The United Kingdom’s conditional decision to recognise
Palestine as a state in September 2025 marks a watershed shift in British
foreign policy, contingent on Israel’s actions over the coming weeks. The move
has ignited robust debate in academic and legal circles, notably between Marko
Milanovic and legal experts, with reactions divided on the implications for
international law and prospects for peace.
Britain’s Conditional Recognition of Palestine: Breaking with Tradition
On 29 July 2025, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced
that the United Kingdom would recognise Palestine as a state before the United
Nations General Assembly session in September, unless Israel undertook
substantial actions: agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza, resuming humanitarian
aid, refraining from further annexations in the West Bank, and recommitting to
a two-state solution. This declaration, as reported by the BBC’s Jeremy
Bowen, represents a historic shift in UK foreign policy, moving away from the
previous position that statehood recognition should only occur following a
negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
This new approach aligns the UK with countries such as France, Ireland, Spain, and Norway, which have also announced recognition plans, but stands apart for explicitly making this recognition conditional on Israeli actions. Starmer, in a speech covered by BBC News, unequivocally stated,
“We will recognise a Palestinian state…unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace”.
What Triggered the UK’s Shift on Palestine?
The question of timing and circumstances is pivotal. As
reported by Professor Alexander Orakhelashvili for the University of
Birmingham, the UK’s move was triggered by the worsening humanitarian crisis in
Gaza and pressure from both domestic constituencies and international
partners—including a high-profile social media campaign by France’s President
Emmanuel Macron advocating recognition.
The rationale, as Prime Minister Starmer emphasised, is to
put “maximum impact” behind the two-state solution at a time when “that
solution is under threat like never before”. Cabinet members acknowledged
that public and parliamentary support for recognition is at its peak, with
polls showing a strong plurality of Britons—45%—supporting recognition of a
Palestinian state. This sentiment was echoed in the House of Commons, with
Health Secretary Wes Streeting urging recognition “while there is still a state
left to recognise”.
However, the government’s statement outlined that the move
is not unconditional, unlike that of France, but is predicated on Israel
meeting specified benchmarks, such as allowing at least 500 aid trucks per day
into Gaza and halting settlement expansions in the West Bank.
How Has Israel Responded?
Israel reacted with outrage. As BBC News reported, PrimeMinister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that the decision would “reward Hamas’s
monstrous terrorism”. The Israeli government has consistently rejected the
idea of a Palestinian state and viewed the UK’s conditional recognition as
undermining Israeli security and sovereignty.
Israel Katz, Israel’s Foreign Minister, denounced the
British move as “fundamentally warped, one-sided, and wrong”, while Yuli
Edelstein of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee labelled it “illusory
and despicable,” according to Justice Info’s comprehensive coverage. Israel’s
position is that such acts of recognition, even if only symbolic, embolden militant
groups and delegitimise Israeli concerns.
What Does Marko Milanovic Say About Recognition and International Law?
Academic and legal commentary has been swift and salient, with Marko Milanovic, Professor at the University of Reading, taking a prominent role in the debate. In his analysis for EJIL: Talk!, Milanovic refutes claims that British recognition of Palestine would be contrary to international law, writing,
“I simply fail to see how any British recognition of Palestine would
be ‘contrary to international law’”.
Milanovic explains that international law does not prohibit states from recognising new entities, even in complex territorial disputes, so long as those entities meet the baseline requirements of statehood and self-determination. Commenting on the recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion, Milanovic describes the judgement as
“ground-breaking…basically telling Israel, it’s enough. You just have to leave,”
referring to the Court’s finding that Israel’s occupation of the
Palestinian territories is illegal and must be brought to an end as rapidly as
possible.
In his reply, Milanovic further argues that recognition is primarily a political act with only secondary legal ramifications, stating,
“States are free to determine whom they regard as a state subject, and recognition is not constitutive but declaratory of statehood”.
Legal and Political Risks: Are There Unintended Consequences?
The conditional nature of the UK's recognition has worried some legal experts. Writing in The Conversation, legal analyst Dr. Michelle Farrell warns that
“leveraging recognition of Palestine as a means to penalise Israel for actual or alleged violations of international law...undermines Palestine's right to self-determination”.
This, she argues, sets a dangerous precedent where recognition becomes
“a tool for exerting pressure or imposing penalties…rather than reflecting the rights of the people concerned”.
This tension was echoed in the detailed analysis by
Professor Alexander Orakhelashvili, who noted the UK’s conditions include
explicit requirements on Israeli behaviour—suggesting that, in the government’s
eyes, the status of Palestine is contingent on Israel meeting certain metrics
rather than on legal or historical criteria alone.
What Is the Broader International Response?
The UK’s announcement came on the heels of the ICJ’s
advisory opinion that Israel’s presence in the occupied territories is illegal
and that it must end all settlement activity, as comprehensively reported by
Justice Info. The international community’s response has been mixed: while
the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs heralded a “watershed moment,”
Israel’s conservative bloc condemned the ruling and subsequent recognitions as
biased.
Meanwhile, as reported by Chatham House, Britain’s move is
viewed as highly significant diplomatically, and public support is growing, but
many analysts acknowledge that, on the ground, such symbolic recognition may
have limited impact absent concrete changes in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
How Has the UK Justified Its Position at the United Nations?
At the July emergency cabinet meeting and in statements at the United Nations, Foreign Secretary David Lammy reiterated that the UK bears a “special burden of responsibility” for the two-state solution, due to its historic role in the region. Lammy told the UN,
“We are determined to protect the viability of the two-state solution, and so we will recognise the state of Palestine in September before UNGA,”
adding that recognition is “a
contribution to a proper peace process, at the moment of maximum impact”.
What Are the Next Steps?
Sir Keir Starmer has stated that the UK will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps, stressing,
“No one should have a veto on our decision. We will keep working with all our international partners to end the suffering, get aid flooding into Gaza and deliver a more stable future for the Middle East”.
The situation remains fluid and the UK’s official course
could still be altered if Israel shows flexibility or international pressure
mounts. Experts agree, however, that the UK’s explicit linkage of recognition
to Israeli actions—unlike the unconditional stances of some of its European
partners—will shape diplomatic calculations on all sides in the critical weeks
ahead.
The British statement on recognition of
Palestine stands as a pivotal moment in diplomatic history, reflecting both
domestic political calculations and an evolving international legal landscape.
The debate between advocates such as Marko Milanovic, government officials, and
international legal scholars underscores the complexities and stakes of state
recognition in contexts of enduring conflict and contested rights. As events
develop, all eyes will be on London and Jerusalem to see whether symbolic
gestures translate into substantive progress toward peace.