The horrors of October 7th 2023 are burned into the world’s memory. Hamas’s assault was no accident of war but a meticulously planned bloodbath. Children, women, the elderly — not collateral damage but deliberate targets.
Entire families butchered, dozens dragged into captivity. It was terrorism in its purest form: murder as spectacle, atrocity as strategy. Any serious foreign policy must start from that moral baseline.
Yet, astonishingly, Europe’s leaders — Keir Starmer among them of course — as well as those of Australia and Canada, now press ahead with recognising Palestinian statehood while demanding no accountability whatsoever from Hamas. This is not diplomacy. It is appeasement dressed in moral language.
Starmer’s gamble
On July 29th 2025, Starmer initially announced that Britain would recognise a Palestinian state “at the moment of maximum impact for the Two State Solution.” He set conditions on Israel: open Gaza to aid, stop annexation, lift restrictions. Today is clearly his “moment of maximum impact.”
But what of Hamas? No demand to disarm. No renunciation of violence. No justice for the victims of October 7th. Recognition has become Europe’s latest fashion statement. Gesture politics at its most dangerous.
In Israel the reaction has been furious — and rightly so. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls it “dangerous appeasement.” He told Belgium’s leader he was “weak.” He accused Australia of “moral inversion” for rewarding mass murderers.
This is not diplomatic theatre. It is the voice of a country still burying its dead, still rescuing hostages, still braced for rockets. Israelis see European recognition as betrayal — a signal that the West’s sympathy for the slaughtered has already expired.
Why recognition now is reckless
Recognition is not symbolic. It confers legitimacy, legal rights, access to international institutions. Done now, it blurs the line between statehood and terrorism.
Starmer’s conditions load all the burden onto Israel. Relief for Gaza, end to annexation — fine. But Hamas? Nothing. Macron believes recognition will “pressure” both sides. In truth, it rewards one side for atrocity while demanding restraint only from the other – the victim.
For Israelis, this looks like Europe siding with the murderers. For Palestinians, it is empty theatre. For Hamas, it is vindication: terror works, and if Hamas can massacre civilians and still see Palestine recognised, why would it ever stop? Violence has now been proven to deliver diplomatic prizes. Others will now copy the script.
Recognition grants protections in international law. It could tie Israel’s hands against terror. Hamas cloaked in statehood would be harder to fight. The West claims to stand for justice, law and human dignity. Recognition without accountability makes those words hollow.
Why Europe is rushing
Three reasons explain the stampede. Firstly, humanitarian optics are very important today, particularly in the absence of the will, or the ability, to act. Gaza is devastated. Leaders want to “do something.” Recognition becomes a substitute for aid.
Secondly, in France and Spain, pro-Palestinian sentiment is loud amongst the far-left, so the leaders throw it a bone.
Finally, Europe wants to look like a peace-broker, a powerful voice for peace. Recognition is a cheap and easy way to achieve this in the short term, but future generations of Europeans will pay dearly for this appeasement.
But all of this is theatre, not strategy. Recognition will never feed a starving child or stop a rocket.
What should be demanded
If Europe were serious, recognition would be conditional on Hamas renouncing violence, disarming, and releasing hostages. Transparent investigations into October 7th must proceed. Politics must be separated from armed groups.
Human rights guarantees must be written into any new polity, and recognition must be reversible if these conditions collapse. Anything less is not diplomacy but surrender.
Britain’s credibility at stake
For Britain the gamble is even more dangerous. Unlike Slovenia or Spain, the UK is a serious power with historic responsibilities in the Middle East, an ally of Washington, a partner of Israel.
Starmer’s pledge risks alienating both allies at once, although pacification of the far-left of his own fractured Labour Party, personified by that ghastly friend of terrorists across the globe, Jeremy Corbyn, would certainly have been a major factor in his decision. In Washington, bipartisan support for Israel remains rock-solid. In Jerusalem, the move will be seen as betrayal. At home, it exposes Labour to the charge of gesture politics over serious statecraft.
Britain of all nations should know better. The IRA taught us that premature legitimisation emboldens terror. The 1930s taught us that appeasement does not pacify aggressors, it feeds them. Hamas is cut from the same cloth.
Appeasement in moral dress
Recognition without accountability is appeasement — and appeasement always invites more bloodshed. It tells Hamas that murder pays. It tells Israelis that Europe cannot be trusted. It tells the world that the West has abandoned justice in pursuit of easy applause.
The victims of October 7th deserved better than to be footnotes in Europe’s diplomatic theatre. They deserved justice.
Europe’s choice
Recognition of Palestine one day may be both just and necessary. But to do it now, while Hamas rules Gaza and October 7th remains unpunished, is not courage. It is surrender. Europe must decide: will it be remembered as a force for justice, or as the facilitator of injustice? Keir Starmer will certainly be remembered as an appeaser of terrorism.
