The announcement by Prime Minister Keir Starmer last weekend of the UK’s recognition of the State of Palestine is no casual political gesture. For decades until then, countless British government ministers, myself included, had used a well-rehearsed response to the question of when we might recognise Palestine: namely, “at a time when it best serves the objectives of peace”. This was usually conditional on the successful conclusion of negotiations for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
Those conditions are no more, and the Embassy of the State of Palestine is now open for business in London.
It has been some road. Britain’s history in the Middle East includes the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, General Allenby respectfully entering Jerusalem on foot, the UN Mandate – all are significant parts of the UK’s foreign and domestic politics and diplomacy.
Now another chapter begins. How have we got here, and what does it mean in contemporary Britain?
History does not stand still. It is constantly revised against present-day events and developments. Balfour looms large. Over the decades, its central premise of support for a Jewish homeland received far more attention and parliamentary support in Britain than the succeeding clause in the Declaration, which sought to ensure no prejudice against the rights of those non-Jews then living in Palestine.
Conscious of that history, UK governments supported successive peace processes, always hoping above bitter experience that a proposal would eventually be tempting to both sides, in which the extra incentive of delivering recognition to the second state might be useful.
However, in February 2024 the then foreign secretary David Cameron changed the UK's position to an anticipatory one, recognising that if Israel did not actually want two-state talks to succeed, they had an effective veto over Palestine’s self-determination. His decision broke the dam for the UK and helped lead to last weekend’s announcement.
Since then, the growing awareness that Israel was dead set against a Palestinian State, and that any such pretence of the past was over, was compounded by hard-right expectations of ethnic cleansing and absurd ministerial rhetoric within Israel.
Coupled with events on the ground in the West Bank and in Gaza, some response from the British government was inevitable. It seeks by its recent decision to recognise Palestine not to reward Hamas, who will play no part in a Palestinian state, but to provide some political horizon of hope to counter the absence of any future beyond the present bleak, inevitable, generationally continuing violence.
The decision lands upon a worried nation, in many respects. Normally, foreign affairs are low down in the minds of UK electors, behind the cost of living, the healthcare system and now, immigration. The Gaza conflict is cutting through, however.
Media coverage is steady and the pictures on mainstream media are unsparing. While public opinion of utter horror in response to the atrocities of October 7, 2023 was widespread, and there is little or no support for Hamas in the UK, there can be no doubt that the length and nature of Israel’s reprisals have contributed to a drop in support for it among the broader population, as throughout western Europe.
But to communities with a special interest, international conflicts are much more important. The UK’s small Jewish community of some 300,000 is more afraid than at any time in my life than I can recall. Even now, two years on, they remain as traumatised as their friends and relatives in Israel at the events of October 7.
In addition, there has been a rising tide of anti-Semitism, from attacks on synagogues and schools to the hostility of angry protests. Some are leaving the UK because they fear for the future, in which their community will be an even smaller percentage of the population. But it is also a divided community, as the actions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, domestically and in relation to Gaza, cause deep pain and opposition among many, including at the highest level.
Many in the Muslim community, around four million in the UK, and in wider society, have been politically galvanised by the conflict in Gaza, by what they see as double standards compared to the UK’s action in defence of Ukraine, and have been equally impacted by repeated visions of horrors inflicted by Israeli raids. The fear that social media input will breed anger is not to be minimised.
Recognition of Palestine has split the UK political community. The opposition Conservative Party and opinion poll leaders from the Reform party both oppose the decision. Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar took the unusual diplomatic step of phoning Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch to congratulate her – we can assume relations between the two governments are at rock bottom. Most polling suggests the majority of the British public supports the decision, though few think it will make any practical difference.
And there is the rub. What next? In a context where the most urgent decisions are how to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, release the hostages, relieve the suffering of Gaza and increase food aid, how does this fit in?
The UK government already knows that those who support the decision will be pressing for some demonstration of what it might mean in practice – perhaps further sanctions, a clear warning over any annexation of the West Bank, echoing the fears of Arab States over the same possibility or a complete halt on arms sales. Those against the decision fear the loss of a key ally at a bad time for the world, with little to show for it.
This is a dangerous time for the relationship. I believe the UK would have no hesitation in defending Israel against an existential threat, as proved by launching fighters against Iranian missiles recently. But it is now tired of being denounced by Israel for voicing credible criticism or taking the side of others when it is right to do so.
The UK will look increasingly for good friends in the Arab world, who know the Middle East they need is one in which this historical conflict is ended with justice and security, to work together with increased urgency.
