Analysis: Recognising a Palestinian state is symbolic, but symbolism matters in Gaza and Israel
By Adam Parsons, Middle East correspondent
No, nothing will change on the ground and yes, Britain's decision to recognise the State of Palestine is mainly a symbolic exercise.
But in the Middle East, symbolism can count for a lot.
In the streets of the West Bank, there are plenty who think it is proof that their problems have been seen and that, in the future, they will get more help.
"Better late than never," was the pithy analysis of Varsen Aghabekian, the Palestinian Authority's foreign minister, when we met in Ramallah.
"Britain, with its weight, can influence other countries to come forward and recognise, because that is the right thing to do."
Palestinian politicians hope that this will help to usher in a new era - that they will end up with more diplomatic heft, that Israel will face greater restraint and that more and more countries will follow suit.
After all, it isn't just the United Kingdom that is recognising a state of Palestine, but also France, another member of the UN Security Council, as well as big economic powers such as Canada and Australia.
But expanding diplomatic heft will only take you so far.
The Palestinians may dream of suffocating global pressure being placed on Israel, but they know that won't happen, certainly as long as Donald Trump is in the White House.
America's criticism has so far been feather-light, while its support is weighty.
Not only will the White House not recognise Palestine, it will actively condemn those who do, and, almost certainly, oppose any UN motions that condemn the government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
In fact, Britain's recognition of Palestine was one of the few public disagreements between Trump and Keir Starmer during the state visit.
In the minds of America’s diplomats, recognition is tantamount to a reward for Hamas terrorism - a conclusion that Israel has echoed, and will now say much more stridently.
According to this version, Hamas will feel emboldened by this form of recognition, and will decide that, rather than compromising by releasing hostages, it should carry on, extending the conflict in order to win further global sympathy.
And it is a version that attracts widespread support, even among political opponents.
The forum that unites the hostage families, for instance, agrees with the prime minister's analysis, even though it has often been a focal point to direct anger against him.
There was support, too, from Naftali Bennett, widely predicted to replace Netanyahu when elections are held next year.
"I don't think the United Kingdom is in a place to give us conditions. Who does Starmer think he is? There's no longer a British mandate and friends don't set conditions one for another.
"We're a sovereign state. He's not going to give us conditions and certainly not tell us 'If you don’t surrender to Hamas, we're going to accept a Palestinian state'. And that's exactly what he did and he knows it and he’s doing it for political reasons."
Watch Bennett speak here...
One source, close to the Israeli government, told me privately: "Starmer accuses Netanyahu of prolonging the war for domestic gain, and then makes a decision like this that will certainly prolong the war, for his own domestic gain. I am angry because I expect better from the UK."
So does this matter?
Yes it does, even if it is symbolic.
Because the symbolism feels desperately important to both Palestinians and Israelis.
And watch Parsons' latest report from Jerusalem below...
