John Robson: The Flawed Logic of Recognizing a Palestinian State That Doesn’t Exist

Commentary

It seems odd that four major Western countries, to the extent that such things still exist, just recognized a Palestinian state that does not. There must be a reason, and there is. But as ideas have consequences, dreadful consequences flow from dreadful ideas.

The horror and folly was immediately underlined when Hamas hailed it as “one of the fruits” of the genocidal attacks on Oct. 7, 2023. (Along with the charred or sexually mutilated corpses of idealistic young Israelis and families.) As people had warned Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and French President Emmanuel Macron they would. Moreover, it is a logical response from Hamas.

That it happened at the start of Rosh Hashana, and something else that doesn’t really exist, “Gender Equity Week,” underlines the peculiarity of the decision. And the decision of all four to go at once isn’t exactly a profile in courage. Nor of clarity because the core peculiarities are that, as many have observed, this supposed Palestinian state is not there and pretending otherwise is rewarding terrorists.

On non-existence, one X post laid down this challenge: “Here’s a fun exercise for any of my followers in the national media or Parliamentary Press gallery. Please ask Prime Minister Carney or Anita Anand to show the borders of the newly recognized independent state of Palestine on a map.”

Likewise, former MP Kevin Vuong asked pointedly: “What exactly is Canada recognizing? What are the borders of this new alleged state? What is the capital city? Who will form government? Who will be its leader? How will this help Palestinians who remain under the iron fist of Hamas and the PA in Gaza and the West Bank, respectively? Also, when did Canadians vote on this? Was this in the Liberal election platform?”

On rewarding terror, when announcing pending recognition in July, Carney did lay out a series of non-existent conditions: “commitments by Palestinian Authority President Abbas to fundamentally reform its governance, to hold general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarize the Palestinian state” and that “Hamas must immediately release all hostages taken in the horrific terrorist attack of October 7; that Hamas must disarm; and that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine.”

I call them non-existent because fulfilling them was not a condition for recognition, no rational expectation of fulfillment exists, and crucially, there was no response to “And iffn they don’t?” Carney won’t withdraw recognition if the unrepentant anti-Semitic terrorist Abbas, now in year 20 of his four-year mandate, does not hold elections in 2026. And if Hamas is popular among Palestinians, it’s not just undemocratic and high-handed to brush them aside. It’s delusional. What if most Palestinians actually support terror?

Here we approach the rotten core of the recognition. It is based on the appeasement logic that aggression results from fear and that diplomacy is a kind of psychotherapy involving affirming unilateral concessions from a position of moral, mental, and military omnipotence.

Hence, after convicting Israel of “violation of international law,” Carney said that “Recognising the State of Palestine, led by the Palestinian Authority, empowers those who seek peaceful coexistence and the end of Hamas. This in no way legitimises terrorism, nor is it any reward for it.”

Starmer made a similar claim: “to revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution, I state clearly, as prime minister of this great country, that the UK formally recognises the state of Palestine.” After insulting Israel, he added “So we are clear, this solution is not a reward for Hamas.”

You are clear. And clearly wrong.

When I insist on taking ideas seriously, especially of people who do and say things you find repellent and bizarre, I am not advocating sliding into relativism. I’m saying you must recognize how more than one view of a situation is internally consistent in order to choose rationally, responsibly, and decisively between them.

For instance, will recognition lead to moderate Palestinian leaders accepting the “two-state solution” Hamas and the Palestinian Authority utterly reject in favour of the “wipe Israel from the map and kill the Jews” solution? If instead we get more terror and sneering declarations of intent to finish Israel then move on to the West generally, our leaders’ views are exposed as appalling and deranged.

Already the “Palestinian head of mission” in Britain chortled that recognition “marks an irreversible step towards justice, peace and the correction of historic wrongs, including Britain’s colonial legacy, the Balfour Declaration and its role in the dispossession of the Palestinian people.” The Balfour Declaration being the key promise to restore the ancient Jewish homeland. Oh dear. And you told us you were wise statesmen reviving the hope of peace.

It’s a dreadful decision driven by dreadful ideas.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.