A Downing Street spokesperson denied that there had been a shift in the government’s position when it came to recognising a Palestinian state following comments made by the foreign secretary yesterday.
Facing questions from the House of Lords’ International Relations and Defence Committee, David Lammy told peers: “No one has a veto on when the UK recognises that Palestinian state … We have always said that recognition is not an end in of itself and we will prefer recognition as a part of a process to two states.”
Referencing reports that France is lining up its own recognition announcement for this June at a New York conference jointly hosted with Saudi Arabia, he added: “President Macron has had a lot to say about that, most recently, alongside the Saudis, and of course we are in discussion with them at this time.”
His remarks generated intense speculation in the press, with The Guardian reporting that Lammy had confirmed that the UK was “in talks” with Paris over recognition.
However, Downing Street denied there had been a shift in the government’s “longstanding position” in relation to the conflict. Recognising a Palestinian state as part of a contribution to a renewed peace process that would result in a two-state solution remains the UK’s aim, they confirmed.
Labour’s manifesto at the 2024 general election described Palestinian statehood as “the inalienable right of the Palestinian people”.
It went on: “It is not in the gift of any neighbour and is also essential to the long-term security of Israel. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.”
On Monday, the prime minister met with his Palestinian Authority counterpart, Mohammad Mustafa, in London, marking the first official PA prime ministerial visit to the UK since 2021.
During the meetings, Mustafa and Lammy signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing to advancing Palestinian statehood as part of a two-state solution, recognising the PA as the only legitimate governing entity in the occupied Palestinian Territories and emphasising the importance of re-unifying Gaza under PA control.
The government also announced a £101m package of aid to the PA, which it said was “directed at humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development, and strengthening Palestinian Authority governance and reform”.
Lammy said that Mustafa’s visit was “a significant step in strengthening our relationship with the Palestinian Authority - a key partner for peace in the Middle East”.
He added: "The UK is clear that there can be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza and we are committed to working with the Palestinian Authority as the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
“We will not give up on the two-state solution, with a Palestinian state and Israel living side-by-side in peace, dignity and security. I reaffirm the UK’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to that process, at a time that has the greatest impact.”
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel accused the government of having an “incoherent” approach to recognition.
Responding to a statement on the memorandum, she said: “The MOU provides no clarity on the long-term intentions, conditions or timing of this happening.
“We are not at the point of recognition, and that recognition cannot be the start of the process”.
Several MPs, including the Liberal Democrats’ Alastair Charmichael, questioned why the government hadn’t already recognised Palestinian statehood, to which Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer responded, telling the chamber: “There are complex final-status determination issues that would underpin any recognition. No two-state solution will be straightforward without significant negotiation, diplomacy and agreement on both sides. As I have set out, recognition remains our goal, but let us not pretend that it is a straightforward decision without complexity.”
