In a move seen as an attempt by Labour to reassure the left of the party, Keir Starmer is set to reveal plans to recognise a Palestinian state.

Before you get too excited it’s disappointing that this type of obfuscating language is still used as a get out free card.

According to people familiar with a draft, it will say a Palestinian state should be recognised as “part of a peace process”

So basically never because a peace process won’t ever happen the way it currently stands.

when Sir Keir was asked whether a government he leads would follow Spain, Ireland and Norway in recognising a Palestinian state, he said it had to be “at the right time in the [peace] process… what it does need is international backing and consensus about the right point”.

He added: “That’s only going to happen if we work with our partners on it.”

No it’s only going to happen if you show some leadership instead of lagging behind Ireland, Spain, and Norway. Do you want to recognise the state or not? Or do you want to only recognise it when it’s beneficial to you and you’ve calculated that going into an election it’s not beneficial to you?

Disappointing.

  • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netEnglish
    6·
    5 months ago

    I think cynicism is a fair response to anything about the Israel-Palestine conflict and Labour’s response to it, but it’s worth noting that the Guardian has different language:

    the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process, and to make sure such a move does not get vetoed by a neighbouring country [my emphasis]

    I don’t know what that bit about the veto means, but ‘before the end of any peace process’ suggests they see it as part of the peace process, not an end result.

    I think it’s notable that Labour’s position is now firmly pro-ceasefire and anti any further military action by Israel. Per that same Guardian article, they’ve also given ‘implict support’ to the arrest warrant for Netanyahu, although there’s no specific reference given.

    • mannycalavera@feddit.ukOP
      3·
      5 months ago

      Fair. But before the end of any peace process when they know there will be no peace process is the equivalent to saying we’re kicking the can down the road.

      Peace process aside, do Labour want to recognise Palestine or not? Ireland, Spain, Norway want to and so have. But it sounds like Labour don’t want to with these words.

      Additionally do Labour want to instruct their future UN representative to admit Palestine as a full member? Or do they want to wait for an impossible situation to transpire in the distant future?

      I will be the most surprised person in the world if their position changes.

      • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netEnglish
        1·
        5 months ago

        We’ll have to wait for the manifesto to be sure, I agree, and you may well be correct that this is a big nothing.

        Hypothetically, though, if you thought that recognising Palestine now might hinder, rather than help, any eventual peace process (I’m not saying that this is what I think, to be clear), would you still want to go ahead with that recognition?

        • mannycalavera@feddit.ukOP
          2·
          5 months ago

          Hypothetically, though, if you thought that recognising Palestine now might hinder, rather than help, any eventual peace process (I’m not saying that this is what I think, to be clear), would you still want to go ahead with that recognition?

          I would decline to recognise. But: I would make it very clear why that is. For example I would say, “we refuse to recognise the Palestinian state because we don’t believe they are capable of functioning as a state with or without considerable help from the international community and without such a functioning state peace negotiations would fail”.

          Something like that. But instead we get “now is not the time”. Well why is it not the time. We’re not fucking idiots, tell us. “It’s just not the time”. Oh ok it’s like that.