UK recognition of Palestine: Will it make any difference?

Despite the historic change in stance, the UK’s move will not change Prime Minister Netanyahu’s mind. Keir Starmer may soon face more domestic pressure to explore other forms of leverage.

Expert comment

Published 23 September 2025 — 4 minute READ

Image — Protesters wave Palestinian flags at the Palace of Westminster, London, during a demonstration in support of Gaza in June 2025. (Photo by ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP via Getty Images)

Professor Christopher Phillips

Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme and UK in the World Programme

On Sunday afternoon UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that Britain would formally recognize the state of Palestine. A day later the red, white, green and black flag was ceremonially raised over the Palestine Mission in Hammersmith to an applauding crowd. London has gained a new embassy and a British ambassador will head to the West Bank. But will Starmer’s declaration make any difference to prospects for a ceasefire in Gaza, or a two-state solution?

Critics of Starmer say no. UK Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch declared it was ‘absolutely disastrous’ and ‘rewarding terrorism with no conditions whatsoever put in place for Hamas’, emphasizing that it would neither free Israel’s hostages nor stop the suffering in Gaza.

From the other side, some pro-Palestinian voices charge that recognition is too little too late. An unnamed Labour MP told the BBC that London was ‘behind the curve’, given over three quarters of UN members had already recognized Palestine. 

Simon Opher, a doctor and Labour MP who was recently denied entry to the West Bank, said the government needed to pressure Israel by opting out of arms deals and exploring trade sanctions – something many have been calling for since the Gaza conflict began.

Starmer insisted that the goal was ‘to revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution’. Yet the UK has been committed to a two-state solution since the 1990s. Previously its position has been to withhold recognizing Palestine until the conclusion of a successful peace process. 

It has apparently abandoned that stance because of the belated realization that the two-state solution is being destroyed by conflict in Gaza and aggressive settlement building by Israel in the West Bank.

Pressure on Israel

Some in government believe this symbolic act will offer hope to desperate Palestinians. But the more hard-headed know it is primarily designed to pressure Israel. Starmer acknowledged as much in July, when he demanded that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fulfil an unlikely list of conditions, including a Gaza ceasefire and committing to a two-state solution, to avoid UK recognition of Palestine. 

If Starmer’s goal was to use recognition as leverage, it evidently has not worked. The threat of recognition did not prevent Israel from re-invading Gaza City and launching an attack on Hamas’s negotiating team in Qatar. And, following Sunday’s announcement, Netanyahu has only responded with a pledge that a two-state solution ‘will not happen’.

This is a familiar story. The Labour government has incrementally increased its criticism of Israel over the past year, ending some arms licenses, cancelling trade talks and sanctioning two far right ministers. None of this had any effect. The approach reflects both Starmer’s caution and the UK’s limited influence.

As Opher noted, there are sharper tools in Britain’s arsenal, including sanctions. The UK could also cut all arm sales. Only 30 of 350 arms export licenses were revoked, and London continues to supply components for Israel’s F-35 jets. 

Confident of continued US backing, Netanyahu’s right-wing government looks set to defy international criticism.

But Starmer has shown little inclination to take such measures, aware that, among other risks, it might anger US President Donald Trump. Moreover, Israel receives less than 1 per cent of its arms from the UK, while only about 3 per cent of its trade is with Britain. That means even these punitive measures could be withstood by Israel, especially provided Washington, its main arms supplier and trade partner, remains by its side.

Some would argue that Starmer’s real goal is to mollify critics within his own party. In July, half of Labour MPs signed a letter demanding the UK recognize Palestine, something that was included in the 2024 party manifesto. 

The same month The Economist reported that 90 per cent of Labour members want Starmer to be more critical of Israel. Five Labour MPs lost their seat at the last election to single issue pro-Palestinian candidates. And with Starmer’s authority weakened by a series of U-turns and backbench rebellions over welfare reforms, domestic factors were clearly a factor in Sunday’s announcement.

A long-term effect

Given Britain’s limited leverage it would be easy to conclude that UK recognition will make little difference on the ground.

In the short term, this is probably true. Despite the UK being joined by France, Canada, Australia and others, Netanyahu has shown no interest in compromising on either Gaza or on the two-state solution. Confident of continued US backing, Netanyahu’s right-wing government looks set to defy international criticism. Recognition could even make the situation worse, with some Israeli ministers proposing annexing all or part of the West Bank as a retaliation to the wave of recognitions.

In the long term though, the recognition announcements this week are contributing to the increased isolation of Israel. The UK has been a long-term ally, as has France and Australia, but even their governments (and, importantly, their publics) are appalled by Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza.

Crucially it may help embolden the few Middle Eastern states that have diplomatic links with Israel, like the UAE, Jordan and Egypt, to consider severing ties. That will grow more likely if any West Bank annexations were to go ahead – a red line according to Abu Dhabi.

Were Israel to annex parts of the West Bank, or if conditions in Gaza continue to deteriorate, London…will need to act. That will mean looking for the next tool in their box of relatively blunt diplomatic instruments.

As The Economist recently revealed, even in the US both Democrat and Republican voters are showing more hostility to Israel. These developments hold out the possibility – and it is only a slim possibility – of either Washington shifting its stance under pressure from voters, or the Israeli public rejecting Netanyahu’s maximalist approach for fear of becoming international pariahs. Both scenarios seem a long way off. But perhaps this is the source of some of the ‘hope’ in Starmer’s statement.  

In the meantime, Starmer must be aware that this recognition is a beginning, not an end. Unless the Gaza war miraculously ends soon and the peace process is revived, the pressure to act will only grow. 

Were Israel to annex parts of the West Bank, or if conditions in Gaza continue to deteriorate, London (along with other governments that have recognized Palestine) will need to act. That will mean looking for the next tool in their box of relatively blunt diplomatic instruments.

The EU Commission recently floated the idea of restricting trade with Israel and sanctioning more ministers, something Starmer would be pressured to mirror. Yet such actions would risk a reaction by President Trump, whom London has worked hard to keep on side. 

In a few days’ time, recognition will probably have faded from the front pages. But the government will still face a catastrophe in Gaza they are relatively powerless to stop, while coming under considerable domestic pressure to act.