A rookie mistake on Palestine

The UK and others are strengthening Hamas and unwittingly undermining Palestine by recognizing it unconditionally. Here's what they should do now.

A slew of world governments are itching to help end the catastrophic Gaza war, and the path they have settled on is to prematurely recognize the “state of Palestine.” The UK’s Starmer government did so today, along with Canada and Australia, and others are set to follow at the upcoming UN General Assembly. Far better would have been for Europe (and the Arabs) to table an irresistible grand design for peace and reconstruction, with future recognition as a carrot.

The UK’s Labour government, which I have a window into, thinks its willingness to recognize Palestine is what compelled the Arab League to call on Hamas to disarm two months ago, and this may be true. It’s also convinced that recognition will keep alive the two-state solution that Israel’s Netanyahu cabal is working assiduously to destroy with West Bank settlement outrages; here, alas, their calculations are wrong. They are handing a lifeline to Hamas, which will be seen as having brought it about, and therefore stiffening Israeli resistance, because Israel will take no risks while the savage jihadists are still around and armed. That applies not just to the odious Netanyahu, but to all Israelis — so it helps him too. In this way, Starmer et al are actually undermining the goal of a Palestine.

On the other hand, a real strategic plan is desperately needed, and is simply not forthcoming from either America’s clueless Trump nor Netanyahu, who runs circles around the Americans. Meanwhile, Israel has proceeded with a ground invasion of Gaza City, which promises new catastrophes and is opposed by the military and most Israelis. So the recognitions come amid a raging tempest.

Defending reason matters more these days than ever. Consider supporting us with a paid subscription unlocking full access (or the “Board Member” tier which entitles you to personal communications advisory services.)

In his recognition speech Sunday, the well-meaning, somewhat naive and scandal-plagued Starmer blasted Hamas as a “brutal terrorist organization” that must have no role in Palestinian governance, but also condemned Israel’s brutality in Gaza, saying “this death and destruction horrifies all of us.” It very much looks like punishment for Israel for continuing the assault on Gaza, but Starmer insisted that it aims “to revive the hopes of peace and a two-state solution.”

Will it? Might it? Some topline thoughts on this:

• The Montevideo Convention of 1933 is the accepted foundation for statehood, and inter alia it requires a state to have a permanent population, defined territory, government, and the ability to conduct foreign relations. While the Palestinian Arabs have been forged (almost entirely by Israel’s rise) as a distinct people, other criteria collapse upon inspection. There is no unified government: Hamas rules Gaza as an Islamist enclave, the Palestinian Authority clings to parts of the West Bank, and the two are bitter rivals with irreconcilable visions. There are no agreed borders either: Gaza is cut off, East Jerusalem is annexed by Israel, and the West Bank is a patchwork of settlements, enclaves, and military oversight. Without a government capable of ruling its people or a territory it can administer, the claim to statehood under Montevideo cannot stand. Recognition in this context is not legal acknowledgment but political symbolism untethered from the convention.

• That said, recognition by Britain specifically does carry particular symbolic weight. It was Britain that issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, setting the stage for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and later administering the Mandate that shaped the conflict’s contours. For London now to declare Palestine a state, despite the absence of the Montevideo requirements, is a historical gesture laden with irony, a bid to balance past responsibility with present politics. Much of that political equation, of course, is Labour’s reliance, in the rapidly fracturing UK political landscape, on the Muslim minority and specific constituencies where Muslim immigrants (about 6% of the overall population) hold sway.

• Polls in the UK on the popularity of this move vary wildly. One poll showed 90% opposed, while others showed support exceeding 40%. The difference appears to be in the wording — whether one emphasizes that the recognition is unconditional. It is baffling to many that the UK missed the opportunity to condition recognition on Hamas disarming and letting go of its hostages — not just the 50-odd Israelis (over half already dead) but 2 million Gazans. Also, the issue slots into the increasing tension in Britain with immigrant Muslims.

• Israel, where Netanyahu already expressed outrage, could answer recognition with more settlements deep in the West Bank, creating realities on the ground that render partition impossible and make foreign declarations irrelevant. Yet this course is disastrous for Israel itself: without separation from the Palestinians — whose numbers across Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel now match the Jewish population — the country risks losing its Jewish majority and, with it, its identity as a Jewish state. That is a problem for Israeli voters to sort out; if Netanyahu is reelected next year, it would essentially be national suicide; democracies generally get what they deserve.

Now that this is happened, here is the reality: To prevent this unconditional recognition from becoming actively harmful, it must be coupled with enormous international pressure on Hamas to disarm. And that brings us to the heart of the matter and to a more useful path forward.

For decades, Europe has been largely irrelevant in Middle East diplomacy. The US dominated, while Europeans offered various support. But Europe is far from irrelevant. Israel’s economy is hugely dependent on exports that Europe, as its largest trading partner, must be willing to buy. The Palestinians, too, need Europe for aid and funding. The current moment presents a rare opening. Indeed, former UK PM and current machinator-for-hire Tony Blair, who has a good nose for opportunities, is already making moves in this direction. Watch that space.

In New York two months ago, the Arab League, joined by Western states, publicly called on Hamas to disarm, as I alluded to above. This marked a historic moment: the Arab states including Qatar, historically a patron of Hamas, recognized that these terrorists are the roadblock. On Friday, September 12, the UN General Assembly made the “New York Declaration” a global consensus, endorsing it with a 142-10 vote. This resolution, spearheaded by France and Saudi Arabia, calls for a Hamas-free Palestinian government and a two-state solution, condemns Hamas’s October 2023 attacks on Israeli civilians, demands the release of hostages, and supports the transfer of authority in Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. The declaration also proposes a temporary UN security mission to ensure peace and assist in state-building efforts in Palestine.

Europe should leverage all this by presenting, together with the Arabs, a detailed and actionable framework to achieve all of this.

It must begin with ending the war and securing the safe return of all hostages, a step that, on the surface, may seem to accept Hamas’s continued hold on power. This initial concession is tactical, setting the stage for a massive choice: Reconstruction of Gaza should then be conditioned on Hamas agreeing to leave power and disarm.

If Hamas refuses, the plan should provide Palestinians with temporary refuge elsewhere – in Egypt under binding guarantees of return once the enclave is stabilized and Hamas has been removed, or perhaps even in the West Bank’s Palestinian autonomous zones. Cairo would require massive compensation for hosting displaced populations (as Egypt is obsessed with avoiding this scenario), but the arrangement would make unmistakably clear where the real obstacle lies: with the savage jihadis who expelled the PA from Gaza in a coup in 2007. And it would prevent a humanitarian disaster.

The PA should be restored as Gaza’s governing body, supported internationally in both administrative functions and security oversight, and in a careful transition that would also include unequivocal demands for reforms. The US should use its leverage over Israel, ensuring it stops demonizing, sabotaging, and blocking the PA. Europe, too, has leverage on Israel as its largest trading partner.

The PA should be required to amend the textbooks that Israel rightly claims educate young Palestinians to hate Jews. It must also agree to receive security assistance as part of the package, ensuring it can maintain order, prevent armed factions from re-emerging, and rebuild essential institutions.

Arab states – particularly Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE – should commit credibly to lead the reconstruction effort, providing the tens of billions necessary to rebuild homes, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. This dual approach – removing Hamas from power while rebuilding the strip’s infrastructure and restoring credible governance – creates the conditions for a stable, prosperous Gaza and lays the foundation for eventual recognition of a Palestinian state.

Yet, that recognition should come only after Hamas has been removed and credible governance is in place. In this framework, a clear promise for recognition is a useful incentive to create irresistible pressure on the group.

The Israeli public is likely to embrace it even if the government does not. Over 70% of Israelis oppose the continuation of the war under its current parameters, and it has also been discouraged by senior military leadership, including IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir.

If Israel proceeds in its plan to fully occupy Gaza City and the rest of the strip over a long term, the result will likely be a bloodbath: Hamas has had months to prepare, embedding fighters and explosives among civilians. A prolonged occupation and administration of 2 million Gazans will be a nightmare.

Moreover, an eventual demilitarized Palestinian state separated from Israel is not a favor or a capitulation but a strategic need for Israel – because with the West Bank and Gaza incorporated into it Israel is a nondemocratic and completely binational state. That’s the end of Zionism. An international plan that outlines an attractive endgame and a future partition, but conditioning everything on Hamas disarming, would be a favor to all sides.

America cannot seem to lead it – so Europe should. If the Europeans truly want to see the emergence of a Palestinian state, gaining UN backing for this plank is way better than meaningless recognitions that will strengthen the terrorists who begat the current disaster.

Since Trump is no fan of forever wars, and the MAGA movement is starting to sour on the manipulative Netanyahu, there is even a chance that the US leader will back it, adopt it as his own, and use it in his amusing campaign to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here is the transcript of my appearance on the Indian TV station NewsX today, addressing all these issues, plus the tantalizing question of Syria: