By now, we’re used to Donald Trump expediting some dramatic changes in policy in an almost casual manner. But in giving the British government the green light to recognise Palestine as an independent sovereign state, the president has sprung one of his more significant surprises.
It follows very closely after his rejection of Benjamin Netanyahu’s grotesque claim that there is no starvation in Gaza. It opens up policy options for Sir Keir Starmer that previously seemed off-limits if the prime minister were to preserve his special personal rapport with Mr Trump. It means that, at the cabinet meeting this week, the British government could take a historic step comparable to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that recognised the case for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Obviously, the British government, then an imperial power, had incomparably greater means to set the course of events in the region. Sir Keir has also formally stated that Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, can never form part of an administration in Gaza; that is not part of the recognition process. Nonetheless, it would see the UK follow France in making that move, even if Sir Keir keeps the emphasis on recognition forming part of the two-state solution.
Without the effective consent of the United States, the indisputable leading Western power in the region, to make such a move, recognition of Palestine by the UK might have squandered influence and proved irrelevant or even counterproductive. Now, it will actually carry with it the suggestion of American neutrality or acquiescence.
That makes a difference. In terms of domestic policy, Sir Keir need no longer necessarily fear another parliamentary rebellion by his backbenchers, nor ministerial resignations, nor a hostile party conference session.
There’s no doubt that Israel has been losing significant ground in diplomatic terms and with world opinion in recent weeks. When as loyal an ally as Mr Trump cannot bring himself to endorse Mr Netanyahu’s astonishing – indeed, shaming – claim that “there is no policy of starvation in Gaza and there is no starvation”, then there is not much the Israeli prime minister can hope for from international sympathy. Even if the first part of that statement could, by some feat of sophistry, be justified, the second certainly cannot.
The images of emaciated, suffering babies and children that are coming out of Gaza are, as Sir Keir says, “revolting”. So is the attitude of those who have allowed this to happen. As the occupying power, Israel has a solemn obligation under international law to protect the civilian population. Demonstrably, that has not been discharged.
Gaza’s health ministry, which is Hamas-controlled, says some 14 people have died in the past 24 hours of starvation and malnutrition, making a total of 147, including 88 children, most in just the last few weeks. Whether this is all the fault of Israel – or, as Mr Netanyahu (and sometimes Mr Trump) asserts, of Hamas stealing supplies and money – the horrendous facts on the ground, verified by the world’s news outlets, are not in doubt. The UNRWA relief body warns that one in five infants is acutely malnourished and at risk. This is what has to be stopped now; blame can be ascribed later.
As has long been evident, President Trump has an unparalleled ability to make extravagant claims in the face of contradictory facts, and has himself proposed outlandish plans for the future of the Gaza Strip; but, answering reporters’ questions, he bluntly rejected the Israeli prime minister’s statement: “That’s real starvation […] They have to get food and safety right now.” That is an important break with the Israeli government.
Mr Netanyahu has developed a habit of annoying Mr Trump by saying and doing things without consulting Washington, including bombing Israel’s neighbours, and the very real incidence of hunger in Gaza, apparent enough to Mr Trump, seems to be the latest cause of friction. It has seemingly provoked President Trump into taking a more relaxed attitude towards Palestinian statehood. Continuing intense pressure from the international community, and particularly the United States, has also resulted in a resumption of aid supplies through traditional land routes.
Certainly, there seems to be no other reason, aside from that global disgust at what’s happening, and President Trump’s personal revulsion, why Israel would voluntarily pause its military activities, albeit temporarily, to allow more humanitarian aid to flow into the area. President Trump says Mr Netanyahu has to make sure the Palestinians get the food. The Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF), which is backed by Israel and the US, has proved ineffective, at best, while the latest air drops could never address the scale of the approaching famine.
For the moment, the very worst consequences of the shortages of food, water and shelter may be averted, provided that the UN and others are permitted to do what they, in contrast to the GHF, are well suited to doing: relieving desperate suffering and saving lives in the most efficient ways available.
That will certainly help, but it is obviously only a temporary solution to a much wider challenge, and one that may yet overwhelm the various agencies doing their best to make a difference. This is a population of 2 million people squeezed into a few square miles, where almost all economic activity, infrastructure, housing, medical and sanitary systems have been destroyed. There are few, if any, comparable situations anywhere since the devastation of the Second World War. The basic means of sustaining life in Gaza are disappearing; the results can be seen across the world’s media. Even Mr Trump believes Israel bears a lot of responsibility to ameliorate the situation.
The immediate task for America’s allies – and that also means Israel’s friends and partners – is to continue to act on that shift in sentiment towards the Netanyahu government, and leverage whatever influence that can be brought to be bear on Mr Trump to keep up the pressure on the man he still sees as his friend and he calls Bibi.
In Britain, as in many other Western nations, support for recognising Palestinian statehood is growing.
Indeed, it is becoming irresistible. Even so, for the moment, the primary goal of this global diplomatic effort must be focused on immediate humanitarian aid, a lengthy ceasefire, and a peace process.
The Palestinians in Gaza need food, water, shelter and medicines. The people of Gaza have been suffering such limitless agonies for so long. Right now, while the merits and the technicalities of recognising the state of Palestine are being debated, nothing else matters.
