Minister dismisses claims that recognising Palestinian state risks breaching international law
Good morning. Keir Starmer has been widely criticised for his announcement on Tuesday that the UK will recognise a Palestinian state unless Israel agrees a ceasefire in Gaza and commits to the two-state solution (which Benjamin Netanyahu’s government does not support). There have been two main objections. The Tories, and others, are mostly dismissing this as pointless, a gesture that will appease Labour MPs without having any practical, positive impact for Palestinians. The other line of attack argues that the move will have an impact, because it will reward Hamas for their attack on Israel, and incentivise them not to make peace or release the remaining hostages. This is what the Israeli government is saying, but the person who has made this argument most forcefully is Emily Damari, a British-Israeli woman held hostage by Hamas for more than a year. Her words have provided the Daily Mail with its splash.
Today the decision is under fire on a third front. According to a story by Matt Dathan, Ali Mitib and Geraldine Scott on the Times front page, the move may unlawful. They say 40 members of the House of Lords have put this point to Lord Hermer, the attorney general, in a letter. They report:
Some of Britain’s most prominent lawyers have warned Sir Keir Starmer that his government’s pledge to recognise a Palestinian state risks breaking international law.
Their intervention, signed by 40 members of the House of Lords, said a Palestinian state would not meet the criteria for recognition as set out under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933 …
The signatories point out that Starmer’s pledge risked undermining the government’s commitment that international law goes “absolutely to the heart” of its foreign policy.
Under the Montevideo Convention, to qualify for statehood under international law, a state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The peers say that arguably Palestine does not meet any of these four conditions.
According to the Times, the signatories include seven KCs, including Lord Pannick, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, a former supreme court judge, former Tory ministers including Eric Pickles and Andrew Lansley, and Arlene Foster, the former DUP leader.
Keir Starmer is speaking the media later today, but Gareth Thomas, the business minister, has been doing the interview round this morning and he told Times Radio that the government thinks recognising a Palestinian state would be compliant with international law. He explained:
We haven’t signed up to the Montevideo Convention, but is there a clear population in Palestine? Yes, there is in Gaza and the West Bank.
We have made clear that we think you would recognise the state of Palestine, and that state of Palestine would be based on the 1967 borders.
Of course, there would have to be land swaps and there would be a shared capital of Jerusalem. They are well-regarded international views.
As I say, 140 other countries have already recognised the state of Palestine. The prime minister was in talks this week with a series of countries, including Canada, and Canada have overnight, as you will have seen, taken the decision to recognise Palestine in September.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: The Ministry of Justice publishes figures covering prison numbers, and assaults, deaths and self-harm in jails.
11am: Mourners attend the funeral of Norman Tebbit at St Edmundsbury Cathedral in Bury St Edmunds.
Morning: Keir Starmer and Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, are on a visit in the south-west of England to promote plans to penalise firms that pay their suppliers late. They are due to give media interviews.
Also, at some point today, Heathrow Airport will submit its third runway plans to the government.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Key events
Earlier I said that there were two main objections to Keir Starmer’s Palestinian state recognition plan (ineffectiveness, and rewarding terror), with a third added today (potential unlawfulness). See 8.50am. I should have made it clear that those are the objections from the anti-recognition side.
As we reported on Tuesday, there are also strong objections from pro-recognition campaigners who want Starmer to be far more supportive of the Palestinians, and who do not believe recogniton should be conditional on what Israel does.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign is in this camp. Here is an extract from their statement on Starmer’s decision.
Keir Starmer, who refuses even to recognise that Israel is violating international law in Gaza, is offering to recognise a Palestinian state if, and only if, Israel’s starvation and atrocities are still ongoing in two months’ time. If not, what is now being presented as a step towards recognising the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination will be rescinded. His grotesque message to Palestinians is that state recognition may come, but only if and when many, many more of you are dead.
Despite Starmer’s attempt to represent his statements on Tuesday as a turning point, it is abundantly clear to all that it is simply more of the same, but with the possibility of conditional Palestinian statehood in September added to the package of collusion and complicity with genocide.
Prisons in England and Wales becoming more violent, MoJ figures show
Prisons in England and Wales have become more violent over the past year, figures published by the Ministry of Justice show.
The safety in custody statistics show:
-
Assaults in jail were up 9% in the 12 months ending March 2025, reaching 356 assaults per 1,000 prisoners (30,846 assaults). But in the most recent quarter, the rate of assaults was unchanged.
-
Assaults on staff in jail were up 7% in the 12 months ending March 2025, reaching 122 assaults per 1,000 prisoners (10,568 assaults on staff). But in the most recent quarter, they were down 2.5%.
-
The rate of serious assaults in jails was up 6% in the 12 months ending March 2025, reaching 39 serious assaults per 1,000 prisoners (3,402 incidents). These figures include serious prisoner-on-prisoner assaults (up 8%) and serious assaults on staff (down 2%).
Transport secretary Heidi Alexander transport secretary to meet air traffic control boss after flight disruption
Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, will meet the boss of the UK’s airspace controller today to discuss the 20-minute failure of computer systems that led to widespread disruption yesterday, Jasper Jolly reports. He has more on his business live blog.
Former Tory attorney general suggests recognising Palestinian state could be face judicial review legal challenge
Michael Ellis, the former Tory attorney general, has claimed that a decision to recognise the state of Palestine could be challenged in the courts under the judicial review process.
Ellis is reportedly one of the lawyers who have signed the letter to Lord Hermer, the attorney general, saying recognising Palestinian statehood would be contrary to international law (see 8.50am) and he told Times Radio that it was “hypocritical” of Keir Starmer to international law considerations on this matter, while stressing the importance of upholding international law in other situations.
Ellis said:
Keir Starmer, as prime minister, has repeatedly said that he would adhere to international law. And he’s gone further than that. He’s taken, you might think, a high moral tone …
He’s said that international law goes absolutely to the heart of his foreign policy. He even went so far as to say – and I think it was pretty rash for him to do so – but he said some time ago that a selective pick and mix approach to international law will lead to its disintegration. He said that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience. So those are things that he said …
It’s not fine to be hypocritical about that and to say we’re going to follow international law … when it suits him.
Ellis said that, when Starmer decided to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, he argued that this was necessary because the UK had to comply with international law – even though the relevant international court ruling was only advisory. But recognising a Palestinian state would be contrary to international law, he claimed.
He added:
If they’re not careful, we could even be talking about judicial review territory here.
Recognising Palestine as state ultimately ‘a political judgment’, says business minister Gareth Thomas
Although Gareth Thomes, the business minister speaking for the government on the morning interview round, said the government did regard recognising a Palestinian state as lawful (see 8.50am), he also argued that ultimately this was a political judgment. He told Times Radio:
In the end, recognition of another state is a political judgment and over 140 countries have already recognised Palestine, and we’re determined to do so in September if Israel does not end the violence in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and agree to a lasting route towards a two-state solution, and to no annexation in the West Bank.
What peers have said about how recognising state of Palestine would be ‘contrary to international law’
In its report, the Times has published quotes from the letter sent by 40 peers to Lord Hermer, the attorney general, arguing that recognising the state of Palestine would be contrary to international law. The peers tell Hermer:
We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law.
You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this government and its approach to foreign policy.
You have said that a selective ‘pick and mix’ approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.
Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.
Minister dismisses claims that recognising Palestinian state risks breaching international law
Good morning. Keir Starmer has been widely criticised for his announcement on Tuesday that the UK will recognise a Palestinian state unless Israel agrees a ceasefire in Gaza and commits to the two-state solution (which Benjamin Netanyahu’s government does not support). There have been two main objections. The Tories, and others, are mostly dismissing this as pointless, a gesture that will appease Labour MPs without having any practical, positive impact for Palestinians. The other line of attack argues that the move will have an impact, because it will reward Hamas for their attack on Israel, and incentivise them not to make peace or release the remaining hostages. This is what the Israeli government is saying, but the person who has made this argument most forcefully is Emily Damari, a British-Israeli woman held hostage by Hamas for more than a year. Her words have provided the Daily Mail with its splash.
Today the decision is under fire on a third front. According to a story by Matt Dathan, Ali Mitib and Geraldine Scott on the Times front page, the move may unlawful. They say 40 members of the House of Lords have put this point to Lord Hermer, the attorney general, in a letter. They report:
Some of Britain’s most prominent lawyers have warned Sir Keir Starmer that his government’s pledge to recognise a Palestinian state risks breaking international law.
Their intervention, signed by 40 members of the House of Lords, said a Palestinian state would not meet the criteria for recognition as set out under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933 …
The signatories point out that Starmer’s pledge risked undermining the government’s commitment that international law goes “absolutely to the heart” of its foreign policy.
Under the Montevideo Convention, to qualify for statehood under international law, a state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The peers say that arguably Palestine does not meet any of these four conditions.
According to the Times, the signatories include seven KCs, including Lord Pannick, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, a former supreme court judge, former Tory ministers including Eric Pickles and Andrew Lansley, and Arlene Foster, the former DUP leader.
Keir Starmer is speaking the media later today, but Gareth Thomas, the business minister, has been doing the interview round this morning and he told Times Radio that the government thinks recognising a Palestinian state would be compliant with international law. He explained:
We haven’t signed up to the Montevideo Convention, but is there a clear population in Palestine? Yes, there is in Gaza and the West Bank.
We have made clear that we think you would recognise the state of Palestine, and that state of Palestine would be based on the 1967 borders.
Of course, there would have to be land swaps and there would be a shared capital of Jerusalem. They are well-regarded international views.
As I say, 140 other countries have already recognised the state of Palestine. The prime minister was in talks this week with a series of countries, including Canada, and Canada have overnight, as you will have seen, taken the decision to recognise Palestine in September.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: The Ministry of Justice publishes figures covering prison numbers, and assaults, deaths and self-harm in jails.
11am: Mourners attend the funeral of Norman Tebbit at St Edmundsbury Cathedral in Bury St Edmunds.
Morning: Keir Starmer and Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, are on a visit in the south-west of England to promote plans to penalise firms that pay their suppliers late. They are due to give media interviews.
Also, at some point today, Heathrow Airport will submit its third runway plans to the government.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.