The foreign secretary, David Cameron, recently surprised observers by raising the possibility of the UK recognising a Palestinian state before the end of a peace process with Israel. The US has also said it could recognise a Palestinian state after the war in Gaza and is reportedly drawing up policy options along these lines. These seem like remarkable developments amid the carnage of the Israeli assault on Gaza. But do they constitute a breakthrough that could lead to a positive outcome in the Middle East, or will they result in the formalisation of the Israeli occupation? The devil is in the detail.
The Israeli occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem (as well as the Golan Heights and Sinai) began in 1967, and was followed by the UN security council resolution 242, which spelled out the way forward. For decades, the resolution, underpinned by a singular principle, served as the basis for negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbours. The principle was simple: a pre-condition of peace would be Israel withdrawing from the territories it occupied in 1967. The resolution was supported by the US, and subsequent resolutions have all backed that same recognition that the acquisition of territory by military force is illegitimate in today’s world. It’s a pillar of the international order and is supposed to distinguish us from the great power politics of the pre-second world war era.
