Terrorism Pays Off with Starmer’s Futile Gesture.

Hamas, in response to Starmer’s actions, announced, “This is a victory for the justice of our cause.” 

To say that terrorism “pays off” feels morally repugnant. It immediately evokes images of shattered lives, unimaginable grief, and a profound breach of our collective sense of security. From a human perspective, terrorism is an unmitigated evil, a failure of politics and humanity. It never truly "pays" for the victims, their families, or the societies left to pick up the pieces.

At its heart, terrorism is not primarily about killing people. The violence serves a larger purpose. The real target is not the immediate victim but the audience watching—the government, the public, and the international community. Terrorism acts as a cruel form of psychological and political theatre meant to sway the emotions of millions.

And yet, the British PM, in his usual nasal tone and stiff manner, has just rewarded Hamas for rapes, murders, and taking hostages by recognising the state of Palestine. That’s Hamas’s core aim. Hamas, in response to Starmer’s actions, announced, “This is a victory for the justice of our cause.” 

Hamas has affirmed why the UK is weak and that terrorism can be a horrifyingly effective strategy. It “pays off” not in a moral sense, but in a strategic one, by making Hamas’s claims legitimate. It “pays off” by giving Hamas a place at the negotiating table. Lastly, it “pays off” for Starmer, who is beholden to the extreme views of a segment of his electorate. 

Also, Starmer’s claim that Hamas will have no role in any future Palestine is meaningless. He will have no say. And that's probably for the best, given Britain’s involvement caused this mess. 

With the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the British promised a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. But they had already committed the same land to the Arabs as an independent state and assured the French government it would be an internationally administered zone in a volatile region. Then, after World War II, the Brits ran off, leaving the Arabs and Jews to fight over it.

Of course, recognising the state of Palestine is a highly charged political and moral issue. While many see it as a crucial step towards justice and peace, I’d argue it is, in practical terms, a "pointless gesture” without substance. 

Diplomatic recognition does not, in itself, create a state. A functioning state requires a government with effective control over a defined territory, a permanent population, and the capacity to engage in international relations (the Montevideo Convention criteria). Hamas is currently running what remains of Palestine. 

Starmer’s actions change nothing on the ground: Israel militarily occupies the West Bank and controls its borders, airspace, movement of goods and people, and security. It continues to build and expand settlements.

Hamas remains in control of Gaza, which is under a strict Israeli and Egyptian blockade. Recognition does not open a single crossing or improve living conditions for Gazans. The Palestinian Authority, which would be the beneficiary of recognition, only has limited self-rule in parts of the West Bank and is deeply unpopular. It has no authority in Gaza, meaning there is no single Palestinian government to rule a unified state.

The long-standing framework for peace, supported by the UN and major powers like the US, is a two-state solution achieved through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

This attempt by Britain to drive itself into the negotiating process opens another front for Hamas by ”short-cutting" Israel. From this perspective, if Palestinians can gain statehood through international bodies without having to make difficult compromises, they have less reason to engage seriously in talks with Israel.

All of this hardens the Israeli positions. This can empower hardline Israeli politicians who argue that negotiations are futile, leading to a more defiant stance. They will claim that once again, the West has let the Jewish people down. 

Furthermore, recognition creates a legal and diplomatic fiction: a state whose sovereignty cannot be truly exercised. Without control over borders, a state is not fully sovereign. Then again, Starmer does not understand this concept at home. 

I can only conclude that Starmer is virtue signalling to a domestic political audience in a move that requires no real sacrifice. Britain won’t be sending any troops for a peacekeeping mission. 

Amid major domestic issues and some of the lowest popularity ratings ever seen for a PM, Starmer is keen to divert attention away from his failure to curb illegal migration. Making pointless announcements on international matters gives him some cover. 

Nobody is fooled. As Brendan O’Neill suggests in The Spectator, “Forget playing fantasy states overseas, Sir Keir: fix the one you run.”