A group of nearly 40 members of the House of Lords, among them key legal experts, have submitted a letter to the Attorney General warning that the UK’s unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state could breach international law.
The law under spotlight is the Montevideo Convention, signed in 1933, which outlines four key criteria for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity for international relations.
The letter argued that a proposed Palestinian state does not have a defined territory or a single government with the capacity for diplomatic relations.
This is absolutely correct. A would-be Palestinian state is not fulfilling all of these criteria. For example, regarding a defined territory, it is unclear what a Palestinian state is geographically referring to. Currently, the Palestinian territories primarily refer to the Gaza Strip, the so-called West Bank (Judea and Samaria), and east Jerusalem. They are shamefully referred to as ‘occupied territories’; however, they have never been part of a Palestinian state. The term ‘disputed’ would be a more accurate term to apply in the international law context. However, Israel is correct to assert sovereignty over these territories. Starmer, Macron, and others, failing to define borders of a so-called Palestinian state, leave an ambiguity that only serves the ambitions of those who are determined to see a Palestinian state in place of Israel, ‘from the river to the sea’. They also have no right to define such borders, which would potentially divide Jerusalem. It is completely dishonourable to Israel.
Secondly, there is no effective government. Hamas controls Gaza; the Palestinian Authority governs the West Bank. Hamas is clearly unfit to govern, and the Palestinian Authority needs to stop its support for terrorism against Israel. There is nothing ‘effective’ about any current Palestinian leadership.
Is there a permanent population? It largely depends on borders. But what would the population of a recognised Palestinian state look like? While the State of Israel gives citizenship to Jew and Arab alike, would a Palestinian state accept Jews?
The fourth stipulation is the capacity to enter relations with other states. On the one hand, a Palestinian state would have no problem being accepted by the international community. The UN is already obsessed with a Palestinian state. However, there is one state – the most important state in this sense – that a Palestinian state would need relations with: the State of Israel. So many in the Palestinian leadership refuse to recognise Israel, yet this condition is being brazenly omitted by Western leaders who call for a ‘two-state solution’.
Among the letter’s signatories were former Supreme Court justice Lord Collins, leading international law barrister Lord Verdirame KC and Lord Faulks KC, a prominent human rights lawyer.
They were joined by former refugee minister Lord Harrington and the government’s erstwhile independent advisor on political violence Lord Walney, as well as former cabinet ministers Lord Pickles, Lord Lansley, Sir Michael Ellis KC and Lord Hamilton, and the former First Minister of Northern Ireland, Baroness Foster.
“We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law,” they wrote to Hermer, adding:
“You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this government and its approach to foreign policy.
“You have said that a selective ‘pick and mix’ approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.
“Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law. We look forward to your response.”
Please act today:
1. EMAIL YOUR MP (incl. Foreign Secretary)
2. SIGN THE PETITION
3. SHARE THE PETITION
