Keir Starmer’s recognition of a Palestinian state is a catastrophic misjudgement that will do nothing to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.
By demanding Israel meet impossible ceasefire terms, while giving a free pass to Hamas, this policy has betrayed Britain’s tradition of even-handed diplomacy. It rewards terror, excuses Palestinian governance failures, dismantles the Oslo framework, and surrenders to domestic political forces that are hell-bent on Israel’s demise.
As we approach the two year anniversary of the October 7 atrocities, Starmer’s timing could not be any worse.
Hamas’s brutal assault – slaughtering 1,200 civilians, with rapes, mutilations, and over 251 taken hostage – was the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Yet Starmer’s plan places no conditions on Hamas: no hostage releases, no renunciation of terror, no commitment to a demilitarised state. Granting statehood now tells extremists that violence wins rewards.
It was precisely the moment that France, Spain, Ireland, and Norway committed to recognition in 2024 that Hamas grew more intransigent, rejecting ceasefire and hostage deals. US Ambassador Mike Huckabee has warned that unilateral recognition “has disastrous consequences that have proven to do exactly opposite” of fostering peace. Recognition now signals that violence and defiance are more effective than compromise, as Hamas terror leaders have been telling their supporters for decades.
The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA), set to lead any new state, is also unfit. Britain and global donors have invested billions, demanding reforms to end corruption and safeguard freedoms. Yet 80 per cent of Palestinians in the West Bank view PA institutions as riddled with corruption. A recent report by the US State Department documents torture, arbitrary arrests, and attacks on journalists. July 2025 saw intensified PA crackdowns to shore up Mahmoud Abbas’s faltering rule. Donor calls for change go unanswered. Recognition would entrench this failure, wasting Britain’s leverage.
This move also demolishes the Oslo Accords, the 1993 bedrock of peace. Oslo charted gradual Palestinian autonomy, leading to talks on borders, Jerusalem, and security. Israel recognised the PLO; the PLO rejected terror and affirmed Israel’s right to exist. Statehood was the endgame, earned through negotiation. Unilateral recognition destroys incentives for compromise. Why negotiate land swaps or secure borders when sovereignty is handed over? This emboldens hardliners, freezes talks, and betrays Britain’s Oslo role.
Starmer’s pivot reeks of domestic capitulation. His once-steadfast support for Israel as an ally has crumbled rapidly under pressure from the aggressive anti-Israel faction on Labour’s backbenches. After a difficult first year in office, and now with the party conference looming, Starmer’s team hope they are buying goodwill and time. But, make no mistake, this faction won’t stop here. For many of them, “Free Palestine” means no Israel. Next will surely come calls for sanctions, arms embargoes, reparations for the Balfour Declaration, and further steps to de-legitimise the Jewish state. Starmer is starting down a very dangerous path.
The Government’s Palestinian policy represents a major break with the US which no amount of pomp and ceremony will gloss over. Even under Democratic leadership, the US was clear that statehood must be tied to a secure, demilitarised Palestine. The European approach, which Starmer has opted for, would instead lay the foundation for a terrorist state in the West Bank – something that no Israeli politician, left or right, would ever allow to happen.
It is painful to watch Britain’s standing in the Middle East reduced to tatters. Once a trusted mediator and guarantor of Oslo, Britain has alienated Israel, a trusted and vital security partner, while signalling to moderate Arab states that it is not a reliable friend when under pressure from extremists.
Every right-thinking person longs for lasting peace in the Middle East. But unilateral recognition is a reckless gesture that makes it even more improbable – while, in the meantime, fuelling antisemitism at home and tarnishing Britain’s legacy as a force for stability.
Keir Starmer’s recognition of a Palestinian state is a catastrophic misjudgement that will do nothing to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.
By demanding Israel meet impossible ceasefire terms, while giving a free pass to Hamas, this policy has betrayed Britain’s tradition of even-handed diplomacy. It rewards terror, excuses Palestinian governance failures, dismantles the Oslo framework, and surrenders to domestic political forces that are hell-bent on Israel’s demise.
As we approach the two year anniversary of the October 7 atrocities, Starmer’s timing could not be any worse.
Hamas’s brutal assault – slaughtering 1,200 civilians, with rapes, mutilations, and over 251 taken hostage – was the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. Yet Starmer’s plan places no conditions on Hamas: no hostage releases, no renunciation of terror, no commitment to a demilitarised state. Granting statehood now tells extremists that violence wins rewards.
It was precisely the moment that France, Spain, Ireland, and Norway committed to recognition in 2024 that Hamas grew more intransigent, rejecting ceasefire and hostage deals. US Ambassador Mike Huckabee has warned that unilateral recognition “has disastrous consequences that have proven to do exactly opposite” of fostering peace. Recognition now signals that violence and defiance are more effective than compromise, as Hamas terror leaders have been telling their supporters for decades.
The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA), set to lead any new state, is also unfit. Britain and global donors have invested billions, demanding reforms to end corruption and safeguard freedoms. Yet 80 per cent of Palestinians in the West Bank view PA institutions as riddled with corruption. A recent report by the US State Department documents torture, arbitrary arrests, and attacks on journalists. July 2025 saw intensified PA crackdowns to shore up Mahmoud Abbas’s faltering rule. Donor calls for change go unanswered. Recognition would entrench this failure, wasting Britain’s leverage.
This move also demolishes the Oslo Accords, the 1993 bedrock of peace. Oslo charted gradual Palestinian autonomy, leading to talks on borders, Jerusalem, and security. Israel recognised the PLO; the PLO rejected terror and affirmed Israel’s right to exist. Statehood was the endgame, earned through negotiation. Unilateral recognition destroys incentives for compromise. Why negotiate land swaps or secure borders when sovereignty is handed over? This emboldens hardliners, freezes talks, and betrays Britain’s Oslo role.
Starmer’s pivot reeks of domestic capitulation. His once-steadfast support for Israel as an ally has crumbled rapidly under pressure from the aggressive anti-Israel faction on Labour’s backbenches. After a difficult first year in office, and now with the party conference looming, Starmer’s team hope they are buying goodwill and time. But, make no mistake, this faction won’t stop here. For many of them, “Free Palestine” means no Israel. Next will surely come calls for sanctions, arms embargoes, reparations for the Balfour Declaration, and further steps to de-legitimise the Jewish state. Starmer is starting down a very dangerous path.
The Government’s Palestinian policy represents a major break with the US which no amount of pomp and ceremony will gloss over. Even under Democratic leadership, the US was clear that statehood must be tied to a secure, demilitarised Palestine. The European approach, which Starmer has opted for, would instead lay the foundation for a terrorist state in the West Bank – something that no Israeli politician, left or right, would ever allow to happen.
It is painful to watch Britain’s standing in the Middle East reduced to tatters. Once a trusted mediator and guarantor of Oslo, Britain has alienated Israel, a trusted and vital security partner, while signalling to moderate Arab states that it is not a reliable friend when under pressure from extremists.
Every right-thinking person longs for lasting peace in the Middle East. But unilateral recognition is a reckless gesture that makes it even more improbable – while, in the meantime, fuelling antisemitism at home and tarnishing Britain’s legacy as a force for stability.