Sir Keir Starmer ‘strongly in favour’ of two-state solution after calls for him to snub Israeli ambassador
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted he is “strongly in favour” of a two-state solution after calls from the Labour Muslim Network to cut ties with Israel’s UK ambassador over her rejection of the policy.
In an interview with Sky News last week, Tzipi Hotovely dismissed the prospect of a two-state solution after the conflict in Gaza ends, telling Mark Austin “absolutely no”.
The remarks caused concern internationally, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak publicly disagreeing with the ambassador and insisting it was still the UK government’s goal.
Politics live: Starmer issues warning over Putin’s threat to UK
Sky News revealed on Wednesday that a group of Labour’s Muslim members had written to the party leader about what they called her “Islamophobic” comments, urging him to take a firm stance and have “no further engagements” with the ambassador.
Asked about the letter while visiting British troops in Estonia, Sir Keir said: “Let me be very clear in relation to what the ambassador said.
“We are strongly in favour of a two-state solution and that has to be something that international partners have to be very, very clear about and is not in the gift of Israel.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Israel rejects two-state solution
Who wants a two-state solution?
A two-state solution has long been the desired outcome in the Middle East, not just of the UK, but of the US and UN.
They believe there should be an independent Palestinian state established alongside the existing one of Israel – giving both peoples their own territory.
It has previously been endorsed by Israel, but only if Palestinian military groups put down their arms – while Palestinians have said they would agree if they could police themselves.
Read more:
What is the two-state solution for Israel and Palestinians?
But as the conflict rolls on following the Hamas attacks in Israel on 7 October, two Israeli politicians have now rejected the end goal.
“Israel knows today, and the world should know now that the Palestinians never wanted to have a state next to Israel,” Ms Hotovely told Sky News.
“They want to have a state from the river to the sea. They are saying it loud and clear. It’s now two months after the war started. The Palestinian Authority didn’t condemn this massacre (7 October). It’s such a big problem.”
Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary David Cameron said the UK government had made it “very clear” to Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers that they must not do anything to jeopardise the prospect of a two-state solution.
The former prime minister is in Egypt holding talks over the conflict, and will visit Al Arish near the border with Gaza later as the government continues to call on Israel to allow more aid into the strip.
Lord David Cameron has been visiting Cairo to discuss the ongoing conflict in the Middle East
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sir Keir Starmer and shadow defence secretary, John Healey, are at a NATO base.
Speaking at a press conference alongside Egyptian foreign minister, Sameh Shoukry, Lord Cameron said: “We’ve been very clear with Israel, there can be no permanent occupation of Gaza, no displacement of people from Gaza, no diminution of the size of the Palestinian territories.
“All of those things would be wrong, and we’ve made that very clear.”
He added: “Obviously, it is difficult to get from where we are now to where we want to be.
“But sometimes you have to use moments of crisis as potential moments of opportunity.”
WazirX has been trying to get a restructuring plan through the Singapore High Court to start returning funds to users impacted by the $234 million hack in 2024.
“It’s an interesting moment,” was how one government source described the High Court ruling that will force an Essex hotel to be emptied of asylum seekers within weeks.
That may prove to be the understatement of the summer.
For clues as to why, just take a glance at what the Home Office’s own lawyer told the court on Tuesday.
Granting the injunction “runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests”, the barrister said – pointing out that similar legal claims by other councils would “aggravate pressures on the asylum estate”.
Right on cue and just hours after the ruling came in, Broxbourne Council – over the border in Hertfordshire – posted online that it was urgently seeking legal advice with a view to taking similar court action.
The risks here are clear.
Police officers ahead of a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel. Pic: PA
Recent figures show just over 30,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels across the country.
If they start to empty out following a string of court claims, the Home Office will struggle to find alternative options.
After all, they are only in hotels because of a lack of other types of accommodation.
There are several caveats though.
This is just an interim injunction that will be heard in full in the autumn.
So the court could swing back in favour of the hotel chain – and by extension the Home Office.
Read more:
Who says what on asylum hotels?
Protesters in Epping on 8 August. Pic: Reuters
We have been here before
Remember, this isn’t the first legal claim of this kind.
Other councils have tried to leverage the power of the courts to shut down asylum hotels, with varying degrees of success.
In 2022, Ipswich Borough Council failed to get an extension to an interim injunction to prevent migrants being sent to a Novotel in the town.
As in Epping, lawyers argued there had been a change in use under planning rules.
The hotel has been the scene of regular protests. Pic: PA
But the judge eventually decided that the legal duty the Home Office has to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was more important.
So there may not be a direct read across from this case to other councils.
Home Office officials are emphasising this injunction was won on the grounds of planning laws rather than national issues such as public order, and as such, each case will be different.
Failing Labour approach or Tory tricks?
But government sources also smell dirty tricks from Epping Council and are suggesting that the Tory-led local authority made the legal claim for political reasons.
Pointing to the presence of several prominent Tory MPs in the Essex area – as well as the threat posed by Reform in the county – the question being posed is why this legal challenge was not brought when asylum seekers first started being sent to the hotel in 2020 during the Conservatives‘ time in government.
Epping Council would no doubt reject that and say recent disorder prompted them to act.
But that won’t stop the Tories and Reform of seizing on this as evidence of a failing approach from Labour.
So there are political risks for the government, yes, but it’s the practicalities that could flow from this ruling that pose the bigger danger.
Federal Reserve vice chair for supervision, Michelle Bowman, says the central bank should roll back its restrictions that ban staff from buying crypto.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike