The UK government's plan to recognize Palestine as a state by September 2025 is lawful and grounded in international standards, Business Minister Gareth Thomas said, defending the move as a "political judgment". His remarks came in response to a challenge from 40 members of the House of Lords, who questioned whether Palestine meets the legal criteria for statehood.

"Yes, we believe it is," Thomas told Times Radio when asked about the legality of the recognition. "In the end, recognition of another state is a political judgment, and over 140 countries have already recognized Palestine." He emphasized the government's intent to recognize Palestine based on the 1967 borders, noting a "clear population" within the territories, under the Montevideo Convention.

The Montevideo Convention of 1933 outlines the conditions for statehood: a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government, and the capacity to engage in relations with other states.

The planned recognition, spearheaded by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, is conditional. It hinges on "Israel" meeting a set of UK-led criteria: ending violence in Gaza, committing to a ceasefire, halting "annexations" in the West Bank, and engaging in a sustainable peace process that supports a "two-state solution".

Letter cites lack of defined borders, unified government

Related News

Dozens martyred amid Israeli attacks on Gaza, including aid seekers

Court clears massive pro-Palestine March on Sydney Harbour Bridge

Despite the UK government's stance, 40 peers, comprising some of the UK's top legal authorities, have raised objections. In a letter addressed to Attorney General Richard Hermer, they argued that the current Palestinian framework does not meet the legal threshold for statehood under international law.

The peers highlighted ongoing issues including undefined borders due to the occupation, the divided governance between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, and the absence of a single effective government. They argued that recognizing Palestine would violate the principles of international law, also referencing the Montevideo Convention.

The peers challenging the decision

Among the prominent peers challenging the decision are:

• David Pannick, Baron Pannick KC: A leading constitutional lawyer and influential crossbench peer;
• Guglielmo Verdirame, Baron Verdirame KC: An international law scholar with expertise in state recognition and human rights;
• Edward Faulks, Baron Faulks KC: A seasoned barrister and former Minister of State for Justice;
• Lord Collins of Mapesbury: A former Supreme Court judge;
• Lord Banner KC: Known for his work on radical planning reforms;
• Labour signatories included Lord Mendelsohn, Lord Turnberg, Lord Shamash, and Lord Winston;
• Other signatories include former cabinet ministers and peers with significant influence in legislative and legal arenas.

At least one peer, Lord Pannick, has personal and professional ties to Zionist organizations, directly affecting the impartiality of his critique.

These legal voices, though unable to veto the decision, wield considerable influence in shaping public discourse and pressuring governmental accountability on constitutional matters.

Reactions

The recognition pledge has sparked wide-ranging political responses. Jewish groups and families of British captives have criticized the move, claiming it undermines peace and security.

Meanwhile, Starmer continues to defend the plan, stating it is "not a gesture" but a pathway to a viable "two-state solution". He emphasized that recognition should catalyze change on the ground, including a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and political reforms by the Palestinian Authority.