In News:

The Israel–Palestine conflict has once again entered a critical phase, with growing international momentum for recognising Palestinian statehood. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently announced that the UK will recognise the State of Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September, unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire in Gaza, allows greater humanitarian access, and recommits to a two-state solution. This announcement marks a dramatic shift in British policy, given its century-old involvement in shaping the conflict.

Growing Global Recognition Drive

The UK’s position is echoed by France, Canada, and Portugal, which have also indicated readiness to recognise Palestine. Out of 193 UN member states, 147 have already extended recognition. Traditionally, major Western powers resisted unilateral recognition, tying it to the outcome of a negotiated peace settlement. However, the ongoing 21-month Gaza conflict has altered this calculus, with Israel facing mounting diplomatic isolation.

Russia and China—both permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC)—already recognise Palestine. If the UK and France proceed, the United States will remain the only P5 member opposing recognition, potentially weakening its diplomatic standing. The involvement of key G7 members adds further weight, increasing pressure on other Western nations to reconsider their stance.

Britain’s Historic Role: From Balfour to Partition

Britain’s move is particularly symbolic due to its historic responsibility in the conflict. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, issued by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Zionist leader Lord Rothschild, pledged support for the creation of a “Jewish national home” in Palestine. At that time, Jews constituted only about 9% of the population under Ottoman rule. The declaration was influenced by Britain’s wartime strategy to secure global Jewish support during World War I.

Following the Ottoman Empire’s collapse, Britain assumed control of Palestine under a League of Nations Mandate (1920–1948). It encouraged Jewish immigration and facilitated the creation of parallel institutions, fuelling tensions with the Arab majority. By the end of World War II, Jews made up nearly 30% of the population, and the situation became unmanageable. Britain referred the matter to the UN, which proposed the 1947 Partition Plan. On 14 May 1948, Zionist leaders unilaterally declared the establishment of Israel, immediately recognised by the US. This triggered the First Arab-Israel War, resulting in large-scale displacement of Palestinians—the “Nakba.”

Britain’s Recognition: A Symbolic Shift

Now, 108 years after the Balfour Declaration, Britain’s decision to recognise Palestine signals a historic reversal. While recognition alone may not end Israel’s occupation or resolve the conflict, it carries deep symbolic value. It reflects the erosion of unconditional Western support for Israel, particularly as global outrage grows over civilian casualties in Gaza and accusations of war crimes.

Significance for the International Order

Britain’s recognition could catalyse broader diplomatic shifts. If multiple Western powers formally acknowledge Palestinian statehood, it will strengthen the legitimacy of the two-state solution, long considered the most viable framework for peace. It may also increase pressure on Israel to engage in negotiations under international scrutiny.

At the same time, the development underscores the changing balance of global diplomacy. With the US increasingly isolated on the issue, emerging alignments among Europe, Russia, China, and the Global South highlight a multipolar contest over norms of sovereignty, humanitarian accountability, and conflict resolution.

Conclusion

Britain’s decision to recognise Palestine is not merely a policy adjustment; it is a profound historical reckoning. From endorsing a Jewish homeland through the Balfour Declaration to recognising a Palestinian state more than a century later, Britain’s stance symbolises both continuity and correction in international diplomacy. Whether it translates into tangible progress on the ground depends on Israel’s response, US engagement, and the broader international community’s ability to revive a credible peace process.