Why Recognising a Palestinian State Now Is a Mistake

I strongly believe that the decision by the Labour Party to recognise a Palestinian state was a deeply flawed and dangerous move. While it may have been intended as a moral statement, in reality it risks rewarding violence, undermining Israel’s security, and making peace even harder to achieve.

The most serious problem with recognising a Palestinian state at this moment is that it rewards the actions of Hamas. Hamas is an internationally recognised terrorist organisation that governs Gaza and openly calls for the destruction of Israel. By recognising Palestinian statehood without first removing Hamas from power or demanding its disarmament, the UK sends a clear and alarming message. It suggests that terrorism, intimidation, and the murder of civilians can lead to political gains. That is not diplomacy. It is moral failure.

Israel has the same right to defend itself as any other democratic nation. Its citizens live under the constant threat of rockets, tunnels, and attacks deliberately aimed at civilians. No country would be expected to tolerate this, and yet Israel is regularly judged by standards that are not applied to anyone else. Recognising a Palestinian state without ironclad security guarantees ignores Israel’s legitimate concerns and places ideology above human lives.

A state is not simply declared into existence. It must be capable of governing responsibly, controlling armed groups, and upholding basic international obligations. At present, the Palestinian territories are divided, unstable, and heavily influenced by extremists. Recognising a state under these conditions does not promote peace. It weakens the very idea of statehood and lowers the standards that international law depends upon.

Supporters of recognition often argue that it will empower moderates. In reality, it does the opposite. It sidelines those willing to negotiate and strengthens Hamas, which rejects compromise entirely. Hamas does not want a two state solution. It wants one state, and Israel wiped off the map. Granting recognition now validates that strategy and undermines any chance of genuine coexistence.

This decision also damages the peace process itself. Recognition should come at the end of negotiations, not at the start. By acting unilaterally, the UK removes incentives for Palestinian leaders to engage seriously in talks or reform their governance. Peace requires difficult compromises from both sides. Giving one side international recognition without demanding responsibility destroys that balance.

From a British perspective, this move harms the UK’s credibility as a serious diplomatic actor. For decades, Britain has supported a negotiated settlement that guarantees Israel’s security and Palestinian self determination. Acting outside that framework turns foreign policy into a symbolic gesture rather than a practical effort to resolve conflict.

There is also a moral issue that cannot be ignored. Recognising a state controlled in part by terrorists creates false hope for ordinary Palestinians while exposing Israeli civilians to greater danger. When that hope collapses, as it inevitably will, frustration and violence will increase. This helps no one except extremists.

Compassion should never replace clarity. Civilian suffering is tragic, but peace cannot be built by ignoring reality. Israel is a democracy that respects the rule of law and the value of life. Hamas glorifies death and violence. Treating these forces as morally equivalent is both dishonest and dangerous.

In the end, recognising a Palestinian state under current conditions does not bring peace closer. It pushes it further away. It rewards Hamas, weakens Israel’s security, and undermines the very principles that stable international relations depend on. If the UK truly wants peace, it should stand firmly against terrorism, support Israel’s right to defend itself, and insist that statehood comes only with responsibility, accountability, and a genuine commitment to coexistence.