Keir Starmer’s cautious approach on Gaza is leaving him isolated

LONDON — Keir Starmer is holding out against formally recognizing Palestinian statehood — and it’s left him lonelier than ever at the top of his party.

Some of his own MPs now fear that the U.K. prime minister’s hesitance has done irreversible damage to Labour’s reputation with voters.

Starmer has so far walked a delicate line on the question. He is committed to it in principle, but argues that the time is not yet right and that it must be part of a wider peace process.

His position, however, is coming under increasing strain with the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron has upped the ante on the international stage by promising recognition in September.

At home, an increasing number of Starmer’s Cabinet ministers have urged him to rethink his position, while 221 MPs from across the spectrum signed a letter to the same effect last week.

Yet the PM is in no rush to do so, instead announcing that he is working on his own “pathway to peace,” which he likened to the “coalition of the willing” he convened in support of Ukraine.

While details of such a plan are so far scant, he raised the subject again when he met Donald Trump in Scotland Monday.

Trump acknowledged on Monday the “real starvation” in Gaza and said he would work with European allies to “set up food centers.”

But a senior Labour MP who has worked with Starmer, granted anonymity to speak candidly, warned that despite his diplomatic efforts, the PM risked drifting further from his MPs on the issue. “He’s much more cautious than almost anyone else in the party,” they said. 

The lawyer’s dilemma

Many backbench Labour MPs are despairing of their leader’s apparent intransigence on what they see as a crucial show of solidarity with Palestinians. 

A second Labour MP described Starmer’s statement last week as “all words — no action, no further sanctions,” while a third said: “I don’t think people will settle for anything less than recognition now.”

All three MPs quoted above said that Starmer was now adrift from the mood within his own party as he continued to impose his personal view. As one put it: “This is being laid squarely at his door.”

Some of Keir Starmer’s own MPs now fear that the U.K. prime minister’s hesitance has done irreversible damage to Labour’s reputation with voters. | Adam Vaughan/EPA

Starmer seems unlikely to budge anytime soon, even as the demands to reconsider from his own friends and allies grow louder.

One key motivation for Starmer is his desire to maintain good relations with Trump, who brusquely dismissed Macron’s move last week, saying: “What he says doesn’t matter.”

Peter Ricketts, the U.K.’s former national security adviser, said this consideration was “definitely a factor.” A second former high-ranking British diplomat agreed the prime minister would not want to “annoy” the Americans, following a year of concerted efforts to build up goodwill with the White House.

The second ex-diplomat linked Starmer’s caution to his background as a barrister, saying: “I suspect his lawyerly mind will wonder what exactly he would be recognizing, since there are not any recognized borders of a Palestinian state.”

The prime minister also has a deeply ingrained suspicion of what he calls “gesture politics,” which he has repeatedly railed against in speeches and cited when he first came under pressure to call for a ceasefire in 2023.

‘Learned the lesson’

Some observers think Starmer has so far made the right choice in trying to keep Trump onside, meaning he is at least able to present a case for seeking an end to the conflict in Gaza. 

Former British Ambassador to the U.S. Kim Darroch told the BBC: “He seems to have learned the lesson that taking public issue with Trump lands you in trouble. You can make difficult points to him, but in private.”

And there are those in Starmer’s party who believe his misgivings are not mere legal quibbles and that he is right to stick to his guns.

Jon Pearce, a Labour MP and the parliamentary chair of Labour Friends of Israel, wrote this week: “If Britain were to follow this course, we would inevitably risk damaging our reputation as an impartial broker and reduce our ability to bring about a sustainable long-term peace.”

Pressed on the recognition issue in Scotland Monday, Trump said of Starmer: “I’m not going to take a position. I don’t mind him taking a position. I’m looking for getting people fed.”

But the fact that Starmer has accepted it is right to recognize Palestine in principle means it is now a matter of when, not if, he takes the plunge.

Ricketts suggested that just as Starmer was reluctant to change position before seeing Trump in Scotland, he is unlikely to give his full backing to statehood until after Trump makes his state visit in September.

That rules out Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s making any major change of stance at this week’s United Nations conference on a two-state solution, but leaves Britain open to recognizing Palestine at the U.N. General Assembly after the state visit.  

While this might go some way to satisfying the critics on his own backbenches, there are Labour MPs who fear his hesitance has done irreparable damage to the party.

One of the MPs already quoted said Labour has “been persistently behind the curve” — and that voters “will not forgive us.”