Starmer’s Palestine Move: Recognition of PLO or Reward for Hamas?

 

Kemi Badenoch, a senior Conservative MP, has sharply criticised Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to push ahead with the recognition of a Palestinian state. Writing in the Jewish Chronicle, she said the move “rewards Hamas with statehood, emboldens extremists, and betrays Britain.”

Background to the Dispute

Britain has long balanced its position between Israel’s security and Palestinian aspirations. Previous governments avoided formal recognition of Palestine, arguing that statehood should follow direct negotiations. Labour, under Keir Starmer, has broken with this caution, signalling recognition as part of what it calls a “balanced foreign policy.”

Here lies a crucial distinction often overlooked. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), not Hamas, is the internationally recognised representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO declared the State of Palestine in 1988 and leads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Hamas, by contrast, is designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK, the US, and the EU.

The Trigger for Badenoch’s Criticism

Starmer confirmed that recognition would not be conditional on a final peace deal, presenting it as an essential step toward a two-state solution. This prompted Badenoch’s statement, where she argued that “extremists learn from precedent. If terrorism is followed by statehood, the lesson is clear.”

Israeli officials have also voiced concern. Foreign Minister Israel Katz said in June that premature recognition “rewards Hamas for mass murder and hostage-taking.” Yet, diplomats argue that formal recognition of Palestine bolsters the PLO, not Hamas, and may even undercut the militants’ claim to represent Palestinians.

The Political Twist

Critics frame recognition as a “victory” for Hamas because the October 7 attacks remain fresh in memory. But legally and diplomatically, recognition is of the PLO’s State of Palestine, not Hamas. That difference is lost in the heat of political rhetoric. Supporters of recognition insist that keeping Palestinians indefinitely in limbo only strengthens Hamas, while giving political weight to the PLO offers an alternative to armed struggle.

Significance of the Debate

At stake is not only Britain’s credibility with Israel but also its standing across the Middle East. Supporters of Starmer’s move believe recognition is a moral duty and a way to pressure Israel toward negotiations. Critics insist it undermines Western unity against terrorism.

Dr Rosemary Hollis, former director of the Middle East Programme at Chatham House, has warned in past writings that “recognition without negotiation carries symbolic weight, but risks alienating one side and hardening positions.”

For Britain, the question is not just about diplomacy in the region. It is about the message sent to militant groups worldwide. Is the UK endorsing the principle that violence leads to political gain? Or is it attempting to restore balance by empowering the PLO against Hamas?

Starmer’s government insists it is the latter. Badenoch and her allies claim it is the former. Both sides know that the consequences will be read far beyond Westminster.

A Land Divided, A Hope Denied: The Two-State Illusion and the Stubborn Weight of History

A land that resists exile

France will recognize Palestine in September. The UK may follow. And Israel, as always, stands defiant. Not just against its enemies, but now against its own allies. It refused to send a delegate to the two-state summit in New York. Said it would play into Hamas’s hands.

But what are the alternatives? Antonio Guterres asked the question that too many leaders duck.

“A one-state reality where Palestinians are denied equal rights and forced to live under perpetual occupation and inequality? Or a one-state reality where Palestinians are expelled from their land? That is not peace.”

There it is. The silence between recognition and rockets. Between the rubble of Gaza and the marble floors of diplomacy. Between a people longing for sovereignty, and a state that insists security means domination.

Gaza has seen conquerors come and go

Oliver McTernan knows this terrain better than most. As a mediator with Forward Thinking, he's spent decades listening to both sides. What he said was sobering.

“Alexander the Great occupied Gaza for three years. Then he gave up. Napoleon lasted two weeks. The one thing about the people of Gaza—they are resilient. They love their land. And they will not leave it.”

That’s not strategy. That’s identity.
That’s not a political position. That’s home.

McTernan recalled a conversation with a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah. A man who, even at the highest levels of government, had never been to Jerusalem. Not once in his life. That is the invisible border of occupation. Not just physical, but psychological. A generation raised behind concrete and checkpoints, forbidden from their own holy city.

A history forgotten, a future denied

What if the real problem is forgetfulness? McTernan thinks many decision-makers are treating this as if history began on October 7. But Gaza is not a blank slate. The occupation didn’t start with Hamas. The pain did not begin with the latest war.

“We’ve had 80 years of a cycle of violence. Nine wars since Israel’s founding. Six major peace conferences. None have delivered.”

He’s not wrong. The two-state solution feels more like a prayer than a plan. But he still believes it’s the only democratic path left. Not through negotiations, but through pressure.

“The international community must say it plainly: the occupation has to end. Israel must recognize a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders.”

It sounds simple. It is not.

Rabbis, resistance, and the soul of Israel

Despite the gloom, McTernan sees glimmers of hope in unlikely places. Senior rabbis, some from the Orthodox tradition, are quietly advocating for coexistence. They invoke the teachings of Maimonides, who believed the Messiah would return only when Jews, Christians, and Muslims shared the land in peace.

“They believe the future may begin with two states, but could one day become a confederation.”

Do they have political power? Not enough yet. But in Israel, faith still shapes politics. If these rabbis can reach their communities, things could change.

Meanwhile, other rabbis—aligned with extremist politicians—push in the opposite direction. It’s a tug-of-war between the soul of Judaism and the machinery of nationalism.

On the Palestinian side, a missed chance

McTernan also spoke about what could have been. A European-backed project once brought together Palestinian politicians, businessmen, and students to map their shared aspirations. Despite factionalism, they agreed on one thing:

“Ninety percent of their suffering is rooted in occupation.”

And yet, the world squandered a critical moment. In 2006, when elections brought Hamas to power, the international community recoiled. Instead of engaging a nascent democratic experiment, they punished it.

“Had we supported the outcome of that election, we might not be facing the catastrophe we are witnessing in Gaza today.”

That line stays with you. It stings because it’s not hypothetical. It happened. A door was open, and we slammed it shut.

Conclusion: Not everything broken stays broken

We are told over and over that Israelis and Palestinians cannot live together. That hate is too deep, wounds too old. But who decided that? Who profits from that despair?

“Things don’t have to be the way they are today,” McTernan said. “This idea that they can’t live together must be challenged—and it can be.”

Maybe it’s not peace that’s impossible. Maybe it’s imagination that’s missing.

Key Quotes from the Interview:

• Antonio Guterres: “There is no security in occupation.”

• Oliver McTernan: “The people of Gaza are extraordinarily resilient. They love their land. And they will not leave it.”

• On failed negotiations: “Six peace conferences in 80 years—and still, nothing has delivered.”

• On religious leaders: “Senior rabbis believe Muslims, Christians, and Jews can share the land. It’s a theological foundation for peace.”

• On 2006 elections: “If we had supported that democratic result, Gaza might look very different today.”