David Cameron did not clear Palestinian statehood speech with No10

A speech by David Cameron in which he suggested the UK is considering recognising a Palestinian state was not approved in advance by Downing Street, i understands.

The Foreign Secretary sparked a backlash from some Conservative MPs when he told a reception on Monday evening “we should be starting to set out what a Palestinian state would look like”.

The comments appeared to mark a shift in language from senior levels of the UK government, which has long-argued for a two-state solution but has been cautious in expressing support for Palestinian statehood while Israel’s security is under threat from terrorist groups such as Hamas.

The Palestinian ambassador to the UK described the intervention as “the best shot in the arm for a two-state solution” between Israel and Palestinians.

Foreign Office sources insisted that Lord Cameron’s remarks were no different from an article he wrote in the Mail on Sunday at the weekend, which had been approved in advance by No10, and that there was no change in UK government policy.

But i understands that Monday night’s speech, at a reception of the Conservative Middle East Council, was not cleared with No10.

Rishi Sunak does not want to change the existing policy on the Middle East peace process and has not authorised the Foreign Secretary to speed up the recognition of Palestine without a broader breakthrough in the peace process, according to a source close to the Prime Minister.

Lord Cameron has embarked on his latest round of diplomacy in the region, amid hopes that both sides in the conflict could be close to agreeing a pause in fighting in Gaza.

In his Mail on Sunday article, Lord Cameron wrote: “We must give the people of the West Bank and Gaza the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. And it needs to be irreversible. This is not entirely in our gift.

Read More

“But Britain and our partners can help by confirming our commitment to a sovereign, viable Palestinian state, and our vision for its composition. And, crucially, we must state our clear intention to grant it recognition, including at the United Nations.”

In his speech at Monday evening’s reception, the Foreign Secretary said it was important to “give the Palestinian people a political horizon so that they can see that there is going to be irreversible progress to a two-state solution and crucially the establishment of a Palestinian state”.

He added: “We have a responsibility there because we should be starting to set out what a Palestinian state would look like, what it would comprise, how it would work and crucially, looking at the issue, that as that happens, we with allies will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state, including at the United Nations. That could be one of the things that helps to make this process irreversible.”

The use of the phrase “starting to set out what a Palestinian state would look like” appears to go further than the newspaper article, and sparked fury from some Tory MPs and praise from others.

But any difference of language or tone between Lord Cameron and Mr Sunak on the vexed issue of the Middle East underlines the potential pitfalls in the relationship between the older and more experienced Foreign Secretary, who was prime minister for six years, and the relatively new PM.

A Foreign Office source did not deny that the speech was not cleared with No10, adding: “The position he outlined was the government position, the same one that he outlined in the Mail on Sunday article.”

Alicia Kearns, the Tory chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, told LBC she believed Lord Cameron’s remarks were a “fundamental change in UK position”, adding: “It’s a very welcome one from my perspective.

“But what I need to tease out of the government over the next few days is, is this a posturing position to show Israel that unless they reform their behaviours, unless they change some of their targeting that there are tools that we have available to us? Or is it a genuine commitment towards a Palestinian state? Which is where we should be going.”

Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, told Times Radio: “Lord Cameron’s announcement was important because recognition has got nothing to do with a final peace agreement.

“Recognition is a Palestinian right. It’s our right. It’s a birthright, our right of self-determination. And our right to statehood and sovereignty, and recognition is also the best shot in the arm for a two state solution. This is how you resuscitate it. It’s not an outcome of it. It’s an entry point to a solution.”

Lord Cameron’s remarks risk angering the Israeli government. Benjamin Netanyahu has argued that the 7 October atrocities committed by Hamas show the notion of a two-state solution should be rejected – despite objections from London and Washington.

Several Conservative MPs expressed anger in the Commons over his remarks.

Former cabinet minister Theresa Villiers said: “It’s really disturbing that BBC online is reporting that the Foreign Secretary has changed the UK Government’s approach on recognition of a Palestinian state.

“Will the minister agree with me that bringing forward and accelerating unilateral recognition of Palestinian state would be to reward Hamas’ atrocities?”

Former Tory minister Sir Michael Ellis said: “The Palestinian authorities’ grip on security control across the West Bank has been pushed out by the benevolent forces of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and local terror groups funded by Iran.

“Wouldn’t unilateral recognition of Palestinian state now risk equipping those dangerous actors I just mentioned with the trimmings and capabilities of a state?”

In response, Foreign Office minister Andrew Mitchell insisted the policy on a two-state solution had not changed, adding: “There is no question of rewarding Hamas for the appalling acts they perpetrated in a pogrom on October 7. But the point the Foreign Secretary has been making is that we must give the people of the West Bank and Gaza a credible route to a Palestine state and a new future, but we must do so when the time is right.”