Sir,
When Hamas launched its brutal invasion of Israel on October 7th, 2023, they could not have foreseen how “successful” their medieval pogrom would be—not just in terms of death and destruction, but in the political tsunami less than two years later.
As terrorists swept through Israeli towns and kibbutzim—accompanied by so-called “ordinary” Gazans—they committed unspeakable atrocities: murdering, raping, burning civilians alive, and beheading men, women, and children in front of their families. Another 251 people, including children, were kidnapped into Gaza.
Few could have imagined that a British government would choose to reward such savagery with a promise to recognise a Palestinian state— apparently to appease restive MPs and placate internal party pressures.
This gesture of recognition is neither strategic nor principled. It is incoherent. Under the Montevideo Convention of 1933 a state must possess: a defined territory, a permanent population, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Any “State of Palestine” currently meets, at best, two of these four conditions.
Sir Keir Starmer has said he would not recognise Palestine if certain conditions he set out are met. It is not the role of a British Prime Minister to lecture Israel but how must he feel to have earned the praise of Hamas?
Yes, many Israelis might one day accept a demilitarised Palestinian state in parts of Judea Samaria and Gaza—if and only if its population is ideologically detoxified much like Germany’s population after WWII. This is not an abstract demand. It is a direct response to amongst other issues; the anti-Jewish incitement found in Palestinian Authority schoolbooks—this incitement acknowledged in a comprehensive EU-funded review available in the House of Commons Library.
This same Palestinian Authority absurdly considered “moderate” by many western countries, continues to operate its notorious “Pay to Slay” programme, which rewards terrorists and their families with formal, PA-funded salaries—a grotesque inversion of moral values.
There is a simple test for Western policymakers. If a future Palestinian state could one day resemble Luxembourg—peaceful, stable, demilitarised, and neighbourly—it would likely be welcomed. But so long as the real goal remains to “replace” Israel rather than to “coexist” with it, there can be no Palestinian state.
Recognition must be earned—not given as a reward for terror or to paper over domestic political cracks. Western governments including those of Canada and Australia who lost no time in joining Britain’s virtue signalling, would do better to focus on fostering long-term stability, not offering premature diplomatic prizes for their own short-term political gain.
M.F. Berwald.
Herzliya, Israel
Chair of Israel Britain and the Commonwealth Association
