United Kingdom (U.K.)

Recent statements by France, the United Kingdom, and Canada—subsequently echoed by other European states—on their intention to recognise a Palestinian state in September mark a notable transformation in the policies of major Western powers toward the Palestinian question. This development comes against the backdrop of the deepening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, manifested in widespread famine and a death toll exceeding 60,000, which has further amplified international calls for an urgent political resolution to the decades-long Israeli–Palestinian conflict.   The announcements from Paris, London, and Ottawa—particularly France’s unconditional pledge alongside the conditional approaches adopted by the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada—represent a clear departure from traditional diplomatic norms, which had long tied recognition of a Palestinian state to the conclusion of a comprehensive negotiated peace agreement. This shift reflects mounting frustration over the stalled peace process, coupled with a growing conviction that conventional pathways have ceased to yield results. Recognition of Palestine is now increasingly seen not merely as the outcome of peace but as an instrument to catalyse the political process, thereby reshaping the diplomatic tools available for addressing the conflict and establishing a precedent that other states may exploit to strengthen international pressure.   At the international level, between 140 and 147 of the 193 UN member states already recognise Palestine as a sovereign state. This broad consensus provides the reference framework for understanding the recent decisions taken by France, the UK, and Canada. Notably, these three countries are all members of the G7, none of which had taken such a step before France’s declaration. France—Europe’s most populous nation—thus emerges as a prominent actor in this diplomatic shift, with both France and Canada poised to become the first G7 states to extend formal recognition to Palestine.   By contrast, the U.S. remains the sole permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that has yet to recognise the State of Palestine. This imbues the current shift with symbolic weight, laying the groundwork for a recalibration of diplomatic pressure on both Israel and the U.S., and potentially encouraging other hesitant Western states to follow suit. The divergence of positions within the Atlantic powers also underscores how internal pressures and the urgency of the humanitarian crisis have shaped the emergence of more assertive stances. Against this backdrop, this analysis explores the drivers behind this shift and its political and security implications for the states concerned, alongside the anticipated responses from Israel and the U.S.

While most electoral debates focus on domestic politics, foreign policy remains a crucial aspect. It seems, however, that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was aware of this when he appointed David Cameron as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Regardless of who wins, most likely the Labour Party, there will definitely be changes to the current situation. Issues ranging from relations with European neighbours to migration and defence are ready for the upcoming prime minister.

This article was originally published on Ahram Online on June 11, 2024.   In April 2022, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda under the newly enacted "Safety of Rwanda Bill." This bill generated significant controversy and was described as incompatible with the U.K.'s legal obligations. Both the British Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the bill violated legal obligations and was incompatible with international conventions to which the U.K. is a signatory. In June 2022, the first flight carrying asylum seekers from the U.K. to Rwanda was cancelled minutes before take-off after the European Court of Human Rights issued last-minute commands to stop it. Two years later, with a new Prime Minister in office and despite international legal pressure, Parliament has finally passed the bill. However, the controversy has not ended. The high economic costs and concerns over human rights continue to render the Safety of Rwanda Bill contentious and problematic.