It Is Not Only Legal, But Just, And Necessary to Recognize Palestinian Statehood

"Free Palestine #2", Allisdare Hickson

Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the past few days has announced a plan that would recognize Palestinian statehood if the Israeli government does not agree to a ceasefire by September 2025. This move by the UK government is following (somewhat) in the steps of President Macron of France’s decision to recognize Palestinian statehood by September, and comes at a time when more and more moderate and liberal politicians are acknowledging the ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide in the Gaza strip. After his announcement however, some 40-odd top lawyers in the United Kingdom have spuriously signed a letter stating that it is illegal for the United Kingdom to recognize any Palestinian state for whatever reason. 

This is, in short, a completely fabricated hit job against the one moderately brave move that the Prime Minister has made in his tenure. The letter, signed by at least one Supreme Court Justice of the UK, argues that the recognition of a Palestinian state would violate the Montevideo Convention of 1933, as neither the government of Gaza nor the West Bank meet the criteria set out for statehood set out in that convention. These arguments ignore completely that the United Kingdom is not a signatory to the convention, and makes dubious legal claims that I will dismantle in the forthcoming text. 

First, the letter argues that neither Hamas in Gaza nor Fatah in the West Bank have the capacity to enter relations with foreign states. This is categorically false, Hamas (while admittedly a terrorist organization) was able to engage in foreign relations with the state of Israel with both Qatar and the United States as mediators for various ceasefire agreements (some of which lasted for the allotted amount of time with little to no violence). Fatah, on the other hand, was also the primary negotiating party for the PLO during the Oslo Peace Accords, and as such was very obviously able to engage in international relations. 

The letter also goes on to argue that the existence of these two parallel and diametrically opposed governments of Fatah and Hamas suggests that there is not a state with a clearly defined population and territory. This argument is ridiculous on the face of it, because it suggests that if the Montevideo Convention was in existence at the time of the American Civil War that neither party would’ve been Nation-States because they were ideologically opposed parallel governments. 

The letter also argues that because of the ideological leanings of Hamas and Fatah that they can not be recognized as states, which is also ridiculous because any range of ideologies can occupy the governments of nation-states. There have been governments that have never held elections (like Vatican City, or Saudi Arabia) and there are certainly governments that are led by ideologies that we may well disagree with, to say that only a secular liberal democratic state could be recognized in Palestine because we declare it so is categorically false and ridiculous. 

The letter as a whole serves as an important reminder that even with the increasing popularity of pro-Palestinian policies and messaging among all nations and most politicians, that there are still fierce opponents of the Palestinian people and human rights among us, and we must remain vigilant, passionate, and vociferous in our critiques of the genocidal and imperial project of the Israeli government. There are many people whose lives, homes, and dignity relies on us using our privileged voices to bring attention back to their daily struggles.