This is the darkest day in British foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq

Telegraph

2 days ago

What on Earth is Keir Starmer playing at? His threat to recognise a state of Palestine unless Israel obeys his imperious demands, against the interests of its own citizens, avoids contact with reality and constitutes an abysmal betrayal.
First, the emperor of Downing Street has commanded the Jewish state to end the war in Gaza. Would that be with or without its hostages, Prime Minister? With or without Hamas remaining in power?
Because if Israelis remain in captivity and Hamas remains in place, further rounds of bloodshed are a certainty, extending the suffering down generations. These are the hard realities that the Israelis must consider, although Starmer has the luxury of ignoring them.
Secondly, the PM wants Israel to allow the United Nations to retake control of aid distribution. But the reason Jerusalem intervened was that it believed the UN was working hand-in-glove with Hamas, which was taking much of the aid and selling it at inflated prices, raising the money it needed to pay its fighters.
Surely not? Surely yes. According to Israeli intelligence, ten per cent of UN employees in Gaza, about 1,200 men, are card-carrying members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, and terrorists have made good use of UN facilities. About 12 members of UN staff were allegedly involved in the October 7 atrocities.
The UN aid operation was keeping Hamas in power. Without that source of income, the jihadi grip on the Strip was weakening. That is exactly why Hamas made returning aid to UN hands a key negotiating demand.
Ramallah has repeatedly turned down offers of a state that satisfied 100 per cent of its demands. In 2008, for instance, Ehud Olmert offered 94 per cent of the West Bank with land swaps for the remainder, East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital and the Old City turned over to international control, not to mention a tunnel between the West Bank and Gaza and the right of return for quotas of diaspora Palestinians.
The Palestinians missed the opportunity. Why? Because their government was playing a long game to destroy the Jewish state using both the bullet and the ballot, both the suicide bomb and international diplomacy.
I'm not just talking about Hamas. Even the regime in Ramallah pays monetary rewards to anybody convicted of terrorism and failed to condemn October 7 until last month.
Take a step back and the Prime Minister's blind betrayal of the Jewish state is breathtaking. Of course the war is horrendous; of course the Israeli government includes some regrettable far-Right figures; of course mistakes have been made.
But how would Starmer's Britain fare if we were invaded by jihadis, saw 1,200 of our citizens butchered, lost 258 hostages, and faced an enemy embedded in tunnels beneath one of the most densely-populated areas on Earth? I shudder to think.
Here are the facts. Israel did not start this war. Israel did not want conflict; it withdrew from Gaza in 2005, handing the keys to the Palestinians, who then lost control of the territory to Hamas.
Israel is not trying to kill, starve or oppress civilians. It is simply trying to defeat the enemy that attacked its people so brutally almost two years ago, and get its hostages back.
Is that really so much to ask? As messy and imperfect as any democracy may be, you'd have thought that the international community would understand that it is preferable to jihadism, and stand firm until the war is won.
Instead, we have all the pressure piling up on Israel, and nothing at all upon the Palestinian side, let alone upon Hamas. Worst of all, Starmer's treachery is emboldening the jihadis. Why should they release the hostages and surrender when the world is on their side?
International condemnation of Israel was the main reason why Hamas hardened its negotiating position in Qatar last week, resulting in the talks failing.
Rather than a ceasefire deal, Hamas found itself delightedly congratulating Emmanuel Macron on his proposal to recognise Palestine, and encouraging other countries to do the same.
The international community has created an environment in which it is in the interests of Hamas to keep the Palestinians starving, keep the war going, and to keep the hostages in the catacombs.
At this point, it is no exaggeration to suggest that Starmer and the other turncoats are doing exactly what Hamas wants them to. And it will only produce one outcome: more cycles of violence in the future.
Why is the Prime Minister doing this? A look at some of the Labour MPs who are pressing him to take this action is revealing. Shabana Mahmood, whose Birmingham Ladywell constituency has a Muslim population of 46 per cent. Wes Streeting, whose Ilford North seat is 23 per cent Muslim (he won it by only 528 votes). A pattern emerges here.
The fact that Starmer appears to care more about domestic politics than he does about true peace in the Middle East is as hypocritical as it is deplorable.
The worst of it is that Hamas predicted this all along. Yahya Sinwar knew that October 7 would trigger a war; as a student of recent history, he also understood that before long, the West would side with him.
All he had to do was ensure a steady stream of footage of suffering Palestinian civilians, whether genuine, exaggerated or fabricated. He knew our leaders would fall for it.
This is the darkest day in British foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq.