THE claim by several peers in the House of Lords that recognising a Palestinian state would be in breach of international law has been branded a "cynical ploy" and "deplorable".
On Thursday, around 40 members of the unelected second chamber wrote to Attorney General Richard Hermer, suggesting that the criteria for recognising Palestine had not been met under the Montevideo Convention – a Pan-American treaty signed in 1933.
The Convention, signed by 17 signatories in the Americas, set out four key criteria for statehood. The UK was not a signatory.
Richard McNeil-Willson, who lectures in the Islamic and Middle Eastern studies department at Edinburgh University, said that the interpretation was “not only ludicrous” by a “cynical” interpretation of the treaty.
And, Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said it was “deplorable” that peers were trying to use legal technicalities while a genocide is underway.
The criteria under the Montevideo Convention sets out that a state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and capacity to enter into relations with other states.
But, McNeil-Willson explained there are several issues with that argument, adding that it was a “spoiler attempt” to stop Palestinians from having “basic rights”.
“It’s very bizarre that this has been focused on by the 43 peers and signatories who essentially put forward these arguments that Palestine doesn't meet any of the four criteria," he said.
“You can look at this from a technical point of view, the letter of the law, and you can say, well clearly Palestine has a permanent population.
“It also has borders, and it has borders that are internationally recognised, and they are recognised under the International Court of Justice.”
“The [Montevideo Convention] doesn’t care what kind of government is in place, if it's a democratic organisation, they wouldn’t care if it’s non-democratic authoritarian – that doesn’t stop it from being recognised as a state,” he added.
“Equally, the idea that it’s a terrorist organisation – if you look at contemporary international relations, the recognition of the Taliban as a government in Afghanistan, despite it being previously seen by the US and lots of Europe as a terrorist organisation.
“Then there’s the HTS [Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham] in Syria which is now being recognised as the legitimate government of Syria, that doesn’t change Syria’s righteousness as a state. None of these ideas make any sense.”
McNeil-Willson added that under the interpretation put forward by the peers in the letter, the 147 states that have already recognised Palestine, including Mexico, Brazil, and Chile, who also signed the Montevideo Convention, are already in violation of international law.
“The arguments they’re putting forward – that the population isn’t permanent, the borders aren’t recognised – are a direct result of Israel’s genocide, of its bombing and its invasion,” he added.
“It’s not only ludicrous, it’s a very cynical view of the conflict that in no way takes Israel’s role into account.”
He added: “To Israel, the existence of Palestine is a threat. To Palestinians, it’s simply a way of proclaiming basic human rights that should be granted to them.”
Scottish Greens co-leader Harvie said that recognition of Palestine as a state is “long overdue”.
“It must be just the first step of many toward achieving peace, security and justice for the Palestinian people,” he added.
“The current genocide must end, the occupation must end, and the international community must finally take action against the state of Israel for its dehumanisation of Palestinians and hold war criminals accountable.”
We previously told how Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the UK Government would follow France’s lead and officially recognise Palestinian statehood in September if Israel and Hamas do not agree to a ceasefire.
