UK recognizes Palestinian state, warns Israel against retaliation as UN peace efforts intensify

The United Kingdom announced on Sunday that it recognizes a Palestinian state, joining Canada, Australia and Portugal in extending recognition. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the move was intended to revive the hope of peace and support a two-state solution, while affirming Britain’s view that security for both Israelis and Palestinians must be safeguarded. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the decision, calling it a “huge reward to terrorism.”

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, speaking to the BBC while in New York for a United Nations General Assembly meeting, said she had warned Israel not to use the recognition as a pretext to annex parts of the West Bank. She said she told the Israeli leadership that they must not take any steps that would derail the prospect of a negotiated two-state solution and that the UK would continue to work with partners across the region to advance security for both peoples.”

Cooper emphasized that extremists on both sides threaten the path to peace and described the British decision as a moral obligation to revive the international pursuit of a two-state framework. She noted that the decision to recognize a Palestinian state should not be understood as a final settlement of borders or as a change in security arrangements, and she cautioned that halting progress would prolong suffering in the region. She also did not specify when Britain’s Consulate General in East Jerusalem would become a full embassy, saying it would remain a consulate while a diplomatic process proceeded with the Palestinian Authority.

The foreign secretary spoke in New York, where the UN General Assembly session is underway and where France will co-chair a meeting with Saudi Arabia addressing the path to a two-state solution. Belgium is expected to follow France’s lead with its own recognition declaration at the gathering. The United Nations gathering serves as a platform for allied states to attempt to align a broader framework for peace in the Middle East.

Prime Minister Starmer insisted the move was not a reward for Hamas or any extremist faction, arguing that the terms of recognition render Hamas ineligible for future governance or security roles. The government said the decision was a pledge to Israelis and Palestinians that there can be a better future, noting the devastation in Gaza and calling for an end to starvation and suffering. The U.S. administration likewise criticized the move when it described it as a diplomatic gift to Hamas, but Britain maintained that Hamas would have no place in a future Palestinian state under the terms of recognition.

In a related statement ahead of the General Assembly, the Foreign Office reiterated that violent groups like Hamas would have no future role in the state of Palestine. The British stance aligns with ongoing international efforts to revive a two-state framework, even as some regional actors push for immediate steps on recognition and statehood while negotiations remain unresolved.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the British decision, saying it could help pave the way for a Palestinian state to live side by side with Israel in security, peace and good neighbourliness. While roughly three-quarters of the UN’s 193 members already recognize a Palestinian state, there is still no internationally agreed border, capital or standing army, leaving recognition largely symbolic without a defined territorial framework.

Analysts describe the envisioned two-state solution as a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital, broadly along pre-1967 lines. The path to such an arrangement has long depended on robust regional and international support, security guarantees, and a sustained political process with both sides committed to ending violence and recognizing each other’s rights.

The broader regional and international context remains deeply volatile. Last week, a UN-backed commission of inquiry concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza in a three-page report, while the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) circulated a separate resolution detailing actions it described as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel rejected the report as baseless and misleading, attributing the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza to Hamas and humanitarian aid constraints rather than a systemic policy by Israel. Gaza’s humanitarian crisis has persisted as the conflict nears the end of its second year, with tens of thousands dead and aid agencies warning of famine conditions in Gaza City. The dynamics of these findings continue to influence international reactions to recent moves toward recognizing Palestinian statehood and pursuing a peace framework.