Europe's New Policy: Punish Jews, Reward Islamists
The UK wants to recognize a Palestinian state based on bizarre logic. Hamas is thrilled, of course — but what happens when we apply the British prime minister’s own reasoning to the Palestinians?
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
There is great literature produced by Byron Katie, a best-selling author and speaker, called The Work.
A central part of her framework is “the turnaround,” a cognitive tool that encourages people to flip their judgments and examine them from the opposite perspective.
If someone says, “My partner doesn’t respect me,” Katie’s framework prompts them to consider turnarounds to see if they might be true, such as “I don’t respect my partner,” or even “I don’t respect myself.” The point is not to excuse bad behavior, but to challenge the rigidity of our narratives — and to confront double standards, blind spots, and projections that cloud our understanding of truth.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer could benefit from reading Byron Katie.
On Tuesday, Starmer announced that the United Kingdom would formally recognize a Palestinian state in September — unless the Israeli government takes “substantive steps” to end the war in Gaza and meets additional conditions, including recommitting to a viable peace process.
It’s a classic example of what happens when political posturing replaces actual moral reasoning. And it gives us a great opportunity to apply Byron Katie’s turnaround technique. What if Starmer had said something like:
“The UK will not recognize a Palestinian state unless the Palestinian people and their governments (there are at least two — the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza) take substantive steps to end the war against Israel and meet several other conditions, including recommitting to a viable peace process.”
Let’s not pretend like Adam and Eve were born yesterday and there’s no history here. Since the 1930s, many Jews (and later, the State of Israel) have consistently pursued a viable path to peace. But the same cannot be said for the majority of Palestinians, nor for many of their so-called Arab “brothers and sisters,” who have repeatedly rejected coexistence wholesale in favor of indiscriminate violence, kidnappings, murder, and martyrdom.
After the horrors of the Second Intifada (from 2000 to 2005), during which Palestinians murdered over 1,000 Israelis (most of them civilians), a sobering reality set in for many Israelis: Peace with the Palestinians is not only elusive, but perhaps unattainable, no matter how deep the concessions or how sincere the desire for a two-state solution.
Those who truly understand Israeli and Palestinian society know this: Israel is a nation of builders, a people who could have anchored their identity in Holocaust victimhood for generations, but instead chose resilience, renewal, and progress. In contrast, the Palestinians have fabricated and clung to a narrative of perpetual victimhood — one largely fictionalized, endlessly repeated, and weaponized to excuse violence, evade responsibility, and halt any path forward.
So, what exactly is Starmer on about?
Hamas is still in control of Gaza, openly calling for the annihilation of Israel as it has been since 1988. The Palestinian Authority — the so-called “moderate” Palestinian faction in the West Bank — continues to glorify terrorists, funds their families, and refuses to engage in direct negotiations. What Starmer is asking of Israel (unilateral concessions in the middle of a war started by the Palestinian side) he would never dare ask of the Palestinians.
Why is that?
Recognition of statehood ought to reflect reality on the ground, not wishful thinking or political coercion. No one demanded the Taliban end terror before recognizing they controlled Afghanistan. No one made Serbian nationalists meet peace benchmarks before negotiating with them during the Balkan wars. But when it comes to Israel, recognition of its adversaries is wielded like a threat.
It’s a form of diplomatic extortion — dangling a prize not to reward good behavior, but to punish the wrong side for existing.
Excuse my bloody ignorance, but what kind of peace process can exist when rockets are still flying, hostages are still held, and Hamas still promises to repeat October 7th again and again? Demanding Israeli concessions in this context is not diplomacy; it’s delusion. It’s like asking a firefighter to negotiate with an arsonist while the blaze is still raging.
No country on Earth would accept these terms for itself. But for Israel, whose very survival is perpetually up for debate, somehow this standard becomes not only acceptable, but morally superior.
You want “substantive steps”? Let’s look at what the Palestinian leadership is doing right now. Hamas, which has significant support amongst Palestinians, openly states: “We love death the way Israelis love life.” The Palestinian Authority’s school system teaches children that Jews are subhuman invaders. Longtime Palestinian Authority dictator Mahmoud Abbas routinely denies the Holocaust and calls terrorists “heroes.” The Palestinian Authority pays stipends to the families of murderers — the more Jews you kill, the higher the payout.
What, exactly, does Starmer imagine will change between now and September? If these are not deal-breakers for recognition, then we must ask: What is?
Starmer’s remarks embody the soft bigotry of low expectations. He implicitly assumes Palestinians are powerless, choiceless victims — rather than moral agents capable of rejecting terrorism, building institutions, or choosing a different future. Western leaders talk about Palestinians like the latter is mostly a bunch of babies and toddlers. The underlying premise is that only Israel is expected to act like a respectable grown-up.
In this worldview, Palestinians are exempt from accountability because to demand anything of them would be “insensitive.” But what could be more insulting (or more racist) than treating an entire people as too emotionally or politically fragile to be held to the basic standards of decency?
There is something disturbingly familiar about Starmer’s tone: the patronizing confidence of an empire that still imagines itself as a referee in other people’s lives. The British government has a long history of carving up the Middle East without regard for Jewish or Arab lives. From the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the 1939 White Paper that barred Jews from escaping the Holocaust, Britain has always played both sides. Starmer’s remarks suggest the habit dies hard.
But the British Empire is no longer the policeman of the world. And Israel is no longer a subject to be managed; it is a sovereign state that will do what it needs to do to ensure its safety and security.
If the UK rewards Hamas’ war by recognizing Palestinian statehood now, what message does that send to Hezbollah, the Houthis, and even Iran? That violence works. That hostage-taking works. That terror pays.
It sets a precedent in which terrorist groups don’t need to win wars; they just need to survive long enough to be legitimized by the West. It teaches the world’s most violent actors that the road to statehood runs not through reform, democracy, or peace — but through bloodshed.
And let’s call a spade a spade: Starmer and his pals in France, Norway, Iceland, and Ireland are among a growing list of out-of-touch leftist leaders across the West who pretend to be authentic advocates for “Palestine” and “the Palestinians.” They are performing a kind of moral theater, one meant to appease rising domestic pressures — especially from growing Muslim immigrant communities and radicalized youth movements that demand symbolic shows of solidarity with Gaza.
This isn’t diplomacy; it’s demographic damage control.
These leaders are projecting their own political crises onto the Middle East — using Israel as a convenient scapegoat for their failure to integrate immigrant populations, control extremism, and maintain national cohesion. That’s why we get announcements like that of Starmer: empty threats and deadlines directed at one of Europe’s great partners (Israel), while groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are treated with kid gloves.
It’s a dangerous charade. Because recognition of a state is not a charity prize; it’s a serious geopolitical act. And to recognize a Palestinian state right now, with Hamas still armed and governing, is to reward terror and punish the very concept of peace.
Imagine applying the same logic to other conflicts. Would the UK have recognized the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan in the middle of 2001, while they were still harboring al-Qaeda and repressing women? Would they have granted legitimacy to the Irish Republican Army while bombs were going off in London?
Katie Byron’s turnaround technique forces us to ask: If Starmer truly believes recognition should be tied to “substantive steps” and a “viable peace process,” then why is that standard applied only to Israel?
The answer is uncomfortable. It reveals how low the moral bar has been set for the Palestinians — and how high it’s been set for the Jews. And it reminds us that the West’s obsession with “Palestine” has far less to do with actual Palestinians and far more to do with the guilt, decay, and political cowardice of many Western ruling elites.
If Starmer is seriously concerned about peace, dignity, and safety, he might start closer to home — with Britain’s Jewish community, which has not faced this level of hostility in decades.
Since October 7th, antisemitic incidents in the UK have surged to levels unseen in the 21st century. Synagogues require constant police presence. Jewish schools have been forced to go on lockdown or hide their insignias. Jewish students at British universities are afraid to speak openly, fearing harassment from peers and even professors. Some Jewish businesses have been vandalized. Others have quietly removed any public sign of their Jewish identity — not in Gaza, but in London, Manchester, and Birmingham.
This is not happening in the shadows. It’s on the streets — in marches where mobs chant, “From the River to the Sea!”, a genocidal slogan that calls for the eradication of Israel. It’s in Parliament Square. It’s on the BBC. It’s in the heart of British civil society.
Yet somehow, Starmer’s idea of leadership is not to address this hate, not to challenge the ideology behind it, but to validate it — by rewarding the very political project that justifies violence against Jews around the world.
Jewish life in the UK is under siege. Not by accident. Not because of a misunderstanding. But because Hamas launched a pogrom on October 7th, and far too many in Britain responded not with moral clarity — but with moral confusion. Instead of standing with their Jewish neighbors, they made excuses for their murderers. Instead of protecting one of the UK’s oldest and most integrated minorities, they turned their wrath on them.
And now, Starmer wants to crown that betrayal with a diplomatic gift to the very forces that unleashed this grotesquely antisemitic wave of hate.
Brilliant, mate.
The UK is becoming an Islamic country. Starmer knows this. He has no choice but to play to the crowd. Macron has the same problem.
The same nations which refused to allow European Jewry to escape the Holocaust and which collaborated enthusiastically in the Holocaust now reward the perpetrators of 10/7