Recent polls have revealed that a majority of Palestinian respondents, both on the West Bank and in Gaza, believe that the October 7 atrocities were a good idea. There could be no clearer illustration that creating a Palestinian state would be Jewish suicide. Next week, however, Labour is set to launch a manifesto committing to recognition of such a state over the heads of the Israelis.
To mainstream voters, it makes little sense. People understand instinctively that rewarding the worst pogroms since the Holocaust with a push for Palestinian self-determination is an example – to put it mildly – of rewarding bad behaviour. If this is the result of October 7, surely Hamas will feel even more encouraged to do it again? Not that the terror group wants a state alongside Israel. Its intentions are too genocidal for that. But it pursues its true goal by forcing capitulation by increments.
The asymmetric strategy of terror that unfolded on October 7 had two stages. First came the unprovoked, depraved atrocities against Israelis; then came the human sacrifice of the Palestinians, an attempt to brainwash the world into believing that this was a case of Jewish genocide rather than self-defence. Hamas knew that once the initial shock had passed, it could rely upon the UN, the keffiyeh-chic students on university campuses and the international Left to complete its propaganda goals.
Today, Labour is facing mounting pressure from British Muslims to shift to an anti-Israel position, with Angela Rayner and John Ashworth both running against pro-Gaza candidates in their seats. Rayner was even caught on camera saying her party would “recognise Palestine” and “rebuild Gaza” . This was grubby electioneering, trading recognition of Palestine for Muslim votes.
Do we really want such crucial foreign policy positions decided by the wishes of relatively small communities in Ashton-under-Lyne and Leicester South?
The last time a unilateral move over Palestine was attempted was by Israel itself, which withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and handed the keys to the Palestinians. We all know how that ended: the creation of an enclave in public services and civilian buildings were bent towards the cult of death. Is there any reason to believe that replicating the experiment on a grander scale would produce anything but grander and bloodier results?
And if such horrors came to pass, would Labour support Israel’s self-defence? How quickly would it pivot to decrying the “genocide” and demanding a ceasefire?
Palestinian leaders have repeatedly shown no interest in a peaceful state of their own alongside Israel. Instead, the likes of Hamas wish for a country as a replacement for Israel. In 1947, the Arab League rejected a UN proposal that would have created a Palestinian state alongside the nascent Israel. This rejectionism was repeated on many subsequent occasions, most vividly in 2008. Then, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert offered them 94 per cent of the West Bank, with 6 per cent of Israeli land to make up the difference.
In turning this offer down, Mahmoud Abbas revealed that he did not want what the West so desperately wanted him to want.
Sir Keir has made a point in purging his party of its Corbynite rump. But voters will look at this manifesto pledge and worry that the tail still wags the dog. The sectarianism that has deformed British society, both in northern constituencies and on the streets of London on Saturdays, has its deepest hooks in Labour. Capitulation may buy a measure of party unity, but at what cost?
If this policy was implemented, Britain would sit at odds with the United States. But it would also sit at odds with reality. The tragedy of the region is such that before two states can be achieved, Palestinian society must be deradicalised. This is the work of generations and no manifesto commitment can change that.
Jake Wallis Simons is editor of the Jewish Chronicle and author of Israelophobia