Explainer-Why is Britain recognising a Palestinian state, and which other countries have done the same?
LONDON - Britain announced on Tuesday it was prepared to recognise a Palestinian state in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the "appalling situation" in Gaza and meets other conditions.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer's decision follows in the footsteps of France, after President Emmanuel Macron confirmed his country's intention to pursue recognition of a Palestinian state and to encourage other partners to do the same.
Below are some details about Starmer's announcement, driven by a rising global outcry over starvation and devastation in Gaza amid Israel's war against Hamas militants, as well as other nations' position on having Palestinian statehood recognised.
WHAT DID STARMER SAY?
Starmer said Britain would make the move at the United Nations General Assembly unless Israel took substantive steps to allow more aid to enter Gaza, makes clear there will be no annexation of the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a "two-state solution" - a Palestinian state co-existing in peace alongside Israel.
He said his government would make an assessment in September on "how far the parties have met these steps", but that no one would have a veto over the decision.
The prime minister reiterated that there was "no equivalence between Israel and Hamas and that our demands on Hamas remain, that they must release all the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, accept that they will play no role in the government of Gaza, and disarm".
WHY DID STARMER DO THIS?
Successive British governments have said they will formally recognise a Palestinian state when the time is right, without ever setting a timetable or specifying the necessary conditions.
Starmer said the move was timed to affect the situation on the ground in Gaza at a moment when the prospect of a two-state solution was under grave threat.
A growing number of lawmakers in Starmer's Labour Party have been asking him to recognise a Palestinian state to put pressure on Israel.
HOW COULD THIS AFFECT U.S.-UK RELATIONS?
Starmer has been building warm relations with U.S. President Donald Trump, and Britain has rarely strayed from the United States on foreign policy matters.
The two leaders met in Scotland on Monday, but U.S. President Donald Trump said he and Starmer did not discuss Britain's plan during their meeting.
When asked on Monday whether he agreed with Starmer's earlier position on Palestinian statehood being a concrete step towards a lasting peace, Trump said: "I don't mind him taking a position. I'm looking for getting people fed right now - that's the number one position. You have a lot of starving people."
Following France's announcement last week, Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio outright rejected the plan, calling it a "reckless decision that only serves Hamas".
HOW DID FRANCE REACT TO BRITAIN'S DECISION?
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot wrote on X that Britain was "joining the momentum initiated by France for the recognition of the state of Palestine".
"Together, through this pivotal decision and our combined efforts, we are putting an end to the endless cycle of violence and reopening the prospect of peace in the region," Barrot said. "Nothing can stand in the way of a just and clear idea."
WHAT HAS BEEN BRITAIN'S POSITION ON ISRAEL SINCE OCTOBER 7?
At the start of the Gaza war in October 2023, when Starmer was the opposition leader, he fully backed Israel's right to defend itself. But his stance has shifted over the years to a tougher approach to Israel, especially since his election as prime minister just over a year ago.
His government dropped the previous administration's challenge over arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and has suspended some weapon sales to Israel.
Last month, Britain sanctioned two far-right Israeli cabinet ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, accusing them of repeatedly inciting violence against Palestinians.
WHO ELSE HAS RECOGNISED PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD?
Last year, Ireland, Norway and Spain recognised a Palestinian state with its borders to be demarcated as they were prior to the 1967 Middle East war, when Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
However, they also recognised that those borders may change in any eventual talks to reach a final settlement, and that their decisions did not diminish their belief in Israel's fundamental right to exist in peace and security.
About 144 of the 193 member states of the United Nations recognise Palestine as a state, including most of the global south as well as Russia, China and India. But only a handful of the 27 European Union members do so, mostly former Communist countries as well as Sweden and Cyprus.
The U.N. General Assembly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in November 2012 by upgrading its observer status at the world body to "non-member state" from "entity".
WHO COULD BE NEXT?
Starmer's decision may put pressure on other major countries like Germany, Australia, Canada and Japan to take the same path.
Germany said on Friday it was not planning to recognise Palestinian statehood in the short term, with its priority to make "long-overdue progress" towards a two-state solution - Israel and a Palestinian state co-existing in peace.
Italy's foreign minister said recognition must occur simultaneously with the recognition of Israel by a new Palestinian state. "A Palestinian state that does not recognise Israel means that the problem will not be resolved," Antonio Tajani told a gathering in Rome. REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
15 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Australia, UK leaders discuss Gaza crisis amid Palestinian state recognition plans
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Palestinians carry aid supplies that entered Gaza through Israel, in Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, July 30, 2025. REUTERS/Dawoud Abu Alkas SYDNEY - Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Thursday that he had discussed the crisis in Gaza with his UK counterpart, Keir Starmer, and reiterated his government's strong support for a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. Starmer this week said Britain was prepared to recognise a Palestinian state in September at the United Nations General Assembly in response to growing public anger over the images of starving children in Gaza. Australia has not yet made a formal decision to recognise Palestine though Albanese supports Israel's right to exist within secure borders and Palestinians' right to demand their own state. In a statement, Albanese said they agreed on the importance of using international momentum to secure a ceasefire, the release of all Israeli hostages and the acceleration of aid. They also want to ensure militant group Hamas does not play a role in a future Palestinian state. Some of Israel's closest allies, including France and Canada, have indicated they would recognise a Palestinian state amid growing international outrage over the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza. A global hunger monitor has warned that a worst-case scenario of famine is unfolding in the enclave. Israel has criticised France, Britain and Canada, saying their decision will reward Hamas. Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Thursday said the treatment of hostages and any involvement of Hamas in a future Palestinian state remained major obstacles for Australia but added the government would push for a two-state solution. "It's a matter of when, not if, Australia recognises a Palestinian state ... but I don't want to put a time frame on it," Chalmers told ABC News. REUTERS
Straits Times
15 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Ford is latest carmaker to blame tariffs for profit slump
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox MICHIGAN - Ford Motor said on July 29 that it lost money in the second quarter as tariffs took a toll on its business. The company also said it expected tariffs to cost it a total of US$2 billion (S$2.59 billion) this year. The automaker lost US$36 million from April through June, compared with a profit of US$1.8 billion in 2024, even as sales rose 5 per cent to US$50.2 billion. Tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump have been a recurring theme as automakers have reported earnings this month. General Motors, Stellantis, Tesla, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have all cited tariffs as one of the main reasons their profits are falling. Tariffs lopped US$800 million from Ford profits during the second quarter, the company said. Its estimate of US$2 billion in tariff costs for the year includes the impact of cost-cutting and other measures the company is taking in response to Mr Trump's trade policies. Ford must pay tariffs even though it makes most of its vehicles in the United States because, like all carmakers, it uses imported parts and materials. Those include tariffs of 50% on imported steel and aluminum. Ms Sherry House, Ford's chief financial officer, expressed optimism that the Trump administration could take steps to reduce the impact. 'The administration is aware of these multiple tariffs and is working with us to get this right,' she said during a conference call with reporters. Carmakers have so far avoided passing on much of the cost of tariffs to consumers. They built as many cars as they could before tariffs took effect, and have absorbed some of the cost. Ford expects that retail prices for its vehicles will rise only 1 per cent this year, House said. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Business US Fed holds rates steady despite Trump's pressure, with two governors dissenting Asia Trump says US will impose 15% tariff on South Korean imports World Canada intends to recognise Palestinian state at UN General Assembly: Carney Life Singlish, rojak and NDP: Dick Lee's SingaPop! exhibition celebrates evolution of local pop culture Multimedia 60 years, 60 items: A National Day game challenge Singapore Regional eco-tours, more full-time staff: S'pore's Nature Society restructures to boost conservation Singapore School, parents on alert after vape peddlers approach primary school pupil Singapore Escape, discover, connect: Where new memories are made 'I'm not providing anything beyond that point now,' she said. Ford doubled its revenue from sales of electric vehicles despite slower sales in the United States. New models such as an electric reincarnation of the Ford Capri sold well in Europe, Ms House said. The company also booked a US$1.3 billion loss from repairs of vehicles under warranty, cancellation of plans to build an electric sport utility vehicle and other one-time costs. NYTIMES
Straits Times
15 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Brown University makes a deal with the White House to restore funding
RHODE ISLAND - Brown University, besieged by the Trump administration's pressure campaign against the country's most elite schools, struck a deal with the government on July 30, becoming the third Ivy League university in a month to reach an agreement with the White House. The agreement, a copy of which Brown made public, calls for the university to make US$50 million (S$64 million) in payments to state workforce development programs over a decade and requires Brown to comply with the Trump administration's vision on matters like transgender athletes and 'merit-based' admissions policies. The university, which is in Providence, Rhode Island, secured a pledge from the government that the deal would not be used 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech'. The Trump administration is also required to restore millions of dollars in federal research funding that it had blocked in recent months, and Brown avoided the naming of an independent monitor to oversee the deal. Government officials had accused the school of harboring anti-Semitism after it became the site of pro-Palestinian protests over the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. Brown denied any wrongdoing and hoped that the agreement would end months of turmoil. But it also opened the school to charges that it had capitulated to the Trump administration. In an open letter on July 30, Brown's president, Ms Christina H. Paxson, said the agreement 'preserves the integrity of Brown's academic foundation, and it enables us as a community to move forward after a period of considerable uncertainty'. The Trump administration depicted the deal as an ideological victory. In a statement on July 30, Education Secretary Linda McMahon argued that the deal would be part of a 'lasting legacy of the Trump administration, one that will benefit students and American society for generations to come'. 'The Trump administration is successfully reversing the decades-long woke-capture of our nation's higher education institutions,' Mrs McMahon said. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Business US Fed holds rates steady despite Trump's pressure, with two governors dissenting Asia Trump says US will impose 15% tariff on South Korean imports World Canada intends to recognise Palestinian state at UN General Assembly: Carney Life Singlish, rojak and NDP: Dick Lee's SingaPop! exhibition celebrates evolution of local pop culture Multimedia 60 years, 60 items: A National Day game challenge Singapore Regional eco-tours, more full-time staff: S'pore's Nature Society restructures to boost conservation Singapore School, parents on alert after vape peddlers approach primary school pupil Singapore Escape, discover, connect: Where new memories are made The government had previously reached agreements with the University of Pennsylvania and, last week, Columbia University. White House officials are negotiating with Harvard University and representatives of other schools that have been similarly squeezed by President Donald Trump's tactic of tying hundreds of millions of dollars – or more – in research funding to a school's acquiescence to government demands. Brown has been among the most affected since administration officials said in April that they intended to block US$510 million in funding from flowing to the school. The university never brought a court challenge, but for months leading up to July 30's deal, Ms Paxson and other university leaders sounded increasingly dire warnings about Brown's financial standing. Last week, the university disclosed that it had borrowed US$500 million, a loan that came after it had already secured US$300 million. But Ms Paxson, like other university leaders, faced thorny debates about whether to negotiate with the White House. Many in academia have sharply criticised the government's tactics, likening them to measures pursued by authoritarians around the world. Paxson appeared to sense the prospect of a backlash, even as she promoted the agreement, devoting more than 350 words of her letter to explain why Brown had elected to negotiate. 'I have consistently and publicly asserted Brown's commitment to meeting its obligations to follow the law, as well as our willingness to understand any valid concerns the government may have about the ways in which the university fulfills those legal obligations,' Ms Paxson wrote. 'I stated that Brown should uphold its ethical and legal obligations while also steadfastly defending academic freedom and freedom of expression, for both the university as an institution and for individual members of our community.' The agreement, she said, allows Brown to 'meet those dual obligations.' Brown's agreement with the government emerged one week after Columbia struck its deal with the Trump administration. The agreements, though similar in many respects, were not exact replicas. The Brown, Columbia and Penn agreements offer the White House templates for future talks with schools like Harvard, which has been negotiating with the government for more than a month. The agreements, though, also show universities where the White House might budge. The New York Times reported this week that Harvard was skeptical of agreeing to a Columbia-like monitor. The university had concerns that such a stipulation may infringe on its academic freedom. Harvard officials have also been reluctant to make a settlement payment directly to the government. But the university has signaled a willingness to spend up to US$500 million in connection with a settlement. Many in Trump's political coalition scorned Brown for its approach to the protests that roiled campuses in 2024. As part of a deal with demonstrators, Brown became one of the only universities that agreed to consider demands from pro-Palestinian students who wanted divestment from Israel. Although the university's governing board ultimately voted against taking that step, the university's willingness to bargain with protesters infuriated many conservatives. Before her school came under such direct pressure from the White House, Ms Paxson was more vocal than many higher education leaders about the Trump administration's tactics against prominent universities. In March, she said that the administration's 'demands raise new and previously unthinkable questions about the future of academic freedom and self-governance for those that are committed to continuing to serve this country as leading research institutions.' At the time, she vowed that if Brown faced a confrontation 'directly impacting our ability to perform essential academic and operational functions, we would be compelled to vigorously exercise our legal rights to defend these freedoms, and true to our values, we would do so with integrity and respect'. On Jully 30, she said that the agreement with the White House 'evolved as Brown was engaged in ongoing interactions with the government relating to two federal agency reviews'; But, she also said, Brown had never 'been informed of any finding that the university violated any law.' Mr J. Timmons Roberts, an environmental studies professor at Brown, said he was relieved that the settlement seemed less onerous than Columbia's. 'This feels like mostly things that Brown had to do anyway, and had already said it was going to do,' said Mr Roberts, who was among hundreds of faculty members who had signed a petition urging Brown to resist the Trump administration's demands. 'It seems that Brown has navigated this process in a way that maintains its core mission'. And Mr Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, said he liked that the money would go toward workforce projects, not the federal government. Nonetheless, he said he remained disturbed that universities had been put in a position of negotiating deals with the government. 'We really look forward to engaging with this administration on matters of policy,' he said. 'But this isn't policy. This is simple extortion and dealmaking, which has no place in a democracy.' NYTIMES
