Keir Starmer has demands for Israel and messages for Hamas. And that is really all one need know about the foreign policy of modern Europe.
The UK prime minister today announced his government’s intention to recognize a Palestinian state in September at the UN General Assembly. Maybe.
“I’ve always said that we will recognize a Palestinian state as a contribution to a proper peace process at the moment of maximum impact for the two-state solution,” Starmer declared. “With that solution now under threat, this is the moment to act. So today, as part of this process towards peace, I can confirm the UK will recognize the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution. And this includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid and making clear that there will be no annexations in the West Bank.”
So those are the demands on Israel. But if recognition is centered on Gaza—and Starmer made clear several times that it is—what must the current Hamas government in Gaza do to show that they are ready for the responsibilities and obligations of a national government?
Starmer had an answer at the ready: literally absolutely nothing.
“Meanwhile, our message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged and unequivocal.”
I’m sorry—message? Like an open letter, or a very stern email?
Yes, message. “They must immediately release all of the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm, and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza.”
Or what?
So Starmer and his merry band of Eurocrats chased Hamas away from the negotiating table and want to punish Israel for it. Since Starmer helped sabotage cease-fire talks, it sure looks like he just wants an excuse to recognize the “state of Palestine” in September, following France’s lead.
But unlike France, Starmer is making his framing of a Palestinian state explicit: He views it as bad for Israel and therefore only to be done if the Israelis really deserve to be punished.
Is that how we create nation-states? Is it merely an exercise in negative reinforcement? A sibling of mine has a dog that chews socks. Should I tell her to try recognizing Palestine, so the ’doodle knows she’s serious?
“Recognizing Palestine” has indeed become some sort of standing threat, which I assume bothers Palestinians greatly. We’ll give you self-government, but only if the Jews make us so angry we don’t know what else to do.
Does the reverse work as well? Will Sir Keir welcome Israeli annexation of the West Bank if the Palestinians bother him enough?
Generally speaking, true statesmanship treats the world as it is. “Recognizing” something that doesn’t exist is usually evidence of a high fever, not strategic foresight.
And that just goes to show how imaginary all this is to some of the world’s most important policymakers. It’s a game. It’s a prop bet. Emmanuel Macron double-dog-dared Keir Starmer to recognize Palestine, so off we go.
The conditions for statehood are met by the polity seeking to declare statehood. Starmer knows that in this particular case, those conditions haven’t been met—otherwise there would be a state already! Since the Palestinians have not met the conditions for statehood, Starmer understands that recognizing such statehood would simply create another problem. He doesn’t care because he thinks it’ll be Israel’s problem.
Recognizing Palestinian statehood isn’t technically a “bad idea,” because it isn’t an idea at all. It’s a visceral reflex. It’s what happens when a European head of government loses his temper.
If Gaza descends into misery, hunger, and anarchy, Starmer will make it a state. If things level out a bit, he’ll put it back in his pocket—no reason to reward stability. If you can think of a less serious approach to statecraft, please don’t say it out loud. I don’t want Keir Starmer to get any ideas.
