By Isaac Christopher Lubogo
> “Recognition is not a gift. It is an acknowledgment of reality. But sometimes, that reality is selectively seen.”
— Lubogo, 2025
I. Introduction: A Conditional Recognition, A Conditional Humanity
In a declaration that has startled many and delighted few, the United Kingdom has hinted it may recognise the State of Palestine by September, but only if Israel does not take visible steps to ease Palestinian suffering. These are the words of a Prime Minister who straddles history’s crossroads—rhetorically confronting injustice, while still dancing within the tightrope of global alliances.
But let us pause and ask the central question: What does it truly mean to “recognise” a state? And even more poignantly, why is Palestine’s recognition still dangling like a carrot in front of its oppressor, rather than being acknowledged as a human and political right long overdue?
II. What Constitutes Statehood? A Legal Brief
According to the Montevideo Convention of 1933, a state must satisfy four elements:
1. A permanent population
2. A defined territory
3. A government
4. The capacity to enter into relations with other states
Palestine, by all objective legal parameters, qualifies:
It has a population of over 5 million Palestinians.
It has a defined territory, despite being encroached upon and fragmented.
It has a government—divided, yes, between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority—but a government nonetheless.
It maintains foreign relations, with over 138 countries already recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state.
So, the question is no longer whether Palestine meets the legal threshold. The question is: Why does its recognition still depend on the behavior of its oppressor?
III. The Hypocrisy of Conditional Recognition
Let us expose the diplomatic schizophrenia behind the UK’s conditional stance:
Recognition of Israel was not based on humanitarian behavior. It was granted in 1948, even as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were being displaced (the Nakba). No one waited for Israel to stop its militancy or show “restraint.”
Kosovo was recognised by many Western powers despite fierce opposition from Serbia and without UN membership.
South Sudan was recognised almost overnight following secession.
But for Palestine? The script changes. Suddenly, we hear phrases like:
“…if Israel takes credible steps…” “…if Hamas is neutralized…” “…if there is no violence…”
This is the politics of appeasement, not the ethics of recognition.
IV. Recognition as a Weapon, Not a Right
Recognition has become a geopolitical tool—awarded or withheld based on convenience, alliances, or optics. It is no longer about legality or justice. The UK, like many others, is using recognition not as an act of courage but as a diplomatic bargaining chip—leveraging it to extract behavior, appease constituencies, or tame criticism.
And herein lies the unforgivable hypocrisy: Britain, one of the original architects of the modern Middle East mess through the Balfour Declaration and colonial cartography, is now playing moral referee, asking the oppressed to “earn” their statehood.
It is like watching a man suffocate while debating whether he has “breathed peacefully enough” to deserve air.
V. The Tragedy of Delayed Legitimacy
Recognition delayed is recognition denied. By deferring Palestine’s sovereignty to Israel’s behavior, the UK is essentially saying:
> “You may only become a state if your jailer allows it.”
This is diplomatic subservience to power, not principled foreign policy. It is a grotesque inversion of justice—where the victim must pass tests set by the abuser.
Let us be clear: No other nation in modern history has had to qualify for recognition by proving it can make its tormentor comfortable.
VI. What the UK Owes Palestine
The United Kingdom owes more than recognition—it owes historical atonement. From the betrayal of the Arab Revolt, to the Balfour Declaration (1917), to its role in partition and dispossession, Britain helped script the Palestinian tragedy. It has a moral debt, not a diplomatic favor to bestow.
The conditional language today is reminiscent of a colonial overseer, not a sincere global citizen. Recognition should not be leveraged as an incentive for better behavior. It should be offered unconditionally, in recognition of:
A people’s right to self-determination
The legal facts of statehood already present
The moral bankruptcy of endless suffering
VII. Conclusion: Let Justice Speak Louder than Geopolitics
The world does not need more speeches about Palestine. It needs courage. True recognition does not wait for perfection. It sees reality, and acts. When the UK says it may “recognise Palestine if Israel reforms,” it betrays its own posturing as a democracy defender.
To paraphrase Frantz Fanon:
> “For the colonized, life can only begin with recognition. But when recognition is rationed, injustice becomes eternal.”
So we say this—clearly, unashamedly:
> If Palestine is not yet a state, then the world is not yet civilised.
And no amount of diplomatic gymnastics will disguise the hypocrisy of rewarding the strong while questioning the humanity of the weak.
Signed:
Isaac Christopher Lubogo
Son of Africa. Advocate of the Silenced.
