Recognising Palestine is not rewarding Hamas – and it shouldn’t come with strings

‘Appeasement towards a jihadist state. Rewarding Hamas’s monstrous terrorism.’

That was how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to Keir Starmer’s announcement that, unless certain conditions are met, the UK will recognise Palestinian statehood.

That take is as false as it is dangerous. Yet this is the line pushed by Netanyahu and his officials, echoed by some in Washington, and parroted by too many British politicians still afraid to show moral leadership.

Let’s be clear: nothing about diplomatic recognition excuses the horrors of 7 October. Hamas’s attack was barbaric.

There’s no ifs. No buts. The pain it caused is real and enduring, with dozens of hostages still held in Gaza.

Recognising Palestine is not about Hamas.

In fact, it’s one of the few moves left that could help ensure Hamas does not shape the political future of the Palestinian people.

Hamas claims to be the only effective representative of Palestinian resistance but recognition would empower alternative leadership – someone credible, moderate and internationally recognised.

Then, and only then, can we begin to shift the conversation from war to peace and vengeance to diplomacy.

Recognition is about the principle that Palestinians, like Israelis, deserve the right to live in peace, in security, and with dignity.

Denying that right – and delaying it endlessly, as Britain and our allies have done for too long – only deepens the sense that the world is comfortable with a permanent occupation and the slow suffocation of a people.

So, was Starmer’s announcement a positive step? Yes. But it doesn’t go far enough.

Conditional recognition still treats Palestinian rights as a reward for good behaviour, not as a fundamental entitlement under international law.

Spain, Norway and Ireland recognised Palestine unconditionally. France is preparing to be the first G7 country to do the same. Britain’s insistence on attaching strings makes us look timid, not principled.

Our position is not just morally incoherent. It is increasingly embarrassing.

147 out of 193 UN member states have already recognised Palestine. Even close US allies in the Global South – like Brazil and South Africa – are shifting.

We are running out of allies to hide behind.

If Starmer truly wants to reset Britain’s global role – and let’s be honest, post-Brexit we’ve not exactly been leading the pack – then he must break from the Trump-style conditionality that has only ever stalled peace.

I’ve written and spoken extensively about how proud I am of our country, for many reasons.

At our best, we are a moral compass for the world – clear-eyed, principled, and willing to lead. We might not have the military might of America or China, but the world watches what we do because we provide a rare moral clarity.

On Ukraine, we have been flawless: consistent, courageous, morally certain. We didn’t blink before picking a side. We punched above our weight – and rightly so.

On Gaza, however, we have been hesitant and slow. And I hate to say it, but that hesitation will mark our history.

The attempted logic that recognition should come after negotiations has failed Palestinians for decades. You cannot ask people to negotiate for their humanity while denying they are even a people.

Recognition is not a reward. It is a precondition for any meaningful peace process.

Speaking as someone from a Jewish background, I feel this acutely.

7 October triggered deep, generational trauma. That fear, grief, and fury are real.

But that pain does not justify the collective punishment of more than two million Gazans, nor blind us to the basic rights of Palestinians – the same rights we all enjoy.

It’s precisely because I believe in safety and justice for Israelis that I must also believe in safety and justice for Palestinians. That truth is not a threat – it is the only path forward.

Britain has a historic role here and a monumental moral responsibility. From the Balfour Declaration to our colonial legacy, Britain helped shape many of the conditions that define today’s conflict. That history demands that we do more than watch.

So, we can continue to wring our hands while homes are flattened, hospitals bombed, famine looms, and children starve to death. Or we can do as we have in Ukraine and draw a line.

We know this isn’t right – we feel it in our core.

That’s why just 14% of Britons oppose recognition of a Palestinian state, according to recent YouGov polling, and why we are nearly twice as likely to sympathise with Palestinians over Israelis.

What do you make of Starmer’s statement? Have your say in the comments belowComment Now

Not because we are antisemitic. Not because we are anti-Jewish. We’re not. Our country has an incredibly proud history of welcoming Jewish people, and long may that continue.

But it’s past time to join those countries willing to say: enough is enough. The path to peace begins with recognising that both peoples belong, and we must recognise Palestine quickly – without conditions.

When the world turned against apartheid South Africa, nobody said, ‘prove you’re ready for dignity.’ It was granted because it was a right, not a prize.

Recognition will not end the war overnight, but we owe it, first and foremost, to the people of Palestine.

And in doing so, we can reaffirm Britain’s role as a moral leader by sending a clear message: we refuse to let Hamas or Netanyahu define what peace is.

Do you have a story you’d like to share? Get in touch by emailing Ross.Mccafferty@metro.co.uk. 

Share your views in the comments below.

What do you make of Starmer’s statement? Have your say in the comments below