Prior to the UK Commons debate on Palestine, Vincent Fean offered some compelling arguments in favour of recognition and a two-state solution to avoid further violence, injustice and discrimination.

In the event, the motion was passed on 13 October 2014 with 12 Noes and 274 in favour.

The Guardian view described the result as entrenching the two-state vision, (endorsed by the UN in 1947 but never fulfilled) and as a reflection of the growing frustration “with both the failure to make progress on peace and the actions of the Israeli government”.

IJV’s Antony Lerman explained the significance of this symbolic vote offering a very thorough in-depth analysis from a variety of angles on Open Democracy. In the end, however, taking the long view leads him to conclude on a note of chilling realism:

Symbolism and good intentions notwithstanding, I’m not persuaded that what we have witnessed is much more than a kind of surreal political and diplomatic shadow-boxing. I have no doubt that recognising Palestine as a state is the very least that British parliamentarians should do. But to anchor argumentation for it so firmly in the shifting, unstable sands of the two-state solution is to ignore the fundamental reality of the de facto, repressive, unequal single-state that now exists, controlled by the Israeli regime.

Read the full analysis here.