So say the Left Wing of labour, ….. Keir Starmer and the UK Labour Party’s position on recognizing a Palestinian state is **not about “rewarding Hamas”** and should not be understood that way. Here’s a breakdown of the reasoning and context:

1. **Distinction Between Hamas and Palestinian Statehood:**

Is there one??  they elected Hamas didn’t they?
* Recognition is about acknowledging the **right of the Palestinian people** to self-determination and statehood within internationally recognized borders (generally understood as the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps).
* It is **explicitly separate** from endorsing Hamas. The UK, the Labour Party, and most Western nations designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. Recognition of a Palestinian state is intended to support the **Palestinian Authority** (PA) and the goal of a viable, sovereign, peaceful state living alongside Israel.
* The goal is to strengthen **moderate Palestinian leadership** committed to peace and a two-state solution, *not* Hamas.

2. **Labour’s Specific Position (As Stated):**
* Labour has stated it would recognize a Palestinian state **as part of a peace process**, not necessarily unilaterally as a first step. Starmer has emphasized recognition should come at a point where it has the **most impact in advancing the peace process** towards a two-state solution.
* Crucially, Labour has also stated that **Hamas has no future role in governing Gaza or Palestine** as part of any peace settlement. They demand Hamas releases hostages, disarms, and relinquishes control of Gaza.
* Recognition is framed as a **diplomatic tool** to inject momentum into stalled peace efforts and create more balanced negotiations between two sovereign states.

3. **Why Recognition is Argued to Be a Path to Peace (Not Rewarding Hamas):**
* **Addressing Asymmetry:** Proponents argue that recognizing Palestinian statehood *before* final status talks conclude helps address the massive power imbalance between Israel (a recognized state) and the Palestinians (under occupation). This could create more equitable negotiations.
* **Bolstering the PA:** The hope is that recognition strengthens the legitimacy and authority of the Palestinian Authority (which recognizes Israel and formally seeks a two-state solution) *against* groups like Hamas, whose appeal often stems from the perceived failure of diplomacy and the ongoing occupation.
* **International Consensus & Diplomatic Leverage:** Recognition aligns the UK with the majority of UN member states and the long-standing international consensus supporting a two-state solution. It’s seen as using diplomatic influence to push the process forward.
* **Undermining Hamas Narrative:** Hamas thrives on the narrative that armed resistance is the only path to Palestinian liberation because diplomacy has failed. Progress towards statehood through diplomacy potentially undermines that narrative.
* **Long-Term Security:** A credible path to a viable Palestinian state is seen by many as essential for Israel’s long-term security and regional stability.

4. **Counter-Argument (Critics’ Viewpoint):**
* Critics argue that recognition *at this time*, especially while Hamas remains a powerful force and without final agreement on security guarantees for Israel, could be seen as a concession without requiring sufficient compromises from the Palestinian side.
* They fear it might inadvertently boost Hamas’s standing internationally or domestically by validating the goal of statehood without requiring them to renounce violence or recognize Israel.
* They argue it could reduce pressure on the Palestinians to return to direct negotiations or make difficult compromises.

**Conclusion:**

Keir Starmer and Labour’s support for recognizing a Palestinian state is **not a reward for Hamas**. It is a **strategic diplomatic position** aimed at:
* Supporting the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
* Strengthening moderate Palestinian leadership (the PA).
* Reviving the prospect of a negotiated two-state solution.
* Creating more balanced conditions for peace talks.
* Undermining the appeal of extremist groups like Hamas by showing diplomacy can deliver results.

The core argument is that recognizing Palestinian statehood at the right moment is a necessary step *towards* peace and stability, which is fundamentally incompatible with Hamas’s ideology and goals. The policy explicitly excludes Hamas from a future governing role and demands its disarmament. While critics have legitimate concerns about timing and potential unintended consequences, framing recognition solely as “rewarding Hamas” misrepresents the stated goals and rationale behind the policy.

Editors note;

In fact Labour does not seem to recognise that Hamas rules Palestine,  Labour’s conditions for recognition are simply not ever going to be met by Hamas, therefore their statement of a Palestine State recognition, is never going to happen whilst Hamas exists, They, Hamas, are unlikely to kill themselves thus the statement serves no purpose other than rewarding Hamas.