What does it mean to recognize the Palestinian state?

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that the UK will recognize the Palestinian state in September unless Israel meets certain conditions, including agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza and the prospect of resuming a two-state solution.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded wildly to the news, saying the decision rewarded “Hamas’ terrorism.”

If the recognition does continue, what does it mean? What difference will it make?

Palestine is a state that does exist and does not exist.

It has a large amount of international recognition, foreign diplomatic missions and teams competing in sports competitions including the Olympics.

But due to the long-standing dispute between Palestinians and Israel, it has no internationally agreed boundaries, no capital, and no military. Due to Israel’s military occupation, in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority formed after the peace agreement reached in the 1990s did not fully control its land or people. Israel is also an occupying force, Gaza is in a devastating war.

Given its status as a junta, identification inevitably has some symbolism. This would represent a strong moral and political statement, but there was little change in the local area.

But the symbolic meaning is very strong. As Foreign Secretary David Lammy pointed out in his UN speech on Tuesday, “the UK has taken on a special responsibility to support the two-country solution”.

He went on to cite the 1917 Balfour Declaration – signed by his former Minister of Foreign Affairs Arthur Balfour, which first expressed Britain’s support for “Palestine established Jewish residences in Palestine in Palestine”.

But the declaration made a solemn promise: “No action is required, which could undermine the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish community in Palestinians”, Lammy said.

Israeli supporters often point out that Lord Balfour did not explicitly mention the Palestinians nor did he comment on their national rights.

However, formerly known as Palestinian territory, the United Kingdom, through a coalition mission ruling from 1922 to 1948, has long been regarded as an unfinished international business.

Israel was founded in 1948, but for a variety of reasons, efforts to establish a Palestine parallel state.

As Lammy said, politicians are “are used to saying the word ‘two-state solution’”.

This sentence refers to the West Bank, together with Israel, establishing a Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, widely along the route that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israel War.

However, international efforts to propose a two-state solution have become nothing, and under international law, Israel’s colonization of much of the West Bank has turned this concept into an empty slogan.

Currently, Palestinian state has 147 of the 193 member states of the United Nations.

In the United Nations, it has the status of a “permanent observer state” that allows participation but does not have the right to vote.

With France also promising recognition in the coming weeks, assuming that Britain does get recognition, Palestine will soon enjoy support from four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the other two are China and Russia).

This will leave the United States with the most powerful ally of Israel among the few to date.

Since the mid-1990s, Washington has recognized the Palestinian Authority, currently led by Mahmoud Abbas, but has not recognized the actual state.

Several U.S. presidents expressed support for the final establishment of the Palestinian state. But Donald Trump is not one of them. Under the leadership of his two administrations, U.S. policy strongly supports Israel.

Without the support of Israel’s closest and most powerful allies, there is no way to see the peace process lead to the ultimate two-state solution.

The continuous British government has been talking about recognizing the Palestinian state, but is ideally combined with other Western allies as part of the peace process and “at the time of maximum influence.”

The government believes that doing this just as a gesture would be a mistake. It may make people feel good, but it doesn’t actually change anything on the ground.

But the incident clearly forced the incumbent government’s hands.

Scenes of hunger in Gaza, outrage at Israel’s military movement and a major shift in British public opinion – all of which influenced the government’s thinking.

The hustle and bustle in the bench in front of the MP and even the cabinet became deafening.

In a public debate last week, Lammy asked why the UK still doesn’t recognize the Palestinian state.

Health Minister Wes Streeting summed up the views of many MPs when he urged the government to recognize that Palestine “although there is still a state of the Palestinian state that can be recognized.”

But the UK follows not only the leadership of the French Emmanuel Macron last week or the Irish, Spain and Norwegian governments last year.

Sir Kyle chose to make his commitment conditionally: Britain will take action unless the Israeli government takes decisive steps to end the suffering in Gaza, arrive at a ceasefire, and avoid annexation of territory in the West Bank, a move by the Israeli parliament last week, and carried out a peace process last week and was committed to a two-state solution.

Downing Street knows that Netanyahu has little chance of participating in this peace process over the next six weeks. He repeatedly ruled out the creation of a Palestinian state.

Therefore, Britain’s recognition of Palestine will definitely come.

Sir Keir hopes that this is indeed the “moment of greatest impact” for all Netanyahu’s no objection.

But the UK in 2025 was not the UK signed the declaration in 1917. Its ability to bend others to the will is limited. It’s hard to know what impact will actually have now.