About the Author
Peter John Beyfus is an historian, published author, poet, and a person who prides himself on “thinking outside the box”.
Shanah Tova Umetukah
“In response to the shameful decision of the British Government and many other nations to recognise a Palestinian state, I thought I would share with you my thoughts on this ill-conceived declaration, the long-term consequences of which have yet to reveal themselves; but one thing is certain, it will not bode well for world Jewry!
Best wishes, and well over the fast”
The declaration of some 150 states, including the United Kingdom, to recognise a Palestinian state, shows at best a profound ignorance of what constitutes a state and at worse a wilful attempt, under the guise of nurturing peace, to undermine Israel and give to vociferous Muslim minorities a voice far exceeding their numbers and national importance. Starmer et al have ventured on a dangerous game that will do nothing to achieve their objective, to finally solve the long-running, seemingly intractable problem, of bringing a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only way peace can be achieved is through dialogue, acceptance of Israel’s right to exist and preparedness on the part of Palestinians to accept one of the many offers of land for peace, that successive Israeli governments have proposed. Where, in the past, Israelis were open to the idea of a two-state solution, too much damage has been done by Palestinian terrorism, culminating in the atrocities of 7 October 2023, for Israelis to any longer believe it is possible to have Palestinians as neighbours; and Starmer and other political leaders who have voiced support for a Palestinian state reveal little understanding of the Israeli mentality.
Much hot air has been expended in quoting the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. This convention is supposed to give legitimacy to those recognising a Palestinian state. If one studies the various articles of the convention, just two conditions are met by the Palestinians to claim statehood: settled population and the ability to establish international relations. One article Starmer and his cohort of misguided politicians failed to comprehend was “a prohibition of using military force to gain sovereignty”. Hamas is claiming victory in achieving recognition of a Palestinian state but on what basis? Terror and brutality are this group’s only claim to fame; and for a significant number of countries to seemingly endorse terrorism and to take as reliable the propaganda pumped out by a proscribed organisations, is beyond belief. The other point lost to the likes of Starmer is the fact the Montevideo Convention was essentially concerned with the Americas, and the signatories were the United States and the countries of Central and South America.
For the sake of argument and giving a degree of latitude to Starmer and his fellow like-minded national leaders, what exactly is this Palestinian state? I am not aware that its boundaries have been defined; agreement about who is its leader; where its capital is; what its economic viability is; and whether it is prepared to acknowledge Israel’s sovereignty and declare to that bastion of impartiality, the UN, a willingness to live in peace with the Jewish State. There is another important question concerning this fictitious state. If it should come into existence, by a wave of a magic wand, is it prepared to absorb the 1.5 million Palestinians who currently live and enjoy the benefits of living in the only democracy in the Middle East? It seems perfectly reasonable that, in this fantasy world created by the likes of Starmer, those Palestinians living and working in Israel should leave to support their own state; after all, that is what self-determination is about.
The liberal, “wear your heart on your sleeve”, West, has repeatedly failed to put the emphasis in the right place when reporting the Gaza war. After the massacres of two years ago the pressure on Hamas to release all the hostages should have been unremitting, but no, very soon after 7 October the plight of Palestinians became the main focus, gradually eclipsing the reason why this war was necessary. Hamas has had every opportunity to release the hostages and thereby bring the conflict to an end; but this did not suit its agenda, which, quite simply, was to cast Israel as the aggressor, resonant of Putin’s justification for the invasion of the Ukraine, and with the drip drip of propaganda and the susceptibility of western liberal values, to win the war for hearts and minds.
Should World Jewry be concerned about the declaration of some 150 nations in recognising a Palestinian state. No, it should not fill the Jewish People with alarm because it is meaningless, both conceptually and legalistically. Fear of a Palestinian state is unfounded because it is not going to happen unless there is a seismic shift in Palestinian thinking; but the threat to Jews living in the Diaspora is more worrying. We should be concerned that those of us living outside Israel face a rising tide of antisemitism, the degree of which Jews have not faced since the 1930s. National leaders have done little to stem this development; in fact, they have encouraged antagonism against Jews by siding with the critics of Israel’s war against Hamas. These fears are not imaginary. Hatred has been displayed weekly by pro-Palestinian activists; synagogues have been daubed with offensive graffiti and cemeteries desecrated, and Jews have been verbally and physically abused. Now with support given to the creation of a Palestinian state and implicit reward to Hamas, antisemites will be emboldened to continue their targeting of Jewish populations.
What is the follow-on strategy of the coalition of the “righteous”? I suspect an intensification of BDS, something that has been going on for some years now, designed to weaken the Israeli economy. The United States, at least under Trump, will provide economic support, up to a point, but there will be a limited time scale, and then there will be the final stage of the peacemakers’ dream, to impose the boundaries of a Palestinian state. There will be assurances given regarding Israel’s security, but they are probably as worthless as Chamberlain’s “piece of paper”! What is blatantly missing from the thinking of Starmer and his worldly friends is you cannot impose peace; it has to be negotiated and that requires goodwill on both sides, something that has been singularly missing from the Palestinians since the formation of Israel in 1948.