摩根：英国也要承认“巴勒斯坦国”了，作为英国人我有话要说

【文/ 摩根】

大家好，我叫摩根，来自英国。今天我想谈谈一则来自英国的重磅新闻。就在本月早些时候，英国首相斯塔默宣布，英国将正式承认巴勒斯坦国。这是一个巨大的转变——紧随法国之后——而这一决定正值以色列对加沙的袭击引发愈演愈烈的人道主义危机占据全球头条之际。

有趣的是：此事发生在特朗普访问英国不到两天之后——而且按照特朗普本人的说法，这次访问中根本没有谈到巴勒斯坦问题。可没过多久，斯塔默就做出了这个决定。是巧合吗？或许吧。但有一点值得注意：特朗普最近对加沙问题的态度明显缓和了——远不像之前那般强硬。这种转变，也许正给了斯塔默政治上的空间，让他终于可以有所作为。

那么对于英国来说，为什么是现在作出相关决定呢？原因有很多——不仅是国际层面的压力，还有来自英国国内的压力。英国公众一直在要求政府对以色列采取更强硬的立场，而斯塔默的这一宣布让英国与法国和加拿大站在了同一阵营：共同承认巴勒斯坦国。不过——总会有一个“但是”——与其他国家一样，英国的承认是附带条件的，这也让英国的决策变得更加复杂。

当地时间2025年7月29日，英国伦敦唐宁街10号，英国首相基尔·斯塔默在加沙问题紧急内阁会议后发表讲话。

事实上，是否承认巴勒斯坦的问题已经讨论了几十年。在一些国际组织中，巴勒斯坦的国家地位“部分地”被承认，但要实现完全被承认，其实一直是面临阻力的，主要原因在于美国的影响。然而，随着加沙人道主义危机的恶化，越来越多的西方国家开始重新考虑立场——将承认巴勒斯坦国当作一种尝试遏制冲突、迫使以色列停火、并希望拯救加沙人生命的方式。

对斯塔默来说，这一宣布也算是兑现了竞选承诺——尽管批评者迅速指出，他走到这一步花了太久。而且，与加拿大的立场类似，英国的承认是有条件的。一些人认为，这是谨慎的一步，甚至不是心甘情愿的，而不是为实现和平迈出的坚决一步。

当然，英国在这一切中的角色并不新鲜。一个多世纪前，1917年的《贝尔福宣言》承诺在当时由英国管辖的巴勒斯坦建立一个犹太人家园，为这场冲突埋下了伏笔。从那以后，英国的外交政策一直在微妙的“平衡线”上行走：既支持以色列的生存权，也在原则上推动“两国方案”。问题在于，这个“两国方案”如今看起来越来越不现实。以色列政客公开呼吁吞并加沙和约旦河西岸，让这个方案几乎无法实现。

这正是英国的“平衡表演术”真正显现出来的地方。一方面，公众和国际社会要求承认巴勒斯坦、解决人道主义危机的压力日益增加；另一方面，英国与华盛顿的长期同盟关系，让任何被视为破坏美以关系的举动都可能带来风险。更重要的是，任何打破这种平衡的举动，都可能危及斯塔默急切想要达成的脱欧后贸易协议。斯塔默的声明试图在这条“细细的线”上前行：以附带条件的承认来表明立场的变化，但又保持足够的模糊性，以避免与美国正面冲突。

此外，承认巴勒斯坦国的决定，恰逢英国国内政治的关键时刻。改革党——一个由特朗普亲密盟友奈杰尔·法拉奇领导的右翼政党——目前在一些民调中领先。斯塔默发现自己处于一个极其困难的境地，需要同时平衡三方面压力：一，美国，尤其是潜在的重要脱欧后贸易协议；二，英国国内日益高涨的公众压力；三，改革党的崛起。可谓是一个极其棘手的局面。

当地时间2025年8月1日，英国伦敦，在伦敦西南部金斯敦区，示威者手持标语，挥舞巴勒斯坦旗帜，参加名为“停止饿死加沙”的抗议活动，谴责以色列的封锁，并提高人们对加沙人道主义危机的认识。

在外交政策方面，英国长期以来以务实著称。英国加入加拿大和法国，成为首批承认巴勒斯坦的G7国家之一，这无疑值得称赞，甚至可以说具有里程碑意义。但这种附带条件的承认引发了批评。许多人认为，这不像是对以色列的警告，更像是一种安抚，以平衡以色列和美国双方的需求。

英国要求以色列同意停火——尽管以色列过去一再违反停火协议——再加上模糊地坚持复活早已“死亡”的“两国方案”，让一些批评者对政府的相关决策不感冒了。在他们看来，这个计划只有象征性而已，不太可能改变现实。

斯塔默的决定无疑是一个重大举动，但在这些附加条件下，这真的是一个突破吗？还是只是为了讨好所有人，包括华盛顿、英国公众，甚至改革党的选民，而做出的一种姿态？

但有一点是确定的：既然法国和加拿大已经迈出了这一步，英国不会是最后一个。围绕巴勒斯坦建国的讨论只会越来越热烈，越来越响亮。

Hello everyone, my name’s Morgan — and today I want to talk about some pretty big news coming out of the UK. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that Britain will formally recognize the state of Palestine. It’s a huge shift — following in France’s footsteps — and it comes at a time when Israel’s assault on Gaza has created a worsening humanitarian crisis that’s dominating headlines.

Here’s the interesting part: this announcement came less than two days after Donald Trump’s visit to the UK — a visit where, by Trump’s own admission, the topic of Palestine wasn’t even discussed. Yet shortly afterwards, Starmer makes this move. Coincidence? Maybe. But here’s something worth noting: Trump’s tone on Gaza has mellowed in recent weeks — far less combative than the hard‑line rhetoric he used to use. And that shift? It might have given Starmer the political space to finally act.

So why now? Well, a big part of this comes down to pressure — not just internationally, but here at home too. Public opinion in the UK has been pushing harder and harder for action, and this move puts Britain alongside France and Canada in recognising Palestinian statehood. But — and there’s always a but — like those other countries, the UK’s recognition comes with conditions. And here’s when the UK’s decision becomes more complex.

Now, the whole question of recognising Palestine has been around for decades. There’s been partial recognition in some international forums, but full recognition? That’s always been blocked, largely because of US influence. But with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza escalating, more Western governments are rethinking things — seeing recognition as a way to try and contain the conflict, push Israel toward a ceasefire, and hopefully save lives.

For Starmer, this announcement also ticks off a campaign promise — though critics have been quick to point out that it’s taken him a while to get here. And, like Canada’s position, it’s conditional recognition. Some people see that as a cautious step, maybe even half‑hearted, rather than a full‑on push to bring peace.

And of course, Britain’s role in all this isn’t new. The UK played a huge part in shaping this conflict more than a century ago, with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 promising a Jewish homeland in what was then British‑controlled Palestine. Ever since, UK foreign policy has walked a fine line: supporting Israel’s right to exist, but also pushing — at least in principle — for a two‑state solution. The trouble is, that two‑state vision looks less and less realistic. With Israeli politicians openly calling for the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, it’s hard to see how that proposal holds up in today’s reality.

And this is where the UK’s balancing act really comes into focus. On one side, there’s growing public and international pressure to recognise Palestine and address the humanitarian crisis. On the other, there’s the UK’s long‑standing alliance with Washington — and any move seen as undermining US‑Israel relations could risk that partnership. More importantly, any move that upsets that balance could jeopardise the post‑Brexit trade deal Starmer desperately wants. Starmer’s announcement tries to tread this line: offering conditional recognition to signal change, but keeping enough ambiguity to avoid a full‑blown clash with the US.

Moreover, this recognition of a Palestinian state comes at a crucial point in British domestic politics. The Reform Party — a right‑wing party led by one of Donald Trump’s close allies, Nigel Farage — is currently leading in some polls. Starmer finds himself in a difficult position, trying to balance three pressures at once: (1) the United States, and most importantly the prospect of a major post‑Brexit trade deal; (2) growing public pressure within the UK; and (3) the rise of the Reform Party. An incredibly tricky position.

The UK has long been seen as pragmatic in its approach to foreign policy. And while it is commendable — even noteworthy — that Britain is joining Canada and France in becoming one of the first G7 nations to recognise Palestine, the conditions attached to this recognition have drawn criticism. Many argue they feel less like a warning to Israel and more like a conciliatory gesture, aimed at balancing the needs of both Israel and the United States.

The requirement that Israel agree to a ceasefire — despite repeatedly violating ceasefires in the past — coupled with a vague insistence on reviving the already‑dead two‑state solution, has left some critics unimpressed. To them, the plan is symbolic, but unlikely to change realities on the ground.

Starmer’s announcement is a big move — but with all those conditions, is it really a breakthrough? Or just a gesture to keep everyone happy — Washington, the public, even Reform voters?

One thing’s for sure — now that France and Canada have taken the leap, Britain won’t be the last. The conversation around Palestinian statehood will only get louder and louder.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。