By Peter Young

After writing extensively in last week’s column about the tragic humanitarian situation in Gaza, I am reluctant to return to the subject of the Middle East again today. However, Britain has just announced its intention to recognise the state of Palestine, and this constitutes a major change of foreign policy that it might be interesting to examine now.

In a hugely significant development, Prime Minister Keri Starmer stated formally last week that Britain would recognise the state of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly in September unless Israel met several conditions; namely, reach a ceasefire in Gaza, make it clear there will be no annexation of territory in the West Bank and commit to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution. There is also a call for the remaining hostages to be released. But, for the heartbroken relatives of British hostages still being held captive, this is not an explicit condition for recognition.

This UK action follows a recent similar decision by France and, later, by Canada. Before this, Britain has regularly and consistently said that such recognition should be part of a peace deal between the Jewish and Arab people. Britain had supported the idea of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine in accordance with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and recognised Israel in 1950. But it had also been mindful of the second half of the declaration which stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish countries in Palestine”.

As far as one can see, Prime Minister Starmer has placed no conditions on Hamas. This, at the very least, seems odd since, presumably, both sides would have to agree to a cessation of hostilities. Moreover, a little research shows that under international law, the Montevideo Convention of 1933, there are several named criteria for statehood - that a state should have a defined territory, a permanent population and a capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other states.

It is noticeable that, compared to Britain, Canada has imposed its own conditions on recognition like demilitarising the Palestinians and a stipulation that Hamas, as a proscribed terrorist organisation, should not be part of any future Palestinian government.

At present, Palestine basically consists of Gaza and the West Bank, much of which is disputed – or, in the eyes of the Palestinians, occupied – territory, together with a large diaspora while many Arabs anyway have Israeli citizenship. For a Palestinian state to be viable, the mixed make-up of the population of the West Bank would have to be newly determined. Large numbers want a return to the pre-1967 borders which were the de facto recognised borders in the 1949 Armistice Agreement until the 1967 Arab/Israel Six-Day war. Reportedly, there has even been mention of building a tunnel between the West Bank and Gaza.

Delving further into the recent history, it is clear that after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2004 and handed control to the Palestinians, the latter lost their own control to Hamas.

In 2008, Israel was said to have offered land swaps in the West Bank and Gaza. But militant Palestinians insisted on pursuing their aim of destroying the Jewish state. As the Israelis have been stating categorically, they did not start this latest war and did not want conflict. They have been reacting to the horrors of the killing and mayhem committed by Hamas inside Israel in October, 2023.

Nonetheless, as I stressed last week, mention of this should in no way be seen as some sort of explanation or mitigating factor for Israel’s current excesses on the ground in Gaza, particularly against civilians and children, which, if true, remain despicable and wholly unacceptable. It is simply incomprehensible to ordinary so-called right-minded people that snipers are being accused of shooting down people individually at aid assembly points - and that an immediate way of stopping them cannot be found.

In response to Starmer’s announcement about recognition, there has been comprehensive coverage of the issue in the UK press this past weekend. Some correspondents, are calling this a reward for terrorism and the darkest day in British foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They point to the US secretary of state’s reaction which has branded the UK’s position as “clumsy” since Hamas will not agree to a ceasefire if it already knows that to do so might help to stop British recognition of Palestine. But Hamas does not want an end to the fighting. Indeed, it stated only a few days ago that it would not lay down its arms until Palestinians take control of “their own land” and “an independent, full sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital” is established.

To many in the press, the UK policy about this appears to be muddled even though the numbers of countries jumping on the bandwagon to recognise the territory is growing. It is generally accepted from experience that the standard of diplomacy in Britain is usually high so I should like to cover the issue in a bit more depth in a separate piece on this page today.

For now, based on the evidence, there must be an increasing suspicion that the government’s foreign affairs professionals have been overruled by the Labour politicians in power who are intent on recognising Palestine but do not seem to be aware of all the implications. The government appears to be pushing for recognition for its own Party purposes rather than strictly on the merits of the case – and to appease its domestic Muslim community; and this makes its action, in the minds of many, all the more reprehensible.

Timing of recognition of new state

THE evidence in the media in the UK is that many people already consider that prime minister Starmer’s announcement last week to recognize Gaza at the United Nation’s Assembly in September is for the wrong reasons. Not only is he caving in to his own party and appeasing Muslims in the UK, but - mistakenly, in the view of many - he has made this conditional on Israel’s future actions during the war in Gaza and in relation to the whole Middle East peace process. Some are saying that it is against the interests of the Israeli people and an abysmal betrayal of them.

Apart from Hamas itself, which has made clear publicly in the last few days that it will cease its violence only when a Palestinian state is established, many people in the region and around the world want a ceasefire in Gaza and a lasting resolution of the long running Arab-Israeli dispute. But many are also now saying that this should not be directly linked to recognition of the territory that is at issue.

It is argued that recognition of a state by the UK should not be made conditional on action or inaction by third states. To insist on this can even be said to be implicitly failing to respect Palestine’s right to self-determination. If the territory deserves statehood, it is on its own merits and terms, not as conditions of Israel’s policies and actions as a separate state.

It is beginning to appear that Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel almost two years ago and the resulting war in Gaza, together with the new controversy about recognition of a Palestinian state, may have encouraged some people to embark on a fundamental re-think of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

With the separate attacks on Iran by the US and Israel earlier this year, and President Trump hoping to expand the Abraham Accords created by his administration during his first term in the White House, it appears that – without oversimplifying a complex situation - some may have come round to accepting that it is essentially terrorist organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah that are responsible for causing the trouble in the region.

According to reports, in the UK it seems that people are starting to question whether it makes any sense for Arabs to continue to challenge the long-standing existence of Israel on the land it already occupies and has done for about 80 years. The history of the dispute remains supremely controversial but it is generally accepted that both Jews and Arabs have some sort of claim to the land called Palestine.

More broadly, historians remind us that in the 19th century, famous German statesman, Otto von Bismarck, skillfully united various German states into a German empire by adopting an approach of realpolitik. This was roughly defined as a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations. Could this ever apply to the Middle East?

Israel may be small geographically – slightly smaller than the state of Massachusetts – but official statistics show a population of just under ten million with more than two million Arabs living there as citizens. Sharing borders with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt – with the Mediterranean Sea to its west – it enjoys, of course, huge military and financial support from the US. So, as long as the Israelis wish to maintain the status quo, there is no way that the country “can be wiped off the face of the earth”, as threatened by Iran. Moreover, Israel has been victorious in at least half a dozen wars with its Arab neighbours since it was created in 1948.

Interestingly, Germany’s foreign minister, traditionally a staunch ally of Israel, has been increasingly critical of its actions in Gaza. But he has now said that Germany will not recognise Palestine as a state in the short term despite global pressure.

The images of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza have surely sickened most people. Many now wonder how Israel could have allowed this to happen while at the same time failing to destroy Hamas – even though wholesale elimination may not be possible - in such a small territory over an extended period of nearly two years.

Myanmar in the news again

There has been relatively limited information coming out of the country of Myanmar recently. But the latest news shows that the situation there remains volatile as the civil war continues amidst ongoing conflict, with rebel forces and ethnic armies holding significant territory.

Despite this conflict, news has emerged of an announcement by the ruling military junta of an end of the state of emergency in some parts of the country which was imposed after the military coup in 2021. Plans for elections to be held before the end of the year were also announced, though no dates have been given.

Since independence from Britain in 1948, Myanmar (the former Burma) has experienced periods of both democratic governance and military rule. But the military has been a powerful and influential force throughout its history. There is insufficient space today to analyse the latest developments in this predominantly Buddhist country, with its estimated population of 55 million, situated in Southeast Asia bordering India and China.

But many people have a particular interest in this because of the Nobel Prize-winning democratic leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who remains a revered figure in Myanmar as a symbol of the pro-democracy struggle. She is now in prison serving what amounts to a life sentence, given that she has now reached her 80th birthday.

I hope to return to the subject in more detail in the coming weeks.