Starmer’s Palestine recognition pledge faces legal firestorm from lords and top KCSs.
Sir Keir Starmer’s vow to recognise a Palestinian state has triggered a legal and political firestorm, with some of the country’s top lawyers warning it could breach international law.
In a dramatic escalation, 38 peers — including leading King’s Counsel and legal heavyweights — have written to Attorney General Lord Hermer to challenge the legality of Starmer’s plans. They argue that Palestine fails to meet the recognised criteria for statehood under international law, particularly the 1933 Montevideo Convention.
Their warning follows the Prime Minister’s announcement on Tuesday that Britain could formally recognise a Palestinian state as soon as September. But this bold step, Starmer said, hinges on key conditions being met — including Israel halting land annexations, allowing more aid into Gaza, and committing to a long-term peace process.
Hamas, he added, must also immediately release all Israeli hostages, disarm, and agree to have no political role in Gaza.
Embed from Getty ImagesBut in a sharply worded letter, the Lords accused the Prime Minister of risking the integrity of the UK’s foreign policy. “Palestine does not meet the international law criteria for recognition of a state,” they wrote, citing the lack of a defined territory, a single functioning government, or a permanent population under unified rule.
They further pointed out the ongoing division between Hamas and Fatah — two rival Palestinian factions — as a reason Palestine cannot currently be classed as a coherent state.
Lord Hermer, who has previously warned against politicising legal standards, now faces intense pressure to publicly explain whether such a move would violate international norms.
“You have said that a ‘pick and mix’ approach to international law will lead to its disintegration,” the peers reminded him, demanding he now demonstrate his own consistency by advising against Starmer’s proposal.
Among those who signed the letter are some of the legal world’s most respected names: Lord Pannick KC, who famously represented the Johnson government in the Supreme Court over the Rwanda scheme; Lord Faulks KC; and Lord Verdirame KC. Also signing were prominent Jewish peers including Baroness Deech, Lord Winston, and Baroness Altmann, as well as ex-Conservative ministers Lord Pickles and Lord Lansley.
Sir Michael Ellis KC, a former Conservative attorney general, also added his name — the only non-peer to do so.
The backlash comes amid international uproar over Starmer’s proposal. British-Israeli former hostage Emily Damari, who was held by Hamas for over a year, accused the Prime Minister of failing to stand “on the right side of history”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the recognition pledge a “reward” for terrorism.
But the government insists the move is about principles, not posturing. “This is about the Palestinian people. It’s about getting aid in to those starving children,” said Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander.
When pressed by BBC Radio 4 on whether hostage releases by Hamas were a prerequisite, Alexander responded: “We expect Hamas to act in the same way as we expect Israel to act. We’re giving Israel eight weeks to act. If they want to be at the table to shape that enduring peace, they must act.”
Sir Keir has faced mounting pressure from within Parliament, with over 250 cross-party MPs signing a letter urging him to recognise Palestinian statehood.
Meanwhile, the legal wrangle deepened further on Wednesday, as Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori won a High Court bid to challenge Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to proscribe the activist group as a terrorist organisation. The decision came after members claimed responsibility for damaging military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton.
With the UK’s legal and political elite now deeply divided, September’s deadline looms as a flashpoint moment — one that could redefine Britain’s stance on the Middle East, and test the limits of law and leadership alike
