UK to recognise Palestine as a state in September

[SomeWomanSomewhere]

"Unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation".

Source: Reuters

It is largely symbolic but it does mean the tide is turning!

Also: interesting to see that they frame it as largely contingent on Israeli behaviour

I don't think you have understood the point.

A fundamental human right is supposed to be a basic freedom or entitlement that every person has simply because they are human. These rights are supposed to be:

Universal, they apply to all people, everywhere.

Inalienable, they cannot be taken away, even if not always respected.

Inherent, they are not earned or granted; they belong to you by birth.

There are derogations within the hra1998 ( a c&p of echr effectively) otherwise the government would be unable to proscribe groups engaged in terrorism.

There are responsibilities on individuals exercising their rights which people in 'safe' countries take very much for granted.

Btw it is the European Convention on Human Rights and these apparently are the signatories...
CountryDate SignedDate Effective
Albania1996
Andorra1996
Armenia2001,2002
Austria1950,1953
Azerbaijan2002
Belgium1950,1953
Bosnia and Herzegovina2002
Bulgaria1992
Croatia1997
Cyprus1962
Czech Republic1993
Denmark1950,1953
Estonia1996
Finland1950,1953
France1950,1953
Georgia2000
Germany1950,1953
Greece1950,1953
Hungary1993
Iceland1950,1953
Ireland1953
Italy1950,1953
Latvia1995
Liechtenstein1982
Lithuania1995
Luxembourg1950,1953
Malta1987
Moldova1997,1998
Monaco2004
Montenegro2006
Netherlands1950,1953
North Macedonia1997
Norway1950,1953
Poland1993
Portugal1978
Romania1994
Russia1996,1998
San Marino2005
Serbia2003,2004
Slovakia1993
Slovenia1994
Spain1979
Sweden1950,1953
Switzerland1974
Turkey1950,1953
Ukraine1997
United Kingdom1950,1953

The US has all sorts of rights declared in it's constitution but they aren't universal.

Not recognising terrorists eg Hamas is something that can be done though? Countries do decide on that.

The issue is for Palestine is if Hamas are in power.

Yes, well done.

But are you actually aware that this conflict - for over 80 years - has persisted because the Palestinians, and the broader Arab world, have explicitly and consistently denied Jews the very right to self-determination that you’re now championing?

Israelis accept the principle that both peoples deserve self-determination and have done so officially for 80+ years. The Jewish state was built on that idea, and it has made multiple offers for a two-state solution. The other side rejects it entirely - not just politically, but violently.

They’ve said, openly and repeatedly, that they will continue murdering Jews and targeting civilians until Israel no longer exists.

they say that on TV, they say that in their charter, they even say it in their human rights charter when they deny Jewish right of self determination and then condone "armed resistance" against it.

And you’re here hand-wringing because Israelis aren’t bending over backwards to give statehood to a group that still holds hostages, glorifies massacres, and flatly denies their right to live as a people?

Honestly - what planet are you on?

One inalienable right you forget is the right to life. Not to mention the right of a nation state to self defense against existential threats.

@LipstickLessonsto check are you saying if Hamas are in power you think other countries should deal with them as a legitimate state?

I don't agree with making fundamental human rights conditional. I wouldn't agree with taking away the Israeli people's right to self determination because their government is denying Palestinians the right to life and the right to self defence against a government that poses a very real threat to Palestinians existence.

My views are consistent. Are yours?

@Twiglets1
Hamas definitely needs to be sidelined and removed from the equation. Palestinians need a leadership that the West and regional allies can support. Neither Hamas, particularly after 7/10, nor the PA (with reports of their corruption) are fit to lead Palestinians.

Arguably neither are the current coalition in power in Israel fit to make peace with Palestinians.

It's problematic I know.

The statement signed by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt & 14 other counties) calls for Hamas to disband and says it can play no part in the future governance of Palestine. But who would take over? Probably the PA, who don't have a great track record.

It doesn't say anything about the Israel government.

However - as things stand at the moment, Netanyahu and his government show no interest in agreeing to a two state solution. They won't be in power forever, I guess. But while this statement seems positive, I'm not sure it really changes anything if neither Hamas not Netanyahu agree to it.

Respectfully, I think you are hugely oversimplifying.

The UN affirming Palestinian statehood without agreed borders or a unified government would likely be symbolic. It would affirm self-determination in a legal or ideological sense, but doesn't seem likely to improve the lives of Palestinians in any meaningul way (in a worst case, it might prolong or escalate violence against them).

The purpose of making recognition conditional on a negotiated peace process is to allow for human rights to be affored in practice, not just on paper.

From Starmer's perspective, too, there's the fact that recognition via the UN would require US support. Starmer has certainly tried to position himself as something of a Trump-whisperer and I do think obtaining Trump (and therefore, the US's) support is somewhat more likely via a "conditions set, which Israel has not met" approach than a simple affirmation of the UK's recognition of Palestinian statehood.

This conversation, I don't think, is reasonably framed in terms of who support human rights vs those who do not. For me, its about how best to secure those rights in a way that’s durable and enforceable in a real sense.

For me I think that every body needs to be able to step up as equals to the negotiating table to plan what comes next. Palestinians having the same right to self determination and the right to speak for themselves as Israelis do needs to be the starting place, fundemenatal human rights should never be up for debate or negotiation. They aren't something to be earned.

What are Israels agreed borders? They still get to have a country even though their borders are in dispute.

Constantly we are told oh it's complex, it's complex, well more and more countries are disagreeing with you and saying enough is enough.

Edit: inadvertently hit "Post" after half a sentence- response pending!

This is where we get into the interplay between the UN Charter (which recognizes the right to self determination and statehood) and the Montevideo Convention (which sets out the attributes of a state).

A would-be state doesn't have to meet all of the Montevideo Convention requirements in order for UN members to recognize it as a state, but it is lawful for countries to decline to recognize a state is it does not have all or some of the agreed attributes of a state.

In Palestine's case, the attributes that it does not have are agreed borders (but lots of nations - as you say - Israel included, do not) and having a functioning government.

The Palestinians do not currently have a functioning government: Hamas are the de facto authority in Gaza and the PLO in the West Bank, and they each question the legitimacy of the other.

To date, no state has been newly admitted to the UN without a functioning government. Somalia in 1960 is perhaps the closest case, but even then, it had a transitional government with nominal control and international backing. Shortly agter statehood, we then saw a military coup, then civil wars and state collapse.

What I think you're doing when you say "Palestinians having the same right to self determination and [...] fundemenatal human rights should never be up for debate or negotiation" is conflating the right of self-determination (which Palestinians undoubtedly have) with the criteria for recognizing a state (which are admittedly, indicative rather than prescriptive).

If Palestine had a functioning government (or a unified body capable of becoming a functioning government) then I think the US, UK and other nations' unwillingness to simply recognize statehood would be far less tenable. Unfortunately, Palestine has never truly had that (though the Oslo accords were intended to elevate the PLO into that role), largely as a result of internal divisions.

Declining to recognize a Palestinian state where there isn't, truly, something that resembles a state, isn't in-and-of-itself, a denial of human rights. Its a recognition that declaring "Palestine is a state" does not make it a state. Statehood isnt merely declarative, it is institutional, and that's the key missing piece.

Whether-or-not recognizing statehood regardless is the better course is open to debate.

Even just focussing on the Palestinian perspective: an optimist might say that recognizing statehood gives equal footing and thus enhances the chances of an equitable (and hopefully more stable solution). A pessimist might say that it could inflame divisions between the PLO (who would want to be Palestine's representatives in the process) and Hamas (who might reject the process altogether).

Ultimately, I think the goal of promoting peace (internally and externally) is a reasonable and lawful consideration for the UK to bear in mind, when deciding whether-or-not to recognize a Palestinian state. Given the UK's role in the crisis, I think the UK has arguably the highest degree of responsibility of any 3rd-party group to do all it can to promote peace.

Through that lense, if the two options are "recognize a state to signal profound disagreement with Israel" or "leverage it to stop Israel's continued participation in war crimes", I'm comfortable with the latter, and I fear that the former could be reckless.

And that's without the question of how you get the US on-board.

Andrew Niel on X

The British government position over ‘recognising Palestine’ is unravelling fast tonight. Or at least bereft of logical explanation.
From official UK government statements it seems that Keir Starmer’s position is that, if a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel is reached because Hamas releases all hostages, the UK will NOT recognise Palestine. Not sure what’s in it for Hamas.
But if no ceasefire is reached because Hamas refuses to release all hostages, the UK WILL recognise Palestine (whatever that means). Talk about perverse incentives.
With Starmer in Downing Street and Lamy at the Foreign Office they are increasingly the Keystone Cops of UK foreign policy.

That's an awful take by Neil and, frankly, I think to the point of dishonesty.

To continue with my attempt (who knows how successful) at thoughtful and measured analysis, that acknowledges complexity and nuance - he's being a right twat.

How is it dishonest?

According to Starmer's plan, if Hamas were to release the hostages and surrender tomorrow, Britain would not recognise a Palestinian state.

If they hold off and push Israel to keep going then they get one.

It;s the dumbest thing I have probably ever heard from the British government and that's a wide field.

@DeftShaker this is the plan from Starmer. That's why it's so bizarre. And no one else is suggesting the same.

Well Canada is also going to recognise a Palestinian state in September, it's a step in the right direction!

If certain conditions are met.

https://news.sky.com/story/canada-says-it-will-recognise-a-palestinian-state-if-certain-conditions-are-met-13404317

That isn't accurate.

"We are determined to protect the viability of the two-state solution, and so we will recognise the state of Palestine in September before UNGA; unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commits to a long term sustainable peace, including through allowing the UN to restart without delay the supply of humanitarian support to the people of Gaza to end starvation, agreeing to a ceasefire, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank."

Those are the conditions on the recognition, all of them directed at Israel's actions or inactions.

The UK has also reaffirmed:

"Hamas must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to an immediate
ceasefire, accept that they will play no part in the government of
Gaza, and commit to disarmament"

Which is given not as a condition to recognizing statehood, but as relevant contextual facors in assessing Israel's compliance with the conditions set.

E.g., if Hamas continues to hold hostages, Israel may be given more leeway in meeting the UK’s conditions. But if Hamas releases all hostages and Israel still blocks humanitarian aid or refuses a ceasefire, the pressure on Israel to act increases (if their aim is to avoid recognition).

If Hamas were to release the hostages, that ultimately makes recognition of statehood more likely - the opposite of what Neil is saying.

Honestly, his post is BS.

France, the UK and now Canada! I wonder which country will be next?

You have misunderstood.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced the UK will recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel meets certain conditions, including agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza and reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.

There are no conditions on Hamas. Demands yes, but no conditions attached.

The British government's current stance on recognising a Palestinian state is a diplomatic farce when you break it down logically. According to the official position, recognition is conditional on Israel’s behaviour, not Hamas’s.

Apply it to real scenarios....

Scenario 1: Israel complies, Hamas complies
Israel agrees to a ceasefire, opens aid corridors, halts annexation plans, and commits to a two-state process. Hamas releases all hostages, disarms, and leaves power in Gaza.
Result? No recognition of Palestine.
Both sides do everything asked - and Palestine gets nothing, so why would Hamas do this???

Scenario 2: Israel complies, Hamas doesn’t
Israel follows every UK demand.
Hamas keeps hostages, stays armed, and continues ruling Gaza.
Result? Still no recognition.
So again - why would Hamas change course if there’s no reward either way? Why would they give up their bargaining chips if they think they are going to win either way?

Scenario 3: Israel doesn’t comply, Hamas does
Israel refuses a ceasefire or doesn’t lift restrictions. Hamas miraculously releases hostages and surrenders.
Result? Recognition of a Palestinian state goes ahead.
So Hamas now has an incentive here, which is to make sure Israel doesn't agree to any of the terms, which is clear reason for Hamas to provoke Israel as much as possible - for example killing more hostages.

Scenario 4: Neither complies
Israel continues military action. Hamas keeps murdering civilians and holding hostages.
Result? Recognition of a Palestinian state still goes ahead.
Yes - even if Hamas commits more atrocities, the UK says it will recognise Palestine anyway.

So what have we created? A system where the only thing here that Hamas is incentivised to do is kill more people?

The only party held accountable is Israel - meanwhile, Hamas can literally do anything - keep hostages, fire rockets, live-stream executions - and Britain will still hand their side symbolic statehood if Israel doesn’t meet the conditions of essential surrender.

Heck, by these terms, Hamas could commit another Oct 7 every day and still get rewarded!

Incentivising bloodshed.

It is the dumbest, most idiotic move from the British government that I can think of. Israel, seemingly has rightly told Starmer to knob off.

I have not misunderstood.

The conditions, as I stated in my post, are all directed at Israel.

The relevance of the demands made of Hamas is that, the more that Hamas complies with them, the higher the standard Israel will be held to in determining if it met the conditions.

That's the incentive for Hamas to release hostages (and/or for other Palestinians to pressure or turn against Hamas) - to do so further shifts the onus onto Israel to afford humanitarian relief and meaningfully commit to a peace process (in a two-state mold, which also would be designed to end in recognition of a Palestinian state).

Neil is falsely presenting it as a binary. Ceasefire means = no recognition, no ceasefire = recognition, regardless of Hamas's conduct.

If countries recognise Gaza as part of a Palestinian state, they can directly access it by water and send funds directly to it which are not overseen by Israeli governance.

It would be up to the Israel or Egypt Govs as to whether they wanted to counter any of these activities, which could result in further conflict.