In recognising Palestine, Britain and France won’t advance peace

• Home
• E-Paper
• 
• IND vs ENG Live
• Malegaon Blast Case Verdict Live
• HT Premium
• HT The Next Voice
• US News
• Games
• HTCity
• 
• India
• World
• Entertainment
• Astrology
• Real Estate
• Trending
• Lifestyle
• Education
• Business
• Cities
• Latest News
• + 14 more
  • Games
  • HTCity
  • ht100
  • India
  • World
  • Entertainment
  • Astrology
  • Real Estate
  • Trending
  • Lifestyle
  • Education
  • Business
  • Cities
  • Latest News

• Kingdom Movie Review
• Bihar Election
• Photos
• Century of Leadership
• Web Stories
• Sports
• Bengaluru News
• Delhi News
• Mumbai News
• Technology
• Quickreads
• Daily Digest
• Following
• Games
• + 6 more
  • Mumbai News
  • Technology
  • Quickreads
  • Daily Digest
  • Following
  • Games

In recognising Palestine, Britain and France won’t advance peace The Economist Published on: Jul 31, 2025 04:15 pm IST

They could even set it back

GAZA IS IN the grip of an incipient famine, amid a futile war that neither Hamas nor Israel appears ready to end. In an attempt to highlight the suffering of the Palestinians, stop the fighting and save the idea of two countries for two peoples, Britain and France have in recent days both taken decisive steps towards the recognition of a Palestinian state. The Economist wholeheartedly shares those aims, but we doubt that recognition will further them—indeed, we worry that recognition on the terms set out by Britain and France could get in the way.

PREMIUM

France moved first on July 24th when its president, Emmanuel Macron, announced that he will recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September. Five days later Britain’s prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, said that Britain would follow suit, but added that he would hold back if Israel stopped the war, clearly committed to a two-state solution and pledged not to annex Palestinian territory in Gaza or the West Bank. Those demands are unlikely to be met, meaning that Britain, too, is likely to go ahead.

It is easy to depict this as virtue-signalling by unpopular leaders keen to curry favour at home. Mr Macron has lost much of his domestic authority. Sir Keir is losing control over his own party, which is strongly pro-Palestinian, with grave implications for the rest of his term in office. Despite this, France’s president and Britain’s prime minister deserve to be taken at face value. The chief test of their announcements, in other words, is whether recognition is likely to advance their aims in the Middle East.

One answer, put forward by President Donald Trump, is that recognition is simply irrelevant, saying that Mr Macron’s pledge “doesn’t carry any weight”. You can see what he means. Given that 147 of the 193 members of the UN already recognise a Palestinian state, two more are unlikely to make much difference.

However, although Britain and France no longer matter as they used to, they still count for something—which is one reason Israel’s government has reacted angrily to their change in policy. As permanent members of the UN Security Council and members of the G7, they may sway other countries considering recognition, including Australia and Canada. Britain has an added historical role because, in the Balfour declaration issued in 1917, it acknowledged the need for a Jewish homeland and helped to bring one into being. To the extent that either country has any influence even at the margin, they should surely use it—or what is influence for?

The argument for acting now is that the Israeli government, under its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, will be shocked into realising that his country is losing the support of even long-term allies. Britain and France cannot compel Israel to change course, but in order to avoid becoming a pariah, Mr Netanyahu may sue for peace. Because America is not pressing Israel forcefully enough, Europe’s two main diplomatic powers must step in.

It is a weak foundation on which to rest Middle East policy. For one thing, Mr Netanyahu and his ministers are more likely to dig in their heels than suddenly give ground. Many of them assess, correctly, that European governments will condemn them whatever they do. Yielding to demands today will only lead to more tomorrow. Some in Israel have concluded that they should do whatever they want now, despite criticism from abroad, and try to rebuild relations later. If Israel has already paid the—albeit small—price of recognition, Mr Netanyahu and his government may if anything become more extreme.

The other problem is that, if talks about two states begin again under a new Israeli prime minister, both sides will need to make concessions to bring them to a successful conclusion. Yet using recognition as leverage over Israel today means that Britain and France have deprived themselves of leverage over the Palestinian side tomorrow.

That is not a trivial thing to surrender, because the two-state deal will face many obstacles, including over territory and security. Unfortunately, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, looks unlikely to give ground willingly. He only recently denounced Hamas’s murderous attacks of October 7th 2023 for the first time. He has repeatedly failed to hold elections and lacks the legitimacy to speak for Palestinians as a whole.

In the immediate future, that same logic confounds Sir Keir’s wheeze to make recognition of Palestine a threat rather than a promise. The prime minister says that he is acting now because he is determined to end the fighting in Gaza and, at the margin, he may be able to exert some influence over Israel. But he has not threatened to withhold support for recognition if Hamas refuses to release hostages or to end the war. That potential reward gives Hamas an incentive to block a ceasefire until after the UN General Assembly in September. Yet once Hamas has pocketed Britain’s prize, Sir Keir will have lost his leverage over Israel. It is a self-defeating policy that fails on its own terms, even supposing Israel is susceptible to pressure.

The truth is that Britain and France have most influence over Israel indirectly, through Mr Trump. He is the only leader who can press Mr Netanyahu into a ceasefire or to keep open the prospect of lasting peace. Alas, by moving to recognise a Palestinian state, Britain and France have lost influence with him, too.

Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.

Get the latest headlines from US news and global updates from Pakistan, UK, Bangladesh, and Russia get all the latest headlines in one place with including Tsunami Warning Liveon Hindustan Times. All Access.
One Subscription.

Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.

E-Paper Full Archives Full Access to
HT App & Website Games Subscribe Now Already subscribed? Login

Join Hindustan Times

Create free account and unlock exciting features like

Newsletters, Alerts and Recommendations Get personalised news and exciting deals Bookmark the stories you want to read later REGISTER FOR FREE Already have an account? Sign In SKIP