Palestinian statehood is a right, not a diplomatic pawn

On 29 July, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that Britain would recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September, "unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commits to a long-term sustainable peace".

Of course, any British recognition of the state of Palestine, if and when it happens, would mark a historic moment. Britain bears a unique responsibility as the author of the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory power in Palestine.

If recognition does take place, it would reinforce the British government's stated support for a two-state solution, after decades of recognising only one state, Israel, while denying the other.

It would chart a trajectory that rejects Israel's attempt to impose a one-state apartheid reality across the whole of historic Palestine.

It would set the terms for any future peace process, in which the end goal must include a Palestinian state, reaffirming the British government's stated commitment to a two-state solution, as outlined in its announcement.

So why were Palestinians and others not out on the streets celebrating the British government's announcement that emerged from an emergency recall of the cabinet?

Empty gesture

It is worth revisiting the statement that outlines the conditions under which Britain has said it would recognise Palestine.

The cabinet decision stipulates that recognition will proceed only if Israel fails to meet a series of conditions: it must commit to a ceasefire and take action to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including "allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank".

Netanyahu could, if he wished, respond: fine, go ahead and recognise Palestine - but you will be recognising a dream, not a reality

The result is a surreal formulation: recognition of the Palestinian right to statehood and self-determination is no longer treated as a right, but as something conditional on Israeli intransigence.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could, if he wished, respond: fine, go ahead and recognise Palestine - but you will be recognising a dream, not a reality.

Yet the announcement also presents options for Hamas.

Contrary to the simplistic anti-Palestinian narrative that this would be a "reward" for Hamas - that it could block a ceasefire and still secure recognition - many within the Palestinian national movement see it differently. 

Although Hamas did accept the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a two-state framework in its modified charter of 2017, it has had little interest in pushing for this as a goal.

For the resistance group, such a move reeks of the despised Oslo process. Still, Hamas does not want an already discredited Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah to gain credit among Palestinians for any recognition.

Vague demands

Looking closely at the British conditions on Israel, Starmer's team has embedded enough vague language to allow the prime minister considerable leeway.

What are the "substantive steps" Israel must take in Gaza? This is never clarified. There is no requirement that Israel withdraw its forces. These decisions are left to Starmer's interpretation.

Israel is asked to commit to a "long-term sustainable peace", yet there is no mention of a two-state solution in that vision, let alone an end to the occupation. The language is so vague as to be meaningless.

On the very day that the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) determined that Gaza is experiencing famine - brought on by an Israeli policy of starvation - the British government demanded only that Israel "allow" the UN to resume humanitarian deliveries. But the UK has been making this demand for months. Why would it succeed now?

Worse, this statement is even weaker than the previous ones. "Allowing" the UN to deliver limited aid is not the same as demanding full, unimpeded access for all humanitarian agencies.

The UK also insists that Israel must commit to a ceasefire. But what kind? A temporary truce, as the Israeli government has long sought, or a permanent one that Hamas is demanding? If Netanyahu claims to accept specific US terms for a ceasefire - terms that Israel likely helped shape - would that be enough to claim Israeli compliance?

Even before this announcement, Netanyahu may have been planning for a ceasefire by the end of August, having spent a month mopping up what remains in Gaza.

Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel's war on Gaza

What else is left to bomb? He could declare an end to military operations while keeping his forces on the ground. He knows the war is unpopular in Israel. He can claim victory and shift the focus to the West Bank. He can allow limited aid to enter Gaza through the UN, just enough to reduce starvation deaths.

As for the West Bank, the British conditions are hardly stronger. Netanyahu need not announce annexation any time soon. Settlement expansion can continue - including the doomsday E1 project - without violating any of the terms outlined by Starmer.

Non-negotiable

There is no reason that Britain's recognition could not have happened in July.

Imagine how much more powerful it would have been if France and Britain had stood together at the UN, announcing recognition with solemn conviction. President Emmanuel Macron and Starmer could have shown real leadership.

Yet the most egregious failure of the announcement lies in the absence of any sanctions on Israel for its conduct in Gaza, even as it continues its genocide.

Sanctions should have been imposed, with the possibility of suspension only if Israel met a clear and enforceable set of demands, including full, unimpeded humanitarian access. That is where conditionality ought to have been placed.

Instead, the British government has been reduced to airdropping aid into Gaza - the least effective and most dangerous method of humanitarian delivery. The fittest will get it first; the neediest will get it last. British weakness is on full and painful display.

Recognition of a Palestinian state should never have been subject to negotiation. It is not a tool to punish Israel. It is a right to be upheld, not a pawn in a diplomatic game.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.