Grace Sharp: UK’s Palestine recognition falls short of real change

Starmer’s promise to recognise Palestine is no bold break with the past, but a careful reprise of a decades-old political routine. It’s a script written to pacify public outrage, yet in practice, it reinforces the same injustices and occupation it claims to oppose.

Confronted by mounting public pressure and the worsening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, the UK government has finally pledged to recognise Palestinian statehood- albeit with strings firmly attached. While some welcome this as a long-overdue victory, the pledge’s conditional and cautious framing raises serious doubts about whether it will deliver meaningful change or simply repackage the status quo. 

Keir Starmer’s pledge comes amid growing international momentum from countries such as France, Canada, and Australia to recognise Palestine’s sovereignty. The UK says it will formally recognise the state of Palestine at the United Nations’ General Assembly in September 2025 unless Israel takes “substantive steps”  to end the crisis in Gaza, including allowing UN humanitarian aid, agreeing to a ceasefire, and committing to no annexations in the West Bank. Yet these conditions permit the UK to signal support without challenging the deeply entrenched systems that sustain occupation.

While many celebrate this move by the Labour government, its actual impact appears limited. Rather than confronting the UK’s deep political, economic, and military ties to Israel- a nation heavily reliant on British support to maintain its occupation- the gesture seems aimed at protecting Starmer’s political position amid decades of inaction. It is a concession designed to appease critics, not enact genuine justice.

To fully grasp the limits of the UK’s pledge, we must confront how international powers have shaped, and often undermined, Palestinian sovereignty from its very inception.

Unlike other former Ottoman territories placed under British administration by the League of Nations in 1922, Palestine’s mandate came tied to the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Britain’s commitment to establishing a Jewish national home set in motion the displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population. That legacy continues to shadow today’s promise of recognition. 

“This is not bold foreign policy; it’s a pressure-release valve. It offers frustrated voters a headline while ensuring nothing fundamental changes.”

Between 1922 and 1947, tensions heightened as waves of Jewish immigration, particularly in the 1930s as Jews fled Nazi persecution, provoked Arab demands for independence and resistance to displacement. When uprisings erupted in 1937, the UK passed the issue to the UN, which proposed partitioning Palestine into two states, with Jerusalem internationalised. In 1948, Israel declared independence, triggering war with neighbouring Arab states. Israel seized 77 percent of mandate Palestine, forcing over half the Palestinian Arab population into exile in what became the first Nakba, or “catastrophe.” The 1967 war brought a second mass displacement, followed by Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, later annexed.

Since then, Palestinian sovereignty has remained fragmented and largely unrecognised by major powers. In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organisation declared an independent Palestinian state, recognised by over 100 countries. However, most Western governments,  including the UK, withheld recognition and instead adhered to the 1990s Oslo Accords, which created the Palestinian Authority but did not grant full statehood. Over the years, the UK has confined itself to symbolic acts such as condemning Israeli atrocities or voicing support for Palestinian rights, but these gestures have consistently fallen short of meaningful change. 

Even when the UK has briefly rallied around Palestinian recognition, its support has been largely performative. In 2014, 274 MPs called on the government to recognise Palestine, yet the vote was non-binding and the government remained cautious. Similarly, Starmer’s recent condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza as “wrong,” warning they “will only bring more bloodshed,” while vocally strong, stands in sharp contrast to the UK’s continued  arms support, highlighting a persistent gap between rhetoric and reality.

Starmer now risks his political standing as frustration boils over within Labour and across the UK. Mass protests and warnings from MPs about a “loss of trust” expose deep rifts over the party’s passive stance on Israel’s war on Gaza. Over 200 MPs, including many Labour members, have signed a letter urging immediate recognition of Palestine. Trust is eroding not because he has stayed silent, but because he has spoken often while delivering little. England’s local elections this month confirmed Labour’s collapse in support, less than a year into government. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is surging, exploiting disillusionment and presenting itself as the “real opposition.”

This brings us to the heart of the problem: Starmer’s conditional pledge to recognise Palestine is heavy on symbolism, but painfully light on substance. 

The offer has been framed by the government as pragmatic diplomacy, but it is deliberately vague. What counts as “substantive” steps from Israel? How long must a ceasefire last? Could Israel make empty commitments and still pass the test? The ambiguity offers the UK government infinite wiggle room to shield Israel from accountability while claiming the moral high ground. This is not bold foreign policy; it’s a pressure-release valve. It offers frustrated voters a headline while ensuring nothing fundamental changes. Like other leaders who operate within rigid systems of power, Starmer’s approach results in symbolic concessions while leaving the machinery of occupation untouched.

Israel, for its part, has perfected this game. For over 30 years, it has wielded the illusion of a “two-state solution” to buy enough time to fortify its control. Every cycle ends the same way- settlement expansion, land annexation, and tightened occupation- while the promised negotiations dissolve into the next crisis. Starmer’s conditional pledge doesn’t break that cycle; it extends it.

READ: Martin Jay: Can Trump keep his Sahara promise to Morocco?

Even if the UK were to recognise Palestine, it would have little impact on the legal or diplomatic landscape. Of the 193 UN member states, 147 already recognise Palestinian statehood. Yet, Security Council approval requires nine votes and no veto from any of the permanent five members. The United States, Israel’s closest ally, has repeatedly used its veto to block Palestinian statehood, most recently in April 2024. The UK is well aware of this deadlock, yet continues to position itself as a “pro-Palestine” ally, all while avoiding meaningful action. 

Starmer’s conditional recognition is unlikely to drive meaningful change. Rather, it functions as a carefully choreographed performance: a diplomatic gesture that maintains British influence, reassures public opinion, and signals support without addressing the systemic power dynamics that sustain the conflict.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Maghrebi.org. Grace Sharp is a journalist and has a BA Honours degree from Cardiff University. She is the Opinion Editor of Maghrebi.org. You can follow her on bluesky: @gracesharpp.bsky.social

If you wish to pitch an opinion piece please send your article to grace.sharp@maghrebi.org