The idea that if you really, really believe something you can make it happen seems to be the best explanation for Britain and France’s recent statements that they will recognise a Palestinianstate. No matter how fervent Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are, their fervour will not make an impossible thing happen. There is no Palestinian state, and there certainly won’t be one by September.
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.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.