The United Kingdom has formally recognised a Palestinian state, a landmark move that has drawn sharp criticism from Israel and set off ripples across global diplomacy. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcement marks the first time a major Western power — and former colonial authority in Palestine — has granted such recognition, signalling a shift in Western policy. Canada and Australia joined the UK in coordinated announcements, intensifying pressure on Israel while challenging the United States’ position.

 

The decision arrives ahead of a UN General Assembly summit on Gaza, spearheaded by France and Saudi Arabia, which aims to revive the two-state solution as the path to ending decades of conflict. France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Malta are also expected to follow suit, joining more than 145 UN members that already recognise Palestinian statehood.

 

In Israel, reactions were swift and divisive. Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called for immediate annexation of the West Bank, labelling the move a “prize for terrorists.” Opposition leader Benny Gantz warned recognition would embolden Hamas, complicating hostage negotiations and prolonging the war. Meanwhile, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum criticised Western governments for ignoring captives still held in Gaza.

 

Not all Israelis condemned the decision. Left-wing MP Ofer Cassif welcomed the recognition as a first step toward peace but urged it be followed by an arms embargo and international accountability measures. Some Israeli academics and citizens expressed unease with the timing, arguing the recognition came while missiles still target civilians and hostages remain in captivity.

 

The UK’s recognition, though largely symbolic, carries historic weight. As debates intensify, the move could mark a turning point in global engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reigniting the long-stalled push for a two-state solution.

 

Key Takeaways:

 

UK, Canada, and Australia recognise Palestine, challenging US stance.

 

Israeli leaders respond with anger, calling for annexation and retaliation.

 

Supporters argue recognition is a vital step toward lasting peace.

 

Original Source:

 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/9/21/israel-bristles-as-uk-leads-western-recognition-of-palestine

The UK is taking a stand where they have no skin in the game.  This is bravery. 

Comment on News article removed 

 

@Trippy

 

17.News articles are collected from recognised sources and may be consolidated or rewritten with AI assistance. Respectful discussion of the article content is welcome. Disrespectful comments about the articles, the use of AI, or the news team (e.g. “clickbait,” “slow news day,” mocking grammar, or AI taunts) are not permitted. Posts breaching this rule will be removed, and posting suspension or account closure may result. If you see an error in an article, please use the report function.

Too little, too late...

Zionist Israel forced the recognition, it can blame no one except its genocidal racist self.

1 hour ago, Mike_Hunt said:

The UK is taking a stand where they have no skin in the game.  This is bravery. 

They do have a rather large muslim population that they want to keep happy

Post and all replies, making  unsubstantiated claims removed. @sammieuk1

16 minutes ago, JimHuaHin said:

Zionist Israel forced the recognition, it can blame no one except its genocidal racist self.

Not a genocide.. It is self defence, they didn't start it, about 2000 Israelis have lost their lives since the Hamas attack.

Irrelevant comment removed 

 

@Peter Crow

Posts breaking forum rules removed.

 

@Tidal wave rules

 

 

13. You will not publicly comment on moderation in an open forum. You will not comment on actions taken by individual moderators or on specific or general policies and issues. You will not post a negative emoticon in response to a public notice made by a moderator. You may send a private message to a moderator to discuss individual actions or you can email [email protected]

 

18. Social media content is acceptable in most forums. However, in factual areas such as, but not limited to news, current affairs and health topics, social media cannot be used unless it is from a credible news media source or a government agency and must include a link to the original source. In some circumstances, a moderator may relax this rule and this will be determined on a case-by-case basis. If this rule is relaxed, a moderator will post a public notice explaining the limit and scope of the relaxation.

 

43. You will not post graphic or explicit images. ASEAN NOW strives to maintain a respectful and safe online environment for all community members.

48 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

Not a genocide.. It is self defence, they didn't start it, about 2000 Israelis have lost their lives since the Hamas attack.

It has gone way, way too far to be called self defence.

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It has gone way, way too far to be called self defence.

 

Hamas hasn't surrendered, why do you reinvent the rules of war, when jews are involved?

10 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

 

Hamas hasn't surrendered, why do you reinvent the rules of war, when jews are involved?

I was also puzzled by this. Also, when in the history of warfare was a country attacked by an aggressor expected to FEED and give aid to that aggressor? If makes no sense. The Allies didn't send food to Germany when the German populace was hungry in 1945, because the war was stll on. 

40 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I was also puzzled by this. Also, when in the history of warfare was a country attacked by an aggressor expected to FEED and give aid to that aggressor? If makes no sense. The Allies didn't send food to Germany when the German populace was hungry in 1945, because the war was stll on. 

 

An aggressor/occupier is expected to take care of the civilian population.  That much is law.

1 hour ago, Peter Crow said:

 

Hamas hasn't surrendered, why do you reinvent the rules of war, when jews are involved?

Since when had genocide and ethnic cleansing been within the ‘rules of war’?

6 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

An aggressor/occupier is expected to take care of the civilian population.  That much is law.

During battle?..

 

But mind you, the Gaza civilians are warned and advised to leave, every time ahead of any significant Israeli progression. And the whole operation could have been wrapped up in a couple of months, if Tsahal hadn't pussy footed to limit civilian casualties. The thing is that Hamas, for propaganda reasons, like keeping their human shields in position.

Oops

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Since when had genocide and ethnic cleansing been within the ‘rules of war’?

You like going in circles

57 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I was also puzzled by this. Also, when in the history of warfare was a country attacked by an aggressor expected to FEED and give aid to that aggressor? If makes no sense. The Allies didn't send food to Germany when the German populace was hungry in 1945, because the war was stll on. 

Bringing up the conduct of WW2 while ignoring the enacting post WW2 international conventions that were a direct result of the atrocities of that war.

“Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Article 55”

 

Enacted in 1949. Not applicable during WW2 but definitely applicable now.

13 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

You like going in circles

Except:

 

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds

It is not an unconditional recognition. In effect, it is more symbolic than anything else.

The UK declaration refers to a  Palestinian state in which Hamas is disarmed, plays no part in the future government, and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority is subject to elections within a year. PM Starmer stated; "Hamas can have "no future, no role in government, no role in security". The French declaration of last July requires Hamas to step aside. The Canadian recognition is  conditional upon the PLA instituting democratic reforms and for Hamas to step aside.

 

Now let's see if  Abbas will let go of power and agree to a free election subject to international observers. Let's see if the PLA actually implements the democrat changes and anti corruption measures required. And let's see if the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas agrees to go away.  It's Pie in the Sky intended to calm the Hamas supporters in the western countries and to demonstrate that the west is helping Palestinians. Empty words and empty gestures, because Palestinians will not have free access to western countries, nor will the Palestinans  be entering into trade and scientific R&D agreements because the  Palestinians have never invested in scientific research or civil society infrastructure. The big prestige education is to be an engineer, and prestige jobs are to be a business owner, a land owner,or a government official.

Unfortunately, most commentators either don't know the history of the conflict or they just don't care and they merely regurgitate commonly used talking points created by biased parties. If anyone cares to learn about the conflict, not from Netanyahu or the Israel lobby, but from reputable and independent sources, they would know that Israel is currently the occupier of the land and has been brutally subjugating Palestinians since Israel was created by the UN over 70 years ago. Israel is an apartheid state. However, Palestinians were already massacred by Zionist militia over 100 years ago when the area was a protectorate of Great Britain (GB). GB could not control the private Zionist militia then so that they pulled out. Similar to India. I'll stop here. Palestinians weren't the aggressor. They are merely fighting for what was taken from them by radical Jews (Zionists) and by the UN who had no authority over the area. Palestinians never ceded any authority to the UN to make decisions on their behalf, and the term Palestine was popularized by GB because they needed a name on a map 100+ years ago. Whether or not "Palestine" had a democratically elected government 70 or 100 years ago is irrelevant as what Israel is doing, and has been doing, is criminal. There's even an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu. Now go and educate yourselves.

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

It has gone way, way too far to be called self defence.

Israel is at war with Hamas.  Hamas needs to be stomped into the dust bin of human history. 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Since when had genocide and ethnic cleansing been within the ‘rules of war’?

There is no genocide.  Next. 

BBC report yesterday.
Responding on Sunday, 'Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said a Palestinian state "will not happen".

1 hour ago, ZigM said:

Unfortunately, most commentators either don't know the history of the conflict or they just don't care and they merely regurgitate commonly used talking points created by biased parties. If anyone cares to learn about the conflict, not from Netanyahu or the Israel lobby, but from reputable and independent sources, they would know that Israel is currently the occupier of the land and has been brutally subjugating Palestinians since Israel was created by the UN over 70 years ago. Israel is an apartheid state. However, Palestinians were already massacred by Zionist militia over 100 years ago when the area was a protectorate of Great Britain (GB). GB could not control the private Zionist militia then so that they pulled out. Similar to India. I'll stop here. Palestinians weren't the aggressor. They are merely fighting for what was taken from them by radical Jews (Zionists) and by the UN who had no authority over the area. Palestinians never ceded any authority to the UN to make decisions on their behalf, and the term Palestine was popularized by GB because they needed a name on a map 100+ years ago. Whether or not "Palestine" had a democratically elected government 70 or 100 years ago is irrelevant as what Israel is doing, and has been doing, is criminal. There's even an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu. Now go and educate yourselves.

 

Excellent post, thankyou.

1 hour ago, ZigM said:

Unfortunately, most commentators either don't know the history of the conflict or they just don't care and they merely regurgitate commonly used talking points created by biased parties. If anyone cares to learn about the conflict, not from Netanyahu or the Israel lobby, but from reputable and independent sources, they would know that Israel is currently the occupier of the land and has been brutally subjugating Palestinians since Israel was created by the UN over 70 years ago. Israel is an apartheid state. However, Palestinians were already massacred by Zionist militia over 100 years ago when the area was a protectorate of Great Britain (GB). GB could not control the private Zionist militia then so that they pulled out. Similar to India. I'll stop here. Palestinians weren't the aggressor. They are merely fighting for what was taken from them by radical Jews (Zionists) and by the UN who had no authority over the area. Palestinians never ceded any authority to the UN to make decisions on their behalf, and the term Palestine was popularized by GB because they needed a name on a map 100+ years ago. Whether or not "Palestine" had a democratically elected government 70 or 100 years ago is irrelevant as what Israel is doing, and has been doing, is criminal. There's even an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu. Now go and educate yourselves.

 

    Maybe Aborigines can get their land back in Australia ?

58 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Israel is at war with Hamas.  Hamas needs to be stomped into the dust bin of human history. 

It's clear they are intentionally targeting civilians, not military targets. There would not be that amount of civilian deaths as collateral damage.

I am not at all certain that recognition of a Palestinian state will actually accomplish anything positive on the ground. However, at this point, I do think that the Netanyahu government deserves strong international opposition and recognition has been part of that.

2 hours ago, ZigM said:

Unfortunately, most commentators either don't know the history of the conflict or they just don't care and they merely regurgitate commonly used talking points created by biased parties.

And then you go and "merely regurgitate commonly used talking points created by biased parties."