By Punishing Israel, Europe Rewards Terror

The UK just became the latest Western nation to turn its back on Israel. Yesterday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer threatened to formally recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations summit in September, unless Israel takes “substantive steps” to end the war in Gaza. That would involve ending the “appalling” suffering there, and committing to a “wider peace plan” that delivers a “two-state solution.”

In this, Starmer follows the lead of French president Emmanuel Macron, who announced last week that he would also recognise Palestine in September. Although in the case of France, there are no conditions attached—regardless of what Israel does next, France has effectively declared that it is no longer on the side of the Jewish State. Doing so, it will join Ireland, Spain, Norway, and Slovenia. The Netherlands, meanwhile, although stopping short of granting Palestine official recognition, did bar entry to Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich. The European Union as a whole was recently mulling over whether it should hit Israel with sanctions.

Let’s call this what it is: a reward for terrorism. France, Ireland, Spain, and now the UK are announcing to the world that unleashing a massacre like Hamas did on October 7th, 2023, will see favourable results. This decision punishes Israel, too, for daring to defend itself against the threat of genocidal Islamism, and for fighting a war that it did not start. A U.S. spokeswoman had the right idea when she branded Starmer’s move as a “slap in the face” to the 1,200 victims of Hamas’s pogrom that day. One of the former hostages—Emily Damari, a dual Israeli-British citizen who was held captive by Hamas for 471 days—has even accused Starmer of “moral failure” and of not being “on the right side of history.”

In many ways, Starmer’s ultimatum is actually much worse than unconditionally recognising a Palestinian state. It creates a dangerous incentive for Hamas to prolong this war until September. Why on Earth would this army of antisemites agree to any ceasefire deal laid on the table by Israel, if it knows that in a few short months it will be honoured with statehood? 

There are plenty of other problems with Starmer’s demands. He specified that “we need to see at least 500 trucks entering Gaza every day,” and that Israel must allow “the UN to restart the supply of aid.” But this ignores the many, very good reasons why Israel restricted UN access in the first place. Namely, that large numbers—somewhere around 10%—of the organisation’s staff in Gaza are believed by Israeli intelligence to be card-carrying members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Worse still, 12 UN employees allegedly took part in the October 7th atrocities. Not to mention the fact that the UN has repeatedly made it difficult for Israel to administer aid to needy Gazans, while simultaneously accusing the Israeli government of waging a purposeful campaign of mass starvation.

The other glaring question is: what, exactly, are we recognising? The Palestinian Authority, which currently governs the West Bank, is notoriously corrupt and undemocratic. Meanwhile, Gaza is de facto controlled by Hamas—literal terrorists. There are many criticisms one can make of the Israeli government, but the country remains the only stable democracy in the Middle East. As imperfect as it may be, that is surely preferable to lending legitimacy to Islamist militants. 

It’s telling, too, that Israel should be the one who has to conform to Starmer’s demands—not Hamas, not the terrorists who committed the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, murdering, kidnapping, and raping their way through a musical festival two years ago. There is no insistence that Hamas’s militants be the ones to lay down their arms, return the remaining 50 hostages, and give up their existential war on Israel and the Jewish people.

This might all seem incomprehensible, but there is a simple, cynical reason for Starmer’s cowardly turn against Israel. He is scared of his own party and, perhaps more importantly, his own voters. In last year’s general election, Starmer’s Labour won an unconvincing and lacklustre majority, fuelled in large part by growing sectarian sentiments in British politics. Many of his MPs either held onto their seats or won them for the first time by way of appealing to Muslim voters. Campaign groups like The Muslim Vote directed British Muslims where to put their vote in accordance with candidates who were sufficiently pro-Palestine. As a result, the loudest anti-Israel voices from within the Labour Party tend to have constituencies that are heavily Muslim. Shabana Mahmood, for example, represents a constituency (Birmingham Ladywell) that is 46% Muslim. Wes Streeting, another vocal advocate of recognising Palestine, presides over Ilford North, where 23% of the population is Muslim. Notably, Streeting won his seat by a mere 528 votes, giving him all the more reason to flex his pro-Palestine credentials.

We can speculate that Macron might have a similar motivation. After all, France is home to the largest Muslim population in Europe. Last month, its own Interior Minister recommended that Macron recognise a Palestinian state in order to quell the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist network that has infiltrated many of France’s cultural, academic, and political institutions. Macron and his government are clearly terrified of what might happen if it fails to appease its large Muslim minority—not just of losing votes come the next election, but also of a much more violent, civilisational danger.

Regardless of the rationale, the fact remains that the message being sent out, loud and clear, by both Starmer and Macron, is that terrorism pays. That if you massacre civilians, kidnap families, and hide behind human shields long enough, the West will reward you. Are Europe’s leaders really so naive or so myopic that they don’t see where this kind of capitulation ends? Not with peace in the Middle East, but with more conflict and more incentive for Hamas to continue its bloodshed. If terror pays, it multiplies. Europe may have to learn this lesson the hard way.