Words matter in diplomacy. The harsh response by the government of Israel to the announcement that the UK may recognise Palestine as a state unless certain conditions are fulfilled by September proves it.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, backed by the US, has claimed that Sir Keir Starmer is merely appeasing Hamas terrorists in a meaningless gesture that threatens the prospects of peace in the region and represents a slap in the face for the victims of the unspeakable atrocity of 7 October, 2023.

This assertion seems unfounded. The UK’s strong condemnation of 7 October remains clear. Hamas continues to be a designated terrorist organisation in this country, and the commitment to Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself is unquestioned. The UK has also emphasised again the need for Hamas to cease violence, release all hostages and give up control of Gaza.

So what is all the fuss about?

Recognition confirms that an entity meets the international standards of statehood and can claim the rights of a state. For example, Somaliland declared unilateral independence from Somalia in 1991. Since then, Somalia has remained mired in lawless chaos, while Somaliland has exhibited all the features of a relatively stable state. Most countries oppose unilateral secession to protect their own territorial unity. As a result, only a few states recognise Somaliland. Its status remains uncertain, and it could be forcibly reabsorbed if Somalia forms a strong central government.

Palestinians on a coastal path west of Beit Lahiya attempt to get food supplies on 29 July after aid trucks entered the besieged Gaza Strip (Photo: Omar al-Qattaa/AFP)

Kosovo, which seceded from Serbia in 2008, offers another example of the high value placed on international recognition. It was once recognised by 120 states but Serbia has invested heavily, and with some success, in trying to persuade some of those states to “unrecognise” Kosovo, seeking to reopen the question of its status with a view to reasserting its claim to the territory.

So, the truth is that recognition matters and Israel knows it. This applies with special force in this instance.

Since 1988, Palestine has claimed to be a fully-fledged state. With the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995, it has been broadly accepted that the newly created Palestinian Authority would function as a proto-government at least for Gaza and the occupied West Bank, although with its authority limited in terms of powers and territorial reach. Still, the International Court of Justice has confirmed that Palestine remains an occupied territory, given the exercise of Israeli control over security, access and basic services.

Under the so-called Montevideo criteria, a state must have a territory, a permanent population and an effective government capable of conducting international relations.

The territorial definition of Palestine has been challenged by Israel which claims to have annexed East Jerusalem. The expansion of settlements puts Palestine’s land at greater risk, breaking up its territory even more. However, most of the world still believes these changes were imposed on Palestine and do not affect its right to a future state.

Israeli right-wing activists watch northern Gaza during a rally calling for the re-establishment of Jewish settlements in the Strip, near the border in southern Israel on Wednesday (Photo: Ohad Zwigenberg/AP)

Similarly, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians over the past decades does not negate the requirement that a state must possess a stable population.

Some would argue that the case for statehood fails on the third hurdle – that of an effective government controlling the territory and population. In addition to the effective loss of East Jerusalem, in 2007 Hamas forcibly displaced the Palestinian Authority from Gaza. Even in the West Bank, its authority remains limited by, what many Palestinians experience, as Israel practises armed occupation.

However, the Palestinians count as genuine beneficiaries of the right of self-determination of peoples. In such cases, the inability to exercise full independent governance does not undermine their entitlement to statehood.

For instance, when South Africa refused to release South West Africa, later Namibia, into independence, the United Nations set up a Council for Namibia which purported to govern the territory instead. Of course, that council lacked effective powers. However, importantly, this did not affect Namibia’s ability to achieve full statehood.

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy addresses a conference for the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution at the UN headquarters in New York City on Tuesday (Photo: Eduardo Muno/Reuters)

In this instance, widespread recognition is meant to communicate that Palestine be treated as a state, even if it is currently being precluded by Israel from exhibiting all the features of a fully functioning state.

Forty members of the House of Lords, and leading lawyers, have now written to the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, asserting that recognition would be unlawful. The doctrine of “premature recognition” protects states from international recognition of an entity seeking to secede from its territory before that territory irreversibly achieves the Montevideo criteria of statehood.

However, in this instance, Palestine is not seceding from Israel or disrupting its territorial integrity to the extent that it is internationally accepted. Recognition of Palestine does therefore not interfere with the rights of Israel and cannot be regarded as an act of unlawful intervention against it.

Of course, recognition may inhibit the political designs of the Netanyahu government which opposes the two-state solution without having offered a viable alternative. The attempt to preserve that avenue is precisely the aim of the recent wave of recognitions also by Western states, including Ireland, Norway and Spain, with France to follow, potentially along with the UK and Canada.

Of course, 147 states – three-quarters of the organised international community – have recognised Palestine as a state. Last year, the US vetoed Palestine’s application for United Nations membership. Still, since 2012, Palestine has been accepted by as an observer “state”, exercising most of the privileges of membership. Palestine also is a member of several other international organisations and party to a range of international treaties.

It is no accident that the UK announcement came this week, when France and Saudi Arabia convened a “global alliance for the two state-solution” at the UN in New York. Despite strong US opposition to the venture, Foreign Secretary David Lammy attended to present the UK’s changed position at the meeting to much international applause.

The alliance seeks to preserve the possibility of a settlement for Israel and Palestine living peacefully side by side in a stable regional environment. Recognising Palestine just at this point when Israel and the US are determining their longer-term vision for the future of the region is meant to communicate that the creation of facts on the ground through further annexation, settlements or forced displacements will not alter the entitlement of Palestine to fulfil its entitlement to self-determination.

Marc Weller is Professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies in the University of Cambridge, a former UN senior mediation expert and has served as senior adviser in many international peace negotiations