Starmer's a political ballerina, pirouetting on principle whenever the wind shifts

Keir Starmer's declaration that Britain will recognise a Palestinian state unless Israel takes "substantive steps" to improve conditions in Gaza is the diplomatic equivalent of an ultimatum. It is also another glaring U-turn from a man increasingly known for pirouetting on principle whenever the political winds shift.

Only last week, responding to a letter signed by 221 MPs demanding immediate recognition, Starmer rejected the idea. Recognition, he insisted, "must be part of a wider plan which ultimately results in a two-state solution and lasting security for Palestinians and Israelis". Seven days later, we are here.

Let me be blunt: I will not peddle the fantasy of a two-state solution. It hasn't happened, and it isn't going to happen, not while both sides are still counting their dead in the thousands. Dangling this delusion in front of the public is disingenuous and naive. It serves no one. Starmer's announcement is not just politically cheap, it's in poor taste.

It offers the prospect of Palestinian statehood in the middle of a war that began with Hamas-led forces massacring, raping and abducting more than 1,200 people on October 7 - the deadliest day of anti-Jewish violence since the Holocaust.

For most Jews that day is impossible to forget. To talk about recognition before the hostages are home and Hamas is defeated feels like a slap in the face to victims and their families. It also trivialises decades of Palestinian anguish.

Generations have been denied self-determination, living in limbo under occupation or corrupt and violent leadership. Recognition is not a token to wave around for political gain or a bargaining chip to score points in Brussels.

This move risks rewarding Hamas for terrorism. Starmer's conditions for recognition focus entirely on Israel: agree to a ceasefire, deliver aid and commit to longterm peace talks. Hamas faces no obligation to renounce violence, promise democratic governance or even release its hostages.

Britain is effectively threatening to recognise a terror-run state while the very group that plunged the region into war continues to reject ceasefire deals brokered by the US and Egypt. This creates perverse incentives.

If recognition depends on Israel halting its offensive, Hamas has every reason to drag the conflict out and claim victory in the eyes of the world. What sort of state would emerge under such leadership? Certainly not one that guarantees security for Israelis or dignity for Palestinians. This is not moral courage, it is a diplomatic trick dressed up as principle, pretending to reward Palestinian aspirations while punishing Israeli resilience and feeding the machinery of perpetual war.

France tried a similar tactic last month when President Emmanuel Macron promised immediate recognition of Palestine. One poll showed only 22% of French voters supported the idea, while nearly half said recognition should wait until Hamas disarmed and the hostages were freed. British opinion is unlikely to be much more favourable beyond fashionably left-wing activist, academic and media circles.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has blasted Starmer's plan as "a reward for Hamas". Much of his outrage is self-serving but he knows how to weaponise this politically. Each month of fighting keeps him in office. Meanwhile, settler numbers are rising in the West Bank and violence is worsening.

Critics are right: this is effectively a sanction on Israel for a war it did not start and whose basic defensive aims are unmet. None of this excuses the horror in Gaza. More than 60,000 Palestinians are dead, starvation is widespread and most of the territory lies in ruins. The carnage is unbearable.

And there is the simple question no one can answer: What does defeating Hamas actually look like? Endless bombardment will not end terrorism, it may even be fuelling it. But if this ultimatum is Starmer's best idea for stopping the war, it's the worst possible choice. It won't end the conflict or bring peace. And it won't deliver justice.

The two-state solution remains a delusion: no viable partner, no contiguous territory, no functioning institutions to build on. The only remotely workable future is a single federal state with equal rights for all citizens - distant as that feels, it is at least rooted in reality. Starmer's stunt is rooted in politics, not peace.

It is a gimmick, a headline grabber, a sop to the Labour left. It will do more harm than good, and those suffering in this endless war will not forget who played games with their future.