Starmer’s deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands was one of the most idiotic in human history. He handed over £35 billion of our money to rent a base on Diego Garcia, for which a previous British government had already paid more than 50 years ago.
There was no compulsion under international law to pay the Mauritians a penny. Nonetheless, egged on by his friend and fellow human rights lawyer, Attorney General Lord Hermer, he dug into our pockets and those of our children and grandchildren.
What utter, mind-boggling lunacy. Starmer, Hermer and their friend Philippe Sands, KC (who actually acted for the Mauritius government!) believe that in any confrontation between Britain and its former colonies, the former colonies must always be right.
We are almost certainly heading for another row which will make the Chagos Islands payout look like small change. 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.
Sir Keir Starmer officially recognised a Palestine state on Sunday
Foreign Secretary David Lammy admitted that recognising a Palestinian state will do nothing to end the fighting
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.
One could certainly argue that the British failed to protect the rights of Palestinians. But it is absurd to present the Balfour Declaration as an historical crime that necessitates the kind of compensation Abbas has been demanding at the UN.
Note that Mahmoud Abbas is the leader of the prototype state that our hopeless Government is now recognising. It won’t be long before he’s on the phone to his new partner Starmer, insisting on an apology from HMG for past sins, plus a substantial down payment while lawyers calculate the final required amount.
Abbas won’t be short of human rights lawyers in this country to help him. A group called Britain Owes Palestine is calling for an apology for alleged war crimes committed during the mandate, and of course for accompanying payments.
A week ago, it published a 400-page document drafted by senior human rights barristers detailing ‘incontrovertible evidence’ of what is described as the UK’s unlawful occupation of Palestine and its ‘systematic abuse’ of the Palestinian people.
Ben Emmerson, KC, who is a former UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter terrorism, has spoken of ‘the extent of British responsibility for the terrible suffering in Palestine’ and of this country’s ‘international obligations to make amends’.
How much money might be involved? No figure has yet been specified, but according to some legal experts the bill for having ruled Palestine could be as much as £2 trillion, which is getting on for double the entire UK public spending for one year.
There’s more. The American Society of International Law and the University of the West Indies claims that Britain owes a staggering £18.8 trillion in compensation for slavery and colonialism throughout the world.
It is all preposterous, of course. Do these people seriously maintain that colonialism was a one-way street in which Britain took everything and gave nothing back? What about parliamentary government, the rule of law, the introduction of Christianity, modern medicine and much else?
Unfortunately, Labour has encouraged a queue of avaricious petitioners. David Lammy once supported calls for reparations for slavery, while Lord Hermer reportedly helped human rights lawyers a decade ago to prepare a legal case for slavery reparations that Caribbean nations could bring against the UK.
Our witless Prime Minister has strayed into another hornets’ nest. Does he so hate this country and its past that he is eager to crawl on all fours to Abbas, or whoever happens to be leading the nascent Palestinian state, with a huge cheque in his hand?
In principle, I support the idea of recognising a Palestinian state, but only when there is something that can be sized up before it is recognised. Is it viable? Will it be peaceful and live in a state of harmony with Israel? Will it be a threat to the West?
And, no less important, will it portray itself as the victim of imagined British wickedness, and attempt to bamboozle the Government into giving it billions of pounds we don’t have?
When the answers to all these questions are the ones we seek, let’s go ahead and recognise Palestine as a state. As things stand, we are very far from having the necessary assurances. We don’t even know what we are recognising.
The Chagos Islands were bad enough. Now our blundering – and no doubt historically ignorant – Prime Minister has edged us closer to paying much greater sums to a Palestinian state, although our only ‘crime’ was to try to keep the peace.
