Before you get too excited it’s disappointing that this type of obfuscating language is still used as a get out free card.
According to people familiar with a draft, it will say a Palestinian state should be recognised as “part of a peace process”
So basically never because a peace process won’t ever happen the way it currently stands.
when Sir Keir was asked whether a government he leads would follow Spain, Ireland and Norway in recognising a Palestinian state, he said it had to be “at the right time in the [peace] process… what it does need is international backing and consensus about the right point”.
He added: “That’s only going to happen if we work with our partners on it.”
No it’s only going to happen if you show some leadership instead of lagging behind Ireland, Spain, and Norway. Do you want to recognise the state or not? Or do you want to only recognise it when it’s beneficial to you and you’ve calculated that going into an election it’s not beneficial to you?
Disappointing.
I think cynicism is a fair response to anything about the Israel-Palestine conflict and Labour’s response to it, but it’s worth noting that the Guardian has different language:
the Labour leader is expected to include a pledge to recognise Palestine before the end of any peace process, and to make sure such a move does not get vetoed by a neighbouring country [my emphasis]
I don’t know what that bit about the veto means, but ‘before the end of any peace process’ suggests they see it as part of the peace process, not an end result.
I think it’s notable that Labour’s position is now firmly pro-ceasefire and anti any further military action by Israel. Per that same Guardian article, they’ve also given ‘implict support’ to the arrest warrant for Netanyahu, although there’s no specific reference given.
