I missed this as I was on my way to Brighton at the time, but thought that it might of interest to readers.
Friday, September 13th saw the First Reading of a Private Members’ Bill in the House of Lords, sponsored by Lindsay Northover, our spokesperson on International Development there.
The core text reads as follows:
Recognition of the State of Palestine
- The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passing of this Act, take such steps as are necessary to ensure the Government of the United Kingdom formally recognises Palestine as a sovereign and independent state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, and the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the State of Palestine.
- In this section, “pre-1967 borders” has the same meaning as in resolution 76/10 (2021) of the UN General Assembly.
Status of the Palestinian Mission to the UK
- The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passing of this Act, take such steps as are necessary to—
(a) afford the Mission of Palestine in London status as a full diplomatic mission, and
(b) afford the members of the diplomatic staff all applicable privileges and immunities thereby accorded under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964.
- For the purposes of this section, “diplomatic mission” is to be read in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations done at Vienna on 18 April 1961.
A date for the Second Reading is yet to be confirmed.
In an article in Politics Home, Baroness Northover writes:
It has been said that such recognition is merely symbolic, not changing anything on the ground. But official recognition has importance – that Palestinians do have a right to self-determination, that they have national rights and that, just like Israelis, they have a right to a state of their own. Acquiring statehood would also give them legal benefits. It has been said that it is too late – the “Swiss cheese” effect of the Israeli settlements and 700,000 settlers, roads, walls and check points in the occupied Palestinian territories means that a contiguous Palestinian state is no longer viable.
* Mark Valladares is the Lords Correspondent of Liberal Democrat Voice.
Please note that, consistent with general Liberal Democrat Voice policy, comments on this piece will be pre-moderated. Please be patient with us if your comment is not published immediately.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GCSE in Natural History to go ahead after all
Six council by-elections, spread over two days
Carers remain forgotten in government's welfare overhaul
Getting things done - Saggar Street - an update #dundeewestend
Loving our neighbours
Nick Baird
Jonathan Calder
Roland
Joseph Bourke
7 Comments
One mistake was made back In 1947, when the United Nations adopted Resolution 181, known as the Partition Plan, which sought to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. Then in May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was created.
The mistake, was not to also create a Palestinian State at the same time, with the same rights to exist as Israel, with defined boundaries and recognised by all those who recognise the state of Israel. Much of what has been happening for decades and what is happening now is linked to that mistake.
@John Barrett, the delay to the implementation of the UN resolution was no mistake. Most of the Middle East ex-Ottoman were already granted independence. It was deliberately delayed by the then British Imperial administration, so that the Jewish militias could get organised. This goes back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, where the British Empire promised Rothschilde something that wasn’t theirs to give away. Anyway, over the next 30 years that the demographics of Palestine changed dramatically as European Jews migrated to Palestine as a potential future state and place of safety from European antisemitism. Interesting enough they found a better reception from the locals in Palestine than they did elsewhere. I find it intriguing how in the US and UK this history is brushed aside and the Palestines where/are often portrayed as a people with an unjustified hate. Right-wingers really get in a muddle when challenged on this!
The Palestinians have always refused their own state because that would entail recognizing Israel, something they will never do.
We should stop using the term ‘settlers’ and ‘settlements’ to describe Israelis living in the Occupied West Bank, because those words imply something benign. Perhaps ‘civilian occupiers’ and ‘encampments’?
Matthew Radmore – I accept that “mistake” was not the correct word to use, and that your points are well made.
There’s another point to be made here. The Britain governed Palestine legitimately under a League of Nations mandate. It made successive attempts to accommodate Palestinian objections to Zionist immigration, most notably with the White Paper of 1939, and was met by blank refusal and , in 1936, a violent uprising. Equally the Palestinians refused partition in 1948, preferring to call on their Arab allies to attack Israel when the UN created it in the face of Arab (and British!) objections. There is nothing mysterious about this history, which is well explained by the Oxford History of the British Empire (vol. 4, I think) and also by Wikipedia, which is remarkably good on the Israel-Palestine issue.
@ Mark Frankel,
” Britain governed Palestine legitimately under a League of Nations mandate.”
It didn’t, though, stop Jewish paramilitaries from blowing up the King David Hotel in 1946 causing 91 deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing