As the Palestinians prepare to seek UN recognition later this year, the first hurdle they will meet is the Security Council. Although they claim to have seven supporters on the UNSC, they need two more under the rules. But crucially, they must somehow persuade the United States not to cast its veto. Thus far, the American veto has acted as a shield for Israel, preventing any pro-Palestine,anti-Israel resolutions from being passed.

Should the Palestinians fail to win the Security Council’s approval, they say they will apply for membership to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The threat of this move has previously been met by howls of protest from Tel Aviv. Basically, membership would give ICC jurisdiction to investigate the repeated breaches of international law by Israel in the occupied territories. Five years ago, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas buried an ICC report that condemned an earlier Israeli assault on Gaza in very strong terms. Coming under intense pressure from the United States, Israel’s patron, Abbas decided not to push the matter any further.

But now, after the latest bout of fighting in Gaza that saw 2,100 Palestinians killed, thousands more wounded and destruction on a vast scale, Abbas seems more resolute. In addition, the predictable collapse of the talks brokered by John Kerry, the American Secretary of State, has left the Palestinians with no options. The Israelis have unsurprisingly repeated their mantra of “no unilateral Palestinian steps to statehood”, insisting on a negotiated settlement. However, this ploy has served only to push the Israeli colonisation project forward: “talk-talk, build-build” about sums it up.

Against this backdrop, it was no surprise that a backbenchers’ non-binding debate on recognising Palestine in Britain’s House of Commons last week should have attracted so much attention. Israel’s supporters lobbied MPs furiously, while publicly, the government downplayed the importance of the debate.

Moved by Graham Morris, the Labour MP from Easlington, the debate was followed intently around the world. Kicking off the debate, Morris made the point that recognition would be good for Israel, and that the House would encourage “non-violent Palestin­ians”. Almost all the speakers who spoke in the debate prefaced their remarks by avowing that they were friends of Israel, and were supporting the motion because they wanted justice for Palestine, and thought that recognition would be good for both parties.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a previous Foreign Secretary, considered the motion premature as in his view, Palestine lacked the institutions of a state. But Jack Straw, who was Foreign Secretary under Tony Blair, argued strongly for according recognition, saying that this would finally impose legal boundaries on Israel, a state that had annexed large tracts of Palestinian land. He also rejected the concept of an Israeli veto on Palestinian statehood.

Perhaps the most passionate speech came from Sir Richard Ottaway, the Conservative chairman of the House foreign affairs committee. Declaring that although he had been a friend of Israel before he joined the Conservative Party, he had been outraged by the latest Israeli annexation of nearly a thousand acres of Palestinian land, and would therefore not oppose the motion. He ended on a note of warning: “If Israel has lost a friend like me, it will lose many more.”

David Ward, a Liberal-Demo­crat member, spoke of Israeli insecurity, and emotionally reminded the House that 700 British servicemen of the peacekeeping force had been killed by Zionists before Israel came into being in 1948. And Sir Gerald Kaufman, himself a Jew, accused Israel of treating Hamas as “a useful tool” in denying Palestine a state.

The final vote in favour of recognising Palestine as a state was 274 for, and 12 against. While this result is lopsided, it conceals the fact that over half of the members did not vote. Earlier, Ed Miliband, the Labour leader of the opposition, had planned to direct all his party membership to support the motion. But many MPs who support Israel stayed away. Similarly, many Tories who are pro-Palestine abstained to avoid taking a public position.

The following morning, the Israeli media was full of op-ed pieces and editorials about the implications of the House debate. Inevitably, right-wing commentators dismissed the vote as irrelevant as it would not directly change British policy. But more thoughtful pundits pointed out that this recent move was part of Israel’s growing isolation. Already, 135 members of the United Nations recognise Palestine, and Sweden has just announced its decision to join them.

In addition, the EU is considering a ban on imports of goods produced in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, but labelled Made in Israel. Other boycott and disinvestment initiatives have also made the news in recent months. Some entertainers have refused to tour Israel and European universities have barred Israeli academics from attending conferences. While none of these are more than pinpricks, they do set Israeli nerves on edge.

Increasingly, Europe is losing patience with a state that is widely viewed as out of control, and operating beyond international laws as well as the rules of decency. One problem for Israel is that it is seen as a Western country, and therefore expected to live up to Western norms.

The recent mayhem in Gaza, even though precipitated by rocket attacks from the tiny Palestinian enclave, was witnessed by millions around the world. The sight of women and children being killed by indiscriminate missile and artillery attacks enraged many in the Muslim world as well as in Europe. Many of my English friends expressed their horror over Israeli overreaction.

Where Palestinians lack the strength to force Israel to make concessions, international opinion might succeed in changing the colonial mindset in Tel Aviv.

Published in Dawn, October 20th, 2014