Within the last several weeks, we have heard from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer that he plans to recognize a Palestinian state.
That came on the heels of French President Emmanuel Macron, who in July announced his plans to recognize a Palestinian state in September, hosting a conference in New York to create that likelihood. Macron had told German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that “he was under immense pressure at home” and would most likely recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations in September.
We know, of course, that some of that “immense pressure” has to do with the growing demographic realities that France—and Europe at large—has been confronting over the years.
Still, his Western counterparts declined to join Macron’s stance last month, until they quickly did this month.
So, what conditions has Starmer put on Hamas, the party that started this nearly two-year-long war? Look back to Oct. 7, 2023, and witness for yourself Hamas’s nihilistic depravity caught on video.
Is this not a reward for its intention to commit genocide against the Jewish people and to continue to do so? Have any conditions been put on the Palestinians for their recognition of statehood? Where are their government institutions, their borders and their educational materials? What will they be teaching their children? Will it be more of the same incitement against and vilification of Jews?
Face it: There would be no war in Gaza if the Palestinian Arabs there had not embarked on their hate-infested pogrom on Oct. 7.
Now, however, their genocidal intentions are seemingly paying off.
On Aug. 2, senior Qatar-based Hamas official Ghazi Hamid said that “the initiative by several countries to recognize a Palestinian state is one of the fruits of Oct. 7. We proved that victory over Israel is not impossible, and our weapons are a symbol of Palestinian dignity.”
Falling in line are Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, with the latter just announcing that he, too, would recognize a Palestinian state come September.
According to Steve Witkoff, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, every single offer made to Hamas has been rejected. They are using dying Israeli hostages—about 20 still living and some 30 presumed to be dead, out of the 251 men, women and children taken on Oct. 7—as their life-insurance policy.
The bitter lesson of the Oslo Accords was that lofty promises without real enforcement mechanisms become meaningless words on paper. We were told that peace was within reach—yet terrorism flourished, corruption within the Palestinian leadership deepened, and Iranian-backed terror proxies like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah—and more recently, the Houthis in Yemen—entrenched themselves, transforming the sands of the Mideast into terror tunnels.
It is therefore not cynicism, but hard-earned realism, to ask: Why should this time be any different? Recognition of a Palestinian state, absent the dismantling of Hamas or any other jihadist group, the disarmament of its militias and a fundamental change in the education of its children would not herald peace. It would only cement the gains of terrorism and constitute a grave threat to the State of Israel.
Indeed, what message does the West send when it offers statehood not after peace is made, but while hostages are still held underground, and while Hamas leaders openly gloat that the barbaric slaughter of Oct. 7 was a strategic victory? To grant such a reward in the shadow of unrepentant violence is to encourage others to follow the same murderous path.
It is worth recalling that international recognition is not a birthright. It is not a reward for bad behavior. Rather, it is earned through responsible governance, peaceful conduct and a demonstrated commitment to coexistence. The Palestinians have yet to build the institutions, borders or civic culture that represent the foundations of a viable state. Until they do, recognition will not bring peace—it will bring only more war, under the cover of international legitimacy.
If the world is serious about a two-state solution, then it must be equally serious about the conditions placed upon both sides. Anything less is not diplomacy. It is surrender.
