The furore over the President of Israel’s visit to London this week encapsulates the intensity of feeling that has swept through the political and cultural establishment. What is striking is that many of those leading protests genuinely appear to believe the charge that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza – a claim that is both deeply serious and, as the Labour Government itself concluded in recent days, unfounded.
Yet this has done little to deter Israel’s harshest critics, who remain committed to delegitimising the Jewish state. Their influence has been felt: Sir Keir Starmer has announced that the UK will recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations in the coming days.
This cannot credibly be seen as a move designed to end the grim fighting in Gaza. Hamas hailed the announcement as a victory, and the plight of Israel’s 48 remaining hostages has been made worse. By offering up state recognition now, Britain risks reducing incentives for Hamas to compromise and, worse, sends a troubling message that terrorism can be rewarded. The precedent is clear: maximum violence appears to yield maximum dividends.
Why, then, has the Government chosen this moment – still in the shadow of the October 7 atrocities – to take such a dramatic step? The uncomfortable truth is that electoral considerations seem to have played a part. Pro-Gaza candidates have drawn strong support from sections of the Muslim community, and Labour strategists appear more preoccupied with neutralising that threat, alongside Jeremy Corbyn’s return to the fray, than with long-term national interest. This looks less like statesmanship than short-term political calculation.
The domestic consequences are grave. By appearing to give way to the loudest voices on the streets, the Government has set a precedent that will embolden activist movements of all kinds. Meanwhile, Britain’s Jewish community, already facing a disturbing surge in antisemitism, will understandably feel further exposed. The implicit message is that those who have marched against Israel were right all along – a conclusion that will do nothing to ease the hostility they face.
A more informed debate would confront some awkward realities. The Palestinian Authority, held up internationally as the “moderate” alternative to Hamas, has an alarming record. Its President, Mahmoud Abbas, is 21 years into what was meant to be a four-year term. He has previously caused outrage with inflammatory remarks about Jews, and his administration is notorious among Palestinians for corruption. The PA curriculum includes textbooks that glorify terrorists and perpetuate antisemitic stereotypes. Its policy of paying salaries to convicted terrorists – and celebrating them as “martyrs” – is long established.
Despite this, President Abbas received the red-carpet treatment at Downing Street this week - an honour pointedly denied to Israel’s head of state, President Isaac Herzog, 48 hours later. Beyond the usual diplomatic talk of “reform”, there was little sign of serious pressure being applied on these issues. If this is what Britain endorses as a foundation for a recognised Palestinian state, then the risks are stark. Indeed, polling shows that were Palestinians to be given a genuinely free vote, Hamas – not the PA – would almost certainly emerge as the most popular force. Far from moving towards peace, the UK risks strengthening the hand of those most opposed to it.
The Prime Minister cannot claim ignorance of these realities. Britain, with its deep historic and diplomatic ties across the Middle East, had an opportunity to help create the conditions for renewed peace talks. Instead, by moving precipitously, it has weakened its leverage and unsettled even Arab states that had themselves been pressing Hamas to change course.
This decision marks a low point for Britain’s international influence. But it may be the domestic consequences – a politics made more sectarian, a Jewish community made to feel less secure, and activist groups emboldened by success on the streets – that prove most lasting.
The furore over the President of Israel’s visit to London this week encapsulates the intensity of feeling that has swept through the political and cultural establishment. What is striking is that many of those leading protests genuinely appear to believe the charge that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza – a claim that is both deeply serious and, as the Labour Government itself concluded in recent days, unfounded.
Yet this has done little to deter Israel’s harshest critics, who remain committed to delegitimising the Jewish state. Their influence has been felt: Sir Keir Starmer has announced that the UK will recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations in the coming days.
This cannot credibly be seen as a move designed to end the grim fighting in Gaza. Hamas hailed the announcement as a victory, and the plight of Israel’s 48 remaining hostages has been made worse. By offering up state recognition now, Britain risks reducing incentives for Hamas to compromise and, worse, sends a troubling message that terrorism can be rewarded. The precedent is clear: maximum violence appears to yield maximum dividends.
Why, then, has the Government chosen this moment – still in the shadow of the October 7 atrocities – to take such a dramatic step? The uncomfortable truth is that electoral considerations seem to have played a part. Pro-Gaza candidates have drawn strong support from sections of the Muslim community, and Labour strategists appear more preoccupied with neutralising that threat, alongside Jeremy Corbyn’s return to the fray, than with long-term national interest. This looks less like statesmanship than short-term political calculation.
The domestic consequences are grave. By appearing to give way to the loudest voices on the streets, the Government has set a precedent that will embolden activist movements of all kinds. Meanwhile, Britain’s Jewish community, already facing a disturbing surge in antisemitism, will understandably feel further exposed. The implicit message is that those who have marched against Israel were right all along – a conclusion that will do nothing to ease the hostility they face.
A more informed debate would confront some awkward realities. The Palestinian Authority, held up internationally as the “moderate” alternative to Hamas, has an alarming record. Its President, Mahmoud Abbas, is 21 years into what was meant to be a four-year term. He has previously caused outrage with inflammatory remarks about Jews, and his administration is notorious among Palestinians for corruption. The PA curriculum includes textbooks that glorify terrorists and perpetuate antisemitic stereotypes. Its policy of paying salaries to convicted terrorists – and celebrating them as “martyrs” – is long established.
Despite this, President Abbas received the red-carpet treatment at Downing Street this week - an honour pointedly denied to Israel’s head of state, President Isaac Herzog, 48 hours later. Beyond the usual diplomatic talk of “reform”, there was little sign of serious pressure being applied on these issues. If this is what Britain endorses as a foundation for a recognised Palestinian state, then the risks are stark. Indeed, polling shows that were Palestinians to be given a genuinely free vote, Hamas – not the PA – would almost certainly emerge as the most popular force. Far from moving towards peace, the UK risks strengthening the hand of those most opposed to it.
The Prime Minister cannot claim ignorance of these realities. Britain, with its deep historic and diplomatic ties across the Middle East, had an opportunity to help create the conditions for renewed peace talks. Instead, by moving precipitously, it has weakened its leverage and unsettled even Arab states that had themselves been pressing Hamas to change course.
This decision marks a low point for Britain’s international influence. But it may be the domestic consequences – a politics made more sectarian, a Jewish community made to feel less secure, and activist groups emboldened by success on the streets – that prove most lasting.