Summary
Recent declarations by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada to recognize a Palestinian state reflect what critics see as a mixture of willful ignorance, historical amnesia, and political arrogance. These governments justified their actions as efforts to promote peace and revive the “two-state solution,” yet such reasoning ignores over a century of Arab rejection of Jewish statehood—from the 1937 Peel Commission through the 2008 Olmert offer. Each rejection, the critique argues, demonstrates that Arab and Palestinian leaders have consistently opposed coexistence with Israel, rendering external recognition of a Palestinian state not a step toward peace but a reward for violence and refusal to compromise.
A second theme concerns the supposed commitment by Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas to hold democratic elections. While the recognizing countries praised this promise, Abbas has repeatedly postponed or canceled elections since 2005 and continues to govern without democratic legitimacy. Despite Palestinian law mandating elections every four years, none have occurred in nearly two decades. By accepting vague assurances instead of conditioning recognition on concrete reform, the Western leaders effectively enabled continued authoritarianism.
The third major criticism targets what the author calls “colonial arrogance.” Western governments, while purporting to support democracy, dictated who Palestinians may or may not elect—explicitly excluding Hamas. Yet, given Hamas’s electoral victory in 2006 and ongoing popularity, forbidding its participation renders any election a façade. Moreover, Palestinian leaders themselves—including Abbas—do not classify Hamas as a terrorist group, viewing it as part of the national movement against Israel. Thus, external restrictions would create a hollow democracy devoid of legitimacy.
Finally, the critique argues that these recognitions will be interpreted across the Arab world as rewards for the October 7 massacre and for ongoing terrorism. Rather than advancing peace or democracy, the decisions by London, Canberra, and Ottawa are portrayed as acts of moral blindness that embolden extremism, undermine reform, and further delegitimize Israel’s right to self-defense.
The statements of the United Kingdom,1 Australia,2 and Canada3 to recognize the non-existent “State of Palestine” had several common themes. Separately and cumulatively, each of these elements demonstrated the willful blindness of the leaders of these countries, and, to a great extent, nothing less than their colonial arrogance.
Examining three common elements underscores the extent of both self-delusion and intentional deceit.
The Two-State Solution
Each of the statements claimed that the recognition of the “State of Palestine” would somehow preserve and even promote the much-touted “Two-State Solution.”
What these countries fail to accept is that the Arabs – whether those resident in Gaza, Judea, Samaria, or the broader Middle East – do not want a “Two State solution” in the present, and never have in the past.
While claiming to preserve the “Two-State Solution,” more accurately viewed as the “Two-State Delusion,” the British, Australians, Canadians, and their cumulative French leader fail to take into account the repeated Arab rejection of the idea:
The Arabs rejected the idea in 1937 when the Peel Commission first suggested it.4
The Arabs rejected the idea again in 1947, when the United Nations suggested the “Partition Plan.”
The Arabs rejected the idea again in 1951, when it was suggested by Israeli leader, David Ben-Gurion, as part of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine that followed Israel’s War of Independence.5
The Arabs rejected the idea for nineteen years, between 1948 and 1967, when Gaza was under Egyptian control and Judea, Samaria, and east Jerusalem were under Jordanian control. During that period, the Arabs could have established another Arab State in those areas, but they chose instead to continue their war against Israel.
The Palestinians rejected the idea again at the Camp David Peace summit in the summer of 2000 under the auspices of President Bill Clinton.
The Arabs rejected the idea again in 2002, when the Arab League adopted the deceptively named “Arab Peace Initiative.” Launched at the height of the Palestinian terror war, in which Palestinians murdered hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings, the Saudi led plan, called for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from all the remaining territories gained in the 1967 Six Day War, including the entire Gaza Strip, all of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and also withdraw from Lebanese territory allegedly still held by Israel; to consent to the creation of a Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital; and to agree to flood itself with millions of so-called Palestinian refugees, which the Arab states committed to not absorbing.
The Palestinians rejected it again in 2008 when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians more land than the pre-1967 territories.6
For over 100 years, the Arabs have been consistent in their rejection of the very existence of a Jewish state. Recognizing the non-existent “State of Palestine” is not going to change their position.
Instead, the recognition of the fake state by France, the UK, Canada, Australia, and others will correctly be perceived by the Arabs, predominantly the Palestinians, not only as a reward for the October 7 massacre, but also as a prize for their constant rejection of any negotiated solution.
Far from promoting any ability to realize the “Two State Delusion,” the recognition emboldens the rejectionist Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and will even force potentially pragmatic Palestinian leaders, to the extent that they exist, to adopt a more rigid stance.
Palestinian Democratic Reform
One of the foundational themes of the announcements was the acceptance of the commitments of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to hold democratic elections.
When swallowing and parroting this canard, the Franch, the UK, Canada, Australia, and others clearly missed the fact that Palestinian law requires that elections for the position of PA chairman/president be held every four years. An incumbent can only run for one additional four-year term.
In reality, since the PA was established in 1994, there have only been two elections for the position of chairman: the first in 1996 and the second in 2005. The same Abbas, who is now committed to holding new elections, is currently in his twenty-first year of his first four-year term.
While the same Palestinian law requires that the elections for the PA parliament also be held every four years, the Palestinian track record is similarly abysmal.
Since the PA was established, there have only been two elections for the PA parliament: the first was held in 1996, and the second in 2006. The 2006 election ended with a landslide victory for Hamas, the genocidal terrorists who planned and executed the October 7 massacre.
Moreover, while Abbas allowed the parliament elected in 2006 to continue to exist, although it could not function, in December 2018, he decided to officially dissolve the parliament, and committed to holding elections “within six months.”7
In the longest six months ever, in January 2021, Abbas announced that the elections would take place in May 2021. However, just weeks before the Palestinians went to the polls, and after Abbas understood that he and his Fatah party would again lose to Hamas, he cancelled the elections.
Seven years later, the commitment to hold elections “within six months” has yet to be fulfilled.
The fallacy of the Palestinian elections becomes all the more apparent when examining the statements with a specific emphasis on the timing of the event.
Remarkably, it appears that Abbas made separate commitments to each of the relevant parties.
According to the British statement, “President Abbas has committed to this reform, including organising new elections within a year of a ceasefire.”
Since no one knows when a ceasefire will be reached, Abbas’s commitment to UK Prime Minister Starmer appears to be somewhat lacking in specificity.
The Australian statement was more cautious on the subject, claiming that “The President of the Palestinian Authority has restated its recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and given direct undertakings to Australia, including commitments to hold democratic elections…”
Thus, when Abbas spoke to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, it would appear that he committed, in general, to hold elections at some unknown stage, and while he gave no concrete commitment, Abbas’ “word” was sufficient.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney seems to have received the most specific commitment. According to the Canadian statement of recognition of the non-existent “State of Palestine,” Abbas committed “to hold general elections in 2026.”
Even though the British, Canadians, Australians, and others were clearly aware of the need for Palestinian elections, each one allowed itself to be duped by Abbas.
Instead of conditioning recognition on the prior need to hold elections, the willful blindness of Starmer, Carney, and Albanese rewarded Abbas before he made any concrete steps.
Similar to the desire to preserve the “Two State Delusion,” granting the recognition of “Palestine” before the elections ever take place will not usher in the new elections, but rather will ensure that they never happen.
Colonial Arrogance
Ostensibly relying on Abbas’s commitment to hold elections, the third common theme of the recognition announcements was nothing short of colonial arrogance, in which the countries granting their recognition dictated to their new colonial subject, the “State of Palestine” and its inhabitants, whom they could elect.
In their respective statements, each of the leaders stressed that genocidal Hamas would not be allowed to participate in the Palestinian governance.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer made clear that Hamas “will have no role in the future of Palestine.” Carney said that in the elections that Abbas committed to hold “Hamas can play no part.” Albanese said, “The terrorist organisation Hamas must have no role in Palestine.”
While a prohibition of Hamas from participating in the Palestinian electoral process is, of course, most welcome, externally dictating that reality ignores two basic realities.
First, Abbas himself does not see Hamas as a terrorist organization. Instead, he and all the other Palestinian leaders have consistently referred to Hamas as a legitimate “Palestinian faction.”
As the then PA Prime Minister, Muhammad Shtayyeh, noted in December 2023, after the massacre: ”Hamas is a central component in the Palestinian political arena. Likewise, Hamas and Fatah are two pillars in the Palestinian national movement… We defended the Hamas Movement at the UN. When the UN wanted to define Hamas as a terrorist movement, we set out against this resolution and thwarted it.” 8
Abbas’s position is based on the fact that the primary difference between himself and Hamas is limited to the means of achieving their shared common goal: The destruction of Israel.
Abbas believes in implementing the PLO’s 1974 “Plan of Stages” to gradually destroy Israel, using intermittent diplomacy supported by terror violence. In contrast, Hamas believes in all-out war, without any element of engagement with Israel or the international community.
Second, the dictate to prohibit Hamas from participating in the elections ignores the fact that Hamas won the 2006 elections, and that almost every single Palestinian poll conducted since then shows that Hamas would win again.
Thus, while the principled dictate is morally and theoretically correct, Palestinians are sick of Abbas and his Fatah party and consistently prefer Hamas.
Holding Palestinian elections subject to the colonial stipulations of the British, Canadians, and Australians would create a Palestinian “democracy” similar to that of Soviet Russia: Everyone can vote, but there is only one party, a corrupt, terror-supporting party to vote for.
A Palestinian leadership elected under these terms would not enjoy any domestic legitimacy.
Moreover, while Hamas already enjoyed popular Palestinian support, the fact that the recognition was given by the British, Canadians, Australians, and others as a direct result of the October 7 massacre only increases Hamas’s popularity.
To circumvent this obstacle, Abbas and Hamas will likely follow the same approach they employed in the 2006 elections. Then, Hamas did not run as “Hamas,” but instead ran under the banner of the “Change and Reform” party.
While the deceit will be apparent for all to see, it will no doubt satisfy the neo-colonialists.
The Massacre and its Rewards
While the British and Canadians both clarified that their decision to recognize the non-existent state was not a reward for terror, including the October 7 massacre, for the Palestinians, the connection is crystal clear: The more Jews they murder, the greater the diplomatic reward.
* * *
Notes
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-formally-recognises-palestinian-state#:~:text=The%20UK%20has%20formally%20recognised,the%20Israeli%20and%20Palestinian%20people.↩︎
https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/australia-recognises-state-palestine#:~:text=Effective%20today%2C%20Sunday%20the%2021st,a%20state%20of%20their%20own.↩︎
https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2025/09/21/statement-prime-minister-carney-on-canada-recognition-state-palestine↩︎
In 1922, the League of Nations granted Great Britain the Mandate for Palestine. The sole purpose of the mandate was to prepare the entire area, from Lebanon in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west, to become the Jewish national homeland. Betraying the mandate, Great Britain twice rewarded Arab violence and suggested that the area set aside for the Jewish national homeland be divided in to a Jewish State and an Arab State. The first time was in 1930, in the Shaw Commission, established to investigate the 1929 Arab massacre of the Jews in Hebron, Jerusalem and Safed. The second time was in the Peel Commission established to investigate the 1933-1936 Arab Revolt.↩︎
