Pollard slams Starmer's Palestine recognition plan as 'shameful reward' for Oct. 7 attack

A Daily Mail opinion column sharply criticized Labour leader Keir Starmer’s plan to recognise a Palestinian state, arguing the move would amount to a shameful reward for Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks while 48 hostages remain in Gaza.

Stephen Pollard, the editor of the British newspaper’s commentary page, frames the developing policy as a moral and strategic error that would bolster Hamas at a moment when Israel is steadily dismantling the group’s military capabilities. Pollard cites a warning from a senior Hamas official who described Western recognition of a Palestinian state as one of the fruits of October 7, a line he says underscores how such a move could be read as support for the very violence that prompted the latest round of fighting. The columnist also quotes the broader reaction within Hamas, arguing that the group views Western recognition as a propaganda victory that legitimises its tactics. Pollard’s piece portrays the coming decision as not only dangerous but a symbolic capstone to what he describes as a pattern of naïveté in British statecraft.

Pollard argues that, beyond the immediate political optics, a decision to recognise Palestine now would undermine the long-standing international framework that ties recognition to a negotiated peace. He notes that Labour had signalled plans to recognise a Palestinian state while linking the move to conditions, including a substantive end to hostilities, a ceasefire, and acceptance of a two-state solution as part of a durable peace process. Yet Pollard contends that tying recognition to such conditions—without a binding peace agreement and without concrete steps toward hostage release—casts the decision as a political gesture rather than a viable pathway to security on the ground. He frames this as a breach of the decades-long “land for peace” understanding that has shaped Western diplomacy since the late 20th century.

The columnist revisits the arc of the peace process, arguing that the idea of a Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel has repeatedly stalled, and that every apparent breakthrough has collapsed under renewed violence or mutual distrust. He casts the concept of a two-state solution as aspirational but distant, noting historic turning points such as the Camp David summit in 2000, the Oslo accords in 1993, and the Annapolis talks of 2007. Pollard quotes Abba Eban’s maxim that the Palestinians have “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” to illustrate how even periods of negotiation have failed to yield lasting trust or durable arrangements. He suggests that the path to peace is not sealed by unilateral recognitions but by incremental, verifiable steps and a credible commitment to ending terrorism.

Pollard insists that the war itself will eventually end, but he questions what comes next if recognition proceeds without a peace settlement and without assurances that violence will cease. He argues that a move to recognise a Palestinian state now would likely be perceived as a propaganda coup for Hamas, a perception he says could harden resistance among Israelis and embolden the group at a moment when Israeli forces are focusing their military pressure on Hamas in Gaza. The piece asserts that such a decision would not accelerate the end of the conflict but could prolong it by removing incentives for both sides to reach a settlement. In Pollard’s view, the act would appear to reward a terrorist organization for mass violence and undermine Western credibility on security commitments.

The article also links the policy debate to Labour’s electoral calculus, pointing to demographic dynamics in British politics. Pollard cites constituencies where the Muslim population exceeds 20 percent and argues that Labour’s strategy on Palestine is being shaped, in part, by concerns about mobilizing Muslim voters. He cites figures suggesting that in dozens of districts, Muslim populations are substantial enough to influence voting patterns, implying a political motive behind the policy stance rather than a purely strategic or moral calculation about regional stability. While acknowledging differences of opinion on Israel’s conduct in Gaza and on the best path toward peace, Pollard frames Labour’s approach as a calculated gamble aimed at preserving electoral support rather than advancing a durable peace framework.

The column concludes with a stark assessment: recognising a Palestinian state without a credible plan for disarmament, hostage release, and a sustainable peace agreement would amount to an abandonment of decades of diplomatic precedent. Pollard characterizes the move as “moral and political cowardice of the worst kind,” arguing that it undermines trust between Israel and its neighbours and risks destabilizing a region already scarred by repeated cycles of violence. He also points to other examples in Labour’s recent stance on foreign policy—such as the party’s position on sovereignty and territorial arrangements in other parts of the world—to argue that the current approach signals a broader pattern of appeasement on the world stage. In Pollard’s view, ending the Gaza war requires steady, principled diplomacy, not symbolic gestures that could encourage further violence.

As the debate unfolds, government officials and opposition lawmakers in the United Kingdom are watching closely how such a move would influence Britain’s relationship with Israel, with Palestinian leadership, and with international partners who advocate a two-state solution grounded in security guarantees for both sides. Supporters of recognising a Palestinian state argue that it would acknowledge Palestinian national aspirations and provide a framework for future negotiations, while critics contend that unilateral recognition, without enforceable peace terms, could undermine security and prolong conflict. The coming weeks are expected to illuminate how far the policy shift has gained traction within Labour and how the party plans to balance domestic political considerations with international diplomacy in a volatile regional context.