UK, Australia, and Canada Recognize Palestine as a State

In a stunning move on the eve of the Jewish New Year, three of America’s closest allies—Britain, Canada, and Australia—announced they will now recognize Palestine as a state. The timing and rationale raise serious questions about whether Western leaders are prioritizing peace, or simply rewarding extremism at the expense of security and common sense.

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer led the charge, declaring: “In the face of the growing horror in the Middle East, we are acting to keep alive the possibility of peace and of a two-state solution. That means a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state – at the moment we have neither. So, today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognises the State of Palestine.”

But here’s the reality: the very conditions Starmer himself laid out earlier this year—Hamas disarming, releasing hostages, and giving up control of Gaza—have not been met. Yet recognition came anyway. For critics, that’s not a pathway to peace but a dangerous concession to terror groups that continue to wage war against civilians.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry didn’t mince words: “Recognition is nothing but a reward for jihadist Hamas – emboldened by its Muslim Brotherhood affiliated in the UK. Hamas leaders themselves openly admit: this recognition is a direct outcome, the ‘fruit’ for the October 7 massacre. Don’t let Jihadist ideology dictate your policy.”

The October 7th attacks, which left more than 1,200 people murdered and hundreds kidnapped, remain fresh in the world’s memory. Yet the governments in London, Ottawa, and Canberra have acted as though those atrocities can be set aside in the name of symbolism. From a conservative perspective, it smacks of bureaucratic overreach—leaders imposing sweeping foreign policy decisions that burden allies, erode deterrence, and ignore the will of their own people.

Palestine, as it stands, lacks the hallmarks of statehood. No defined borders. No stable constitution. No free elections in nearly two decades. What it does have is a leadership class tied to terrorism, propped up by violence, and hostile to Israel—the region’s most stable democracy and a critical U.S. partner. Recognition under such conditions doesn’t advance peace; it risks emboldening those who seek to destroy it.

President Trump, standing alongside Starmer during his state visit to the UK, made clear that Washington does not share this view. He said, “I have a disagreement with the Prime Minister on that score, one of our few disagreements actually.” Trump has consistently argued that rewarding Hamas is the wrong approach, and his comments underscored the growing split between the U.S. and some Western allies on Middle East policy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long warned that moves like this amount to a “rewarding of terrorism.” That point is now echoed by critics across the British political spectrum. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage blasted the decision, saying: “Hamas and a Palestinian state are inseparable for now. This is typical of Starmer, he can’t really decide where he stands. Whatever the caveats in his statement, this announcement is a surrender to terrorism and a betrayal of Israel.”

Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel was even more direct: “With the terrorist organisation Hamas still holding hostages in barbaric conditions and glorifying acts of terror, Starmer is sending a dangerous message, where violence and extremism are tolerated and rewarded. Peace in the Middle East will never be secured by rewarding terrorists. His feeble last-minute attempts to appease the United States are shallow and will never justify his reckless decision on recognition.”

Patel accused Starmer of “capitulating to the hard-Left factions of his party” and letting them dictate Britain’s foreign policy. That charge is hard to ignore given Starmer’s political base, which includes strong leftist currents and pressure from Britain’s growing Muslim voting bloc.

Yet beyond Westminster, ordinary voters appear unmoved by Starmer’s lofty rhetoric. According to recent polling, 87 percent of the British public oppose recognition without conditions on Hamas. More than half said they oppose recognition as long as Hamas remains in power. In other words, the electorate recognizes what their government refuses to admit: granting statehood under these conditions is not a step toward peace, but a reward for terror.

History shows that appeasement rarely produces stability. Time and again, concessions to extremist movements only fuel more violence, not less. By unilaterally recognizing Palestine without real reform or accountability, Starmer and his counterparts in Canada and Australia risk undermining the very security architecture that has held together Western alliances for decades. Instead of building trust, they risk eroding it.

Starmer insists he is acting to “revive the hope of peace.” But hope without accountability is little more than illusion. True peace requires strength, clarity, and an uncompromising commitment to protect innocent lives from terrorism. Anything less sends the wrong message—to allies, to adversaries, and to the people who still cling to the possibility of freedom in the Middle East.