (in the context of me agreeing with Starmer's approach) and I said I didn't understand any of them to be new demands.

You asked if the Jerusalem demand was new (a fair question) and someone wrongly asserted that it was, and that Macron and Starmer were to blame.

I pointed out that the Jerusalem demand isn't new either so - again - it is not reasonable to blame Starmer, or the UK, for a long-held demand of Hamas continuing to be a long-held demand of Hamas.

Generally, I think it would be better for people to stick to criticicisms based on fact, and not out of reactive political bias.

I'm not really sure what your issue is with that.

You do know Jerusalem isn’t East Jerusalem? If the Hamas statement can’t specify again take it up with their PR team.

Who is "we" in this context?

I think that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is more something from TV fiction than it is the real world.

Actually it’s not just ‘TV’

The UK's position on payment of terrorist ransoms is very clear: we do not pay, on the basis that providing money or property to a terrorist group fuels terrorist activity; and encourages further kidnaps. Payment of terrorist ransoms is illegal under the Terrorism Act 2000 – and this has extra-territorial effect.

I know that they have repeatedly said "Jerusalem" over the years, and I have provided a couple of sources to back that up.

Can you find any reporting that suggests any of Hamas's demands are new, and not simpy re-affirmed?

I can't find any news reporting from anywhere on the political spectrum that suggests Hamas's recent statement includes any new demands, including with respect to Jerusalem.

The idea that its a new demand, or may be a new demand, seems to be coming from posters on this thread only.

The UK negotiated with the IRA in reaching the Good Friday Agreement.

But I asked you who you meant by "we" because the UK is not in negotiations with Hamas. Israel and the US are.

The US, for example, has also negotiated with Hezbollah, the Taliban and the FARC.

And the UK could lawfully enter negotiations with Hamas, they could not legally pay them, but thats not what's being proposed...

Yes there is negotiation that is what I’ve been considering. The brutal filming of a tortured hostage, Hamas’ celebration at Starmer and other statements and the declaration they are near their goals and victory.

How brutal are they? Will they concede Israel’s existence once they’ve obtained this victory?

I hope people have got it right when they trust them on that.

My understanding was that the Palestinians wanted East Jerusalem not the whole of Jerusalem but it seems I wrong and they’ve always said Jerusalem, meaning the whole of, as per your previous post.

The recent statement states Jerusalem which most of the Israelis I follow also take to mean the whole of Jerusalem which is why I thought this was a new demand after being emboldened by support from France and the UK, and also to taunt Israel with the hostages.

Has there been any specification on which part of Jerusalem they want?

There are negotiations with Hamas - but the UK is not party to them.

I think you're grossly overstating the effect of the UK potentially adding it's name to a list that already includes three-quarters of the world's countries' that would recognize a Palestinian state - not least when it has been made clear that the UK wouls not recognize a Hamas or Hamas-linked government.

Again, the UK's statement of it position - which stops far short of France's - is intended to pressure Israel to take actions to alleviate the current humanitarian crisis, in a way that could feasibly allow the US to similarly pressure Israel without coming anywhere close to ceasing to support Israel in a general sense.

There is no realistic prospect of a Hamas-led Palestinian state being recognized by the UN.

Even in their charter, they say "Jerusalem" but also in that same document state that they are amenable to the 1967 borders (so East Jerusalem), so I appreciate that it is not entirely clear.

When they make territorial demands, they simply state "Jerusalem", but I would say that's likely best understood in the context of their charter. Either way, their rhetoric/demands, as given in their recent statement, are unchanged.

How do say this with certainty? Are you attending something where you have information?

btw I’m not ‘grossly overstating’ anything. Hamas have the world’s attention rn in terms of achieving their goals.

For Palestinians, the British recognising and supporting a Palestinian State is a pretty big gesture considering the history, isn’t it?

More so than any other country aside from the US?

I don't know if most Israelis are heavily taught to hate Palestinians - though groups like illegal Settlers and far right nationalists certainly do.

And definitely, as friends in Israel have reported, much of the mainstream press hides the extent of what's going on, although some outlets like Ha'aretz have been more outspoken.

Say what with certainty?

I can say what their 2017 statement of principles and policies says, with certainty, by reading it. It includes multiple references to Jerusalem:

"Palestine symbolizes the resistance that shall continue until liberation is accomplished, until the return is fulfilled and until a fully sovereign state is established with Jerusalem as its capital."

"Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. Its religious, historic and civilizational status is fundamental to the Arabs, Muslims and the world at large. Its Islamic and Christian holy places belong exclusively to the Palestinian people and to the Arab and Islamic Ummah. Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished. The measures undertaken by the occupiers in Jerusalem, such as Judaization, settlement building, and establishing facts on the ground are fundamentally null and void."

Later (in the same document) qualified by the following:

"Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."

If you're asking how I can be certain about what they mean when they say "Jerusalem" in later statements - I cannot - which is why I used the phrase "I would say that's likelt best understood", however, their rhetoric (even after that 2017 policy statement) usually just says "Jerusalem" as the capital. E.g., when in 2023 Hamas's then-leader stated it was "ready for political negotiations for a two-state solution with Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine".

They have also previously stated (including in 2024) in the same breath that they accept 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine - an oxymoron on its face, unless you understand "Jerusalem" to mean "East Jerusalem", which isnt what they said.

I think the reasonable reading, as its the only coherent one and is consistent with their stated policy, is that they are using "Jerusalem" to mean East Jerusalem.

If you were to interpret it differently, and say that they mean all of Jerusalem, I dont think that would make sense but it would be worthy of future discussion.

What I dont think it reasonable is to take the position that:

"well, before the UK and France waded in, Hamas's use of the word Jerusalem meant only East Jerusalem, but now that Macron and Starmer have made statements, and Hamas have repeated their previous language, they might suddenly be using the word Jerusalem in a different way (to demand additional territory), even though they haven't given any indication that's actually the case".

Going to quote my earlier post. A question not a statement.

Which a couple of posters helpfully answered without issue.

One of them answered it to say that it probably means East Jerusalem, then the next answered to say its a new demand for all of Jerusalem - I disagreed with the second poster (who now concedes they were likely wrong).

You then told me to take up the ambiguity with Hamas.

I then spoke had an exchange with another poster, answering their queation to me "Has there been any specification on which part of Jerusalem they want?" indicating that although there may be some ambiguity, "East Jerusalem" appears likely to be the correct interpretation but, whichever interpretation is preferred, there's nothing to suggest a recent change in position.

You asked me how I could be certain and I replied to you.

Not really sure what your problem is tbh.

Great ditto. No need for more, the pp answered.