The tragic images of starvation emerging from Gaza have shocked and angered the world. Yet we’ve become dangerously desensitized to the daily toll of death and destruction, seemingly powerless to intervene. But when even President Trump is moved to acknowledge “real starvation” in his press briefings, it signals a potential turning point.
Israel’s response to the barbaric attacks 21 long months ago is increasingly testing the international community. Every state has the right to defend itself – but also the responsibility to wield force judiciously. How retribution is carried out, how military power is applied, and how operations affect civilians in the invaded territories all matter deeply. It confirms our values and distinguishes us from those we must fight.
The scale of continued suffering in Gaza cannot be justified solely by Israel’s right to defeat Hamas. This is not to say Hamas should not be confronted – but rather Israel’s absence of a discernible strategy to convert battlefield gains into lasting peace, or to separate Hamas from the broader Palestinian population. Two-thirds of Gaza lies in ruins. Two million people are displaced. And dozens die weekly, not in combat, but for inching forward in chaotic food lines, desperate for handouts.
On the ground, Hamas forces have been severely weakened. Iran, its proxy backer, has also been constrained. And yet, famine now looms as the deadliest threat. Under international pressure, Israel has permitted food airdrops into Gaza. But, as UN aid chief Tom Fletcher has said, these are “a drop in the ocean”.
Airdrops are inefficient, especially while hundreds of aid trucks wait, fully loaded, at sealed border crossings. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has kept those crossings closed and removed food distribution from UN agencies, handing it to the Israeli Defence Forces, who lack the infrastructure or experience to manage it effectively.
Let’s be blunt. Beyond “destroying Hamas”, Netanyahu offers no credible endgame, no plan for post-conflict governance in Gaza, no roadmap toward the long-promised two-state solution. His actions suggest a strategy of perpetual conflict.
Regional powers, including Egypt, Jordan and the UAE, along with much of the international community, are eager to help. Not only to address the humanitarian crisis but to support the establishment of a credible post-Hamas governance structure that’s likely to require international supervision. But Netanyahu rejects such support, shielded by continued backing from the White House, which has so far extended understandable but seemingly unconditional support following the Hamas attacks.
However, Netanyahu’s tactical decisions, lacking any strategic vision, are beginning to test that support. Where is he taking this conflict – a conflict that, in a broader sense, has been ongoing since 1948. His devastating campaign in Gaza and continued illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank suggest an intent to make a two-state solution unviable.
In 2014, when the UK Parliament last debated Palestinian recognition, I responded as a foreign minister, saying Britain would recognise Palestine only when it judged such a move would aid the peace process, not as a symbolic gesture. It’s a card that can only be played once, so it must be used wisely.
It’s easy to argue that now is not the right time – that we must focus on the immediate crisis. But I would argue that now is exactly the right time, to deliver a jolt that might reverse a dangerous trajectory, one that risks closing the window on a two-state solution forever.
This issue is on the agenda at the UN in New York. Recognition could help shift global focus, isolate Hamas politically, and undercut Iran’s justification for arming proxies in the region.
Waiting endlessly for the “perfect moment” is not a strategy. The current status quo, or the pursuit of a one-state solution, will only entrench a perpetual insurgency, fuelled externally and leaving Israel in a state of permanent tensions with its neighbours.
As Trump’s support for Netanyahu grows more conditional - including calls for decisive action to prevent famine – let’s leverage this to refocus attention on the broader strategic imperative: achieving a two-state solution. Without that, suffering, extremism, and endless war will continue.
Tobias Ellwood is a former foreign minister
Lady Starmer deserves better than putting up with ‘banter’ from Donald Trump
Finally, Mr Trump has made an important break with the Israeli government
Britain has no business laughing at Trump’s EU trade deal
Starmer must take a strong line with Trump to relieve the suffering in Gaza
Is Greggs about to go the same way as Starbucks?
Why do men like Jeremy Clarkson get so upset about women playing football?
