What does the recognition of a Palestinian state mean?

Prime Minister Sir Kayer Starmer has announced that the United Kingdom will recognize a Palestinian state in September, unless Israel is eligible, including agreeing to the cessation of fire in the gas and to revive the prospect of the decision of two countries.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted furiously to the message, saying the decision rewarded the “monstrous terrorism of Hamas”.

What would it mean if the confession moves forward and what difference would you have?

Palestine is a condition that does and does not exist.

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

But because of the long -standing dispute of the Palestinians with Israel, it has no internationally agreed boundaries, no capital and no army. Due to the military occupation of Israel on the west coast, the Palestinian power created as a result of the peace agreements in the 1990s is not in complete control of its land or humans. Gaza, where Israel is also the occupation power, is in the midst of a devastating war.

Given its status as a quasi-state type, recognition is inevitably somewhat symbolic. This will be a strong moral and political statement, but will change a little on the spot.

But the symbolism is strong. As Foreign Secretary David Lamie pointed out during his UN speech on Tuesday, “Great Britain has a special burden of responsibility to support the bilateral decision.”

He continues to quote Balfour’s statement of 1917 – signed by his predecessor as Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfur – who for the first time expressed the British support for the “restaurant in Palestine of the National Home for the Jewish People”.

But this statement, Lami said, came with a solemn promise, “that nothing will be done, which can hurt the civil and religious rights of existing non -Jewish communities in Palestine.”

Israeli supporters often point out that Lord Balfur does not explicitly treat the Palestinians or say something about their national rights.

But the territory, known earlier as Palestine, which the UK ruled through a mandate of the League of Nations from 1922 to 1948, has long been considered an unfinished international business.

Israel originated in 1948, but efforts to create a parallel state of Palestine were found for many reasons.

As Lami said, politicians “are accustomed to saying the words” decision of two countries. “

The phrase refers to the creation of a Palestinian state, along with Israel, on the west coast, including Eastern Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, wide along the lines that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israel war.

But international efforts to achieve a decision of two countries have achieved nothing and the colonization of Israel in large parts of the west coast, illegally under international law, has made the concept a largely empty slogan.

The state of Palestine is currently recognized by 147 of the 193 UN Member States.

In the UN, he has the status of a “permanent state observer”, which allows participation but without voting rights.

With France, also a promising recognition in the coming weeks, and assuming that the United Kingdom continues with recognition, Palestine will soon enjoy the support of four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the other two are China and Russia).

This will leave the United States, the strongest ally of Israel, in a minority of one.

Washington has recognized the Palestinian power, which is currently heading Mahmoud Abbas since the mid-1990s, but has stopped recognizing a real state.

Several US presidents have expressed their support for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. But Donald Trump is not one of them. According to its two administrations, the US policy is strongly based in favor of Israel.

Without the support of the nearest and powerful ally of Israel, it is impossible to see the peace process leading to a possible decision for two countries.

Consistent British governments talked about recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of the peace process, ideally in connection with other Western allies and “at the moment of maximum impact.”

Let’s just do it as a gesture, the governments believed would be a mistake. This can make people feel virtuous, but it would not really change anything on earth.

But the events clearly forced the hand of the current government.

The scenes of a creeping starvation in Gaza, growing anger over Israel’s military campaign and a major change in British public opinion – all this influenced the thinking of the government.

Klamur, among the deputies and even the front bench of the cabinet, became deafening.

During the Commons debate last week, Lamie was bombed by all countries through questions, asking why the United Kingdom still did not recognize the Palestinian state.

Health Secretary Wes Street summarized the views of many MPs when he urged the government to recognize Palestine, “while still remains Palestine’s state to admit.”

However, the United Kingdom not only followed the lead set by Emmanuel Macron of France last week or by the governments of Ireland, Spain and Norway last year.

Sir Cayer has chosen to make his bet conditional: the United Kingdom will act, unless the Israeli government is taking decisive steps to end the suffering in Gaza, does not reach fire, restrains from annexation on the west coast – a stroke of the Israeli parliament.

Downing Street knows that there is virtually no chance of Netanyahu to be done in the next six weeks in this kind of peaceful process. He has repeatedly ruled out the creation of a Palestinian state.

So British recognition of Palestine is certainly coming.

For all the invincible opposition of Netanyahu, Sir Kayer hopes it really is a “moment of maximum impact.”

But in 2025 Britain was not the UK since 1917, when Balfour’s declaration was signed. His ability to bend others to his will is limited. It is difficult to understand what the impact will actually be.