What does recognising Palestine as a state actually mean?
The prime minister said Benjamin Netanyahu's government must end its starvation tactics and allow the supply of aid into the embattled enclave after a UN-backed food security body said the 'worst-case scenario of famine' was playing out in the territory.
The announcement on Tuesday came after an emergency virtual cabinet meeting where Sir Keir laid out his plan for peace in the Middle East, agreed over the weekend with French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Friedrich Merz.
Sir Keir has come under mounting pressure from his own party to recognise a Palestinian state, which has only grown since Mr Macron announced France's intention to do so by September.
In addition, Britain's foreign secretary David Lammy is attending a United Nations conference in New York on Tuesday to urge support for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
Here, The Independent asks experts about what the UK recognising Palestinian statehood would mean in practice.
What would UK recognition of Palestine as a state mean?
Dr Julie Norman, an associate professor at UCL specialising in Middle Eastern politics, said it looks likely that the UK will recognise Palestine as a state, which would mean voting for this at the United Nations – but it would be unlikely the UN would be able to recognise Palestinian statehood due to the probability of the United States blocking the move.
However, she said countries such as the UK and France voting for recognition at the UN would be a 'significant' move.
And she said the UK officially recognising Palestinian statehood would still be of 'value', even if the reality is that not much would change on the ground, with Israel still 'fully rejecting' the prospect of recognition.
Speaking of British recognition, Dr Norman said: 'It would be a strong moral commitment and stance to Palestine at a moment when it's never been more fraught in Gaza and the West Bank.
'In the short term, it's a diplomatic stance, and it makes room for policy changes.
'And, if and when parties come back to discuss the long-term conflict, it would put Palestine in a better position. So it wouldn't change things immediately, but I would say it still has value.'
She added that the move might initially see more change in London than in Ramallah, a city in the central West Bank, which serves as the administrative capital of Palestine – with, for example, the opening of an embassy in the UK capital. This would not mean recognition of Hamas.
What is the two-state solution?
The idea of dividing the Holy Land goes back decades.
When the British mandate over Palestine ended, the UN partition plan in 1947 envisioned dividing the territory into Jewish and Arab states. Upon Israel's declaration of independence the following year, war erupted with its Arab neighbours and the plan was never implemented. Over half of the Palestinian population fled or were forced to flee. Under a 1949 armistice, Jordan held control over the West Bank and east Jerusalem and Egypt over Gaza.
Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza in the 1967 six-day war. The Palestinians seek these lands for a future independent state, and the idea of a two-state solution based on Israel's pre-1967 boundaries has been the basis of peace talks dating back to the 1990s.
The two-state solution has wide international support, but there is disagreement about how it would be implemented.
Israel's creation and expansion of settlements in the Occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law, are seen as a major obstacle to this.
What would recognition of Palestine as a state mean for refugees?
Sir Vincent Fean, a former British consul general to Jerusalem and now a trustee of the charity Britain Palestine Project, explained that recognition of Palestine as a state would mean that if Palestinian passports were issued, they would subsequently be recognised by the UK as passports of a state.
However, Sir Vincent said Palestinian statehood would not affect the UK's refugee system.
'Does it impact the tally of refugees coming to the UK? No,' he said. This is because he expects the visa regime the UK currently has with Palestine – where travel is only allowed between the two after a successful visa application – would continue.
He added that Palestinian statehood 'wouldn't particularly change the right of return for Palestinians to their homeland'. He said this was a 'long-standing right', although it would require negotiation with Israel.
What does UK recognition of Palestinian statehood mean for how the two would communicate?
Sir Vincent said this was a 'very important point' to clarify, as he highlighted the distinction between recognising the entity of Palestine and recognising factions of government.
He said: 'It's important to say the British government doesn't recognise governments, it recognises states.
'So it isn't actually recognising President [Mahmoud] Abbas as head of the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organisation] and head of the Palestinian Authority.
'In practice, he would be the interlocutor in Ramallah, because there isn't an alternative.'
He stressed, however, that Britain has already proscribed Hamas as a terrorist group and that this would not change.
Dr Norman added that the Palestinian Authority is currently the main governing entity for Palestinians in the West Bank, which the UK has recognised and had lines of communication with for a long time. If Britain were to recognise Palestinian statehood, this would not change and would continue.
Sir Vincent also said that the prospect of Hamas running Palestine next is 'practically zero' because the militants' chances of winning an election are 'remote'.
He said the plan for the future governance of Gaza involving the Palestinian Authority will be a focus of the UN meeting being held this week.
What countries have recognised Palestinian statehood?
France has become the latest country to announce it will recognise Palestinian statehood, drawing angry rebukes from Israel and the United States and opening the door for other major nations to perhaps follow suit.
Mr Macron last week published a letter sent to Mr Abbas confirming France's intention to press ahead with recognition and work to convince other partners to do the same. He said he would make a formal announcement at the United Nations General Assembly next month.
France is now the first major Western power to shift its diplomatic stance on a Palestinian state, after Spain, Ireland, and Norway officially recognised it last year.
The three countries made the declaration and agreed its borders would be demarcated as they were before the 1967 war, when Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
However, they also recognised that those borders may change if a final settlement is reached over the territory, 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 UN member states 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 UN 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'.
What implications would UK recognition of Palestinian statehood have internationally?
Dr Norman said: 'This is where it can be important'.
Two major global powers, such as the UK and France, making the move would be 'significant' and would pave the way for conversations on the issue happening elsewhere, such as in Canada, she said.
'It starts isolating the US as the main major power backing Israel to the exclusion of Palestine,' she said. 'It makes them the exception and shows the rest of the world somewhat united in Palestinian self-determination, which has been the UK's policy for a while now. If we're serious about that, then we need to be serious about that.
'We don't have as much military weight as the US, but we do still have diplomatic weight, and we should use what we can.
'It would show Europe is committed to a two-state solution, and wouldn't let that disappear or sit in the back seat.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
a few seconds ago
- The Sun
Keir Starmer's plan will send back just 0.2 per cent of illegal migrants – it's pathetic – but I've got tips hapless PM
HOLD the front page! This is it! The Government has at last discovered a way to sort out our illegal migrant crisis. Sir Keir Starmer has struck a deal with the French. Yay. There will be a one-in, one-out system for illegal migrants arriving in rubber boats from France. So that's great, isn't it? For every migrant we send back to France, the French bung us one who has filled his forms in properly in return. So how on Earth is that going to reduce the numbers arriving here? By definition, it won't. And what's more, we're paying for it all. The UK taxpayer will foot the bill. And that's because the Prime Minister has the negotiating skills of half a grapefruit. Asked how many migrants this will see us sending back to France, the Government started looking at its shoes and humming a tune. Off the record they will hazard at a figure. It will be somewhere in the region of 50. Yes, 50. Just to give you the full picture, an estimated 25,000 have already arrived in the UK from France this year. So Sir Keir is proposing to send back just 0.2 per cent of the illegal migrants. Triffic, huh. And the deal only lasts for a year. It's not going to act as much of a deterrent, is it? Can you imagine the migrants being told: 'Well, OK, you can try to cross the Channel in that dinghy if you must. But I have to tell you, Asif, when you get to England you stand only a 94 per cent chance of being allowed to stay. Bear that in mind!' It would be laughable were it not so utterly, mind-blowingly, pathetic. Loophole in PM's swap plan means the more bogus an asylum seeker is, the less chance we have of kicking them out The truth is the Government's intention to 'smash the gangs!' hasn't worked and never was going to work. 'Smash' one gang and another will pop up to take its place. But it would be refreshing, at least, to hear Starmer and his pet Moomin, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, admit at last that the policy was bloody stupid and has failed just as everyone predicted. And so this is what we've got in its place. One-in, one-out. Brilliant. Starmer's hokey-cokey vision of controlling migration. The truth is that Yvette and Surkeir know full well that this is going to make not the slightest difference to the numbers arriving here from the Middle East and beyond. It is a silly and costly performative gesture, nothing more. The Government knows that the public is infuriated by the sheer numbers of asylum seekers arriving every day. It is a public sick of immigration, full stop. And the Government is losing masses of votes to Reform UK as a consequence. 4 Especially in the red wall seats of the north of England. But also in Kent and Essex. So it thought it had better do something. And this is what it came up with. Here's a tip, Starmer. First, stop using hotels to house all those who come. Put them in tents somewhere cold. Second, make it clear that EVERY asylum seeker who arrives here illegally will be automatically barred from ever getting the right to remain here. And then send those who do come to somewhere remote and inhospitable but under British dominion, so the lawyers can't carp. Such as Rockall, or St Helena, or South Georgia. But don't hold yer breath. With this lot in charge, it will never happen. KEIR'S NOT IN CHARGE WE are no longer being led, as a country, by Sir Keir Starmer. Now, you may think this is a good thing, by and large. Until you consider who is actually leading us. Yes, it's Richard 'Plank' Burgon and his lefty mates. The decisions which Starmer has been taking for the past three months are likely not those he would wish to make. They have been imposed upon him by the left-wingers on his backbenches. The debacle over the recognition of Palestine, for example. And the surrender over welfare benefits. Both obvious indicators of change of regime. And it has all happened because Sir Keir, with his majority of more than 170, has a spinal column the consistency of Butterscotch Angel Delight. What the hell were we thinking last summer? Why did we do it? Oh Lord, forgive us for our stupid mistakes. DANES WILL GO WILD FOR FEEDING TIME AT THE ZOO A ZOO in Denmark is asking for donations of 'unwanted pets'. This is so it can feed them to the big cats. They're a bit short of raw meat, apparently. The Danes will euthanise the pets first, which I think is a bit of a disappointment. I think feeding time could be a big draw. 'And now entering the lion enclosure is Fiver, a rabbit owned by six-year-old Inge Svenson. Let's see how long he lasts. The record is 8.5 seconds. Can Fiver beat that?' THE kinder, gentler, Left? I don't think so. Teacher Simon Pearson had more than 20 years' experience but was sacked after an internal investigation found his online posts could bring Preston College into disrepute after he said the jailing of Lucy Connolly was an example of two-tier justice. Connolly is the woman jailed for 31 months for saying horrible things about asylum seekers. Pearson made it clear he believed Connolly's comments were 'obviously wrong'. He just objected to the sentence – as many do. Sacked for holding an opinion which differed from that of the idiots who run the college. CAMDEN Council is considering banning meat and fish from its various canteens. In future, all meals and snacks will be entirely 'plant-based'. So what will happen is that the entire staff will soon be hobbling around with joint deficiencies, anaemia as well as stunning the locals with gusts of fabulously bad breath. But at least Camden is saving the polar bears and stopping the world from catching on fire. Never mind what the workers would prefer to eat – sod them! That's the left-wing way. REEVES IS SO TAXING THE worst Chancellor we have ever had is about to sting you for some more dosh. Rachel Reeves has been backed into a corner. She knows she needs to raise money. 4 But she has been stopped from cutting benefits by the idiots on the left. So now she's pondering a wealth tax. That means the flood of high-achieving people leaving the country will turn into a deluge. We'll all feel the pinch. You'll get stung for more if you try to sell a home, or buy one. Stung for more when paying for the nice things in life. She'll have you paying more for your children's education. Taxed if you save for a rainy day. Everything aspirational will be taxed. A YOUGOV poll out this week suggests that 45 per cent of us wish for immigration to reduce to zero. And for a substantial number of those who have come here recently to be sent back. Those are remarkable figures. After having been lied to about immigration for year after year, the public is at last waking up and letting its views be known.
Times
26 minutes ago
- Times
‘Nimby' attacks alienate rural voters, Labour MPs warn Keir Starmer
Sir Keir Starmer is being warned by Labour MPs to tone down the government's attack on 'nimbys' amid fears it is alienating voters in rural constituencies that the party won for the first time in 2024. The prime minister was told the phrase was divisive and risked a further drop in the 'goodwill' shown by rural voters that handed Labour a historic election win last year. The Rural Research Group, which represents 26 MPs from countryside constituencies, said it was wrong to label people 'nimbys'. The acronym stands for 'not in my back yard' and has been adopted frequently by Starmer to characterise those he has said are standing in the way of Labour's growth plans by blocking new housing and infrastructure. But the group said there was a tendency in Westminster to 'focus on dividing lines' that 'often pit rural against urban, and nimbys against yimbys ['yes in my back yard']' — with the former 'seen as people living in rural or semi-rural communities'. They conducted polling that found 56 per cent rural of rural voters did not see themselves as nimbys, compared with 16 who did. 'For development to succeed in rural areas, it must respect and reflect the deep connection to land, nature and local identity,' the MPs said. • Pro-growth Labour MPs dismayed at concession to green 'nimbys' Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, who chairs the group and won the seat of Suffolk Coastal for Labour for the first time in 2024 from the former deputy prime minister Thérèse Coffey, said that calling people nimbys was 'toxic'. She told The Times: 'We need to put the term 'nimbyism' to bed. It excludes a whole set of voters from a conversation about what local growth and local opportunity means for them, in their area. 'Shouting people down and calling them nimbys won't win support for local growth. 'But if we capture what matters locally, build in for nature, and make growth inclusive for our rural areas — we can succeed where the previous government failed.' Starmer has repeatedly attacked 'nimbys' in a bid to demonstrate the government's commitment to boosting growth through housebuilding and new infrastructure projects. Since becoming prime minister, he has vowed to 'take on the nimbys', branding them 'blockers' who want to 'frustrate growth' and are part of 'the alliance of naysayers'. The group's intervention will be seen as evidence of growing concern among rural MPs about Labour's poll ratings, particularly given the hit to farmers from Rachel Reeves's changes to inheritance tax in her budget. • James Rebanks: 'The farming crisis? It's much bigger than inheritance tax' The emergence of more 'research group' caucuses in parliament also mirrors how Conservative factions sought to wield their power under previous administrations and demonstrates the restlessness felt by some Labour MPs. Starmer was told to show more recognition of rural identity, which the rural group said had 'for too long been misunderstood and overlooked by policymakers'. They said housebuilding was still important, with 80 per cent of those surveyed saying they were concerned younger people will not be able to buy their own home. Most — 65 per cent — were happy for development to proceed, so long as it was done thoughtfully and with consideration for local identity and needs. However, the group said that rural areas 'often have higher housing targets than their urban neighbours' and are bearing the brunt of big energy projects and grid upgrades as part of the government's drive towards net zero. 'For many rural voters, this is something that they are increasingly aware of, as they witness new infrastructure and developments appearing in their locality,' the MPs said in their report, Understanding Rural Britain. • Why Labour is failing to build the homes Britain needs Their polling showed rural voters prioritised spending on the NHS above all else (59 per cent), followed by agriculture and the rural economy (51 per cent), education (48 per cent) and tackling crime (44 per cent). The most popular spending cuts were foreign aid (53 per cent) and welfare (44 per cent).Given the potential threat posed by Reform UK, the group also highlighted widespread disillusionment with the established political parties. Almost two thirds of rural voters — 65 per cent — said they have little trust in politicians, according to the poll. The MPs said: 'This should serve as a clear warning sign to all parties: disillusionment in rural Britain runs deep, and restoring trust will require more than promises — it must be backed by visible, long-term local action rooted in authenticity.' A Labour source defended the party's record, saying: 'We are proud of our ambition to create a fairer Britain.' They said that working families were yet to 'feel that sense of fairness' and that all people 'deserve a secure place to call home for them and their loved ones'. The source added Labour would 'unashamedly deliver on that promise', as well as its commitment to build 1.5 million new homes during the parliament with adequate infrastructure and healthcare for new residents.
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Killers must reveal where victims are before they are released, say devastated families
Killers must be locked up for life if they refuse to disclose the location of the body, the families of two high-profile murder victims have said. Relatives of Arlene Fraser, whose husband Nat Fraser has twice been convicted of her murder following her 1998 disappearance in Elgin, spoke of the 'mental torture' they are having to endure because no trace of her has ever been found. The family of Suzanne Pilley, who was murdered in 2010 by her work colleague David Gilroy, who was given a life sentence for murder, also condemned his lack of remorse or rehabilitation as he continues to refuse to disclose the location of her remains. They both welcomed a commitment secured from Justice Secretary Angela Constance that this 'must' be taken into account by the Parole Board when making decisions about release and that this will be delivered before next year's election. But they are now pushing her to go further still and introduce a 'no body no parole' rule which means killers who don't disclose the remains can never be released on parole. Ministers will consider whether to go further on 'Suzanne's Law' as part of a consultation on parole which will be published imminently. Gail Fairgrieve, Suzanne Pilley's sister, said: 'I think that people need to understand, the Parole Board need to understand, that this crime was still continuing. It is perpetrating the crime against us. We are still dealing with this every day. 'Everyday events - you go into a card shop and you can't buy anything for your sister. It's there constantly and he has information that could just put us at ease and bring Suzanne home. 'I feel that this ruling had to consider now that he can't possibly be rehabilitated or show remorse if he is continuing to withhold this information. This information is a full part of his crime and he needs to give us that information, otherwise life imprisonment means life imprisonment.' She added: 'They have to consider it and when they look at all the considerations that the Parole Board look at to release a prisoner, (by) withholding that information from us he is not rehabilitating, there is no remorse, there is nothing.' Carol Gillies, the sister of Arlene Fraser, said: 'I feel that he (Nat Fraser) controlled Arlene when she was alive, and he is controlling her when she's dead as well. 'If the Parole Board can almost give them a choice - tell us more information or stay in jail - so he needs to make a choice, it's his choice what he does.' On the emotional impact of Arlene's body never being discovered, she said: 'It is a form of mental torture for us, it really is. I don't like using dramatic words but it is. He has that information, there is no doubt about it.' The families of the two victims yesterday spoke to journalists at an event organised by Victim Support Scotland following a meeting with Ms Constance. During the talks, Ms Constance gave a firm commitment that an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform Bill, which was added at stage two and ensures the Parole Board 'must' take into account when killers don't disclose the location of their victim's remains when making decisions, will be delivered. Choking back tears yesterday, Ms Fairgrieve described the difficulty of family events like birthdays, Christmases and weddings, and went on: 'It's the same with my kids, she had a niece and a nephew... and she wasn't there for it. He denied her that. 'I think I sometimes feel guilty that I have a life. She was only 33 when she was taken. She wouldn't want me to feel guilty, she would want me to live my life. But she has missed out on so much.' Sylvia Pilley, mother of Suzanne: 'I know Suzanne had justice when he was put in prison but her life has been cut short. She really wanted a family and she has never been given that, and we miss her. That's really why we are doing this.' Under current legislation, Gilroy will be eligible to be considered for parole in March 2030, while Nat Fraser - who was found guilty of killing his wife Arlene - will be eligible in October 2028. Describing why the families are fighting to deliver 'Suzanne's Law, Ms Fairgrieve said: 'We may never find where she is, and he may get out of prison and that is something we will have to learn to live with. But we can challenge the rules and the regulations now and we've got people that are committed to changing those. We will just hopefully improve the life for people if it happens to them.' Now the families are pushing alongside Victim Support Scotland for a 'no body no parole' rule to be introduced as part of an upcoming consultation on parole. Ms Fairgrieve said: 'Parole regulations are something that will effect the perpetrators in these cases but we would like to see the law changed initially so that when they come to trial they are well aware that if they never disclose where their remains or a body is there is no chance of parole. That is where the law needs to stand, we need to move towards that.' During yesterday's talks, Ms Constance is said to have pledged to consider the idea, similar to a system currently in place in Australia. Ms Gillies said: 'I think it should happen because when Nat was sentenced Lord Bracadale said 'you instigated this, you instructed this' and he obviously knows what happened: he disposed of Arlene in a very ruthless, efficient way. To just have Nat Fraser in front of the Parole Board and all they are considering is the risk or how he behaved in jail is just not enough. 'If he was to get out then it would be gone forever.' Ms Constance said: 'I am grateful to the families of Suzanne Pilley and Arlene Fraser for meeting with me today. They have suffered heartbreaking losses, compounded by not knowing the final resting place of their loved ones. My deepest sympathies remain with them. 'In March, I supported an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform Bill that will mean the Parole Board, when making decisions about release, must take account of whether a prisoner has information about the disposal of a victim's remains, but has not disclosed it. 'At today's meeting, I reiterated my firm commitment to this change, which will become law if the Bill is passed in Parliament.'
