When Macron recognises Palestine, Starmer must follow suit
This summer, France is expected to align its foreign policy with international law by recognising the State of Palestine alongside Israel. France and Saudi Arabia are working together to draw up a framework for Middle East peace. So far, so good.
But, right now, where is Britain on this issue? It should be leading – not following.
Our country has the historic responsibility, stemming from the broken promises of the Balfour Declaration and our misconduct of the Mandate up to 1948. There is urgency: under Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is undermining systematically any prospect of two states coexisting at peace – the bipartisan policy of successive British governments.
Commendably, Keir Starmer works hand in glove with Emmanuel Macron on Ukraine and on US-handling in this new era. American unpredictability shows the wisdom of Starmer's moves since July to restore and strengthen our ties with European partners on foreign policy, defence and migration. Palestine/Israel must be a key element in this effort.
Our government was elected on a commitment to recognise Palestine and uphold international law without fear or favour. We should give a lead in Europe and the Commonwealth consistent with our values and in our national interest. The rule of law is in our interest.
For Britain, the question is not one of diplomacy alone – it is also one of justice and historical accountability. Over a century ago, Britain and France secretly negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreement, carving up the Ottoman Empire's Arab provinces into spheres of influence. Britain acquired control of Palestine under the League of Nations Mandate, with a stated duty to assist its people towards independence.
That promise was broken. The Palestinian Arab majority of the population were made homeless, displaced.
Since 1967, Palestine has been under Israeli military occupation. Last July, the International Court of Justice advised that the 1967 occupation is unlawful; all UN member states must work to end it as rapidly as possible. Failure to recognise Palestine serves to prolong that unlawful occupation.
Recognition of Palestine is not about taking sides, nor rewarding terrorism, nor delegitimising Israel. It is about parity of esteem, redressing a profound imbalance in international relations while upholding international law.
Israel, created in 1948 and recognised immediately by the US, then by Britain and so many others, is a full member of the global order. Palestine remains in a permanent state of limbo. Britain cannot continue to profess support for a two-state solution while refusing to recognise one of the two states.
There is no legal impediment to recognition. In 2011, then foreign secretary William Hague confirmed that Palestine meets the criteria for statehood, subject to the occupation. The ICJ deems the occupation to be unlawful. Our government recognises states, not governments, and says that the decision to recognise is ours alone – the occupation does not give Israel a veto; 147 of the world's 193 nations recognise Palestine. The 2012 UN General Assembly vote granting Palestine non-member observer state status passed with overwhelming support.
Our government, the ICJ and the United Nations have consistently affirmed that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied Palestinian territory, not Israeli land. The continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and has been condemned as illegal in multiple UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 2334 of 2016, which Britain helped to draft.
British recognition of Palestine on pre-June 1967 lines will not prejudice final status negotiations, nor question Israel's right to exist in peace and security. Rather, it reaffirms that the Palestinian people have the self-same right to self-determination and statehood that Israel enjoys and sends a clear message that the international community will not accept unilateral annexation or perpetual occupation. As the ICJ stated in its 2004 advisory opinion on the Israeli separation barrier in the West Bank, all states have a legal obligation not to recognise the unlawful situation resulting from Israeli actions in occupied Palestinian territory.
Some argue that recognition should come only at the end of negotiations or as part of a 'peace process'. But the geopolitical case for recognition now is strong.
As the US pursues further regional normalisation between Israel and Arab states, recognition of Palestine by key European governments – last year, Spain, Ireland and Norway said they recognised a Palestinian state based on borders established before the war in 1967 – will serve as a vital counterweight, reminding all parties that Palestinian rights cannot be shelved or ignored.
France aims to coordinate recognition with efforts by Arab states to recognise Israel, potentially within a broader peace framework. Britain should support this dual-track approach, reinforcing the vision of two states living side by side in peace.
Imperial Britain helped draw the borders of the modern Middle East, for good and ill. Our government now has a chance to help the peoples of the Middle East to reshape its future, by giving a lead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Declan Lynch: The BBC got us through endless Northern nights, Gerry Adams
The BBC is 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', but nobody calls it that except Gerry Adams. Again and again, very deliberately, as he savours his triumph in the recent libel action against 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', he gives it the full official title — almost as if the 'British' part has connotations of inherent badness. He claims that his purpose in taking the action was to 'put manners' on this British Broadcasting Corporation. There were even suggestions — later denied — that the BBC would consider blocking the transmission of its programmes in this country, rather than risk further exposure to our atrocious libel laws.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask
I couldn't care less about the burka debate. Not a tinker's. Why? Because it's a concession of defeat, a belated response by panicked politicians to a change that's already happened and that they largely encouraged. Last week, a meteor hit Britain with the publication of a demographic study by the queerly named Centre of Heterodox Social Science. By 2063, say the sociable hets, white Britons will be a minority; come the new century, almost one in five citizens will be Muslim. This forces us to consider a very politically incorrect question: will Britain still be Britain if it's no longer majority white British? The official answer is 'absolutely, yes'. Elite liberals believe nations are defined by values, and thus anyone, from anywhere in the world, can become British if they conform to them. It helps that these values are universal. Fairness, tolerance, kindness... this is a portable identity that is uncontroversial, because it demands nothing except to pay one's taxes and avoid murder. Keir Starmer warns that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', while promoting a vision of citizenship that is entirely passive. It's also based on a misreading of human nature. Liberals assume that values shape culture, such that we could pass a law – ban the burka, ban Islamophobia – and we'd become good neighbours overnight. But it's the other way around. Culture shapes values, and culture is the product of non-abstract, substantial qualities, such as climate, geography, religion, language and ethnicity. We can shorthand it as 'history'. Thus: we are democratic in Britain not because a committee decided it over one wild weekend, but following nearly a thousand years of revolution and reaction, baked into memory and expressed as temperament. Such a society is light-touch and self-governing, at least in theory, because we've been marinating in its ethics and customs since birth. The English, Welsh, Scots etc do exist as cultures – not superior to others, nor unaffected by migration, but really real – and if they undergo a profound change in composition, this is bound to change the nature of Britishness, too. Isn't that obvious? It's regarded as axiomatic elsewhere. We rush to recognise and cultivate the historical identity of First Nations people, just as we step back nervously from a Holy Land conflict shaped by competing ethnic claims over biblical territory. And even if you regard ethnic conflict as sinful, as I do, or based upon a category error, as academics insist, we have to accept that identity matters to a lot of people. In which case, I struggle to think of a society in history that has faced the scale of change happening to us without descending into violence or authoritarianism. Today, the liberal understanding of nationhood is already in retreat. Remigration is being trialled in the United States. Donald Trump is reducing inflows by banning travel from named countries, cutting asylum and militarising his border. He's also increasing outflows by expelling as many people as he can on any pretext he can find. For instance, when an Egyptian asylum-seeker assaulted protesters in Colorado, the administration not only arrested the attacker but detained and is seeking to deport his entire family – a 'sins of the father' policy that judges are resisting. Elsewhere, the BBC's Simon Reeve has caused a stir by highlighting the integrationist policies of Denmark, a country that offers people cash to go home and dismantles ghettos. That this is done by social democrats comes as no surprise. Scandinavia is historically conformist; a welfare state requires high levels of solidarity to function. Evidence of my 'history-shapes-identity' theory is offered by how countries respond to the immigration challenge in light of their own traditions. Here, when a Reform UK MP asked the PM for his views on the burka, the PM had no answer and his MPs sounded as shocked as a maiden aunt offered cocaine. Why doesn't Labour want to have this debate? A cynic will say: it offends their core constituency. A Tory will claim: they don't really care about immigration. And yet Labour's immigration White Paper looks tough, and it has already increased deportations compared with the last government. Historically, it was Labour that restricted Commonwealth immigration in the 1960s, and Boris Johnson, of Brexit fame, who threw the borders open. Boris, who liked to play both sides of the immigration game, infamously compared the burka to a letter box – yet did not wish to ban it. Do we not say 'an Englishman's home is his castle'? By extension, they are free to wear whatever they want in the street. The problem, reply nationalists, is that by clinging to a liberal vision, we open the door to illiberal attitudes that might, by strength of conviction, overwhelm us. If the culture goes, our old values will follow. We are not, however, as tolerant as many assume. It has been reported that Prevent now regards 'cultural nationalism' – the fear that society 'is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration' – as a 'sub-category of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies', and thus worthy of referral to the authorities. GB News is up in arms – admittedly a permanent condition – but I've yet to hear a guest point out that white Christians are merely experiencing what the security services have done to Muslim Britons since 9/11: slander and harassment. Between 2016 and 2019, over 2,000 children under the age of nine were referred to Prevent, including a four-year-old Muslim boy who talked about a violent computer game at an after-school club. Right and Left are chasing a mirage of British liberalism that, in an age when you can get 31 months for a social-media post, no longer reflects reality. Immigration is ultimately a numbers game. A democratic society can get along fine with any minority, so long as it remains small in number. But when a government fails to police its borders, and thus loses control over numbers, it will feel obliged to police society to maintain harmony: monitoring, deporting, rewriting history, and indoctrinating us in a strange new variant on national character, a parody of kindness best described as 'sinister twee'. If you want a vision of the future, it is a Dawn French-shaped woman, with a midlife-crisis fringe, talking to you about diversity and inclusion as if you were a baby. Then, when you raise an objection, ending the discussion with a disturbingly final 'NO'.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform threat. Telling people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday?
