What does recognising a Palestinian state mean?

The Prime Minister Sir Kir Stmper has announced that Britain will recognize a Palestinian kingdom in September until Israel meets certain conditions, including agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza and reviving the possibility of a two-state solution.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted loudly to the announcement, saying the decision rewarded “demonic terrorism of Hamas”.

If recognition moves forward, and what will be the difference, what will it mean?

Palestine is a condition that does and does not exist.

It has a major degree of teams competing in sports competitions including international recognition, diplomatic missions and Olympics abroad.

But due to the prolonged dispute of Palestinians with Israel, its international agreed boundaries, no capital and no army. In West Bank, due to Israel’s military business, Palestinian Authority, is not under complete control of its land or people in view of peace agreements in the 1990s. Gaza, where Israel is also occupying the power, is in the middle of a devastating war.

Given its position as a type of semi-state, the recognition is essentially somewhat symbolic. This will represent a strong moral and political statement but will change very little on the ground.

But symbolism is strong. As Foreign Secretary David Lemi said during his speech at the United Nations on Tuesday, “Britain holds a special burden of responsibility to support the two-state solution”.

He cited the Balfor Declaration of 1917 – Signed by his predecessor as Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfor – who first expressed the support of Britain for “installation of a national home for Jewish people” for “Jewish people installation in Palestine”.

But this announcement, Lemi said, came with a serious promise “nothing will be done that may prejudicate citizens and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

Israel’s supporters have often reported that Lord Balfor did not clearly refer to Palestinians or said anything about their national rights.

But the region was earlier known as Palestine, which Britain ruled through a League of Nations mandate from 1922 to 1948, is considered a long incomplete international business.

Israel came into existence in 1948, but efforts to create a parallel position of Palestine have found for several reasons.

As Lemy said, politicians have become accustomed to pronounce the words “one two-state solution”.

The phrase refers to the creation of a Palestinian kingdom, along with Israel, in West Bank, including Eastern Jerusalem and Gaza Strip, roughly with lines before the 1967 Arabian-Israeli war.

But international efforts to bring two-state solutions have not done anything and have transformed the illegal, the concept into a large extent vacant slogans under the International Law of the West Bank of Israel.

The state of Palestine is currently recognized by 147 out of 193 member states of the United Nations.

At the United Nations, it has the status of the “permanent supervisor state”, which allows participation but no voting rights.

Recognition has been promised in the coming weeks with France and assuming that the Palestine proceeds with the UK recognition, will soon enjoy the support of four of the five permanent members (two China and Russia) of the United Nations Security Council (the other two China and Russia).

This will leave the strongest colleague of the United States, Israel to the minority of one so far.

Washington has recognized the Palestinian Authority, currently headed by Mahmud Abbas, from the mid -1990s, but has stopped recognizing a real kingdom.

Many US presidents have expressed their support for the final construction of a Palestinian state. But Donald Trump is not one of them. Under his two administration, the US policy has overshadowed Israel’s favor.

Without the support of Israel’s closest and most powerful colleague, it is impossible to see a peace process that is leading to a final two-state solution.

The gradual British governments have talked about recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process, ideally in combination with other Western colleagues and “in the moment of maximum impact”.

Just to do as a gesture, the governments believed, there would be a mistake. It can make people feel virtuous, but it will not really change anything on the ground.

But the incidents have clearly forced the hands of the present government.

Scenes of starvation crawling in Gaza, increasing anger over Israel’s military campaign and a major change in British public opinion – all have influenced government thinking.

The clamor between MPs and even the cabinet front bench has become deaf.

Last week, in a Commons debate, Lammy was bombed from all sides in response to questions why Britain was still not recognizing the Palestinian kingdom.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting expressed the views of several MPs when he urged the government to recognize Palestine “while Palestine still has a position that is left to recognize”.

But the UK has not followed the leads set last year by the Emmanuel Macron of France or the governments of Ireland, Spain and Norway last week.

Sir Kir has chosen to state his vow: Britain will work as long as the Israeli government takes decisive steps to end the suffering in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, avoids anxing sector in the vestiles in the West Bank – is a symbolically threat by the Cassette of Israel’s Parliament last week – and is committed to a peace process.

Downing Street knows that Netanyahu has no chance to commit herself for that kind of peace process over the next six weeks. He has repeatedly denied the creation of a Palestinian state.

Hence the British recognition of Palestine is definitely coming.

For the clear opposition of all Netanyahu, Sir Keer is hoping that this is actually a “moment of maximum impact”.

But in 2025 Britain is not Britain of 1917 when the Balfor declaration was signed. Others are limited to be diverted with their will. It is difficult to know, now, what will really be the effect.