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

That isn't accurate.

It's probably fair to say that if the UN as a whole recognized Palestinian statehood, that would likely increase pressure on Israel and Egypt to end or ease the blockades. It likely wouldnt make a significant difference to transferring funds unless Hamas had no role in governance.

Which part is inaccurate?

Nope.

Again, you are treating a party's compliance as a yes/no binary, so your scenarios don't make real world sense. It's better understood as a scale. Israel is expected to take some steps towards peace and delivering humanitarian aid. The more that Hamas co-operates, the greater the concessions expected from Israel.

And "full compliance" from Israel does not mean Palestine gets nothing. First - it gets a ceasefire and significant humanitarian aid. Secondly, although it wouldn't get an immediate unilateral recognition of statehood, Israel's full compliance entails its commitment to a two-state peace process.

Admittedly Hamas itself gets nothing from scenario 1 but thats half of the point - to create a divergence between what is good for Hamas and what is good for Palestine.

Your Scenario 3 is a nonsense. How can Hamas "fully comply" and simultaneously kill the remaining hostages? If Hamas escalates its efforts in provocation, Israel is going to be afforded huge leeway.

Scenario 4 is, again, you thinking in binaries. If neither party chances tact, then yes - Palestine would be recognized. If Hamas causes escalation, then very little will be expected of Israel by the UK. If Hamas doesnt change tact, Israel will still be expected to implement some positive steps (like affording humanitarian aid).

Honestly, your interpretation is absurd.

All of it.

A recognised independent state (i.e Palestinian) does not require permissions from other states (i.e Israel) to be accessed, provided with diplomatic jurisdiction or funded by other countries. Not a single part of this is inaccurate.

If you're talking about individual countries declaring Palestine a state, those declarations do not have any legal effect.

If you are talking about the United Nations, then Palestine would indeed be recognized as a state - the US's veto right being the biggest obstacle.

The legality of Israel's naval blockade is already highly contested but it isn't inherently tied to Palestinian statehood.

The extent to which monetary transfers could be made is complex, due to international laws prohibiting financing of terrorism. No EU country would be able to transfer funds into Gaza if Hamas remains its de-facto government, unless (for example) they were transferring to some UN agency or NGO operating in Gaza.

@DeftShaker
If there was a coalition of countries that recognised Palestine as a state, could they not, theoretically, transfer humanitarian aid through its sea borders? It would be provocative, to say the least, but the situation is growing desperate for Palestinians, particularly if they fail to meet Starmer’s conditions.

Around 75% of countries already recognize Palestine as a state. I suppose the answer to your question is "yes, but it likely results in armed conflict between that coalition and, at minimum, Israel and the US, so the odds of it successfully delivering aid might be fairly slim and the odds of it resulting in a much larger conflict are relatively high."

One of the reasons I think the "conditional recognition" strategy is a good, pragmatic one is that I think it has the possibility of gaining US support which, realistically, is necessary.

So far the pragmatic strategy liked on here seems to be celebrated most by Hamas.

They feel closer to their goals.

How do you think Gaza / Palestine can move from getting statehood to a legitimate gov, not including Hamas? What’s the process of removing them

I said much the same before- that this will be a way to keep Trump on side- at least not alienate- as a way to recognise Palestine as a state

If they can do this, perhaps US won’t veto at UN

This post is absolutely nuts

There isn't a scale. A specific set of conditions was set out for Israel to meet.

It doesn't matter what "Palestine" gets. "Palestine" doesn't have hostages and isn't fighting Israel - Hamas is.

Israel was committed to a 2SS for decades! That's meaningless to Hamas and anyone else!

Hamas can easily fully comply and simultaneously kill remaining hostages - they have already done that during ceasefire deals!!!

I am not "thinking" in binaries, the idiot Starmer laid out binaries.

"Admittedly Hamas itself gets nothing from scenario"
Bingo! You finally got there!!!

correct, not a single part of this is inaccurate.

I think it’s a mistake to assume Hamas benefits from conditional recognition. In fact, recognition tied to their exclusion may be one of the most effective diplomatic tools available to weaken their legitimacy.

To my mind, it likely becomes harder to remove Hamas if recognition comes before statehood. But I don’t think that’s likely to occur. Until and unless the U.S. agrees to recognition, which would require a huge reversal while Hamas remains in de facto control of Gaza, there won’t be a UN declaration of statehood.

It’s not as hard as it should be to imagine a chain of events that could lead there, but if things deteriorate to that point (and they will, if nothing changes), then non-intervention would surely become morally and politically untenable.

I dont see how growing international support for recognition, on the condition that Hamas plays no role in a future Palestinian sante or peace process, can do anything other than undermine Hamas in the public consciousness in the near term.

A peace process then needs to deliver something meaningful, without perpetual delay, to prevent re-radicalization over time.

Truthfully, I’m not optimistic about a successful peace process. Peace processes are never easy. But in this case, the geographic and political challenges are unparalleled.

But despite the challenges and while I’m broadly Israel-sympathetic, I cannot tolerate its recent actions. Allowing the current food insecurity to continue would be indefensible (well - it already is). Food security and medical care for the malnourished need to come now.

I acknowledge that wholehearted commitment to a peace process is a tremendous ask of Israelis. However, providing massive humanitarian aid doesn’t require that level of commitment.

All the UK is really asking is that Israel permits the UN and others to prevent hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and that, if Hamas makes meaningful concessions, Israel should properly entertain overtures toward peace from a non-Hamas body.

Its a sensible, pragmatic approach designed to give the best conditions possible for lasting peace, avoid hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths, and not alienate the US (who, like it or not, are pivotal here). Its a needle being threaded with care and purpose, and I support it. Even if you don't, I think you should be able to recognize Neils' response to it as partisan hackery on a topic that deserves more seriousness.

Recognition is not tied to their exclusion.
Recognition is only tied to conditions placed on Israel.

I am not sure if you misunderstood Starmer's statement or if this is obfuscation.

As @EasternStandard says, Hamas are delighted. Israel have essentially been told that they either surrender to Hamas, or Hamas will be given the win regardless.

That is ostensibly what has happened, whether you acknowledge or not, and this is why the world is enraged.

Fair comment - recognition tied to their exclusion isnt what I meant but is what I typed.

The UK is offering recognition in the symbolic sense, which is not preconditioned on Hamas's immediate exclusion. The UK is, though, unwilling to recognize Hamas as a participant in an actual peace process.

Thank you for this clarity. It’s such a bizarre approach. Emily and other freed hostages are so upset and Hamas are celebrating.

I see Canada has announced a much higher bar for statehood. Which makes more sense.

Whether you agree with it or not, if you think the world is enraged at the actions of Keir Starmer, you're not reading the room.

The world isn't enraged. There is much support for a Palestinian state.

The US and Israeli government are probably enraged. I haven't seen any other governments condemning the announcement, so no, the world by large is NOT enraged.

Freed hostages eg Emily Damari are enraged and upset. Understandably so. Imagine the conditions for the terrorists and captors not being tied to what they should do.

No other country is doing this. Look at the conditions Carney has put on Hamas. At least he’s trying to remove them. That’s for the benefit of everyone.

Carney is being threatened by Trump so I don't think he really distinguishes between his pledge and Starmers.

Not sure what you mean here and why you’re bringing it up

Do you mean Trump doesn’t distinguish? In which case not everyone is him. Others can distinguish between the two statements. One has conditions on Hamas, Starmer’s doesn’t.

Youissed the word COULD.

https://youtube.com/post/Ugkxtdz8TJAbvhianDwjJYWUE_kIXiUQ8lES?si=TMKgm-zrGAkPvQQM