Back in 2014, David Cameron ignored a vote by the House of Commons – by 274 votes to 12 – to recognize a state of Palestine alongside that of Israel. One decade later, and now reincarnated as Foreign Secretary, Cameron has told the Conservative Middle East Council that Britain is considering formally recognising “the establishment of a Palestinian state” in the process of a peace deal to end the Israel-Hamas war.
Has the ex-Prime Minister gone native amongst the Arabists of King Charles Street? Although Cameron once described himself as “a British minister whose belief in Israel is unbreakable”, he flirted with criticising Israel as a young Opposition leader. Or was he, in the spirit of diplomatic conviviality, merely telling his audience what they wanted to hear? How genuine a policy shift is this – and will it do anything to hasten to resolve the situation in Gaza?
Currently, 139 of the 193 member states of the United Nations recognise a Palestinian state as proclaimed by Yasser Arafat in 1988. The UK has a non-accredited Consulate General in Jerusalem. The Government’s line, re-stated in February 2021, was that the UK “will recognize a Palestinian state at a time of our choosing” and “when it best serves the objective of peace”. Labour supports recognition, so it holds an air of inevitability.
The UK believes that the two-state solution is the only long-term solution to the conflict. Cameron was floating recognition in the context of his latest trip to the Middle East, where he is currently promoting his five-point plan for peace. This includes more aid for Gaza, a new Palestinian government across Gaza and the West Bank, the release of hostages, and the removal of key elements of Hamas’ leadership alongside the group’s disarmament.
For such a package to work, as the Foreign Secretary, seems to be suggesting, the contours of the structure of a Palestinian state would need to be established before any UK recognition could take place. Peace talks – going beyond ceasefire discussions ongoing in Paris – would need to be approaching a successful conclusion. In his phrasing, recognition at this point could help to make the peace process “irreversible”.
This isn’t much of a departure from the traditional government line. Unilateral recognition, under a Conservative government, will not occur until a genuine and viable peace agreement between a united Palestinian state and Israel seems to be in the offing. Frankly, there is a much higher chance of David Lammy being Foreign Secretary by Christmas. Palestine would then be recognised anyway. Cameron can only bring it forward by nine or so months.
Benjamin Netanyahu may have approval ratings so poor that they would make Rishi Sunak blush. But he holds power due to a coalition built on the hard religious right, and he has frequently rejected the prospect of a two-state solution. “I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over the entire area in the west of Jordan – and this is contrary to a Palestinian state,” he Tweeted earlier this month. Then again, Mandy Rice-Davies rules apply.
If Netanyahu’s government were to be replaced by one more sympathetic to a ceasefire and hostage exchange, peace talks might become likelier. But they will not occur until Israel is satisfied that Hamas is either destroyed or sufficiently downgraded to make a repeat of the horrors of October 7th impossible. Any talks hinge on Gaza’s future once Israel’s operation is completed. Who will govern? The Palestinian Authority is unwanted.
ConservativeHome has argued that Israel has no plan for post-war Palestine. Hamas’ atrocities will have made many Israelis more convinced than ever that a Palestinian state, whoever governs it, poses a perpetual threat to their existence. Are they wrong? 72 per cent of Palestinians think the massacres of October 7th were justified. A generation will grow up in Gaza’s rubble wanting nothing more than revenge, as Israeli settlements continue to be built.
Cameron’s five-point plan is a shopping list of nice ideas. But it will make little difference to the reality on the ground. Until Hamas is defeated, any unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state will be seen as a way of rewarding the butchers of October 7th for their violence. Only 34 per cent of Palestinians want a two-state solution. We may recognise Palestine, but the vast majority of its residents will never recognise Israel.
The long-term consequences of Israel’s military operation will be the further radicalization of young Palestinians. The fundamental problem remains the same as it has always been for the 107 years since another Foreign Secretary (and ex-Prime Minister) first declared a wish to establish a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. Two peoples cannot share one land, especially as the politics of both sides, driven by the cycles of violence, become more militant.
Nonetheless, as futile a gesture as unilateral recognition might be, there is a certain geostrategic logic. Both the atrocities of Hamas and attacks by the Houthis have highlighted the ongoing instability generated by Iran’s pursuit of regional hegemony in the Middle East. Israel’s operation in Gaza has the potential to unwind the successful efforts of the Abraham Accords in normalizing relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
As Liam Fox has suggested, Western recognition of a Palestinian state – however constituted – would be an easy sop to the Arabs, a sign we are still conscious of their interests. Recognition would not be motivated by concern for Gaza or the future of Israel, but to keep the Saudis sweet. It would be a meaningless gesture. Does Riyadh care if we recognise Palestine or not? I suspect not. Washington will shrug, and return to debating Taylor Swift.
The Thucydidean misery of the Israel-Hamas war will continue to play out with Britain looking on impotently. Our historical role makes us desperate to pretend we have some influence. But whether we recognise Palestine now or only after Labour enters office this autumn is an academic irrelevance. The Foreign Secretary’s comments were thus classic Cameron: a seemingly radical rhetorical departure from the past obscuring the same old stale thinking.