If Britain recognises a Palestinian state, it will be a gesture. That doesn't mean it is pointless
For mostly domestic political reasons, they have decided to set aside that fact. Recognition is an understandable gesture, but it will do nothing to solve the current famine, and is doomed in the short term because there is no real state to recognise. But there's also a clear reason why some sort of action – even if it's purely symbolic – is needed. The situation in Gaza is appalling. If Starmer and Macron proceed with recognition, how can we manage the short-term disappointment of recognising a state that does not exist, while moving towards a two-state solution in the long term?
In 1933, the Montevideo convention, a treaty signed in the Uruguayan capital by 19 states, all from the Americas, set out criteria that had to be fulfilled when recognising a new state. The criteria were agreed at the international conference of American states but are applied by the whole international community. Although not formal legal requirements, they provide a useful framework when considering whether or not to recognise a state. The three most important are 'people', 'territory' and 'governance'. Is there a permanent population? Does that population occupy a defined territory whose borders it controls? And does it have a single recognised government?
The international community has recognised the distinctiveness of the Palestinian people since the 1970s. That's the main reason why 78 countries recognised the state of Palestine within months of the Palestine National Council's declaration of independence in November 1988. But the Palestinians have never controlled their territory. The Oslo accords in 1993 gave full security control to the Palestinians in 18% of the West Bank. Over time, that area was supposed to enlarge. That never happened.
And in 2007, Hamas took control of Gaza. The Palestinian Authority (PA), under the control of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), remained in charge in the West Bank, while Hamas controlled Gaza. Two rival Palestinian administrations remain in place.
Widespread international recognition of Palestine has made no difference to the lives of ordinary Palestinians. So far, 147 UN member states have recognised Palestine, including China and Russia. When Ireland, Norway and Spain recognised Palestinian statehood last year, all four governments claimed that recognition sent a signal that couldn't be ignored. But it hasn't helped the Palestinian people one jot. Israel (and the US) barely noticed, beyond saying disobliging things about rewarding a 'death cult'. They didn't change their policy.
UK and French action will probably be treated with the same contempt in Jerusalem and Washington. But, despite Israeli denigration of their action, London and Paris won't be able to agree effective measures to penalise Israel, such as sanctions. Both governments still believe in Israel and its right to defend itself. Both still abhor what happened on 7 October 2023, and still see manifest shortcomings in the way the PA is run. Both the UK and France as part of the EU proscribe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
In fact, British and French recognition may make matters worse. Hamas may see advantages in sweeping away the corrupt gerontocracy in Ramallah; it is more popular than the PA in the West Bank these days. Benjamin Netanyahu, who doesn't subscribe to a two-state solution, may step up operations in both Gaza and the West Bank to underline who's in charge, and send a rather more effective message to Britain and France than they send to him.
A two-state solution remains the only way to achieve long-term peace, but right now conditions for one could not be more hostile. For that reason, Britain and France recognising Palestine is an empty gesture. But the recognition boat seems to have sailed. Both Britain and France have made forward-leaning statements; governments find it hard to ignore incessant public demands.
And public opinion is responding to what Israel is doing in Gaza. Collective punishment is unlawful. What Israel is doing to the population of Gaza because Hamas refuses to hand over 50 hostages (about 20 living and 30 dead) and dismantle its leadership amounts to collective punishment. Israel is not doing nearly enough to prevent starvation.
By September, Israel won't have fulfilled the conditions that Starmer has set out to avert recognition. And Israel (and its supporters) will say that's no fault of Israel's. The British government will still have freedom of manoeuvre either to recognise the state of Palestine or postpone recognition. But at that point failing to recognise would look just as weak as I believe recognising looks right now. What to do?
The government could recognise Palestine while acknowledging the weakness of doing so. Ministers should go easy on rhetoric claiming it's a historic moment, and focus instead on basic principles and the future. The only way for two peoples to live side by side in peace is for each to have its own state. Israel did not fulfil the criteria for statehood when it was first created. But Israel's friends overlooked its shortcomings, while its foes (such as Stalin) argued that the Jews were not even a people.
The unique complexity of Israel/Palestine's history and geography will mean that the state of Palestine, when it's real, is likely to look different from any of the other 193 members of the UN. It might not have an army. It might not have exclusive control over its borders. But it will still be worth it. The Palestinian people deserve better than the fate they have suffered for decades, a fate which has deteriorated horribly since the ceasefire broke down in March this year. We must not forget them.
Perhaps the best option in September would be for Britain to embrace the fact that it's making a gesture, and not pretend that gesture had immediate, far-reaching consequences. It would make the gesture recognising that time, hard work and imagination were still needed to reach the ultimate goal of a two-state solution, but that, at this desperate time, such a gesture was the last best hope to keep that solution alive. In diplomacy, it is vital not to mistake activity for effective action. But sometimes activity is all we have to offer.
Lord McDonald of Salford was the British ambassador to Israel from 2003 to 2006, and permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020. He is now a crossbench peer
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour is 'tinkering around the edges' with its £100m plans to crackdown on small boat migrant crossings, Tories warn
Labour has been accused of 'tinkering around the edges' with its plans to crackdown on small boat crossings. The Home Office has announced measures to get tough on smuggling gangs, despite more than 25,000 illegal arrivals so far this year – but the Tories branded them 'a series of gimmicks'. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper this weekend unveiled plans to introduce sentences of up to five years in prison for anyone who advertises small boat crossings or fake passports on social media. She said she would introduce a fast-track scheme to tackle the asylum backlog, with a new law to overhaul the appeals system, in a bid to get decisions on cases within weeks. And today, the Home Office has announced £100 million of extra funding to support the pilot of the new 'one in, one out' returns agreement between the UK and France. It will also pay for up to 300 more National Crime Agency officers and new technology and equipment to step up intelligence gathering on smuggling gangs. And there will be more overtime for immigration compliance and enforcement teams as well as funding for interventions in transit countries. The deal, agreed last month, means the UK will be able to send migrants back to France in exchange for asylum seekers with links to Britain. But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp criticised the announcements. He told the Daily Mail last night: 'This weak Labour Government has come up with a series of gimmicks to grab headlines instead of fixing the issue. 'Tinkering around the edges which will make no real difference. 'There have been more than 25,000 illegal crossings so far this year, making it the worst year in history. 'Labour has failed and their laughable claim to smash the gangs lies in tatters. They have no serious plan, just excuses, while ruthless criminal gangs flood our borders with illegal immigrants.' A No 10 source hit back: 'The Tories focused on headlines and gimmickry, we're focused on what works. 'Through our returns deal with France, investment in a border security and speeding up returns, we're making steady progress.' Public anger over small boat crossings has focused on the issue of taxpayer-funded migrant hotels, which have been the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks including in London, Newcastle and Epping in Essex. Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick warned that 'the public's patience with the asylum hotels and with the whole issue of illegal migration has snapped'. In response, Dame Angela Eagle promised that the Government was 'doing the detailed work' to crack down on small boat crossings. Asked on Sky News what her message was to protesters, Dame Angela said: 'Anger doesn't get you anywhere. 'What we have to do is recognise the values we have in this country, the rule of law we have in this country, the work we're doing with the police to protect people. 'We will close asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament. We'll do it faster if we can.' Dame Angela also said: 'We are doing all we can to deal with the challenges that the police are facing on the streets to make sure that women and girls are safe, and in fact, that everybody is safe on our streets.' She had earlier told Times Radio: 'Those who are worried and demonstrating have an absolute right to do that, so long as they do it peacefully. 'People don't have a right to then have a pop at the police, which has been happening in some isolated cases outside hotels.' Referring to plans to let police seize devices from people suspected of facilitating people smuggling, Dame Angela said the Government does not 'want absolutely every phone'. She told Times Radio: 'But we do want the phones of the people that we think are organising and facilitating, and this extra money will enable us to do much quicker analytics of the phones that we seize. 'But of course, we've got to get the Border Security Bill on the statute book to give us those extra powers.' The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has cleared the Commons but must undergo further scrutiny in the Lords before it becomes law. Turning to social media creators who advertise illegal routes into the UK, Dame Angela said: 'We will stop anyone who comes to the UK where we've got evidence, and what happens is that the people smugglers are getting people to say how safe the journeys were and do adverts once they're in the UK. 'We will stop that, and we will also deal with other jurisdictions and ask them to help us deal with this as well, we could certainly do that in the EU with our colleagues in Germany, in France.' Where there is 'evidence that legal routes to visas are being misused', the Government will 'tighten up the rules to stop that abuse happening', the minister added. The National Crime Agency has 91 ongoing investigations into people smuggling networks affecting the UK, the agency's director general of operations Rob Jones said. But speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Jenrick said: 'The public's patience with the asylum hotels and with the whole issue of illegal migration has snapped. 'This is an issue that is beyond party politics. 'It is causing immense harm to communities, and people's lives are being wrecked as a result of it, and we simply have to fix it. 'I respect those people who are peacefully protesting outside hotels this weekend, I understand why they feel so concerned. 'They're seeing their communities damaged, and I'm afraid there is increasing evidence of a serious link between illegal migration, migration generally, and crime, particularly sexual crime, against women and girls.'
Reuters
7 minutes ago
- Reuters
House democrats urge Trump administration to recognise Palestinian state, Axios reports
Aug 4 (Reuters) - More than a dozen House Democrats have signed a letter pressing the Trump administration to recognise a Palestinian state, with at least one lawmaker planning to introduce a pro-statehood resolution, Axios reported on Monday. Reuters could not immediately verify the report.
Daily Mail
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour reignites row with Nigel Farage as Home Office minister Jess Phillips says Reform UK is 'empowering modern-day Jimmy Saviles'
Labour has reignited a row with Nigel Farage by claiming Reform UK's pledge to repeal online safety laws risks empowering 'modern-day Jimmy Saviles'. Home Office minister Jess Phillips launched a fresh attack on Reform's promise to scrap the Online Safety Act. She accused Reform leader Mr Farage of putting 'clicks for his monetised social media accounts' ahead of children's safety. Ms Phillips, minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, also backed her Labour colleague Peter Kyle following his row with Mr Farage last week. Mr Kyle, the Technology Secretary, said Mr Farage was putting himself on the side of 'extreme pornographers' and people like Savile by opposing the Online Safety Act. In a furious spat, Mr Farage demanded an apology from Mr Kyle, saying his remarks about vile sex predator Savile were 'so absolutely disgusting that it's almost beyond belief'. Under rules that came into effect on 25 July, online platforms including social media sites and search engines must take steps to prevent children accessing harmful content such as pornography or material that encourages suicide. But Mr Farage has warned the Online Safety Act 'poses the biggest threat to freedom of speech in this country in our lifetimes'. Reform has pledged to scrap the legislation if it wins the next general election, while Mr Farage has also urged people to sign a petition demanding the Act is repealed. Writing in The Times, Ms Phillips said: 'Farage said it's the biggest threat to freedom of speech in our lifetimes. 'My colleague Peter Kyle said he was siding with modern-day Jimmy Saviles preying on children online.' She said she would like to speak to Mr Farage about 'one of those modern-day Saviles, Alexander McCartney'. McCartney, who posed as a teenage girl to befriend young females from across the globe on Snapchat and other platforms before blackmailing them, 'just needed a computer' to reach his targets, Ms Phillips wrote. Believed to be one of the world's most prolific online offenders, McCartney abused at least 70 children online and drove one girl to suicide. Ms Phillips said the Online Safety Act exists to try to provide a 'basic minimum of protection, and make it harder for paedophiles to prey on children at will'. She said police have told her that paedophile networks use 'normal websites where their parents assume they're safe' to coerce and blackmail young people. 'Perhaps Nigel Farage doesn't worry about that - there's no political advantage in it, and no clicks for his monetised social media accounts. But I do,' she added. 'I worry about what it means now and what it will mean when boys reared on a diet of ultraviolent online child abuse are adult men having children of their own. 'I can't ignore that, neither can Peter Kyle, and, most importantly, nor can millions of parents across the country. 'I defy Nigel Farage to tell me what any of that has to do with free speech. 'I defy him to meet even one parent who has lost a daughter to suicide because she was being blackmailed online and tell them that is just the price of civil liberties. Maybe he'd feel differently after that kind of meeting, or maybe he wouldn't care.' Her comments echo those of Mr Kyle, who said last week: 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online. And Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Mr Farage demanded an apology from the Technology Secretary, who refused to withdraw the remarks. In his own newspaper article last week, the Reform leader said of the new online rules: 'These apparently well-intentioned checks enforce mandatory ID scans, not just for porn sites, but also for mainstream social media where political or any other content is deemed potentially 'harmful'. 'This erosion of privacy could make it easier to identify online critics of government policy on migration and much else.'
