Although some 140 nations now recognise Palestine as a sovereign state, France is the first G7 member to take this decisive, historic step. It is, in truth, a purely symbolic move, given the savage reaction to it in Tel Aviv and the contemptuous statement in response issued by the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio.
It comes as Gaza is stalked by famine, something that has moved emotions across the world, though Emmanuel Macron did not specifically mention the starvation crisis taking the lives of innocent civilians. The French president clearly believes that, at this juncture, some dramatic gesture is necessary, and it will be formally declared by him at the United Nations General Assembly next month. In many quarters, it will be warmly welcomed.
It also adds to the growing domestic political pressure on Sir Keir Starmer to follow suit. But the arguments are more finely balanced than is sometimes apparent to people on all sides of this issue. For the moment – and at this particular moment, when Donald Trump is arriving in Scotland for informal talks with the prime minister – the UK should not follow the example of the French.
Given Sir Keir’s unusually warm personal relationship with President Trump, he is at least more likely than the French president to be able to exert some pressure on the Americans to persuade Israel to end the hunger, arrange a ceasefire, and set the initial conditions for progress towards peace, unlikely as that may feel now.
Had the British government immediately recognised full Palestinian statehood, Mr Trump would probably have addressed Sir Keir in similar, if not earthier, terms to those used by Secretary Rubio about the French: “This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th.”
As a matter of fact, the diplomatic recognition of Palestine by France and other countries has been prompted more by the way in which Israel has conducted its war in Gaza, and failed to control illegal settlement in the West Bank, than by any desire to appease Hamas terrorists.
If, in other words, Israel’s military invasion had concluded by, say, the end of 2023, and there’d been no famine or systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, France and the others would not have felt impelled to “do something”; to recognise Palestine while there is still something to recognise. And President Macron was careful to make his announcement to Palestine’s president Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, and not to Hamas. He also, correctly, demanded the return of the hostages.
Britain was the last colonial power in Palestine, and for Britain to recognise its independence would, arguably, have a particular political impact. But it would not, realistically, make much difference on the ground today. Bluntly, it would not save the life of a single Palestinian infant suffering from chronic malnutrition, whereas pressure from President Trump on Tel Aviv at least carries some prospect of opening up access for humanitarian aid.
Such limited diplomatic leverage as post-Brexit Britain possesses in this region must of necessity be used to the best advantage of the people of Palestine. So, heartbreaking as the striking images coming out of Gaza undoubtedly are – and they stand as prima facie evidence of war crimes – Sir Keir should resist the pressure to take this step, because it would make zero difference now, and could well make matters worse. Gestures that bring change and are well-timed are more useful to the Palestinians than are the futile variety.
That said, the prime minister will find it difficult to manage his party on this issue, once the Commons reassembles and he must face the Labour conference. A substantial number of his backbench MPs have already openly declared that the UK must recognise Palestine. This sentiment is reflected in other parties, including among some Conservatives, as is also evidenced in the latest report by the foreign affairs select committee.
Some of Sir Keir’s senior colleagues, such as Wes Streeting and Peter Kyle, have made little secret of their own impatience about the recognition of Palestinian statehood. The foreign secretary, David Lammy, may not be far behind; he is plainly exhausted by having to stick to the government’s line.
The trend points to Sir Keir being defeated on the Palestine question in the Commons and at his own party conference. Given that diplomacy sits firmly within the royal prerogative, such votes cannot force him to do anything, outside making an extraordinary “humble address” to the monarch to instruct his ministers to do so. Yet such manoeuvrings would weaken his already diminished authority further.
In defence, Sir Keir can also point to the text of the Labour manifesto commitment, much referred to, which is deliberately ambiguous and does not pledge immediate recognition: “We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.”
For the moment, the prime minister is not alone in the G7 – Germany has also declined to join with France – and he does have support in the House, including from most of the Conservatives. However, on Palestine, as with welfare reform and much else, he will need to work harder than ever this autumn to win the argument.
