OPINION: Starmer’s recognition of Palestine is a shameful betrayal of Israel

The decision to recognise a non-existent Palestinian state will go down in history as one of the most blundering, self-defeating and shameful acts of British foreign policy in recent memory. It has no moral weight or intellectual credibility and will make zero impact on what happens on the ground in the Middle East.

In the first instance, there is nothing for Britain to recognise. The putative State of Palestine has no definable borders, territory or capital, no unified political leadership and no government able to exercise sovereignty. An ethereal Palestinian state is a warped political fantasy dressed up as an exercise in morality. States cannot just be imagined into existence, or else an independent and sovereign Tibet, Kurdistan and Catalonia would have come into being a long time ago.

Recognising ‘Palestine’ is rightly described as a reward for terrorism. One Hamas official, Mahmoud Mardaw, has already declared that the move represents “a victory for Palestinian rights and the justice of our cause”. How abject, but not surprising, that a terror group proscribed by the UK government, one which is hated by so many in the Middle East, is buoyant after hearing the UK government’s shameful declaration.

Meanwhile, those Palestinian voices that support a more moderate path of diplomacy and non-violence will be sidelined. They will be told that it was 7 October that galvanised the free world into submission and that only the continuing threat of mass violence is worthwhile. Hamas may well be strengthened in the West Bank, along with other radical jihadi actors who will doubtless feel empowered by this move.

Starmer’s hapless government seems to think that unilateral recognition will somehow kickstart the process by which a Palestinian state is created. He has clearly forgotten that while some 150 governments recognise ‘Palestine’, a sovereign Palestinian state is as far away as ever.

The primary reason is that when such a state has been offered in the past, Palestinian leaders have turned it down. They have refused to dial down their maximalist demands on the right of return and Jerusalem and chosen instead the path of rejectionism and murderous violence.

Moreover, the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and the subsequent creation of a terror state on Israel’s borders, culminating in the demonic slaughter of 7 October, have shown Israelis what might happen if there is a withdrawal from the strategically more sensitive West Bank. No one observing the carnage that day can blame Israelis for not wishing to gamble with their security.

That is why a crucial component of state building involves the de-radicalisation of Palestinian society, the removal of incitement from schools and the media, the abolition of UNRWA and an end to the PA’s endemic corruption. It will also mean abandoning the long-cherished dream of a right of return, which is a formula for destroying Israel, and recognising that Jewish sovereignty is a permanent fixture in the region. There will have to be painful compromises from Israel too. In her case, that means withdrawing from land to which Israelis have a historic and legal claim.

Crucially, recognising a Palestinian state will require hard graft and political compromises, not short-term political largesse. Recognised statehood is something to be achieved as the outcome of negotiations, rather than a given at the outset. But Starmer’s recognition means that the Palestinian movement has a reward in advance of any talks, the opposite of what is needed.

Perhaps Starmer thinks that this performative and cynical stunt will buy him time with the intransigent anti-Israel rebels in his own party. This would be a foolish and naïve assumption. Those MPs, together with their vociferous supporters up and down the country, will demand arms embargoes, sanctions and other punitive measures against Israel, all in an effort to isolate this ‘genocidal’ state. ‘Free Palestine’ means an end to Israel, not a two-state solution. Starmer’s cowardly announcement is thus as self-defeating as it is ignominious.

Our Prime Minister likes to think he is principled and statesmanlike and that he is projecting British influence across the world. In reality, he is utterly clueless about the Middle East and seems happy to alienate the UK’s most trusted ally in that region. For shame.

• Jeremy Havardi is a freelance journalist and author