Starmer has made an unforced error for the ages.
“STEPHEN GLOVER: Starmer’s Chagos deal was bad enough, but recognising Palestine could see Britain facing £2trillion in reparations,” by Stephen Glover, Daily Mail, September 22, 2025:
…This time – if Starmer, Hermer and Sands get their way – we will be paying huge sums in reparations to a future Palestinian state.
Starmer yesterday announced Britain’s unconditional recognition of such a state. This decision will embolden Hamas terrorists, and dismay the Trump administration. Israel will be apoplectic, and may withhold valuable intelligence it shares with this country.
Yet, as Justice Minister and former Foreign Secretary David Lammy conceded yesterday, recognition will do nothing to end the fighting and won’t save a single human life in Gaza.
For all these reasons, the Government’s decision at this moment is profoundly foolish, and just what you would expect of a Prime Minister who is not so much out of his depth as up a creek without a paddle.
Probably the most egregious upshot of Starmer’s announcement is that it will take us a step closer to shelling out billions or even trillions of pounds to a future Palestinian state for alleged human rights abuses during what is known as the British Mandate.
Britain ruled the territory of Palestine from 1917 until 1947, and struggled without success to hold the ring between Arabs and a growing number of Jewish immigrants. Our government proposed a two-state solution and then changed its mind in favour of a single state. Eventually, unable to broker any permanent solution, we left.
During the mandate, Britain was intermittently at odds with both Palestinians and Jews. In the late 1930s Arab extremists were responsible for the deaths of about 130 of our servicemen.
A similar number were killed later by Jewish terrorists in the dying days of the mandate.
It is undeniable that the British authorities acted harshly towards some Palestinian militants in the so-called Arab Revolt between 1936 to 1939, though they had of course been provoked.
But not even the most deluded anti-colonialist or ignorant human rights lawyer could justly claim that Britain profited from its mandate.
History is now being rewritten to suit an anti-imperialist narrative. President Mahmoud Abbas – in charge of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank since 2005 – has demanded ‘reparations in accordance with international law’ from Britain, partly for land lost by Palestinians.
Abbas has previously threatened to sue Britain if it doesn’t apologise for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which set out its intention to create a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in Palestine as long as ‘the civil and religious rights’ of Arabs weren’t prejudiced….
BTeboe says
Unforced error is an understatement.
John Allan says
‘Abbas has previously threatened to sue Britain if it doesn’t apologise for the 1917 Balfour Declaration’
The BEST of luck, with THAT!
Although, given the CURRENT lot that we call ‘a government’ … he MIGHT WELL SUCCEED!
granddaddyo says
“But not even the most deluded anti-colonialist or ignorant human rights lawyer could justly claim that Britain profited from its mandate.”
It really all depends on how dishonest they want to be. Especially when they see that $2.7 trillion reward dangling in front of them.
OLD GUY says
The lawyers will win either way.
somehistory says
So, the terrorist who was *elected* to serve a couple of years….how many now has he “served” himself and sons?….wants a ‘state,’ and starmer and crew are giving him one, at least on paper, and so he can now claim a few trillion for not having a ‘state’ before.
The U.K, (it’s hard-working citizen) are already supporting millions of muzziescummies to the tune of billions and now, they will be expected to shell out even more.
There once was a saying of sorts; “What is the world coming to?”….Armageddon and it’s on a fast track.
England Invaded says
Just like the money going for Chagos only many times bigger.
This will just embolden the muslim animals within the countries which have done this.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
“the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which set out its intention to create a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in Palestine as long as ‘the civil and religious rights’ of Arabs weren’t prejudiced…”
Civil and religious rights for the Arabs would be preserved, but nothing was said, quite deliberately, about any”political rights” of the Arabs..
jerry glenn says
UK surges in the European Islamopandering derby.
Michael says
The Mandate for Palestine was issued by the League of Nations not Britain. The British Government was only the Mandatary (the holder of the Mandate tasked with its administration from 1922 to 1948).
Article 5 of the Mandate states: “The Mandatary (i.e. Britain) shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.” That is EXACTLY what Starmer is attempting to do right now in recognising a Palestinian State within the Mandated borders of the Jewish Homeland.
Article 6 of the Mandate states: The Administration of Palestine…….shall facilitate Jewish immigration ….. and shall encourage……. close settlement by Jews on the land”
As the Mandatary power in Palestine the British government failed woefully to fulfil the duty of Article 6. If failed to protect the Jews from the violence and massacres of the Arabs and prior to the start of WW2 Britain limited Jewish immigration to 15,000 a year from Hitler’s Europe. How many Jewish lives were lost in Hitler’s death camps because of Britain’s dereliction of duty in preventing Jewish immigration instead of facilitating it?
And today Britain et al are now helping to finish the genocide of the Jewish people in their own homeland began by Hitler. By establish a legal Palestinian State for Arab terrorists (and that is what they are whether they dress army fatigues or suits and ties), inside the Mandated borders of Israel thereby making their war against the Jewish State vastly easier to conduct.
David says
The writer tries his best to whitewash Britain’s perfidious behavior in getting and administering the Leage of Nations Mandate. (Please don’t use the misleading term “British Mandate.” The article doesn’t mention that Britain’s decision to recognize a “state of Palestine” blatantly violates its own treaty obligations and international law. (The same criticism applies to the behavior of France and others.)
Following World War I, the status of the Ottoman Empire’s former possessions was determined at a 1920 conference in San Remo, Italy, attended by the victors, France, Britain, Italy, Japan and as an observer, the U.S. The San Remo Resolution assigned the area, then called Southern Syria or Palestine, to be administered by Britain. But only as trustee, pledged with the duty to create the Jewish state as early as possible. At San Remo, title to the area passed to the Jewish People. Lord Curzon and many others called the San Remo Resolution “the Magna Carta of the Zionists.”
Two years later the Conference’s decisions were confirmed unanimously by all fifty-one member countries of the League of Nations, and also endorsed by a joint resolution of the U. S. Congress. When the League of Nations was succeeded by the U.N., the U.N. assumed the same legal obligation to create a Jewish state. That obligation is still in force, and the U.N.’s hostility to Israel violates its own founding charter.
In short, for more than 100 years, Israel has been legally recognized at the Jewish national home. France’s and Britain’s intent to carve a 23rd Arab state out of Israel blatantly violates their own solemn treaty obligations