The foolishness of recognising a Palestinian state now

On 21 September 2025 the UK government, led by Prime Minister Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, made the fateful decision to recognise a Palestinian state.  This decision comes after an almost two-year battle by the IDF to rescue hostages seized during the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Israeli border communities by Hamas on 7 October 2025. The attacks by the Hamas terrorist organisation and its associates led to the killing of 1,274 people, and the capture of 251 hostages. 24 of these hostages are still thought to be alive in the Gaza Strip. If an attack of equivalent scale occurred in the UK, the death toll would be about 57,000. I do not think that any Prime Minister would be able to countenance indifference faced with an incursion of similar proportions.  I am going to examine whether the UK recognising a Palestinian state enhances the prospects of peace or rewards terrorism. 

In recognising a Palestinian state, I think we have to first define the qualities of a nation state. Article one of the Montevideo Convention dictates that a state should have "a defined population,a defined territory, government" and "the capacity to enter into relations with other states".  If we consider Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza as constituting a Palestinian sovereign entity,  it is clear that this state meets the criteria of having a population. 

The Palestinian Authority has also demonstrated a capacity to enter into relations with other states. Dr Husam Zomlot is an example of a foreign representative of a Palestinian entity. Therefore it also has a defined population. Perhaps more importantly though, the Palestinian state many countries are rushing to recognise, including most recently France on 22 September 2025, does not have a defined territory, uncontested by neighbouring states.        

Five serious attempts have been made to define the borders which would need to be agreed to create a Palestinian state. On each occasion, notably including the Olmert Plan which would have offered a Palestinian state on 93-95% of the West Bank and sovereignty in Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, attempts to delineate an agreed upon border failed.  If the territorial debate underpinning the dispute cannot be resolved, any recognition is flawed. According to Article 16 of the Hamas Covenant, the UN partition plan, and any future attempts to reach a conciliatory peace agreement are "null and void."   

The proposed Palestinian entity does not possess a single government able to exercise a monopoly of the use of force over the entirety of its claimed territory. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, is currently in the twentieth year of his four year term. The Oslo Accords of September 1993, from which the Palestinian Authority and Presidency were created, were intended as a road map to a potential co-existance of an Israeli and Palestinian state. Currently, Mahmoud Abbas presides over a Palestinian Authority unable to even collect all of its own taxes, where "Israel collects, processes and transfers to the PA taxes imposed on Palestinian international imports and exports, including those from Israel." If we correctly conclude that Israel is a fait accompli, and therefore any Palestinian state will exist alongside Israel, it is difficult to see how any lasting peace can be achieved in such circumstances. 

It is clear that the Palestinian Authority does not aspire to the democratic principles espoused and purportedly encouraged by the West. Hamas is, notionally at least, still in charge of the Gaza strip. This means that the proposed entity currently has two governments, neither of which recognises the legitimacy and jurisdiction of the other. 

In attempting to achieve a two state solution,  I think it is important to reflect on its external origins, and that it was never endorsed by the region to which it relates. Important parallels can be found in the partition of India. While having domestic proponents, it was imposed by the British Raj as an imperfect solution to expedite Britain's withdrawal from the Indian subcontinent.  

The two state solution is the result of a combination of externally imposed factors. Under the Ottoman Empire, states in our current day understanding did not exist. In 1864, Ottoman reforms created administrative subdivisions called Vilayets, (ولایت in Ottoman Turkish), more akin to administrative provinces than states possessing agency. 

The future British mandate would have been located largely within the Vilayets of Beirut and  Damascus and the Mutasarrifate (a subdivision below Vilayet) of Jerusalem. None of these entities resembled a fully sovereign state, or were called Palestine. The Sykes-Picot agreement between the UK and France created areas of influence following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Notably, once again, entities similar to sovereign states were not created within the British mandate. The British mandate included the modern day Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, clearly discrediting claims of historical geographic continuity.  

The Balfour Declaration which aspired to the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was the starting point for the modern conception of the two state solution. The British Government's Peel Commission of 1937 concluded that partition was the only logical solution for the contradictory aspirations of the Arab and Jewish populations within the mandate.  

In the wake of World War Two, the British Government notified the UN of its intent to leave the region, leading to the formation of a UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP). This body concluded that a two state solution was necessary, with Jerusalem as a corpus separatum (Latin for separate entity). This was confirmed in United Nations Resolution 181. 

In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza strip, as a test of what a future Palestinian state could rassemble. The following year, rather than seeking a peaceful and diplomatic future, Gazans elected Hamas. Subsequently, no further elections have taken place and Gaza has been used as a bastion for launching terrorist attacks at Israel ever since. With potentially the exception of the Israel-Egyptian peace treaty, ceding territory, whether by withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000 or Gaza in 2005, has never led to peace.  Given that the Hamas Convenant precludes a lasting peace with Israel, how can we expect recognising a Palestinian state at this juncture, especially since 7 October 2023, will bring peace.      

Recognising a Palestinian state while Hamas is still in control of any part of the Gaza Strip is illogical.  Hamas, is a Palestinian jihadist organisation, with its overarching objective being the destruction of the State of Israel.  Making peace with Israel would be antithetical to its core values. Article 13 of the Hamas' charter states "initiatives, and so called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles" of their movement. 

Conclusion 

In recognising a Palestinian state, Prime Minister Starmer is giving the wrong message, rewarding terrorism. He is saying that violence, and not negotiation, brings results. He is undermining those seeking a genuine regional peace. Lasting peace – if indeed it is even possible – will only come to the region with the defeat of the Islamist ideology which underpins groups like Hamas. Peace cannot be imposed from outside the region. Recognition is only credible once the borders of a future Palestinian state are agreed by all actors, including the State of Israel. 

References

Montevideo Convention  https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup15/Montevideo%20Convention.pdf

Hansard Record on deaths on October 7 https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-10-07/debates/F87D0013-071A-4CDB-9463-66201032A7AB/HamasAttacksFirstAnniversary

Regarding the number of presumed living hostages still alive https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-next-24-these-are-the-remaining-hostages-presumed-alive-in-gaza/ 

Doctrine of Hamas https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas

Hamas Covenant 1988 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/21st_century/hamas.asp

Balfour Declaration https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125415/8008_Balfour_Declaration.pdf 

Political economy of Palestine Critical, Interdisciplinary, and Decolonial Perspectives  https://pal.k0de.org/Tartir%2C%20Alaa%2C%20Tariq%20Dana%2C%20and%20Timothy%20Seidel%20%28eds.%29%20-%20Political%20Economy%20of%20Palestine_%20Critical%2C%20Interdisciplinary%2C%20and%20Decolonial%20Perspectives%20-%20Palgrave%20Macmillan%20%282021%29.pdf#page=268

 

The centre-right case for a Citizen's Basic Income

It seems to be accepted wisdom in the UK that the country is in a period of managed decline. That our aim as a country is to stall an inevitable and progressive decline.

I believe passionately that progressive decline is not inevitable. To reverse course, though, we will need to take all citizens with us. We need to focus on increasing macro demand. To this end, I think the most effective long-term strategy would be a Citizen’s Basic Income. A Citizen’s Basic Income is a concept whereby the state would replace the current benefits system with a fixed basic universal income. It has already been trialled in over 160 jurisdictions globally, notably in Alaska, not known for voting for left wing parties, since 1982, Kenya and Finland. More relevant to the UK, in 2023 it was trialled in Jarrow and East Finchley where a selection of residents was provided a monthly income of £1,600. Many, such as Welsh Conservative Joel James MS, Shadow Minister for Social Partnership, contend that such a concept is a part of some socialist agenda pushing drug dependency.

I posit that far from being a socialist construct such a policy would enhance the market- based economic model. A minimum, base income would not hinder wealth creation. The UK experienced a marked period of industrial decline in the 70s and 80s, which has led to major, and now multi-generational, negative impacts – especially in formally industrial areas. If these areas could once again have thriving businesses imagine the positive impact it would have on the country and high streets. On a human and economic level, this means a decline in those able to benefit from, and contribute to, the country economically.

In 2022, relative poverty in the UK was measured at 22% of the population, equating to approximately 15.6 million citizens. This represents 15.6 million people struggling to partake in the UK’s market-based economy. 15.6 million citizens living precariously. In comparison, in 1977 the figure for relative poverty was 12% - or 11.24 million.

The UK currently ranks below France, Germany and the US in terms of productivity. If income insecurity means an individual takes the first available job, rather than a job which would motivate and interest them, productivity will clearly continue to lag behind. A basic income will take away the uncertainty. People will be more inclined to have an entrepreneurial spirit – in the true free market spirit - in the knowledge that they will be able to pay for essential goods and services necessary for their own survival regardless.

Some opposed to a minimum income contend that such a scheme would encourage laziness – why work when the government will pay you anyway. No system is perfect and I would argue that you will always have a certain percentage of people who will avoid work, regardless of the system, or lack thereof, in place. 

 Markets and businesses require customers to buy their products; the more potential consumers, the more potential revenue for businesses. More sales will, invariably, generate more taxes underpinning the expense of such a scheme in the medium to long term. Those who choose to, or can’t work, would still be contributing towards employment within the wider economy with a Citizen’s Basic Income.

The current benefits system is a disincentive to work. The cliff edge effect means that many workers actively reduce their hours, and therefore their potential productivity, in order not to lose in tax what they would have as part of Universal Credit. A Citizen’s Basic Income would reduce the current welfare trap while providing a safety net to drive productivity, demand and entrepreneurship. Of course, some may still decide, or not be

able to through incapacity, work. However, I don’t think a Citizen’s Basic Income will exacerbate this situation further. It would also not limit the aspirations for those for strive for success.

The national feeling of inevitable decline has to change. Rather than a policy to be feared by the right, a citizen’s basic income can be part of a positive platform for growth and economic prosperity.

Wars of choice and wars of necessity - our unstable world

Our world is becoming more and more unstable. We are now bearing witness to 3 major conflicts on 2 continents; the war in Ukraine, the war between Israel and the Hamas terrorist organisation and the war on international trade (despite the declared aiming of supporting Hamas) being waged by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. 

I believe the spread of conflict is in part due to a weak US Presidency. In recent times, many of the wars involving the United States, Iraq and - to a lesser extent Afghanistan - have been wars of choice - a US foreign policy decision without which a state of war wouldn't exist. The current conflicts aren't such wars. Russia and Iran respectively have decided to undertake the current hostilities - the US and the wider west have to respond forcefully, there is no choice.

I posit that the world becomes a more violent place when the relative economic strengths of the world's powers is in a state of flux. World War I was a challenge to the UK-based world order, World War II marked the assendency of the bi-polar world order, with the United States and Soviet Union becoming the two undisputed superpowers. We are currently seeing the relative economic strengths of the Peoples' Republic of China and the United States narrow and thus a more unstable world awaits. 

The botched US withdrawal from Afghanistan, culminating on 30 August 2021, was the trigger for the current round of instability. After nearly 20 years and over US$2 trillion spent, the Taliban were back in power as they were in 2001. Although President Biden did not reverse the US decision to leave Afghanistan, he nevertheless overturned his predecessor's 24 executive orders in his first 100 days in office. 

The effect on global opinion of seeing an insurgency taking on and defeating the world's most powerful superpower cannot be understated and has had global consequences. Undoubtably leaders like Presidents Putin and Khamenei were emboldened by the scenes at Kabul airport leading to Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

It is clear President Biden wants to avoid US entanglement in Europe and the Middle East. The fact that this is so obvious makes the world a more dangerous place. For all President Trump's bombastic comments, they made autocrats more uncertain about his true foreign policy intentions and - ironically - made the world a safer place. The world is now on the brink of wide spread wars. These are wars of necessity and not of choice for the US. Choosing not to confront the world's current conflicts will only lead to greater insecurity.

The case for a more federal UK Conservative Party

The Conservative Party leadership election exposed an important issue with the current party’s structure. Both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were candidates representing English constituencies. Regrettably there were no candidates from either the Welsh or Scottish Conservatives who put their name in the ring for the election and only three of the twelve hustings events were held outside of England; in Cardiff on 3 August, in Perth on 16 August 2022 and Belfast on 17 August respectively.  

For a party that has unionist in its name, the two final candidates in the contest didn't seem to be particularly enthusiastic about the whole unionism thing. To me, it seems the campaigns of both Sunak and Truss spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to portray themselves as the more Thatcherite candidate. I don’t suggest for a minute that the cost of living crisis is unimportant; with inflation at a 40 year high, the two candidates needed to set out their stalls as to how they will combat it. We are also living in turbulent times with the war in Ukraine continuing. That being said, with Nicola Sturgeon announcing on 28 June 2022 the SNP’s intention to plow ahead with their plan to hold a referendum on Scotland’s place in the UK on 19 October 2023, with the decision on the constitutionality of a poll currently being adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the Conservatives need to discover how to put the United Kingdom on a steady keel. 

I doubt that the general public will look highly on a Prime Minister and political party that presides over the break up of a hugely successful 300 year old political union. It is worrying how so many have seemingly concluded that the break up of the UK is inevitable, a law of nature. It isn’t but, that being said, the union and its institutions are going to need reimagining to survive. A new truly federalist system is required, completing the half-baked concept of devolution.The reform required needs to start with the Conservative Party itself.   

For me, one of the elements I found most interesting during this campaign was from a candidate who has now been eliminated from the race. Penny Mordaunt’s campaign video recognised that the United Kingdom is constituted of four nations. We forget this at our electoral peril. The way that the current leadership process for the Conservative Party works there is no incentive for any of the candidates to consider the perspectives from the other constituent nations. I think this has been made clear in the absence of meaningful discussion so far by Sunak or Truss on the subject.  

In this sense the shortcomings of devolution provide an answer as to how the Conservative Party can become more relevant to all the constituent nations, and in the process help save the UK. Devolution was half-baked and clearly designed by the Labour Party in a self-interested attempt to, as it viewed it after its victory in 1997, retain power in Scotland and Cymru/Wales even if it lost support in England. 

It was a three- quarters finished attempt at UK style federalism which I would argue has actually fuelled nationalism in Scotland. Whoever takes over as the next Conservative leader and ultimately Prime Minister on 5 September 2022, needs to address the growing divide within the UK and seek to change how future Conservative leadership contests are run.

One of the arguments often made by the SNP in favour of independence is that Scotland doesn’t vote Conservative: 692,939 would beg to differ, but this an inconvenient truth they omit to mention. The SNP is implying the Conservative Party has no interest in considering Scotland’s opinion. The overly-centralised nature of the Conservative Party adds validity to this assertion but there is a solution: a completely federalised Conservative Party. 

A federal unionist Conservative Party would exist in much the same way as the relationship between the CDU and CSU in Germany. Four distinct parties would exist, including in England. In essence the four parties would govern in a form of permanent coalition, a confidence and supply arrangement. 

The overall leader of this structure could be elected by qualified majority voting (QMV). QMV is the system used by the Council of Europe when adopting decisions. A QMV system of voting could require any leader to gain 50% of constituencies and 50% of the vote in each of the respective nations. 

This voting structure would require any future leader to appeal to party members across the UK. I like to think that in any Conservative leadership election, as Lord Mountbatton said on arrival in India in 1947 as the last Viceroy, a prospective leader should have to appeal to the “greatest goodwill from the greatest possible number”. QMV would give party members across the UK, from Glasgow to Grimsby, Aberystwyth to Ashford, an equal input into the leader of our great party. It would make it much harder for the party to be tarnished with the accusation it doesn't represent the whole of the UK. Not only would it help to grow and develop the Conservative Party membership and electoral appeal throughout the United Kingdom but it would hopefully also strengthen the links between all parts of the UK 

We are in a time of great change faced with a multitude of challenges, whether that is the cost of living crisis or the war in Ukraine. The existence of the UK itself is being increasingly challenged as well. To survive, it is going to need to adapt. The Conservative Party becoming a truly federal unionist party, including in the way it elects its leader, could help deal constructively with this challenge. Like it has on countless occasions before, the Conservative Party needs to evolve to put the UK back on a stable trajectory.  

A game of who blinks first, peace for Israel and Palestine

In the wake of the military intervention of Israel in the Gaza strip in mid 2014, the momentum in the region has been on the side of the Palestinian authorities. It is in the process of joining the ICC and wants to pursue Israel for war crimes for its military actions against Hamas in Gaza. Hamas and Fatah are holding reconciliation talks whilst states in Europe, with Sweden as an example, are holding votes to recognise Palestine, with the view that this may somehow help to secure peace in the region. Meanwhile,  Palestinian authorities look likely to launch another bid to join the United Nations as a full member.

All of this in an attempt to force Israel to negotiate a final settlement to the Israel-Palestinian crisis, leading to a Palestinian state. But the International community does not appear to reflect the Israeli perspective. The stated aims of both Hamas and Hezbollah is to eradicate Israel. The merger between Fatah and Hamas will only make the geo-political situation in the region worse. In order to get a solution to the crisis, the extremes, both Jews believing in Eretz Yisrael, Greater Israel, including Judah, Samaria and the Gaza province and radical Islamic movements and their supporters, including Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran, need to be 'leaver-arched' closer. At the moment, even if Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to achieve the two state solution, he would be trying to negotiate with an organisation, Hamas, which refuses to even recognise the State of Israel.

For an outside observer, the solution is simple. Israel within its current boundaries, including the Gaza strip and West Bank, will not be able to maintain its Jewish identity and maintain its democratic values into the future. Therefore it is in its' interest to allow a Palestinian State to exist alongside it with the diplomatic recognition which surrounding states have indicated they would extend in this situation. Moderates in the region, the Yitzhak Rabins of both sides, are not the ones that need convincing and a peace settlement will be about getting the radicals on both sides to moderate their ambitions enough to find common ground and a structure within which meaningful talks can take place. Only then will the current game of who blinks first between Israel and extremist groups seeking its destruction end.    

The nation-state and Afghanistan.

The countries of southern central Asia do not correspond neatly to the western, Treaty of Westphalia conception of the nation-state. Southern central Asia is a region of tribal loyalties  Afghanistan is a prime example of where a state has been created that does not correlate to any sense of nationhood. Afghanistan is, moreover, the result of competition between the British and Russian empires in the 19th century. The idea of an Afghan nation is artificial: Afghanistan is only ever an entity when confronted with an outside enemy, be it Russian or American. The religious contentions in the region make it almost impossible for the creation of a stable central government in Kabul.

Afghanistan comprises three main factions: in the North, there is a significant Tajik population, 'about one-fifth of the population' (Encyclopaedia Britannica) , to the West you have a large population of Persian speakers, who hold an affinity towards Iran, and in the East a Pashtun population. The Pashtun community sprawls the international frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan. For the Pashtun community of Afghanistan the border does not exist. This evidently causes problems for regional security and the nation-building currently being undertaken by ISAF forces.

So...creating a 'Pashtunistan' might be a reasonable solution to current instability in the region. Effectively, you would be realigning the borders to match the ethnic devision of the region, thus creating a sense of social cohesion which is a better foundation for building a state, whatever the regime type. This proposition would, evidently, face strong opposition by Pakistan's authorities. The experience of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1980s shows that even with a very centralist approach, the various ethnicities of Afghanistan cannot be welded together as they stand to form a durable Afghan State.

In the post-colonial era, the world has to realign the geopolitics of South-central Asia to represent governable regions. The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is 'a 2450km demarcation line drawn by the British through Pashtun tribal lands to suit the defensive needs of British Colonial India' (Synowitz, 2006) in 1893. It was designed to express the limit to which Britain was willing to allow the Russian empire to expand. In 1893, the geopolitical effects of this border were not considered in the context of independent nation states.  If you were to redefine the frontiers in this region, you would move the Iranian border east, the Tajikistan border south into Afghanistan. The remainder, consisting of the Pashtun community, would create a new state which would include a considerable part of Pakistan's tribal border regions that have been costing the government in Islamabad dearly in terms of resource diversion.





  

La politique socialiste...la politique de la haine et le bouc émissaire

Depuis la naissance de l'idée, le socialisme a toujours promit la paradise sur terre, les hobbits de la comté avec les champs verts partout. Une égalité entre tout les  êtres-humains du monde, l'anéantissement de la bourgeosie et le système capitaliste qui les protege.      

Bien sur, vous disez, quelle idée noble: un monde sans la souffrance, sans l'injustice.  Dans l'épochè de Karl Marx, l'ere de la paradise fut le moyen age. Le socialisme, c'est une politique simple et attirante parmi certains. Les gens riches, soit les banquiers, selon Ed Milliband, soit les juifs, selon Adolf Hitler, doit être les boucs émissaires de toutes les problèmes du classe populaire.

Tandis que les moyens, les impots énormes pour les dirigeants des partis travaillistes britannique et français, ou les massacres par les nationales socialistes du troisème Reich en Allemagne, ne sont pas comparable, leurs buts sont les mêmes. C'est l'idée qu'un cadre des gens sont la base des problèmes sociales. En eliminant l'ennemi, on peut créer un pays avec les citoyens égals - un population des "ayrans" égals au troisème Reich, une population des obéissants dans l'ancien union soviétique ou l'égalité dans le Royaume Uni.

D'ailleurs, la réalité est differente. Le socialisme ne peut pas, n'ai pas et n'existera pas. L'egotisme de l'homme ne peut pas permettre cette égalite à laquelle les socialistes souhaitent. En effet, la faiblesse, c'est les êtres-humains. Nous voulons échapper l'état de nature à la Hobbes. En faisant çela, nous entrons dans un contrat social sous le controle des gouvernements qui peuvent créer les régles de notre société. Dès lors, le contrat social soi-même est une soumission au fait que nous demandons un pouvour en haut pour nous controlons. Si il y a un pouvour en haut, l'état et son gouvernement, qui enforce l'ordre sociale, il n'y a pas l'égalité: il y avait certains qui ont plus du pouvoir que les autres.

En fait, l'anarchie et l'état de nature serait la situation la plus proche et au même temps la plus loin du socialisme? Aucun pouvoir pour controler la volonté propre de quelqu'un, mais aussi une inégalité parfaite fonde sur la force. D'ailleurs, les civilisations du monde ont decidé d'avoir la certitude. Les gouvernements peuvent enforcer la certitude mais il n'y aura pas une égalité entre les citoyens et le gouvernement.