Keir Starmer's announcement that the UK will recognise a Palestinian state in September, contingent on Israel maintaining a ceasefire, has provoked strong reactions from readers. Critics argue that the conditions should focus on Palestinian commitments, such as disarming Hamas and holding elections, rather than on Israeli actions.
Doug Maughan from Dunblane questioned why recognition depends on Israel, suggesting it should hinge on Palestine's pledges to abjure terrorism and release hostages. He called for immediate draconian sanctions against Israel, comparing the situation to apartheid South Africa.
Emeritus Professor Graham Mort of Lancaster University expressed despair, accusing the Prime Minister of obfuscation and indecisiveness. He highlighted Britain's historical responsibility for Palestine and warned that delay could lead to genocide or diaspora.
Rev Rob Kelsey from Berwick-upon-Tweed argued that Israel's actions risk creating moral equivalence with Hamas, thereby rewarding terrorism. He stated that Israel's stance on Palestinian statehood undermines its own claims.
Michael McLoughlin of Wallington criticised the conditional recognition as condescending, noting that Palestinians have existed as a nation for over a millennium. He condemned western governments for supplying weapons while starving Gaza.
Gavin Weir from Cape Town proposed a two-state solution involving UN control of Gaza for demilitarisation and reconstruction, along with a basic law for a constitutional Palestinian state.
