Starmer's Palestine pledge comforts only one group - and it's not suffering Gazans

Sir Keir Starmer wants to be seen as bold, principled and just. Sadly, his pledge to recognise the state of Palestine by September, unless Israel halts its military operation in Gaza, achieves none of those things. At best, it is performative, coercive and strategically incoherent. At worst, it plays into the hands of those who benefit most from Western disunity: Iran, Russia and Hamas.

Those on the left will argue that this decision is long overdue. And it is true that recognising a Palestinian state is part and parcel of the two-state solution endorsed by every sensible diplomat for a generation. But that's not what Starmer's announcement represents. This conditional recognition isn't based on principle. It is tethered not to Palestinian readiness for statehood, but to Israel's military decisions and Hamas' cooperation. As Dr Lynette Nusbacher, a former British Army intelligence officer and Whitehall strategist, told me: "He's turning the Palestinian people's aspirations into a political football. He's using it as a tool to coerce the Israelis. And in particular, the conditions - that Hamas must agree to disarm. That is a mockery of recognition."

It's hard to disagree.

Recognition of a state normally follows accountable institutions, stable governance and clear borders. Here, it is being weaponised - issued not to Ramallah or any functioning authority, but as a stick to beat Netanyahu. That is not what Palestinian self-determination was meant to look like.

And the timing makes it worse.

The Labour leader is offering a diplomatic prize contingent on Israeli restraint and Hamas' acquiescence.

Both parts are equally important.

In a call with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, Starmer reiterated that Hamas must release all hostages, commit to disarmament, and accept that they will play no role in Gaza's governance.

These are Israeli demands, not Palestinian ones though, in truth, they are demands the Palestinian Authority - Hamas' bitter rival -would likely welcome.

None of this, however, changes the political reality: Hamas will never accept these terms.

Starmer's problem is that Hamas does not want peace. It wants perpetual confrontation. And by tying recognition to its behaviour, he invites the very actors who despise the two-state solution to dictate its terms.

This does nothing to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Gazans, who are trapped between Israel's siege and Hamas' tyranny. Recognition offered on terms Hamas will never meet is no path to peace - it is a dead end.

It neither hastens reconstruction nor guarantees security. It simply hardens the diplomatic stalemate while civilians continue to pay the price.

Much of the world talks as if pressure lies solely with Israel.

But since October 7, it is Hamas that has held the key to de-escalation. Had it released its hostages months ago, it is inconceivable that Netanyahu could have sustained the military campaign this long.

The war has continued not simply because of Israel's choices, but because Hamas has chosen to prolong it - and to keep civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian, trapped in the fire.

Hamas' obstruction is nothing new.

Time and again, it and other Palestinian leaders have rejected viable paths to peace. Palestinian statehood has been offered repeatedly - in 1937, 1947, 1967, 2000 and 2008.

In each case, the answer was no. Hamas has never shown interest in peace or coexistence - only in resistance and escalation.

So by linking recognition to Hamas' behaviour, Starmer is building on a fiction.

And in doing so, he risks alienating Palestinians who genuinely want peace and Israelis who have reason to doubt international intentions.

The left, which pressured him into this stance, will not be satisfied with conditions Hamas will never meet. But to follow through would collapse the logic of those conditions altogether.

As Nusbacher put it: "In the short term, Starmer has appeased his left wing. But in two months, when we have not seen a ceasefire or release of hostages, he will have to fail to act. And that is a blow to the decent Palestinian people who deserve recognition."

When France's weather-vane president Emmanuel Macron opportunistically recognised Palestinian sovereignty last week, Starmer held firm. The time would come, he said - but only as part of a greater plan. In other words, the endgame, after foundations had been laid.

This is the path that Germany wisely continues to take.

As Foreign Secretary David Lammy rightly pointed out: "The act of recognition does not get you two states; it is a symbolic act."

And it is a card that can be played only once.

Sadly, in opting for the politics of gesture, Starmer has squandered an important opportunity to chart a course grounded in reality, diplomacy and lasting principles - and to show the unity of purpose among Western allies that our adversaries fear most.