A PALESTINIAN man has accused Keir Starmer of using his country “as a stick to beat Israel with”, as he insisted the state of Palestine is not currently “feasible”.
The Prime Minister announced last week that the UK would recognise the state of Palestine next month, but only if Israel does not meet a set of conditions which include agreeing a ceasefire, allowing in aid to the starving population of Gaza and engaging in a peace process which leads to a two-state solution.
But Glasgow-based Wael Shawish, who is originally from Jerusalem and has family in Gaza, has said the conditional plan set out by Starmer is an “insult” to Palestinians and is meaningless unless it is accompanied by tangible sanctions, such as an end to arms sales to Israel.
“It doesn’t seem to be a genuine statement. They need to satisfy Palestinians – not just Starmer but other world leaders in the West – on why they are doing it now,” Shawish, who is part of the Scottish Palestinian Society, told the Sunday National.
“I think there are a number of reasons [it is being done now] – one is that there is so much unhappiness in the West among the populations of these countries that makes the government divorced from the opinion of their people.
“So they want to do something to say ‘okay, we are with you, you are angry, we are angry, we are taking steps and the step is to recognise the state of Palestine’ not because the Palestinians deserve a state, but because Israel is misbehaving and we are punishing it by recognising Palestine.
“That is not the right way to go about it. We shouldn’t be used as a stick to hit Israel with. We should get recognition because we deserve it. To use it as a bargaining chip to hit Israel with is an insult to us.
"The only way this announcement could be meaningful is if it is coupled with sanctions or stopping exporting arms to Israel."
On Starmer, Shawish (below) added: “With all due respect to the guy, who was supposed to be a high-flying international lawyer, his knowledge of international law to start with seems to be doubtful."
Canada has since indicated that it will recognise a Palestinian state, but there are again conditions, such as the Palestinian Authority committing to elections and other democratic reforms with no involvement from Hamas.
Shawish claimed Starmer and other world leaders may be starting to worry about their complicity in war crimes being carried out in Gaza and so have felt compelled to make an “empty gesture”.
“Some of them [Western world leaders], having seen the images of the starving children, now can recognise that they cannot argue about the death toll as being part of the battle, as collateral damage,” he said.
“It is now clear that there is a starvation plan in place to starve the Palestinian people and when these leaders actually provide weapons to Israel, to kill whoever they can kill, with British weapons […] these leaders are now worried that if somebody goes to the international courts, they could actually stand before the courts for being complicit, if not partners, in that genocide that is taking place.”
A group of legal figures in the House of Lords claimed last week that the UK recognising Palestine would not be compatible with international law, citing a Pan-American treaty from 1933 – to which the UK was not a signatory.
There are several signatories of the Montevideo Convention who recognised Palestine as a state.
An expert explained to The National that it was a “cynical ploy” by peers and a “ludicrous” interpretation of the treaty.
The SNP have said they will press ahead with a vote on recognising [[Palestine]], saying that it must be based on “principle, not preconditions”.
But, like Starmer, the party has still been speaking of a “two-state solution that we all wish to see”.
Dr Richard McNeil-Willson, a Middle East expert at Edinburgh University, said he did not believe a two-state solution was viable, adding that if state recognition is to happen, there needs to be “serious discussions” on what that state looks like.
In a piece for The Conversation, law lecturer Malak Benslama-Dabdoub – based at Royal Holloway University of London – also outlined how analysts have warned that recognition of this kind risks formalising a state in name only and Palestine would end up a “fragmented, non-sovereign entity without control over its borders, resources or defence”.
Shawish – who recently said his family member came back from an aid point with a gunshot wound – is in agreement and said he does not believe in the viability of a Palestinian state.
He said: “Even if recognition says the West Bank and Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, subject to the borders of 1967, is that feasible? You’ve got one million Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Can you get them out?
“If you can’t, is there any point in having a state that is a Swiss cheese shape where there are pockets of Israel's settlements in the middle of the state all over the place?
“How viable is that state going to be? How independent or sovereign? I don’t believe in the feasibility of a Palestinian state.
“I don’t see the two states that Starmer is talking about as a viable option. It is too late. Maybe 25 years ago it was possible, not today.”
A UK Government spokesperson said: "We have announced our intention to recognise [[Palestine]] in September to protect the viability of the two-state solution. The first step in that process must be a ceasefire and there is no question about that.
“Our demands on Hamas have not changed. For there to be any chance of peace, the hostages must be released. Hamas must lay down its weapons and commit to having no future role in the governance of Gaza.
“We must also see significant progress on the ground including the supply of humanitarian support and for Israel to rule out annexations in the West Bank, and a commitment to a long-term sustainable peace. We will make an assessment ahead of UNGA [The UN General Assembly] on how far both Israel and Hamas have met the steps we set out. No one side will have a veto on recognition through their actions or inactions."
