������Ƶ

Feverish debate over recent months has centered on whether the UK and France will recognize the state of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron said in February that recognition was “not a taboo.” France and ������Ƶ were due to hold a conference on the two-state solution in New York in June, but it was delayed by Israel’s aggression against Iran. Instead, it is being held this week. But the UK’s position has been far from clear? Will Prime Minister Keir Starmer agree to join in or will he delay?

No country in the world has more of a history of grappling with the issue of Palestine than Britain. It was, after all, the author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which it pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It did not mention a second state in that declaration. London had to grapple with this as the mandatory power all the way up to 1947, when it handed the issue over to the newly formed UN to resolve.

In November of that year, the UN General Assembly voted for partition. The UK abstained on that resolution. However, its exit from Palestine was one of the low points of its Middle Eastern colonial era. It made little or no attempt to thwart the war that started even before its troops had left.

Palestinians argue that, given all this, Britain has a particular historic responsibility toward Palestine. It should, many argue, be in the vanguard of pushing for the creation of that second state.

It was not until the Venice Declaration of 1980 that European powers including the UK committed to acknowledging the Palestinian right to self-government. Even after that, it was many years before Britain had any formal relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Successive governments acted merely as backing vocalists to the US position on most aspects of the Palestinian question.

With the Oslo Accords of 1993, the expectation that a peace process would lead to a Palestinian state grew. Britain and other donor states invested heavily in this option and aid to the fledgling Palestinian Authority grew as a result. It was all under the rubric that this would lead to a two-state solution, a secure Israel side by side with a state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders.

The Palestinian leadership shifted its strategy after the Second Intifada to pushing for recognition. The UNGA approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in 2012 and the state of Palestine also started applying for membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court.

In 2014, the UK government’s position was outlined by then-Foreign Secretary William Hague, who said that London “reserves the right to recognize a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.”

On Oct. 13, 2014, a debate took place in the House of Commons with a votable motion: “That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.” The result of the vote was 274 to 12, a majority of 262 in favor of recognition. This was not binding on the government of the time but was a clear signal of parliamentary opinion. The low number of opponents to the motion indicated that few politicians were willing to oppose it in public.

Significantly, this motion was backed by the leader of the Labour Party at the time, Ed Miliband. He said that recognition was “right, just, fair and in line with the values” of his party. This tied Labour to supporting recognition. Contrary to widespread belief, it was not his pro-Palestinian successor, Jeremy Corbyn, who first made this move.

Keir Starmer inherited this stance when he became Labour leader after the election defeat in 2019. But he made a significant change in Labour’s position prior to the 2024 election. The manifesto committed the party to recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process. It stated: “We are committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.”

The lack of clarity was deliberate. The decision on timing would be in the hands of the prime minister.

As Israel’s genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv.

Chris Doyle

Debate endured as to whether these positions meant that Israel had veto power. Linking recognition to the state of a peace process, when the official Israel government policy was not to enter into negotiations, meant this was, in effect, exactly the case.

Everything changed after Oct. 7, 2023. As Israel’s genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. This has included a drive to recognize Palestine.

In May 2024, Ireland, Norway and Spain recognized Palestine. Israel withdrew its ambassadors from those states. Larger European states such as the UK rejected the opportunity to join this move.

This brings us to the present. Faced with Macron’s announcement that France will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the focus returns to Starmer. He is facing considerable pressure to make the move immediately.

Cabinet ministers are reported to have lobbied Starmer on recognition. They include Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Foreign Secretary David Lammy is also likely to have been backing this move.

Now, 221 members of Parliament from nine parties have written to Starmer expressing their support for such a move. More than 130 of these are his own Labour MPs. Others are backing this letter even now. London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced his support, as did the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. The Financial Times quoted a senior Labour official as stating: “The block on this is Keir himself as well as his senior advisers. They want to stay close to the US.”

Public opinion is more supportive of recognition than opposed. Recent polls indicate a large number of “don’t knows” but, in a June survey, 64 percent of Labour voters said they believe that the UK should recognize Palestine. Only 2 percent of these voters opposed any recognition. This highlights that Starmer would have the backing of the base of his political party if he were to go ahead.

What is holding Starmer back? The obvious answer is the US. Starmer is desperately keen to stay on constructive terms with American President Donald Trump. He will pick his battles with him — and it is unlikely one will be over the recognition of Palestine. There is also the issue of the hangover of the Corbyn era, when the Labour Party was swamped by accusations of antisemitism and lost considerable support within the British Jewish community. Starmer and his circle do not wish to relive that experience. Some argue that it is also Starmer’s strongly held personal belief.

Two arguments seem to hold sway in 10 Downing Street. Firstly, that recognition would not bring peace any closer. The second is the Israeli line that this rewards Hamas and its atrocities. The counterargument is that, far from rewarding Hamas, it is the Palestinian national movement that would be boosted.

Is Starmer’s position reversible? He has made U-turns on significant domestic policy, so it is possible. One argument is that if Starmer does not do this jointly with France, then in what circumstances would he do it? France would offer diplomatic cover and encourage other states to do the same.

On the other hand, Starmer is in many ways already treating Palestine as a state in all but name. Back in May, he met with PA Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa in Downing Street with both flags on display as if Mustafa was head of a state government.

Would UK recognition even matter? Israel seems to think so, as does the US. This explains their forthright condemnation of any state that recognizes Palestine.

Supporters of the move believe that this matters too. It would mean official recognition — decades too late perhaps — that Palestinians do have a right to self-determination, that they have national rights and that, just like Israelis, they have a right to a state of their own. Acquiring statehood would also have legal benefits for Palestinians.

Any UK recognition would be largely symbolic. However, if the UK were to recognize Palestine, it would be recognizing a state under occupation. That matters because it demonstrates that this 58-year-old Israeli occupation has to end — and the failure to do so must have consequences.

• Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech