It may not be a simple and direct example of cause and effect, but the calls from leading nations in the Arab world for Hamas to disarm and give up its claim to govern Gaza must be giving Sir Keir Starmer additional confidence that his decision to recognise a sovereign Palestinian state is on the right side of history.
The prime minister made it clear in his historic statement that these terrorists must “accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza”, and this evidence that the regional geopolitical balance is tipping further against them is highly encouraging. Of course, Hamas can still count on the backing of the ayatollahs in Tehran, but Iran is certainly no longer the power it once was, and their other allies, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, have been similarly quieted.
Remarkably, it is almost the entire Arab world, represented by the Arab League, that has made this historic move, in concert with European nations and others. They all now want to see an end to Hamas rule in Gaza, however nominal it may now in reality be, and their call is unequivocal: “In the context of ending the war in Gaza, Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state.”
With the recent backing for a state of Palestine by Sir Keir and President Macron, the tectonic plates have shifted. The fact that the leaders of Britain and France, two of the old colonial powers in the area, have joined at last in the cause of establishing a free and viable Palestinian state has no doubt weighed heavily in the balance in a part of the world where history matters. As David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said, that part of the Balfour Declaration pertaining to the Palestinian Arabs is now being honoured.
The Arab League’s declaration is by far the best news that has come from the UN summit being held in New York on a two-state solution. Israel and the United States have chosen not to attend, and the Americans also recently pulled out of the peace talks in Qatar, but even the Trump administration cannot entirely ignore this wind of change blowing through some of America’s most important allies and partners – Saudi Arabia and Egypt being the pre-eminent examples.
If President Trump wishes to extend the Abraham Accords process that was such a notable success in his first term, then he too should welcome these latest diplomatic initiatives and back them enthusiastically. The Abraham peace treaties, which entailed diplomatic recognition of Israel, that were concluded with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, can and should be joined by Saudi Arabia and others – as President Trump has always intended.
It would make Israel more secure, and all involved more prosperous. Indeed, the prospect of the Saudis and Israelis normalising their relations may have been one motive for the Hamas terrorists committing their atrocities on 7 October 2023 – to disrupt such peaceful trends.
President Trump also said that he was content for Sir Keir to “take a position” on Palestinian sovereignty when he was in Scotland only a few days ago, and has repeated that he doesn’t have to agree with what the British and French are doing. That is far from an outright condemnation, and, as momentum builds, he may judge that he can lend more backing. In any case, the president should further brief his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, on what a return to the Abraham Accords process would mean to the administration’s legacy, and the prospects for extending American power and trade across the Middle East.
There are reservations. The claim made by the Israelis, by Mr Trump and others, that recognising Palestinian sovereignty is a “reward” for Hamas terrorism is an understandable one – but it is wrong. As has been seen with the widespread demands for Hamas to give up the hostages, disarm and transfer governance to the Palestinian Authority, the organisation is hardly being rewarded for what it did. It is not Hamas that is to be recognised as a legitimate authority, but the Palestinian Authority and President Abbas, based in Ramallah, who are no allies of Hamas.
The truth that Benjamin Netanyahu has to confront is that it is his conduct of the war in Gaza that has made more Western states – normally friends and partners of Israel – decide that recognition of Palestinian sovereignty has to be made now for fear that the whole project of a two-state solution and lasting peace becomes completely unviable. In other words, had the Israelis gone after the Hamas leaders and the terrorists, rather than flattening the entire territory, with the loss of an estimated 80,000 lives, these moves on establishing the state of Palestine would not be taking place.
Not that it matters much in the context of a historic move towards peace that is as dramatic as it is unexpected, the prime minister has also defused the growing unrest in his own party over Gaza. Sir Keir’s principled stand that Israel had a right to defend itself after the 7 October attacks cost him dear in domestic electoral terms, but he stuck with it.
It stands today, too – but the disproportionate way Israel has behaved towards civilians, culminating in a growing famine, has undoubtedly weakened its international support and left the nation isolated. In that sense, in lashing out in a vengeful manner for so long, it is Mr Netanyahu who has played into Hamas’s plans and damaged the long-term interests of the Israeli people. That war suited him politically, as it did Hamas, is one of the more uncomfortable aspects of this conflict.
Today, out of despair has sprung some unexpected hope for Gaza and for an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people – but also for Israel to be free of attack and invasion.
Mr Netanyahu’s government will not be in power for ever, and the inglorious era of Hamas rule is coming to a close. Those factors are also cause for optimism. That hope for peace should be cherished, for everyone knows what the inhuman alternative looks like, and it doesn’t work.
