In a forceful intervention in the House of Lords on Friday, Lord David Frost articulated his opposition to the UK government’s potential recognition of Palestinian statehood.
Citing the fraught geopolitical landscape and the absence of conditions that would justify recognition under international norms, the former Brexit negotiator dismissed the move as an exercise in “gesture politics” rather than a constructive diplomatic initiative.
Lord Frost’s argument was rooted in the stark realities of the ongoing conflict in the region. “Israel has been fighting for 18 months now. It is much the longest war it has ever been involved in. It involves not just Gaza, but Lebanon, Syria and even Yemen and Iran,” he stated. The unprecedented nature of Israel’s current military engagements, he argued, has put immense strain on its society, making the already difficult prospect of a two-state solution increasingly remote.
His remarks underlined a broader shift in sentiment among both Israelis and Palestinians. “Only about a quarter of Israelis now support a two-state solution,” he noted, referencing recent polling.
Likewise, Palestinian support for the concept is also in decline, with a survey by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) indicating that only 39% back the notion. These figures, Lord Frost contended, highlight the impracticality of pursuing a framework that lacks broad support among the very people it would affect.
The bill under consideration proposes that the UK recognise Palestine “as a sovereign and independent state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders.” However, Lord Frost was unequivocal in his rejection of this idea, pointing to the fundamental absence of a state in any meaningful sense.
“The only problem is that no such state exists on the ground. There are no agreed borders or territory,” he said, aligning his argument with that of Baroness Northover, who similarly questioned the feasibility of recognition in the absence of established state structures.
Elaborating on the deficiencies that undermine Palestine’s claim to statehood, Lord Frost highlighted security concerns, governance issues, and the lack of control over territory. “Palestinians have very limited control of the territory, for good security reasons. There is no real ability to engage in interaction with other states.
“They have institutions that are riddled with anti-Semitism and corruption and simply cannot govern. There simply is nothing approximating to a state, which is important because that is the basis for UK recognition of states,” he asserted.
For Lord Frost, the case against recognition is not merely a legalistic or procedural one, but a matter of sound policy. He argued that bestowing recognition under current circumstances would serve no constructive purpose.
“At best, it is an acknowledgment of the concept of a state for a state that does not exist; at worst, it is just a form of international virtue signalling, or even a statement to Israel that we will reward in some way the Palestinians for the chaos and violence of 7th October,” he warned.
The implication of such recognition, he suggested, would not be to advance peace but to reinforce delusions within the international community that diplomatic progress can be made without addressing the facts on the ground. “The problem is that for as long as recognition is a theoretical possibility, it encourages the international community to keep engaging with the phantasm rather than dealing with the real situation,” he said.
Instead, he advocated for a pragmatic approach that acknowledges Israel’s security imperatives while seeking a “realistic and achievable” resolution to the region’s crises.
“This country should deal with reality as it is, rather than wishing for things that are not going to happen,” he declared. This, he suggested, means firmly backing Israel’s efforts to secure its own future rather than indulging in what he dismissed as “gesture politics by those with no skin in the game.”
Lord Frost’s intervention highlights the broader tensions within British and Western foreign policy regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. While some voices continue to push for diplomatic recognition as a means of pressuring Israel into negotiations, others argue that such moves only serve to embolden Palestinian leadership to persist in rejectionism rather than seeking genuine compromises.
With the conflict showing no signs of abating, and with both Israeli and Palestinian support for a two-state solution waning, the question of recognition remains as contentious as ever. However, Lord Frost’s position is clear: recognition should not be granted as a symbolic gesture but as the outcome of a viable peace process—one that, in his assessment, is far from materialising.
Main Image: https://www.gov.uk/government/people/lord-frost-of-allenton
