What does recognising a Palestinian state mean?
What does recognising a Palestinian state mean?
Palestine is a state that does and does not exist.It has a large degree of international recognition, diplomatic missions abroad and teams that compete in sporting competitions, including the Olympics.But due to the Palestinians' long-running dispute with Israel, it has no internationally agreed boundaries, no capital and no army. Due to Israel's military occupation, in the West Bank, the Palestinian authority, set up in the wake of peace agreements in the 1990s, is not in full control of its land or people. Gaza, where Israel is also the occupying power, is in the midst of a devastating war. Given its status as a kind of quasi-state, recognition is inevitably somewhat symbolic. It will represent a strong moral and political statement but change little on the ground.But the symbolism is strong. As Foreign Secretary David Lammy pointed out during his speech at the UN on Tuesday, "Britain bears a special burden of responsibility to support the two-state solution".
He went on to cite the 1917 Balfour Declaration - signed by his predecessor as foreign secretary Arthur Balfour - which first expressed Britain's support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".But that declaration, Lammy said, came with a solemn promise "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".Supporters of Israel have often pointed out that Lord Balfour did not refer explicitly to the Palestinians or say anything about their national rights.But the territory previously known as Palestine, which Britain ruled through a League of Nations mandate from 1922 to 1948, has long been regarded as unfinished international business.Israel came into being in 1948, but efforts to create a parallel state of Palestine have foundered, for a multitude of reasons.As Lammy said, politicians "have become accustomed to uttering the words 'a two-state solution'".The phrase refers to the creation of a Palestinian state, alongside Israel, in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, broadly along the lines that existed prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.But international efforts to bring about a two-state solution have come to nothing and Israel's colonisation of large parts of the West Bank, illegal under international law, has turned the concept into a largely empty slogan.
Who recognises Palestine as a state?
The State of Palestine is currently recognised by 147 of the UN's 193 member states.At the UN, it has the status of a "permanent observer state", allowing participation but no voting rights.With France also promising recognition in the coming weeks and assuming the UK does go ahead with recognition, Palestine will soon enjoy the support of four of the UN Security Council's five permanent members (the other two being China and Russia).This will leave the United States, Israel's strongest ally by far, in a minority of one.Washington has recognised the Palestinian Authority, currently headed by Mahmoud Abbas, since the mid-1990s but has stopped short of recognising an actual state. Several US presidents have expressed their support for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. But Donald Trump is not one of them. Under his two administrations, US policy has leaned heavily in favour of Israel.Without the backing of Israel's closest and most powerful ally, it is impossible to see a peace process leading to an eventual two-state solution.
Why is the UK doing it now?
Successive British governments have talked about recognising a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process, ideally in conjunction with other Western allies and "at the moment of maximum impact".To do it simply as a gesture, the governments believed, would be a mistake. It might make people feel virtuous, but it would not actually change anything on the ground.But events have clearly forced the current government's hand.The scenes of creeping starvation in Gaza, mounting anger over Israel's military campaign and a major shift in British public opinion - all of these have influenced government thinking.The clamour, among MPs and even the cabinet front bench, has become deafening.At a Commons debate last week, Lammy was bombarded from all sides by questions asking why the UK was still not recognising a Palestinian state.Health Secretary Wes Streeting summed up the views of many MPs when he urged the government to recognise Palestine "while there is still a state of Palestine left to recognise".
But the UK has not simply followed the lead set by France's Emmanuel Macron last week or the governments of Ireland, Spain and Norway last year.Sir Keir has chosen to make his pledge conditional: Britain will act unless the government of Israel takes decisive steps to end the suffering in Gaza, reach a ceasefire, refrain from annexing territory in the West Bank - a move symbolically threatened by Israel's parliament the Knesset last week - and commit to a peace process that results in a two-state solution.Downing Street knows there is virtually no chance of Netanyahu committing himself in the next six weeks to that kind of peace process. He has repeatedly ruled out the creation of a Palestinian state.So British recognition of Palestine is certainly coming.For all Netanyahu's implacable opposition, Sir Keir is hoping this is indeed a "moment of maximum impact".But the Britain in 2025 is not the Britain of 1917 when the Balfour Declaration was signed. Its ability to bend others to its will is limited. It is hard to know, right now, what the impact will actually be.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
7 minutes ago
- Spectator
Labour accused of ‘social engineering' over working class internships
Well, well, well. It transpires that in plans to make Whitehall more working class, civil service internships will only be offered to, er, students from low income families. The Cabinet Office has said that only those from 'lower socio-economic backgrounds' will be able to apply to Whitehall's internship scheme – with eligibility based on, um, what jobs their parents did when they were 14. Good heavens… Currently the summer scheme is up to two months long, and open to undergraduate students in the last two years of their degree, allowing them to shadow civil servants, write briefings and take part in policy research. Those deemed successful will then be put forward for the Civil Service Fast Stream graduate programme. From next summer, however, only those from poorer backgrounds – with parents who are receptionists, plumbers or van drivers – will be accepted. Speaking to the Beeb, Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden insisted: We need to get more working-class young people into the Civil Service so it harnesses the broadest range of talent and truly reflects the country. Government makes better decisions when it represents and understands the people we serve. The Tories have hit out at the move, criticising Sir Keir Starmer's Labour lot of 'leftist social engineering'. Shadow cabinet office minister Mike Wood added: 'We believe in opportunity based on what you can do, not where you come from. We all want to see greater opportunity for working-class young people. But this scheme sends the message that unless you fit a particular social profile, you're no longer welcome.' Quite. Perhaps the government should have taken a leaf out of The Spectator's CV-blind internship scheme instead…
Spectator
7 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump hasn't won the trade war
Maybe Trump doesn't always chicken out after all. Rapid trade deals with the UK, Japan, the EU and others in recent weeks may have given the impression that the trade war was essentially over. Today, though, comes Trump's Ardennes offensive, with immediate tariffs of 35 per cent announced for Canada. Other countries have been given a week to prepare for steep increases: India will be subject to 25 per cent tariffs, Taiwan 20 per cent and Switzerland – far from neutral in this particular conflict – 39 per cent. According to Trump, Canada has been singled out for harsh treatment because it has failed to cooperate on the flow of fentanyl across the border. Trump also hinted that he was punishing Canada for recognising Palestine, but then he has just done a trade deal with the EU in spite of France taking the same action, and didn't make any trade threats to Britain in spite of Keir Starmer saying this week that the UK will recognise Palestine in September if Israel does not meet certain conditions. It seems rather more likely that Trump is saying: look, other countries have yielded and agreed to one-sided trade deals with the US – I'm going to carry on beating you about the head until you agree to do the same. But will they? So far, the countries which have agreed to Trump's rather rough and ready trade deals have acted as if the benefits of a trading relationship with the US are one-way – they have more to lose than the US if a deal cannot be struck. But of course that is not always true. Taiwan, for example, produces over 90 per cent of the world's high-end microchips, which are implanted in just about every device manufactured in the US. What benefit does it bring America if those chips are in future taxed at 20 per cent? There is a strange dislocation in attitudes towards Trump's tariffs. Those who insist he has a very clever strategy and is winning tend also to be people who, in any other context, are in favour of low taxes. But a tariff is just a tax like any other – it adds costs to business and so suppresses economic activity. If tariffs are set at modest levels, it may be worth putting up with tariffs' depressing effect in return for the revenue they raise. Raise them above a certain level, however, and revenue will start to decline as business activity is discouraged – the classic Laffer effect. US growth may have proved more resilient than many feared it would be after Liberation Day, but it is certain that tariffs on raw materials and components are a negative influence on US manufacturing industry. A country does not 'win' by taxing its imports more than other countries tax its exports – if it did, the US would be one of the poorest countries in the world while many African countries would be startlingly rich. The US has done brilliantly well out of a regime of low import tariffs – as has Singapore, one of the few countries which, prior to Liberation Day, imposed even lower tariffs than did the US. But even if you do think that imposing higher tariffs than your trading partners amounts to 'victory', it is far from clear that Trump will emerge the eventual winner. Some countries may have yielded to him, but others are clearly holding out, and may well make the calculation that the US has more to lose from a trade war than they do. This war has a long way to run yet.
Daily Mail
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
In a rebuke to Trump, SNP backs world's largest wind farm
The 'largest' offshore windfarm in the world could be built in Scotland after the SNP Government granted planning permission. Ministers confirmed that the giant Berwick Bank project off the south east coast of Scotland - which will contain up to 307 turbines - has been given the go-ahead. Developers SSE Renewables, claim that, if it is fully delivered, then it 'would become the world's largest offshore wind farm'. Conservation groups raised concerns about the danger that the development will kill tens of thousands of puffins, kittiewakes and gannets, including globally important colonies at Bass Rock. It comes just days after Donald Trump attacked the spread of 'windmills' during his visit to Scotland, saying they were 'ruining' countries in Europe. Berwick Bank - proposed to be built 23 miles off the coast of St Abbs - aims to deliver 4.1 gigawatts (GW) of capacity, which is believed to be enough to power every home in Scotland twice over and around 17 per cent of the homes in the UK. The development will feature up to 307 turbines and have two connection points to the grid - one in Dunbar, East Lothian, and another in Blyth, Northumberland. But the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and partner conservation groups condemned the decision to approve the development. Anne McCall, director of RSPB Scotland, said: 'This is a very dark day for seabirds. It is a terrible decision on a really bad development. Berwick Bank would be catastrophic for Scotland's globally important seabirds which are already facing alarming declines. In addition, its impacts are so damaging they will make the relative impacts of other windfarms significantly higher. This one wind farm is going to make it really challenging to accelerate renewable projects across Scottish seas. We are incredibly concerned that Scottish Government have granted consent for a project which could catapult some of Scotland's most-loved seabird species towards extinction.' The National Trust for Scotland said the news was 'deeply disappointing', fearing there will be 'significant harm' caused to seabird colonies at the nearby St Abb's Head National Nature Reserve. A spokesperson said: 'At the National Trust for Scotland we are supportive of the drive towards renewable energy, but not at the expense of the very nature and habitats this effort is supposed to help save in the face of climate change.' The Scottish Government highlighted that the consent is subject to SSE Renewables producing a detailed sea bird compensation plan outlining how adverse impacts on seabirds will be compensated for. Stephen Wheeler, the managing director of SSE Renewables, said news of the approval is 'hugely welcome'. He added: 'At over 4GW of potential capacity, Berwick Bank can play a pivotal role in meeting the mission of Clean Power 2030 for the UK and achieving Scotland's decarbonisation and climate action goals. Berwick Bank has the potential to rapidly scale up Scotland's operational renewable energy capacity and can accelerate the delivery of homegrown, affordable and secure clean energy to UK consumers from Scottish offshore wind, helping meet the UK's clean power ambition by 2030.' The approval comes after the SNP Government unveiled a new target of having up to 40GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, which is a significant ramping up from the existing target of 8-11GW by 2030. Based on current average operating capacities it would mean an increase from around 1,000 turbines in five years' time to 5,000 within 15 years. Scottish Conservative net zero and energy spokesman Douglas Lumsden said: 'Wind power is an important part of our energy mix, but it is not on its own enough to provide affordable power and energy security. Scotland will only prosper with a realistic energy policy that draws on nuclear, oil and gas and renewables - and only the Scottish Conservatives are committed to that. The hostility of both the SNP and Labour governments to North Sea oil and gas is costing an estimated 400 jobs a fortnight and increasing our reliance on imported fossil fuels. If they care about Scotland's interests, these two left-wing parties should ditch their opposition to our existing energy sector, embrace a mix of solutions and heed Kemi Badenoch's call to ditch the energy price levy.' Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes said: 'Ministers have given the Berwick Bank wind farm application extremely careful consideration. The decision to grant consent to Berwick Bank is a major step in Scotland's progress towards achieving net zero and tackling the climate crisis, as well as supporting national energy security and growing our green economy. It is also an important decision for Scotland's renewables sector, and this investment will be further built upon through the delivery of Scotland's significant future pipeline of offshore wind projects under the ScotWind and the Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas (INTOG) leasing rounds.'
