
Britain must not recognise Palestinian statehood
Faced with such a landmark decision, we must all hope that the Government is thoroughly stress testing the law of unintended consequences. The Mayor of London certainly hasn't, given his spectacularly one-sided and performative intervention which failed to even mention Hamas.
We are united in our desire for an end to the cycle of unbearable violence in the region, but make no mistake, this dramatic move would backfire by rewarding the extreme protest groups which are actively threatening our democracy and pose a clear and present security threat to the British public.
Advocating for the Palestinians is a legitimate cause, but there are countless examples of Islamist extremists and far-Left groups hurling abuse and threats at elected politicians, disrupting the public through criminal acts and intimidation, targeting Jewish places of worship and gathering and even shaping the outcome of elections. On so many occasions we have witnessed outright calls for the destruction of Israel as well as the verbal and physical targeting of 'Zionists' (a not-so-clever code word for Jews). It's the violence that led the government to proscribe Palestine Action, not the peaceful advocacy.
Ever since Hamas unleashed its heinous pogrom against Israel on that dark October 7 day, Britain's urban centres have been repeatedly turned into seething rivers of rage and intolerance far beyond the realms of freedom of speech – especially Sir Sadiq's increasingly lawless London. Calls for violent jihad and the flags of terror groups brazenly displayed. Shop windows smashed. Terror attacks on the Israeli Embassy in London thwarted. Universities and cultural events invaded and subverted. Actions once unthinkable have effectively been normalised. Ever more people drawn into unacceptable behaviour. They will rejoice should Labour prematurely recognise a Palestinian state.
Note, moreover, that 147 states have already recognised Palestine, without any improvement in the situation. The international law requirements for recognition of a state are a permanent population, defined territory, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. 'Palestine' meets none of these. A sham recognition will do nothing to change the facts on the ground. This Government has stoutly defended international law and should not contemplate its undermining by mob force and intimidation.
The sobering findings of the Commission on Antisemitism by Lord Mann and Dame Penny Mordaunt, alongside StandWithUs UK's report into rampant anti-Semitism at universities, should give the Government pause for thought before taking actions which could add to an already combustible situation. Rather, top of their agenda should be the implementation of the recommendations of that Commission.
Recent polling of Palestinians shows that a future Palestinian state is likely to be governed by Hamas rather than the deeply unpopular Palestinian Authority. Despite being proscribed as a terror group in the UK, the Government is risking presenting Hamas with the ultimate gift of statehood. Hamas' leaders have been clear about their intentions to repeat the October 7 massacre again and so the nightmare will tragically continue for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
It would also pose an enormous challenge to the UK's overstretched police forces and a major test for our exceptional security services. Their efforts to counter those that support terrorism at home would be compromised by the very legitimacy that the British government would bestow upon Hamas and hence its followers. British cheerleaders of Hamas can hardly believe their luck. Nor can Iran, whose fingerprints are visible on so much of this – its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will be emboldened to plot even more terror attacks on UK soil. Public displays of anti-Semitism will become the norm.
The list of harmful consequences goes on. It would create a crisis in the UK's all-important relationship with the US at a time of global precarity, and send a signal to the likes of Iran, Russia and China – let alone terror groups – that violence pays. The increased likelihood of wars abroad and terrorism at home will cost British lives and taxpayers.
offered a state and turned it down. That is not what they want. They want the removal of Israel.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer and Zelensky say Alaska talks present a ‘viable chance' for Ukraine
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met in Downing Street on Thursday, affirming their 'strong resolve' to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It comes ahead of a scheduled meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Downing Street said both Sir Keir and Mr Zelensky agreed that the Alaska talks 'present a viable chance to make progress as long as [Mr] Putin takes action to prove he is serious about peace'. However, there are concerns that the US and Russia might attempt to decide the war's conclusion without Ukraine's direct participation. Mr Trump has warned of "severe consequences" if the Russian leader does not agree to peace, while Mr Putin has hinted at discussions on nuclear arms control.


The Independent
2 minutes ago
- The Independent
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.


Glasgow Times
3 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Vance plays golf on Trump's Turnberry course during holiday in Scotland
Mr Vance landed at Prestwick Airport in South Ayrshire on Wednesday evening before travelling to the luxury Carnell Estate near Kilmarnock. On Thursday morning he was at the Trump Turnberry resort on the Ayrshire coast and spent time playing on the golf course. JD Vance took in a round at Trump Turnberry (Andy Buchanan/PA) It comes after the US president's own visit to Scotland last month, when he split his stay between Turnberry and his golf resort in Aberdeenshire. Mr Vance was greeted by dozens of pro-Palestine protesters when he arrived at the Carnell Estate on Wednesday. The demonstrators waved Palestine flags and shouted pro-Palestine chants. Airspace restrictions are in place around the estate until Sunday. Police were on the course while the US vice-president played (Andy Buchanan/PA) Mr Vance will reportedly spend five days in Scotland – the same amount of time his boss Mr Trump did during his trip to the country last month. Police Scotland previously said they have plans in place for a 'significant police operation' during Mr Vance's time in Scotland. Mr Vance had been holidaying in the Cotswolds but travelled to Foreign Secretary David Lammy's Chevening House retreat in Kent on Friday and joined him for some carp fishing. On Wednesday, Mr Vance described the UK-US relationship as 'a beautiful alliance' during a speech at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.