The foreign secretary, David Cameron, recently surprised observers by raising the possibility of the UK recognising a Palestinian state before the end of a peace process with Israel. The US has also said it could recognise a Palestinian state after the war in Gaza and is reportedly drawing up policy options along these lines. These seem like remarkable developments amid the carnage of the Israeli assault on Gaza. But do they constitute a breakthrough that could lead to a positive outcome in the Middle East, or will they result in the formalisation of the Israeli occupation? The devil is in the detail. The Israeli occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem (as well as the Golan Heights and Sinai) began in 1967, and was followed by the UN security council resolution 242, which spelled out the way forward. For decades, the resolution, underpinned by a singular principle, served as the basis for negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbours. The principle was simple: a pre-condition of peace would be Israel withdrawing from the territories it occupied in 1967. The resolution was supported by the US, and subsequent resolutions have all backed that same recognition that the acquisition of territory by military force is illegitimate in today’s world. It’s a pillar of the international order and is supposed to distinguish us from the great power politics of the pre-second world war era. If the current trend towards recognising a Palestinian state is based on the same principle, then it would be consistent with other moves made in that direction, most notably the Arab peace initiative of 2002 – whereby Arab political normalisation with Israel would be forthcoming, but only under the conditions established by the security council’s resolution 242. All members of the Arab League accepted that initiative, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – including Iran – affirmed support for it too, multiple times. Up until now, Israel has rejected that initiative. But if the Palestinian state that the US and the UK intend to recognise is based on that same framework, then it could be a way forward. But there is another alternative, which appears far more likely. There hasn’t been any mention of resolution 242 by Israel or the US for many years, and the discourse we see promoted by President Biden does not indicate support for a Palestinian state based on any current definition of statehood. Rather, what Biden appears to be suggesting is some kind of statelet, similar to apartheid South Africa’s bantustans, or Russia’s client states in eastern Ukraine. In other words, not a state at all. Resolution 242, in that regard, is tremendously significant, both in terms of its presence – and its absence. First, without a focus on it, the world would be hard-pressed to condemn other acquisitions of territory by war, including, most recently, Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukrainian lands in the east and Crimea. Indeed, Russia would have a stronger case (though it would still be incredibly weak). Second, if current Israeli designs on Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are to be taken as any guidance at all, then such a statelet would be territorially incontiguous to say the least, and its sustainability extremely dubious. Moreover, if such a Palestinian statelet were instituted, it would not be viewed by Palestinians and the surrounding region (as well as the international community) as a fulfilment of international legal obligations by Israel, nor as a recognition of Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Rather, it would be seen as a legitimisation of occupation under the fig leaf of some kind of symbolic structure of recognition. If Israel and its allies are looking for support within the region, then they cannot legitimise the occupation. There is a way forward, based on three indispensable pillars. The first pillar is, quite simply, “242 in 2024”. The UN security council resolution must remain a bedrock not only for addressing the Palestinian question, but for maintaining a crucial principle of the international order: the rejection of force as a way to gain territory. The international community watches what the west pushes for in Israel and Palestine, and contrasts it with what the west pushes for in Russia and Ukraine. We cannot allow inconsistency to be the rule of the day. The second pillar, which could lead from the 8 February meeting in Riyadh between Arab foreign ministers, is a genuine reform of the Palestinian National Council, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s legislative body; to make it more accountable, more democratic and more representative, so that the territories can be run in a way that befits their people. And, finally, there needs to be a recognition that the Israeli far-right, represented in its government, must be rejected. We cannot acquiesce, in London, in Washington, or anywhere, to the normalisation of these political forces. We cannot force the Israeli people to vote one way or another, but we can and should ensure our own behaviour reflects our values. It is incumbent upon the west to marginalise and isolate the Israeli political forces that ultimately undermine the safety of Israel’s own people, as well as global interests in the region. HA Hellyer is a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace