Ben Riley-Smith writing in “Hermer dismisses lawyers’ claim that Palestine recognition breaks law” (Telegraph, 1 Aug 2025) says:
The Prime Minister said he would recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel meets four conditions. He wants Israel to end the “appalling” situation in Gaza and allow the UN to restart the supply of aid; reach a ceasefire; “make clear” there will be no annexation in the West Bank; and commit to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution.
Sir Keir also repeated calls for Hamas to release all remaining hostages captured in the October 7 attacks, but that demand was not made an explicit condition for recognition to take place.
The letter to Lord Hermer from the 40 peers, including prominent Israel supporters, first reported by The Times, argued that the Government’s approach risked breaking international law. The signatories wrote: “We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law. “You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this Government and its approach to foreign policy. Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the Government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law.”
✲✲✲✲✲
There are three points to make:
1. As the article says, the British Prime Minister did not call for the return of Israeli hostages as an explicit requirement for statehood. That’s absolutely incredible.
2. The British government is effectively threatening Israel. It says if you don’t agree to a ceasefire then we’ll recognise Palestinian statehood. Sir Keir Starmer is effectively doing Hamas’ work for them. There are ongoing ceasefire negotiations which Hamas recently rejected. And of course they would. Why accept anything when you can sit on your demands - as the world castagates Israel. If I was the Hamas leader, I would make sure to reject every ceasefire deal; and let the democracies of the West come to my aid. Afterall, I don’t need to release any hostage.
3. Mere recognition cannot conjure up a functioning state which would be required for a two-state solution. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 in international law requires 4 conditions for statehood: a permanent population, a government, defined borders, and the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations. The so-called state of Palestine can only meet 2 conditions. E.g. it has two rival governments. After Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, did the Palestinians seek to establish a fully functioning nation state. No. Billions of dollars in aid spent on building a war machine.
Israel has every right to expect that recognition of statehood be tied to genuine commitments to peace, security, and responsible governance, none of which are currently demonstrated by Hamas or the fractured Palestinian leadership
ReplyDeleteYes indeed.
DeleteCanada has joined France and the UK in a similar call. Mexico already did, months ago. I'm sure other nations have as well, although I'm not up enough on the situation to know who they all are.
ReplyDeleteAside from the moral abomination of rewarding terrorism and failing to demand the release of the hostages, it is simply absurd to "recognize" a state that doesn't exist. Are they going to recognize Narnia and Mordor next?
ReplyDeleteThe nearest thing there has ever been to a Palestinian state was the Gaza Strip under Hamas's rule after Israel pulled out in 2006. We saw on October 7 what it led to.
Oh, and "international law" is a contradiction in terms and a self-evident absurdity. I wouldn't count on it for anything.
Yes infidel, that's why I called the blog title "romantic idealism" as it's totally detached from any reality whatsoever.
DeleteYou all seem to know not much about histlory. Israel is an artificially created nation in chasing out the Palestinians. A British idea ! I suggested already that you should not comment about Israel and Gaza.
ReplyDeleteYou have been indoctrinated or even brain washed. I'm surprised about your ignorance.p
Sandra
Middle Eastern history was my area of academic specialization. It's you who clearly doesn't know anything about the history of Israel. For example:
Delete1) At the same time Israel was created and part of the Arab population in Palestine fled, a larger number of Jews were expelled from the Arab countries where they had been living for centuries; they took refuge in Israel since they had nowhere else to go. Unlike the Palestinian refugees, they were quickly integrated into their new country rather than left to fester with impossible fantasies of "return". Half the present-day Jewish population of Israel is descended from refugees from Arab countries.
2) The ideal of a Jewish state in "Palestine" is not "a British idea", but dates back at least to the Babylonian exile period in the sixth century BCE. The British endorsed the Zionist movement in the late nineteenth century, but later turned violently against it. Israel had to fight for independence from Britain.
3) The word "history" does not have an L in it.
It's too complex a subject to really get into in a comment, but I've gone into more detail elsewhere.
People are free to comment about whatever they choose. If you don't want to read it, you don't have to. Your responses are barely coherent. I think everyone can tell who is the ignorant party here.
You are right in some points but I am of jewish origin and my family settled down in France after living for a long period in Haifa where I was born.. They couldn't stand any longer the zionism. Reading about Israel has nothing to do with Iiving in Israel. Justifying a nation in refering to the Thora sorry what a sick idea.
DeleteSandra
would be better if I could explain in French.