By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A significant number of UK parliamentarians, totaling 220 MPs from various political parties, have urged Sir Keir Starmer to recognize a Palestinian state. This call for recognition, spearheaded by Labour MPs, emphasizes its potential to send a “powerful” message and contribute to a two-state solution. The letter follows France’s commitment to recognition and comes amidst ongoing discussions of a wider plan. While Starmer has stated support for Palestinian statehood as part of a broader peace plan, the joint statement from the UK, France, and Germany does not explicitly mention statehood, yet it does demand an immediate ceasefire and end to restrictions on aid into Gaza.
Read the original article here
220 MPs call for Keir Starmer to recognise Palestinian state, a move that’s certainly stirred up a lot of debate and strong opinions. It’s the kind of situation that forces you to consider a whole lot of different perspectives, doesn’t it?
One of the immediate questions that pops up is, “What exactly does ‘recognizing’ a state even mean in this context?” The lack of specifics regarding borders, governance, and even the people involved is a valid point. It’s like jumping ahead to dessert without finishing your meal, as one perspective put it. How can you recognize something when the fundamental building blocks, like defined territory and a functioning government, are still in flux?
The concern over potential repercussions is also loud and clear. Some fear that recognizing a Palestinian state without these crucial details would be seen as rewarding terrorism and violence. This is a scary thought. The potential for such a move to embolden groups that have employed terror tactics, as well as the implications for hostages, understandably raises serious ethical and strategic considerations. The suggestion that recognizing Palestine might be akin to recognizing the Taliban after 9/11 certainly illustrates the depth of these anxieties.
Yet, there’s another side to this story, one that emphasizes the importance of recognizing the current reality and seeking a path toward resolution. The idea that Palestine is “just an idea” is seen by some as dismissing the existing circumstances of the Palestinian people. Proponents of recognition argue that it doesn’t mean ignoring complex issues of territory, but rather taking a step toward resolving them.
From this perspective, recognition can be a way of acknowledging the existing reality of the Palestinian people, as well as opening up avenues for progress. There is an existing state of Palestine. It is recognized by 160 countries. This is not a uniquely western issue. If the state is recognized, this allows for all the processes of states to happen – agreements and negotiations.
The very act of recognition doesn’t require complete control over every inch of land or immediate resolution of all disputes. It is the same way 160 other countries operate. Recognizing a state can be the first step in fostering dialogue and working toward a lasting resolution, even if the journey is far from simple. Think of the examples of contested territories around the world like the Crimea or even Kashmir.
The comparison to the Republic of China (Taiwan) is an interesting one, as it demonstrates how political recognition can have a significant impact, even when divorced from the practicalities on the ground. The Republic of China (Taiwan) was recognized by the UN for many years, even though they held no territory in mainland China. This recognition gave rise to the possibility of having a seat at the table, where negotiations, treaties, and international assistance could be carried out.
There’s also the argument that the UK already recognizes states without necessarily endorsing their governments. The example of Afghanistan under the Taliban is relevant here, highlighting the difference between diplomatic recognition and outright approval of a government’s actions. Furthermore, many recognize the 1967 borders as the basis for a resolution.
Finally, it is important to remember the human cost. Some argue that any action that might expedite an end to the bloodshed should be preferred, in light of the starvation and deaths that continue to plague the area. It is a painful issue and these matters can be deeply divisive, but perhaps it is important to keep the human cost in mind.