Britain’s long road to recognising Palestine

The United Kingdom has formally recognised Palestine as a state. But Britain has see-sawed between a single and two state solution over the last century. In doing so, it has managed to anger Arab and Jewish opinion equally. So, how seriously should we view the recent tilt to a two-state approach?

On 21 September 2025, London declared its support for a Palestinian state to protect the ‘viability of a two-state solution’. It made the announcement with Gaza lying in ruins after nearly a year of sustained bombardment by Israeli forces. Within the UK, there has been increasing alarm and disgust at the scenes of carnage and destruction emerging from the conflict.

The government pledged to support “a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state led by a reformed Palestinian Authority” with no role for Hamas. UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper declared that “Hamas are not the Palestinian people” but a “barbaric terrorist organisation”. This move is the latest development in a troubled history between Britain and Palestine.

A century of contradictions: Britain's shifting stance on Palestine

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France carved up the sultan’s territory in the Levant between them. Palestine moved into the British sphere of control with decisions on its future made far away in London. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration saw Britain commit to a Jewish state on Palestinian soil. This was despite promising the Arab world an independent Palestine and telling the French it would be internationally administered. The result of the declaration was waves of Jewish immigration into Palestine.

By 1936, Palestine had descended into conflict. Arab Palestinians attacked British military bases and expanding Jewish settlements. While a determined Zionist insurgency also lashed out at the British. London viewed this as one of several thorny colonial issues that needed an experienced British Empire administrator to sort out. Lord Peel, a former Secretary of State for India, was sent to resolve the Palestinian question.

In 1937, his report recommended partition. With tragic foresight, he drew a line creating a future Jewish state, a Palestinian territory, and the area around Jerusalem as an international zone under British jurisdiction. Arab leaders were horrified while Zionists saw it as a first step towards a larger Jewish state. Violence erupted and Peel, already unwell, died that same year.

Two years later, Britain changed its mind. As the Second World War loomed, London wanted support from across the Arab world to protect its colonies from German and Japanese invasion. So now the British claimed that while the Jews had been given a homeland, that did not mean the creation of a Jewish state at the expense of Palestinians. It also meant placing curbs on Jewish migrants.

In a heated House of Commons debate in May 1939, the Colonial Secretary Malcolm MacDonald called for a single state solution. He explained: “It might be a unitary state, it might be a federal state, it might be a state in which there was a predominantly Arab province and a predominantly Jewish province each enjoying an amount of local autonomy but with a federal government to deal with matters of concern.”

Within Britain’s political establishment, opinions were divided. Up until recent times, the Foreign Office in London was viewed by Zionists as a nest of “Arabists” with little sympathy for the Jewish point of view. Equally, forces on the Left and Right, for different reasons, were seen as anti-Arab and wholly supportive of Zionism.

Symbolism or substance? The 2025 recognition of Palestine

Nicola Perugini is a senior lecturer at the University of Edinburgh School of Social and Political Science. He sums up the historical contradiction in the UK’s 2025 two-state position:

"The UK’s recognition is a historic decision from the very state that planted the seeds of denying Palestinian self-determination in 1917 with the imperial Balfour Declaration. The UK has also been complicit in the destruction of Gaza since 2023 by providing diplomatic, military, and economic support to a state which is perpetrating genocide against the population of the state the UK has recognised. Without an arms embargo and diplomatic and economic isolation, the UK will merely have recognized what it has simultaneously been helping to erase.”

Elizabeth Monier is Assistant Professor of Modern Arabic Studies at the University of Cambridge and agrees that while recognition marks a significant shift in UK policy, it’s all largely symbolic. “Over a century later, Britain’s recognition arrives too little, too late for many, though for others it revives hope for a two-state solution. Yet the UK no longer wields the global influence it had in 1917, and efforts to resolve the ongoing crisis in Gaza and advance peace remain stalled, largely due to the United States’ continued use of its UN veto.”

Public pressure and political calculations behind the UK’s policy shift

Simon Mabon, Professor of International Politics at Lancaster University, points out that the ruling Labour Party in the UK committed to recognition in their 2024 general election manifesto. Nothing happened for a year, but he believes “fears that opportunities for a two-state solution were diminishing seemingly prompted the decision”.

Another factor was undoubtedly pressure within the party and wider public to show support for Palestine, evidenced by large demonstrations in British cities condemning the Israeli action in Gaza. Surveys have shown a steep erosion in support for Israel among Britons and growing sympathy for Palestine. This could result in a long-term tilt away from Israel in the next few years.