By: Fern Sidman

When British Prime Minister Keir Starmer moved to recognize an independent Palestinian state earlier this month, the announcement was meant to position the United Kingdom on the “right side of history.” Yet, as an investigative report in The Daily Mail of the UK revealed, the recognition could expose Britain to extraordinary financial and political costs tied to its administration of Mandatory Palestine between 1917 and 1947. According to a report that appeared on Thursday at VIN News, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and sympathetic legal activists are now openly preparing claims of reparations against London that could stretch into the trillions of pounds.

The renewed scrutiny over Britain’s role during the Mandate period draws attention to the way in which historical narratives—long dormant in political discourse—can suddenly acquire sharp relevance when current leaders make controversial decisions.

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Britain assumed control of Palestine under a League of Nations mandate. As the VIN News report explained, this mandate was never intended to be a permanent colonial possession. Rather, it was designed as a trusteeship, with Britain tasked to “hold the ring” between competing claims of Jews seeking a national homeland and Arab residents fearful of displacement.

In practice, the period was defined by constant turbulence. Arab extremists launched violent campaigns in the 1930s that left roughly 130 British servicemen dead. Later, as Britain prepared to depart, Jewish underground groups such as the Irgun and Lehi turned their anger on British authorities, killing another 130 soldiers and officials.

The Mandate ended in exhaustion. Britain withdrew in 1947, turning the matter over to the United Nations. As the VIN News report noted, London’s failure to broker a solution left a legacy of bitterness among both Jews and Arabs. Today, that unresolved history is being reinterpreted by Palestinian leaders as a justification for staggering reparations.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas—whose tenure has long been criticized by VIN News for its corruption and alignment with terror groups—has seized on Starmer’s recognition of a purported Palestinian state to resurrect longstanding grievances against Britain.

Speaking at the United Nations, Abbas demanded “reparations in accordance with international law” for land Palestinians lost during the Mandate and the subsequent wars. This was not a new tactic: Abbas has previously threatened to sue Britain if it did not apologize for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the British pledge to support a “national home for the Jewish people” while safeguarding the “civil and religious rights” of Arabs.

Legal groups sympathetic to Abbas, such as an activist consortium calling itself Britain Owes Palestine, have since released a 400-page report claiming to provide “incontrovertible evidence” of systematic abuses by British forces during the Arab Revolt of 1936–1939 and subsequent years. That report, drafted by senior barristers, frames Britain’s 30-year administration as an “unlawful occupation” and a series of war crimes for which reparations must be paid.

One of its most prominent voices, Ben Emmerson KC, a former UN special rapporteur, has argued that Britain bears “direct responsibility for the terrible suffering in Palestine” and that London faces “international obligations to make amends.”

The sheer scale of the potential claims is staggering. While no precise figures have been agreed upon, legal experts cited in the Daily Mail suggested that the reparations bill could reach as high as £2 trillion—almost twice the UK’s annual public spending.

As the VIN News report pointed out, such a demand would dwarf other reparations debates in Europe or Africa, placing Britain in a uniquely precarious financial position. For context, the UK’s entire defense budget in 2024 stood at just under £60 billion. Meeting a £2 trillion obligation would be economically impossible, yet the political pressure created by such lawsuits could complicate Britain’s diplomacy and domestic politics for years to come.

Critics see the reparations push as part of a broader attempt to rewrite history through an anti-colonialist lens. Britain’s record during the Mandate was undoubtedly harsh in moments—particularly during the suppression of the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt—but defenders argue the violence was provoked and that London derived little tangible benefit from administering Palestine.

As one VIN News commentator observed, “Not even the most deluded anti-colonialist or ignorant human rights lawyer could seriously claim that Britain enriched itself from Palestine.” Instead, Britain left the territory drained, frustrated, and eager to escape an impossible balancing act between two irreconcilable national movements.

Nevertheless, in today’s climate, with Western governments increasingly eager to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinian cause, narratives of British “colonial guilt” find fertile ground.

Prime Minister Starmer’s decision to recognize Palestine has catalyzed this debate. Critics inside Britain accuse him of acting precipitously, granting symbolic legitimacy to the Palestinian cause at precisely the moment when Hamas remains entrenched in Gaza and continues to hold Israeli hostages.

As VIN News reported, Abbas has swiftly interpreted the recognition as validation not only of Palestinian statehood but also of claims against Britain itself. Legal activists in London, emboldened by Starmer’s move, are now preparing to press their case in British and international courts.

For Starmer, this represents an unintended consequence: a symbolic gesture meant to project moral clarity may instead saddle his government with years of costly litigation and renewed polarization at home.

From Israel’s perspective, the reparations campaign is yet another maneuver by Abbas to delegitimize both Israel and its allies. Officials quoted in the VIN News report dismissed the claims as “lawfare,” a deliberate strategy to weaponize international legal institutions against democratic states.

Moreover, Israeli leaders note the irony that Abbas himself, now in the 19th year of a four-year presidential term, presides over a Palestinian Authority plagued by human rights abuses, suppression of dissent, and corruption. “Abbas should not be lecturing Britain or anyone else about moral obligations,” one senior Israeli diplomat told VIN News. “His regime’s own record speaks volumes.”

In 2012, the German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that intelligence archives indicated Abbas was responsible for the finances of the Black September unit that planned and executed the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre in which 11 Israeli athletes were murdered.

During a joint press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin in August 2022, a journalist asked Abbas if he would apologize for the Munich attack on its 50th anniversary. Abbas refused to condemn the attack and instead accused Israel of committing “50 Holocausts” against Palestinians.

Abbas’s comments drew immediate and widespread international condemnation. Chancellor Scholz stated he was “disgusted” by the remarks, and Israeli officials called them a “monstrous lie”.

Abbas’s office later issued a statement saying his comments were not meant to deny the Holocaust.

In 2010, Abbas attended the funeral of Amin al-Hindi, a Fatah security officer who had been alleged to have been a Black September member involved in the Munich attacks.

After the reported death of Abu Daoud, a suspected mastermind of the Munich massacre, in 2010, Abbas sent condolences to his family.

The implications of the reparations push extend beyond Britain. If successful, it could embolden similar claims against other Western powers with historic roles in the Middle East and beyond. Already, some activists are drawing parallels with French rule in North Africa or American support for various Cold War interventions.

As the VIN News report highlighted, the precedent would be destabilizing: modern governments could find themselves perpetually liable for the grievances of previous centuries, with no clear end point to historical accountability.

For critics of Abbas, the timing is particularly galling. With Gaza in ruins following Hamas’s October 2023 assault on Israel and the ongoing war, Palestinian leadership might be expected to prioritize reconstruction, governance, and reconciliation. Instead, Abbas appears fixated on resurrecting century-old grievances against Britain—grievances that, even if entertained, would do little to improve the lives of ordinary Palestinians today.

As the VIN News report observed, “Abbas is not a peacemaker seeking compromise; he is a tactician seeking leverage. His reparations threats have less to do with justice and more to do with perpetuating conflict.”

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recognition of a Palestinian state may prove to be more than a symbolic gesture. It risks opening Britain to costly and divisive legal battles, as Abbas and his allies press for reparations linked to the Mandate period.

The potential claims—up to £2 trillion—are not only financially absurd but historically dubious, as many historians note Britain neither enriched itself from Palestine nor escaped unscathed from its turbulent administration. Yet in the current climate, where anti-colonial narratives dominate, these claims are unlikely to vanish quietly.

For Israel and its supporters, the reparations push is further evidence that Abbas remains committed to lawfare rather than peace, weaponizing international institutions to target Britain today just as he has targeted Israel for decades.

As the VIN News report emphasized, the danger is that Britain, instead of strengthening its moral standing through recognition of a Palestinian state, may find itself trapped in a quagmire of legal, financial, and diplomatic disputes—an ironic echo of the Mandate itself.