Starmer cannot simply conjure up a Palestinian state – here's why

Telegraph

29-07-2025

Sir Keir Starmer's threat to recognise Palestine if Israel does not end its war in Gaza and commit to a two-state solution carries profound symbolic weight.
Britain, more than any other world power, shaped the present-day contours of the Holy Land when it issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917.
Lord Balfour's 67-word statement famously – or infamously, depending on your perspective – supported the 'establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people', paving the way for Israel's creation three decades later.
Many British diplomats, Labour backbenchers and Cabinet ministers, see recognising Palestine as a way of redressing the historical imbalance, placing Israel and Palestine on equal footing.
They hope it will add to mounting international pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, to halt the war in Gaza and pave the way for an equitable peace settlement with the Palestinians.
Unlike France, which last week became the first G7 state to announce formal recognition Britain's stance remains conditional, Sir Keir said recognition would be withheld if Israel reaches a ceasefire, pledges to abandon threats to annex the West Bank and commits 'to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution'.
But these conditions are unlikely to be met. Mr Netanyahu, long opposed to a two-state solution, is more likely to harden his position than concede under what he will see as British provocation. Recognition in September therefore appears almost inevitable.
Beyond symbolism, however, the move will have little tangible effect. After all, 147 countries have already recognised Palestine without altering its prospects for statehood. Recognition cannot conjure up a functioning state.
Under the Montevideo Convention of 1933, a state requires a permanent population, a government, defined borders and the capacity to conduct foreign relations. Palestine, even its supporters concedes, meets only two of these criteria. It has two rival governments: the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank, which recognises Israel, and Hamas in Gaza, which does not.
Israeli officials say Britain, like France, is effectively rewarding Hamas by placing demands on Mr Netanyahu but none on the group that carried out the massacre of more than 1,000 people in Israel on Oct 7 2023.
'The shift in the British Government's position at this time, following the French move and internal political pressures, constitutes a reward for Hamas,' the Israeli foreign ministry said in a statement.
Some warn that Hamas may now be less inclined to agree a ceasefire and release the hostages it is still holding in Gaza.
Shany Mor, a former director for foreign policy at Israel's National Security Council, said: 'Hamas has even less incentive now to agree a ceasefire that it did a week ago.
'Starmer is burying the last living Israeli hostages alive in the tunnels. He is saying, 'If Peter and Paul can't reach a compromise in the next two months, I'll have no choice but to grant all of Paul's demands.' How do you think Paul will act now?'
The other missing criterion is defined borders. This was not always the case. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s, supported by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, envisioned a Palestinian state broadly encompassing the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Since then, Jewish settler numbers have nearly trebled to more than 700,000. New settler outposts fragment Palestinian cities, Gaza is in ruins, East Jerusalem effectively annexed and the West Bank is carved into what critics call 'Bantustans'. A viable state has never looked less likely.
So why recognise one, particularly since earlier recognitions achieved little?
Proponents say it sends two messages. First, that some of Israel's closest allies have lost patience with Mr Netanyahu's war in Gaza.
Bronwen Maddox, the director of Chatham House, an international affairs think tank: said: 'These are permanent members of the UN Security Council, G7 countries that come from a tradition of giving Israel broad support.
'They're not part of the anti-Israel, anti-American bloc to which many of the previous countries that recognise Israel belong. So they are essentially saying to Israel 'even your friends are drawing a line at this point'.'
Second, they argue, it could help revive the long-dormant two-state solution. France and Saudi Arabia are co-hosting a conference at the United Nations in New York this week to reinvigorate peace talks. Saudi Arabia, which before the war seemed ready to normalise ties with Israel, has reverted to demanding Palestinian statehood first.
Britain and France once planned to recognise Palestine only after a peace deal. Officials now hope unilateral recognition will press Mr Netanyahu into negotiations and bolster the moderate Palestinian leadership of Mr Abbas against Hamas.
That outcome seems doubtful. Britain's already modest influence over Mr Netanyahu will likely shrink further; Israel might even retaliate by expanding settlements or even annexing parts of the West Bank.
Relations with Washington could also suffer. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, called French recognition 'a slap in the face to victims of Oct 7'.
Donald Trump was even more dismissive, saying Emmanuel Macron's pledge to recognise Palestine 'won't change anything'.
The US president is likely to view Sir Keir's move similarly: a gesture that appeases Labour's left and signals virtue, but ultimately carries none of the weight that the Balfour Declaration did when Britain wielded far greater global influence.