Note that this post has been amended.
Now that it is Government policy (albeit conditional) to recognise Palestine, arguments are going to be raised against it – so be prepared!
Before yesterday’s announcement by Starmer, two arguments had been mentioned rather tentatively by the distinguished, retired diplomat Lord Darroch on Radio 4’s The World At One on 25 July. I say ‘tentatively’ because he felt it necessary to point out in the interview that many of his diplomatic colleagues, both serving and retired, disagreed with him. These arguments were picked up by our very own Lib Dem peer Baroness Sarah Ludford and disseminated on social media. She succinctly summarised them as follows – without, so far as I could see, any gloss of her own:
Since then a third argument has been made, namely that recognition would be “rewarding terror”. This seems to be gaining rather more traction than the other two, since it has been endorsed by the families of some of the Israeli hostages kidnapped on 7 October.
What weight do these arguments carry? The first argument is essentially political, while the second is legal and the third is perhaps best described as a moral argument. Let’s deal with the legal argument first, because it is also relevant to the moral argument, and then finally turn to the political argument.
As long ago as 2006, the late James Crawford, the leading authority on statehood in international law, Cambridge professor and subsequently Australian judge at the ICJ, provided a cogent reply to the legal argument:
There may come a point where international law regards as done that which ought to have been done, if the reason it has not been done is the serious default of one party and if the consequence of its not being done is serious prejudice to another. The principle that a State (e.g. Israel) cannot rely on its own wrongful conduct to avoid the consequences of its international obligations is capable of novel applications, and circumstances can be imagined where the international community would be entitled to treat a new State (e.g. Palestine) as existing on a given territory, notwithstanding the facts.
Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed, 2006, pp. 447-8.
This is crystal clear. Since Israel is in unlawful occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and has frustrated the self-determination of the Palestinian People over many years, it is high time for the international community to apply Crawford’s reasoning and recognise Palestine as a state on the whole of the OPT alongside Israel. For that reason Sir Ed Davey got it absolutely right when he said that British recognition should have happened now, rather than waiting for UNGA in September as Starmer intends.