Sir Keir Starmer’s plan for imminent recognition of a Palestinian state is a terrible diplomatic misstep. As Kemi Badenoch correctly states in these pages today, while many desire a two-state solution, it cannot be imposed in a manner which effectively rewards the bloody terror tactics employed by Hamas. A murderous pogrom, rapes and kidnappings shouldn’t, in any sane world, lead to a political victory, with no real meaningful conditions attached.
Yet that is already exactly how the forthcoming decision is being received by Hamas and other extremist groups, who will surely see their morale bolstered as a result. In practical terms, however, Mr Starmer’s recognition would have no more than symbolic force.
The power to create a new state is not in Britain’s gift. Israel does not want to give room for Hamas to rearm and rebuild its strength; peace must wait until the group is militarily defeated, and the hostages are returned, as America understands.
Sir Keir insists that he does not wish for Hamas to remain in power in Gaza, but simultaneously appears to object to each concrete step taken by Israel to remove the terror group. This failure to engage with reality is at the heart of his approach to the conflict, and illustrative of the wishful thinking that appears to underlie the decision.
The motive behind the proposal is transparent: the Prime Minister is under pressure from the Left of his party, with the chances of a leadership challenge growing, and from outside the party too. Jeremy Corbyn’s new party may be a shambolic, infighting mess, but that is unlikely to matter to those seeking to register a protest vote.
As a council by-election in east London demonstrated on Thursday with the election of another pro-Gaza independent, if Palestine remains salient in the next general election Mr Corbyn’s group could well play spoiler.
Yet those voters sufficiently focused on the Middle East to vote for Mr Corbyn would likely do so regardless of any gesture made by Sir Keir to win them over. And within the Labour Party, the demand will surely be to follow this action with concrete steps to punish Israel, which no British prime minister could reasonably accede to.
Given this, it would be better for Sir Keir to take a moral stand and campaign for the release of the hostages rather than engaging in futile gesture politics in a vain attempt to placate the rabidly anti-Israel Left.
That the Prime Minister is apparently unable or unwilling to realise this reflects poorly on his judgment, and on his suitability for leadership. Sir Keir’s course has been set not by the demands of morality or policy, but by his weakness as a leader.
Sir Keir Starmer’s plan for imminent recognition of a Palestinian state is a terrible diplomatic misstep. As Kemi Badenoch correctly states in these pages today, while many desire a two-state solution, it cannot be imposed in a manner which effectively rewards the bloody terror tactics employed by Hamas. A murderous pogrom, rapes and kidnappings shouldn’t, in any sane world, lead to a political victory, with no real meaningful conditions attached.
Yet that is already exactly how the forthcoming decision is being received by Hamas and other extremist groups, who will surely see their morale bolstered as a result. In practical terms, however, Mr Starmer’s recognition would have no more than symbolic force.
The power to create a new state is not in Britain’s gift. Israel does not want to give room for Hamas to rearm and rebuild its strength; peace must wait until the group is militarily defeated, and the hostages are returned, as America understands.
Sir Keir insists that he does not wish for Hamas to remain in power in Gaza, but simultaneously appears to object to each concrete step taken by Israel to remove the terror group. This failure to engage with reality is at the heart of his approach to the conflict, and illustrative of the wishful thinking that appears to underlie the decision.
The motive behind the proposal is transparent: the Prime Minister is under pressure from the Left of his party, with the chances of a leadership challenge growing, and from outside the party too. Jeremy Corbyn’s new party may be a shambolic, infighting mess, but that is unlikely to matter to those seeking to register a protest vote.
As a council by-election in east London demonstrated on Thursday with the election of another pro-Gaza independent, if Palestine remains salient in the next general election Mr Corbyn’s group could well play spoiler.
Yet those voters sufficiently focused on the Middle East to vote for Mr Corbyn would likely do so regardless of any gesture made by Sir Keir to win them over. And within the Labour Party, the demand will surely be to follow this action with concrete steps to punish Israel, which no British prime minister could reasonably accede to.
Given this, it would be better for Sir Keir to take a moral stand and campaign for the release of the hostages rather than engaging in futile gesture politics in a vain attempt to placate the rabidly anti-Israel Left.
That the Prime Minister is apparently unable or unwilling to realise this reflects poorly on his judgment, and on his suitability for leadership. Sir Keir’s course has been set not by the demands of morality or policy, but by his weakness as a leader.