Recognizing Palestine While Funding Hamas? Governments Repeat Deadly Mistakes

From newsrooms to parliament chambers, a growing sector of liberal-mainstream Western society is realizing that premature recognition of Palestinian statehood is a bad idea. A few weeks ago, journalists and politicians whispered it in off-record conversations. Now, as top Hamas officials correctly interpret recognition as a vindication of their October 7 atrocities, the Washington Post Editorial Board admits that “Empty gestures set back the cause of Palestinian statehood,” and Australian paper of record The Age refers to the Albanese government’s “most politically fraught day since its re-election.” 

Clearly, unconditional gestures to appease radical disrupters in Western capitals and college campuses impede peace if they are not tied to an honest audit of the Palestinian terror problem, concrete deradicalization commitments, and the acknowledgement that pouring unvetted resources into Gaza will only embolden malign actors.

Indeed, Western myopia long precedes this spate of recognitions-to-be. For years, a broader “see no evil” culture has driven failed Western policies toward Gaza, long before October 7. First and foremost, in their massively irresponsible approach to humanitarian aid. 

Donor governments, the UN, and NGO partners have largely ignored Hamas’ theft and appropriation of billions worth of aid, as systematically documented by the NGO Monitor research institute (where I work). Akin to filling up a bucket with a hole on the bottom, they have spent far more per capita on Gaza than on any other refugee group worldwide. And all the aid network has to show for it are terror tunnels, rockets and other armaments, and the atrocities of October 7.

In a rational and just world, governments watching from a distance and humanitarian NGOs on the ground—both aware of this aid diversion—would demand and construct new channels to circumvent Hamas and deliver resources that reach needy Palestinians. Western leaders would truly lead, rather than bowing to fringe elements of their electorates, and head the charge to direct aid to its intended recipients. They and their NGO confederates would decry Hamas theft in media and official statements, and build international coalitions to isolate Hamas politically, militarily, and financially.

Instead, diversion has continued unchallenged, even (or especially) involving the most prestigious of aid organizations. In 2016, World Vision’s manager for Gaza, Mohammed Halabi, was arrested for and later convicted of embezzling aid and “tak[ing] an active and significant part in [Hamas’] activities.” Industry leaders Oxfam and the Norwegian Refugee Council have rejected commonsense vetting mechanisms while partnering with NGOs with established links with the outlawed PFLP terror organization. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch treated PFLP-linked groups as legitimate partners.

EU governments have seen a parallel failure to meet this moment. For over two decades, they have trumpeted an idealized two-state framework while damaging its prospects, continuing indirectly to prop up the most extremist elements of Palestinian society.

Before October 7, this was simply regrettable, a missed opportunity for the EU to be more actively involved in regional progress. After the Hamas massacre, the approach became actively damaging, maintaining funding and legitimacy for Hamas and thus perpetuating a conflict that hurts Palestinians and Israelis both.

Naturally, other countries, such as the United States and Gulf States, have filled this leadership gap, directly building the Middle East in their preferred image through influence and brokering negotiations.

It’s easy to see the same playbook here. Despite their eroded credibility after years of aid diversion, European leaders are now asking for more unearned global trust that their statehood recognitions will strengthen Palestinian moderates and punish Hamas. But listen to Hamas themselves: far from seeing it as a punishment, the terror group lauded these declarations, profusely thanked the respective governments and declared it all an endorsement of their October 7 attacks.

Now, reading headlines about a Gaza aid crisis, the EU has latched onto a new moral and political cause celebre. Off-the-record, many European leaders acknowledge how broken the system is. Some froze Gaza aid funding pending internal reviews, though most reinstated it following domestic backlash. But our research has shown that only vetting of the aid pipeline—coupled with a long-term redirection of funds toward deradicalization of Palestinian society—has a chance at bringing sustainable peace.

In the absence of conditionality, governments will be communicating their willingness to quell domestic problems by sacrificing the safety of the people of the Middle East, on both sides of the Israel-Gaza border. And they would be hardening Hamas’ negotiating positions in hostage and ceasefire negotiations—a process they have already kickstarted even before their recognitions become official. Why should terrorists compromise if they are continuously handed victories?

On both aid and recognition, Western powers must make clear that the way forward is conditioned on systematic vetting and deradicalization, removing Hamas from power and ending the territory’s prevailing culture of antisemitism and rejectionism.

Accountability, rather than symbolic recognition and lazy aid regimes, is the true humanitarian way.