British recognition of a Palestinian state: A shift in foreign policy shaped by crisis

Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce later today that the United Kingdom will formally recognise a Palestinian state, a decision that represents a major departure from the long-standing position of British foreign policy.

Successive governments had maintained that recognition should come only as part of a final peace agreement and at a moment of maximum diplomatic impact. Starmer seems to have concluded that the worsening situation in Gaza and the West Bank requires immediate action. In July, he set out conditions that Israel would need to meet in order to avoid such a move. These included agreeing to a ceasefire, committing to negotiations for a sustainable peace, allowing the United Nations to restart humanitarian aid and refraining from annexing the West Bank. His ministers say these conditions were not met and that the humanitarian crisis has grown significantly worse. The prime minister himself has described images of violence and starvation in Gaza as “intolerable”.

The most recent escalation has strengthened this conclusion. Israel’s large-scale ground operation in Gaza City has forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee, drawing international alarm. Earlier this month, a UN commission of inquiry found that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, an accusation Israel dismissed as “distorted and false”.

Alongside the humanitarian crisis, the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank has been identified as a decisive factor. Justice Secretary David Lammy pointed to both settlement growth and rising settler violence, highlighting in particular the controversial E1 project. He warned that its construction would “run a coach and horses through the possibility of a two-state solution” and effectively end hopes for a viable Palestinian state.

UK ministers have framed recognition as a moral responsibility to preserve the possibility of peace. Yet the announcement has provoked fierce criticism both internationally and at home. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that such a move “rewards terror” and punishes its victims. The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, argued that recognition without the release of hostages “would be a reward for terrorism”.

Some of the strongest objections have come from the families of hostages still held by Hamas. In an open letter to Starmer, they urged him not to proceed until all the captives were released. They claimed that the decision had complicated efforts to secure the safe return of their loved ones and warned that Hamas had already celebrated it as a victory and reneged on a ceasefire deal. 

The UK's Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, also questioned the wisdom of the move, noting that it was not conditional on the establishment of a functioning Palestinian government, a commitment to peace or the release of the hostages.

The government has responded by insisting that recognition is not a reward for Hamas. Foreign Office officials stress that statehood is a right of the Palestinian people and cannot be dependent on the actions of Hamas, which the UK designates as a terrorist organisation. Starmer has repeated that Hamas can play no part in any future Palestinian state and that further sanctions against the group are under consideration.

Britain’s decision aligns it with a wider international current. A total of 147 of the UN’s 193 member states already recognise Palestine. Spain, Ireland and Norway took the step last year, while countries such as Portugal, France, Canada and Australia have indicated they are considering recognition. Domestically, Starmer has also faced pressure. Before his July speech, more than half of Labour MPs had called for immediate recognition.

However, the move puts the UK at odds with key allies. During his state visit this week, US President Donald Trump made clear his opposition to the plan. Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel accused Starmer of capitulating to Labour backbenchers rather than acting in the national interest.

For now, recognition remains largely symbolic. Palestine has no agreed international borders, no capital and no army. Yet the goal of British policy remains anchored in the two-state solution, with a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as its capital. Starmer’s team argues that recognition is a necessary diplomatic intervention at a moment when settlement expansion and military escalation threaten to extinguish the prospect of such a solution entirely. The timing of the announcement, during the UN General Assembly, is intended to underline Britain’s determination to apply pressure on all sides to revive the peace process.