Why Britain must not recognise Palestine

Yahoo

6 hours ago

The West Bank was never taken from the Palestinians. When Israel conquered the territory in 1967 it was from the Jordanians, who had occupied it since 1948 before trying their luck at a genocide of the Jews.
Regardless, if Jerusalem gave up the land in return for peace, it would make Israel just nine miles wide at its centre. Known as the 'Hadera-Gadera rectangle', that narrow waist holds half the population and much of the country's vital infrastructure, including Tel Aviv. A new Palestinian state would lie just over the border.
After October 7, would you do it? The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is famously incompetent, and is currently enjoying the 20th year of the four-year term to which he was elected in 2005. He presides over a system of corruption and brutality; he holds a PhD in Holocaust revisionism from a Moscow university; and he offers cash incentives to those convicted of terror offences, with higher payments awarded for more serious crimes. Fancy the odds?
When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, it was in the naive belief that, from then on, even a single rocket from the Strip would meet with international condemnation, since the settlements and 'occupation' were no more. So that worked out well. A two-state solution would see the same policy applied on the West Bank. What could possibly go wrong?
Sir Keir Starmer presumably thinks it's a great idea, because in nine days' time, Britain will join France and the Saudis in New York in talks about recognising a state of Palestine. Far easier to gamble with the lives of someone else's children than your own, I suppose.
This would form the natural culmination of Britain's escalating hostility towards our ally, as it battles to defeat the jihadi group that carried out that orgy of butchery, mutilation and rape two years ago and has vowed to do the same again. Hostages are still in the catacombs. Yet Sir Keir dreams of a state of Palestine.
War is hell. Israel – which neither wanted it nor started it – evacuates civilians before attacks and provides them with aid. Yet in Parliament last week, amid nods from MPs who have never known the inside of a bomb shelter, the Prime Minister branded Israel 'appalling'.
As ever, Starmer's petty politicking blinds him to his own moral bankruptcy. Unilaterally recognising a state of Palestine is a contemptuous proposal. Dismissing Israel's existential security concerns is insult enough, but providing a reward for October 7 creates awful incentives for the future.
Worse still, perhaps, is the narrative it would create. Britain's official policy would be to blame Israel for the lack of a Palestinian state, when the historical truth is the opposite.
The Palestinians were first offered self-determination in 1947, but rejected it in favour of attempted genocide. They were offered it again during the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, but derailed it with a spate of suicide bombs that claimed the lives of many Israelis.
In 2000, at Camp David, they were offered 96 per cent of the West Bank but turned it down. In 2008, prime minister Ehud Olmert offered 94 per cent of the territory with land swaps for the remainder, East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, and the Old City turned over to international control. Again, Abbas rejected it.
Why? Because the true problem is the very existence of a Jewish country, which is seen as a rebuke by some to Arab honour. The Palestinians don't want a state alongside Israel. They want a state instead of it. This is what Britain would be supporting.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.