RECENTLY, there has been much discussion in the official political circles of several Western countries regarding their intention to recognise the Palestinian state, some explicitly and clearly, and others rather more ambiguously.

In principle, any recognition of the State of Palestine, and what it implies in terms of a timid recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, is welcomed irrespective of the cynical motivations that might lie behind the move in some cases.

We are all well aware that this mooted recognition did not come about as a result of a sudden awakening of conscience among some Western leaders, particularly those whose states bear historical responsibility for the successive tragedies inflicted upon the Palestinian people from the beginning of the last century right up to this very day, and those that also bear a significant part of the responsibility for the currently unfolding genocide of the Palestinian people.

This culpability is borne through the continuous, unconscionable supplying of the Israeli occupying forces with the weaponry they are using in their onslaught, as well as their utter shameful unwillingness to rein in the Tel Aviv regime and bring about a halt to the inflicting of starvation upon the people of Gaza, and to ensure the delivery of desperately needed humanitarian aid.

It is quite legitimate for observers around the world to remain sceptical of the intentions of the newest proponents of Palestinian statehood, especially given the level of ambiguity as to what it is they actually envisage. There is a lack of any clear reference to its borders, mechanism for its establishment, and indeed the caveats necessary for such recognition.

Consider that more than 145 member states of the UN have already recognised Palestine, and that the UN general assembly did so back in 2012 — as a non-member observer state — as well as the countless international resolutions passed that support the Palestinian right to self-determination and statehood without laying down any pathway to such recognition being turned into reality.

It is far from cynical to assume that these latest developments are unlikely to change anything on the ground.

For as long as Israel continues to enjoy the impunity afforded to it by the international community, and faces no material censure or sanction — not even from the states mooting the recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN general assembly in September — this disastrous impasse will remain.

For as long as these governments fail to take any positive action to back up their statements by pressuring Israel into bringing an immediate end to the onslaught and presence in Gaza the current moves will have at best only symbolic value.

Sending convoys delivering humanitarian aid to the starving, insisting that Israel allow their safe and unfettered passage or indeed putting pressure on Israel to reverse its criminal decision to expand settlements in the West Bank and oppose its stated intention to a full annexation of the territory — defined under international law as belonging to a future Palestinian state — are essential for a just and lasting resolution of this conflict.

Furthermore, it simply cannot remain the case that the right to self-determination in historical Palestine is solely the preserve of Jewish Israelis through the enactment and carrying into effect of the “Nation State” law passed in summer 2018.

After 22 months of genocide “livestreamed to the world” and continued campaigns and demonstrations in solidarity with the Palestinian people many Western governments are rightly nervous in the face of the growing pressure in their societies and the domestic political fallout, particularly at the ballot box.

It could well be the case that these positive shifts in stance are merely temporary — until the proverbial heat dies down — thus, we bear witness to Keir Starmer’s qualification that Britain will only recognise Palestine if the war in Gaza does not end or if aid is not allowed in.

This appears to mean that even a ceasefire, temporary truce, or other ruse by the Netanyahu regime, could quite possibly result in an about-turn by Downing Street. This is despite the fact that self-determination is the right of the Palestinian people, recognised in international law, numerous UN resolutions and that it is not somehow a Starmer’s “gift” to bestow upon the Palestinian people.  

It is therefore vital that the public campaign and demonstrations in Britain continue with the same undiminished momentum and strength even in the event of a truce.

Campaigners should also remain vigilant to the seemingly deliberate ambiguity and vagueness when it comes to talk over the borders of a Palestinian state, where exactly those lines would be drawn, the conditions for its establishment, and the nature of its relations with the occupying state.  

This would point to recognition in name only, devoid of any real practical substance.

The respective UN resolutions and international law on the issue of borders — namely those as of June 4 1967 — with East Jerusalem as its capital, and enshrined in law the right of return for all Palestinian refugees. This is the definitive reiteration of the two-state solution, one which should not be retreated from.

Almost two years on from the launch of this catastrophic war — the Second Nakba — on the pretext of the events of Saturday October 7, the apartheid regime in Tel Aviv would have the world believe that the current disastrous predicament in Palestine as well as that more widely in the Middle East all stems from that day. Nowhere is the reality mentioned of over a century of wanton imperialist meddling, 77 years of colonialism and displacement, and 58 years of brutal occupation and apartheid, interspersed throughout with horrific violence on another scale meted out to the Palestinian people.

Without a definitive and equitable resolution of this terrible conflict, and the continued intransigence and appeasement of Israel’s attempts to kill off any hope for the two-state solution, neither Palestine nor the wider region will have any hope of enduring peace or stability.  

The only acceptable solution and feasible way forward is through the auspices of the UN to ensure that Israel immediately and entirely ends its campaign of bloodshed in Gaza; withdraws from all territories it illegally occupied in the June 1967 war and thereafter; and that a Palestinian state be established within the aforementioned borders with the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and the release from Israeli gaols and detention of Palestinian prisoners. It will also require guarantees of an end to all foreign interference in its internal affairs.  

The future governance, politics, and course of developments in the countries of the Middle East are the sole remit of their respective peoples.

While recognition of Palestinian statehood is a step forward and to be welcomed, it is essential that it is not relegated to having a merely aesthetic value but is, in fact, the precursor to a fundamental and material redressing of this decades-long injustice by the international community and its mandated institutions — not least the UN.

The UN’s raison d’etre is in the balance — its inadequate policies of containing and managing the conflict should aim at an urgent resolution of it once and for all.

Aqel Taqaz is co-ordinator for international relations of the Palestinian People’s Party.