Britain's recognition: atonement for an old sin or a maneuver under the weight of scenes of genocide?

Dr. Jamal Harfoush: This moment may represent a historic opportunity for Britain to review its colonial legacy and assume its historical responsibility toward the Palestinian people.

Akram Atallah: Internal pressures are behind the British trend, including Jeremy Corbyn's intention to establish a political party with the Palestinian cause as its main theme.

Dr. Qusay Hamed: Although the move is evasive, it is an acknowledgment of Britain's historical responsibility for the Palestinian Nakba and the establishment of Israel.

Samir Anabtawi: Starmer's intention to recognize the State of Palestine is an advanced step, but it is still tied to political conditions that prevent its actual implementation.

Dr. Amjad Bashkar: Israel may move toward dismantling the Palestinian Authority as a strategic option to obstruct any international recognition of it.

Adnan Al-Sabah: The only possible and just solution is to implement Resolutions 181 and 194, and the leadership must not accept any other alternatives to any future political solution.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's announcement of his intention to recognize the State of Palestine raises controversy over whether it represents a political shift with symbolic and strategic dimensions, or whether it is a political maneuver reflecting mounting internal and external pressure to reconsider British policies toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

In separate interviews with Al-Quds, writers, political analysts, and university professors say that this step, while currently an "intention" not accompanied by implementation but rather conditional on Israel, poses a historic test to London regarding its willingness to assume responsibility for the repercussions of the colonial era, from the Balfour Declaration to its support for Israel in international forums.

They point out that this announcement comes within a changing international context, characterized by growing popular and official support for Palestinian rights, amid mounting Western criticism of Israeli policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

They point out that Britain, which has long adhered to Washington's pro-Israel stance, now appears to be attempting to partially break away from this pattern, perhaps sending a message that it is prepared to adjust its stance to reflect shifts in global public opinion and rising waves of solidarity.

A symbolic and strategic political shift at the same time

Dr. Jamal Harfoush, professor of scientific research methods and political studies at the University of Brazil's Academic Research Center, says that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's announcement of his intention to recognize the State of Palestine represents a symbolic and strategic political shift, encompassing complex internal and external dimensions.

Harfoush explains that the British announcement came at a precise time, following Starmer's meeting with US President Donald Trump, and cannot be separated from the broader political context. Britain appears to be seeking to regain the initiative in the Middle East and break free from the "total dependence" that has characterized its foreign policy on Washington, particularly regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Harfouche believes the timing of the announcement conveys a dual message. On the one hand, it may be an expression of a rejection of continued dependence on the far-right vision represented by Trump, while on the other, it may constitute a "symbolic maneuver" through which London seeks to demonstrate a sense of balance between American pressure and the requirements of international law.

Harfoush asserts that potential recognition should not be viewed as a purely formal or diplomatic measure, but rather as a political and historical correction of the colonial Balfour Declaration, which was the nucleus of the Zionist project in Palestine. He points out that recognition of a Palestinian state has become a moral imperative that falls on Britain, as the party that played the primary role in the tragedy of the Palestinian people.

Recognition must be accompanied by concrete implementation steps.

Harfoush warns that if recognition is not accompanied by concrete implementation steps—such as presenting a project to the United Nations or taking a clear position on the continued Israeli aggression—it will remain a “declaration of intent without binding legal effect” (declaratio voluntatis sine effectu iuris), which does not actually serve the Palestinian cause.

Harfoush emphasizes that serious recognition of the State of Palestine must be clearly defined within the framework of the June 4, 1967, borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. He asserts that its legal and political impact will be profound if implemented diligently, especially in light of the growing international momentum surrounding the internationalization of the Palestinian cause.

Harfoush believes this moment could represent a historic opportunity for Britain to review its colonial legacy and assume its historical responsibility toward the Palestinian people, and that the world is waiting to see whether London will move from words to action.

A political path independent of the American one

For his part, writer and political analyst Akram Atallah asserts that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's announcement of his intention to recognize the State of Palestine represents a strategic shift in the British position and reflects London's intention to chart a political course independent of the traditional American path, which has long been characterized by close proximity to Tel Aviv.

Atallah points out that the British announcement came after a meeting between the British Prime Minister and US President Donald Trump, who acknowledged a "passing discussion" on the issue. However, London later rushed to hold an official government meeting followed by an announcement of its intention to recognize Israel, indicating that Britain is taking a measured stance, not merely a casual reaction.

Atallah believes this move represents a testament to Britain's internationally recognized political acumen, and aims to hold Israel responsible for future political outcomes by imposing conditions "unacceptable to Israel," in an attempt to put the ball in Tel Aviv's court.

Atallah believes that this British approach is not merely a symbolic stance, but rather the result of mounting domestic pressure within Britain, including letters from members of the House of Commons, the Foreign Secretary's push in this direction, and the escalation of popular support for Palestine since the outbreak of the recent war on Gaza.

Correcting "historical injustice"

Atallah asserts that one of the key factors driving Britain to accelerate this trend is the intention of former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to establish a new political party with the Palestinian cause as its primary focus. This has raised concerns among the Labour Party, given the willingness of some 40 MPs from the party to join Corbyn.

Atallah explains that Britain's move represents a major political shift, given that it was the author of the Balfour Declaration. However, today it may be on the cusp of correcting this "historical injustice" against the Palestinian people.

Atallah asserts that Britain's international influence and standing in Europe and the Commonwealth make its expected recognition of the State of Palestine significant and may encourage other countries to take similar steps.

A "political maneuver" aimed at pressuring Israel

For his part, Dr. Qusay Hamed, a professor of political science at Al-Quds Open University, describes Britain's announcement of its intention to recognize a Palestinian state as a "political maneuver" aimed at pressuring Israel to change its behavior in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which has become an embarrassment to the governments that support it in front of their own people.

Hamed points out that this move represents a departure from the traditional pattern of British policy toward the Palestinian issue, which has historically been characterized by unlimited support for Israel, beginning with the Balfour Declaration, followed by continued military and political support, and ending with the refusal to grant the Palestinians observer status at the United Nations.

Hamed explains that today's announcement of Britain's intention to recognize Israel does not represent a fundamental shift, but rather comes within the framework of a British attempt to warn Israel of the damage being done to its image in the eyes of international public opinion, which has come to view it as a state ruled by extremists and practicing genocide, starvation, and displacement in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Hamed asserts that this shift in international perception is forcing Western governments, including Britain, to reconsider their positions, under the weight of growing popular pressure within them.

Hamed explains that Britain's intentions to recognize a Palestinian state are cloaked in a threatening message to Israeli leaders demanding they change their behavior in the Gaza Strip and halt the war and starvation. This means that if Israel changes its behavior, Britain will back down, raising questions about Britain's seriousness in taking concrete steps to change its historical policies.

"The anticipated recognition is not a complete U-turn," Hamed says. "It is an attempt to evade international public opinion and ease popular pressure within Britain."

Recognition must be accompanied by diplomatic and legal transformations.

However, Hamed expects this announcement to encourage other countries to recognize the Palestinian state, which will further isolate Israel internationally, especially in light of the far-right government's policies seeking to abolish the Palestinian political entity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Hamed points out that this move, while a political maneuver, represents a political milestone in Britain's implicit recognition of its historical responsibility for the Palestinian people's plight and its significant role in the establishment of Israel.

Hamed believes that such recognition, if implemented, must be accompanied by diplomatic and legal changes, including upgrading Palestinian representation in Britain to an embassy and opening the door to more formal relations between the two sides.

Hamed asserts that Britain's intention to recognize the State of Palestine should not be understood as a genuine shift unless it is followed by practical steps, such as halting military and political support for Israel, supporting Palestinian diplomatic efforts in international forums, and imposing sanctions on the occupation.

Hamed believes that Britain is trying to redirect the international compass toward a two-state solution, albeit within a pressuring political context rather than out of a sense of historical justice.

Hamed asserts that the fundamental questions remain open: "Will Britain prove its seriousness in the future? And will this be embodied in practical policies that reflect a real change in its position on the Palestinian issue?"

Britain takes an important step, but it is not enough.

For his part, writer and political analyst Samer Anabtawi believes that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's announcement of his intention to recognize the State of Palestine is a significant step forward, but one that remains tied to political conditions that prevent its actual implementation.

Anbatawi points out that this position followed a similar statement by French President Emmanuel Macron, who announced his intention to recognize Palestine next September. However, London linked the move to an end to the war and famine in Gaza and a return to the political track of the two-state solution.

Anbatawi asserts that the British position represents a form of political balancing act between pressure from the British public, which strongly supports Palestine, and internal parliamentary pressure from ministers and MPs demanding a decisive stance, along with Britain's concern not to cross any red lines in its relationship with Israel.

Anbatawi points out that British Foreign Secretary David Lammy appeared to be more progressive than the Prime Minister in his position, speaking openly about the historical responsibility Britain bears toward the Palestinian people, as the author of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate Authority, and as the pavement for the establishment of Israel.

Anabtawi believes that the recent meeting between Starmer and US President Donald Trump reflects a clear divergence in orientations. Starmer did not include the issue of recognition in the meeting, while Trump declared that the project was purely British-European, indicating a European attempt to move away from the traditional US policy biased toward Israel.

Anabtawi emphasizes that the anticipated British recognition must be preceded by a clear and decisive stance, including halting arms exports to Israel, threatening economic sanctions, and an explicit demand to halt annexation efforts, whether declared or implemented through settlements and geographic and demographic changes in the West Bank.

Anbatawi believes the British move stems from broad international momentum, pointing to the participation of 143 countries in the recent New York conference calling for a two-state solution, in addition to the growing isolation of Israel and US policy due to the steadfastness of the Palestinian people and the exposure of the occupation's crimes.

Anabtawi asserts that Britain is taking an important step, but it is insufficient. He calls for supportive Palestinian, Arab, and international positions so that these intentions can be transformed into concrete actions that end the Palestinian people's tragedy and enshrine their right to self-determination.

British Declaration in Parallel with the New York Conference

Political science professor Dr. Amjad Bashkar believes that Britain's announcement of its intention to recognize the State of Palestine, in conjunction with the recent French-sponsored New York conference, represents a significant political development, the most significant since 136 countries recognized Palestine at the United Nations in 2012. However, at the same time, it is "politically conditional" and falls within the framework of political blackmail that empties the recognition of its meaning.

Bashkar asserts that what distinguishes this development is that it came from two permanent members of the Security Council: France, which sponsored the New York Conference, and Britain, which announced its intention to recognize Palestine on the condition that Israel's behavior in the West Bank and Gaza changes, particularly with regard to annexation and crimes committed against civilians.

"This British announcement carries deep symbolic significance, given the historical background of British responsibility for the Palestinian Nakba, dating back to the Balfour Declaration in 1917," Bashkar says. "It comes as a surprise, coming from a country that has traditionally been one of Israel's most vocal supporters."

Bashkar points out that Britain typically follows the American path in foreign policy, making this move a partial departure from that pattern.

Bashkar explains that there are three factors behind the British decision: first, internal pressure from parliament, where 255 MPs called on the prime minister to recognize the Palestinian state; second, the ongoing popular movement, which has included massive weekly demonstrations since the start of the war on Gaza; and third, the horrific scenes emerging from the Strip, particularly in recent weeks, of mass starvation and Israeli statements openly calling for depriving Gaza of food as a means of the Israeli government's survival.

Conditional British recognition!

In this context, Bashkar warns that British recognition does not necessarily mean justice for the Palestinians, as it is tied to political conditions such as a ceasefire, rejection of annexation, and the provision of aid. This means transforming the "intention to recognize" into a tool of political pressure and blackmail, as if the Palestinian must prove his "eligibility" for freedom, while the occupier is granted complete immunity.

Bashkar considers the French position to be no less dangerous, as it stipulated that the Palestinian state be demilitarized and that it recognize Israel "fully," without specifying the nature of this recognition, while also assigning it regional security roles.

Bashkar warns that Israel may move toward dismantling the Palestinian Authority as a strategic option to obstruct any international recognition of it, as the only entity capable of representing Palestinians legally and internationally, at a time when Israel is seeking to separate Palestinians from their political and national entity.

Political blindness and selling illusions to the Palestinians

For his part, writer and political analyst Adnan Al-Sabah believes that the positions of Britain, France, and some European countries regarding recognition of a Palestinian state amount to nothing more than "a genuine political deception" aimed at giving Palestinians illusions far removed from reality, without any real commitment or will to change the facts on the ground.

Al-Sabah explains that these positions are part of a broader effort to distract Palestinians with repeated promises, unrelated to concrete steps. He points out that talk of a "Palestinian state" has been a slogan used for decades by US presidents, from Bill Clinton to George Bush and then Joe Biden, without ever being translated into practical reality.

"Everyone talks about the state, but no one defines its location, its borders, or even the mechanisms for establishing it," Al-Sabah says. "Everything that is said is merely illusory admissions that do not reflect any real intention to realize this right."

Al-Sabah believes that the positions of some European countries, such as Britain and France, and what Germany is trying to push for, are a waste of the truth and a departure from the essence of the issue, noting that the British Foreign Secretary's recent statement reflected a profound awareness of the magnitude of the tragedy.

Why haven't you moved since 1948?

But Al-Sabah asks: "If you realize all this now, why haven't you acted since 1948? And where have you been regarding UN Resolutions 181 and 194 throughout these decades?"

Al-Sabah asserts that the international community only implemented the part of Partition Resolution 181 pertaining to the establishment of a Jewish state, while ignoring the Palestinian entity and the international entity (Jerusalem). He asserts that these three entities, defined by the resolution as a Palestinian entity, a Jewish entity, and an international entity, were unified economic entities, without dividing borders. Al-Sabah points out that the basic condition of the Balfour Declaration, which was not to harm the civil and political rights of the indigenous people of Palestine, was completely ignored.

Al-Sabah emphasizes that recognition of a Palestinian state must be based on clear legal foundations, based on international legitimacy resolutions, and not on a selective vision that ignores binding historical decisions.

Al-Sabah says: "It is a shame that these decisions remain suspended, while they are being discussed again today in a weak and postponed manner, instead of being implemented as is."

Al-Sabah affirmed that the only possible and just solution is the implementation of Resolutions 181 and 194, emphasizing that the Palestinian leadership and people must not accept any other alternatives and must firmly adhere to these resolutions as the basis for any future political solution.

Powered by Froala Editor