Ref: AD-2770
Summary: Labour has consistently delayed recognising a Palestinian state, despite having been elected on a manifesto pledge to do so – it is now a question of international justice and historical accountability, says Sir Vincent Fean.
This content is locked
Login or Register To Unlock The Content!
An interesting piece from Sir Vincent; while I agree with the overall thrust, I’d query some of the details.
Sir Vincent writes “France is expected to […] recognis[e] the State of Palestine” President Macron is in the second half of the second of his two terms in office, and may be looking for a legacy; riling President Trump, whose court is strongly pro-Israel, may therefore be of less concern to him than to Keir Starmer, who has another four years of trying to placate Trump (and Europe), and possibly longer if he and / or President Trump remain in power. On a personal basis, Starmer may – or may not – “support Zionism without qualification.” (https://www.timesofisrael.com/keir-starmer-elected-uk-labour-chief-apologizes-to-jews-for-party-anti-semitism/), and many of his Cabinet come from the Blairite (pro-Israel) wing of the Labour Party.
While the Two State Solution may have notionally been “the bipartisan policy of successive British governments”, successive UK governments have been increasingly pro-Israel: most recently, while HMG has sanctioned some “extremist” settlers / groups for their violent activities (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-uk-sanctions-target-illegal-outposts-and-organisations-supporting-extremist-israeli-settlers-in-the-west-bank), HMG have not proscribed them as terrorists, which HMG has done of “extremist” Palestinian groups. HMG’s failure to push back against maximalist Israeli demands (indeed, continuing to extend favours to Israel) are not likely to lead to a legitimate, lasting peace, and is highly likely to result in revanchist efforts by subsequent generations of Palestinians (as the Israelis themselves realise in their insistence on demilitarising a putative Palestine.) It is also unclear whether the resulting rump Palestine envisaged by the Israelis would be “viable”, a nebulous requirement of HMG.
“Since 1967, Palestine has been under Israeli military occupation.” We do not know what the extent of Palestine is: the pre-state Zionists seized by force territory beyond the areas allocated to them under UNGA Resolution 181 (which did not reach the law-making Security Council anyway.) Are those areas “occupied”? In international law, they probably are; in which case the military occupation is since 1948. The ICC in its consideration of its jurisdiction was clear that “the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in the Situation in Palestine, a State party to the ICC Rome Statute, extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.” (https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-issues-its-decision-prosecutors-request-related-territorial) that is to say, Palestine “extends to” at least those areas. [It is also noticeable that the ICC included the definitive article when defining “to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967”, rather than “to territories occupied by Israel”, thus clearing up the confusion in UNSCR 242.]
“Our government […] says that the decision to recognise is ours alone – the occupation does not give Israel a veto;” HMG’s position remains that the UK will not recognise Palestine until Palestine has agreed to all Israeli demands in the peace process. By doing so, HMG has granted Israel a functional veto over that aspect of UK foreign policy.
“In 2011, then foreign secretary William Hague confirmed that Palestine meets the criteria for statehood, subject to the occupation.” William Hague was wrong on two counts. The first is that Palestine has no “defined territory”, one of the Montevideo Criteria (https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20165/v165.pdf) for statehood – but nor does Israel meet the statehood criteria, for the same reason. The other issue is that occupation is an issue of sovereignty, not recognition, and the “exception” has no basis in law: UK recognised Germany as a state even while it was under Allied occupation, likewise Iraq under Allied occupation, Kosovo/a under Serbian sovereignty / occupation, and indeed, recognised the country of Palestine while under British occupation. The occupation exception appears to be an excuse for not recognising Palestine, and applies to Palestine alone. The German Foreign Ministry has even mendaciously claimed formally that the Montevideo criterion is “a government in control of the territory” [it is actually just “(c) government ;”.]
“Our government, the ICJ and the United Nations have consistently affirmed that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied Palestinian territory, not Israeli land.” Increasingly, HMG has increasingly used “the West Bank and Gaza” instead of the OPTs (thus omitting East Jerusalem.) Significantly, HMG categorised East Jerusalem as part of Israel for COVID purposes.
“British recognition of Palestine on pre-June 1967 lines will not prejudice final status negotiations,” It may not prejudice the final status negotiations, but it will make UK look fairly silly when HMG has to adjust its recognition to reflect the new border: e.g. the Latrun Pocket is unlikely to be a part of any future Palestine. The UK didn’t recognise Israel on UNGA R181 (II) lines; there is no reason why the UK should not just recognise “the State of Palestine”, without any geographic parameters.
“France aims to coordinate recognition with efforts by Arab states to recognise Israel,” President Macron said that he may recognise Palestine, possibly as part of a deal in which possibly KSA and other Arab states would recognise Palestine. That seems unlikely to gain much traction with KSA, lacking US and Israeli recognition of Palestine (as well as the additional benefits KSA expects from the US in return for its recognition.)
Britain should indeed support this dual-track approach, however, – as so often before – politics is likely to frustrate the issue.