The Irony of Proscribing Hamas while Recognising Palestine

The Absurdity of Recognising “Palestine” as a State

In recent months, we have seen a renewed push by some Western governments to recognise “Palestine” as a state. Countries such as Ireland, Spain, Norway, and Belgium have already taken this step, while others—including the United Kingdom and France—continue to debate whether recognition should follow. Each time the conversation resurfaces, it is framed as a gesture of support for “peace” or “justice.” Yet the reality is that recognising “Palestine” as a state under current conditions is not only absurd—it actively undermines peace, rewards terrorism, and entrenches violence.

Rewarding Terrorism, Sending the Wrong Message

At the heart of this push for recognition lies a dangerous contradiction: rewarding the very behaviour that should be universally condemned. For decades, the Palestinian leadership has embraced and incentivised violence against Jews and Israelis. The so-called “pay-for-slay” scheme—the official Palestinian Authority policy of paying stipends to terrorists and their families—remains in place, despite repeated calls from the international community to end it. The more Jews a terrorist kills, the higher the reward.

How can any responsible government consider granting statehood to an entity that literally finances murder? Recognition under these circumstances does not encourage moderation or coexistence. Instead, it sends a clear message: terrorism pays. It tells Palestinians that violence is an acceptable and even effective means of achieving political goals.

The Contradiction at the Heart of Europe

The hypocrisy becomes even more glaring when we look at the same European governments that are considering recognition. Many of these countries proscribe Hamas as a terrorist organisation—acknowledging that it is a violent, antisemitic movement dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Yet Hamas exerts de facto control over Gaza, and its influence reaches into Palestinian politics more broadly. How can states that rightly outlaw Hamas then turn around and reward the Palestinian leadership with recognition, when that leadership not only tolerates Hamas but often embraces its agenda?

This is not diplomacy. It is cognitive dissonance. A state cannot be legitimised while being dominated by a proscribed terror organisation. Doing so undermines the very principles of counterterrorism and international law that these same Western countries claim to uphold.

Palestine Does Not Function as a State

Even setting aside terrorism, the notion that “Palestine” should be recognised as a state collapses under the most basic scrutiny. By definition, a state must demonstrate sovereignty, territorial control, accountability, and the ability to uphold international obligations. The Palestinian leadership fails on all counts.

• Two competing governments—the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza—undermine any claim to unity or sovereignty.

• Corruption and lack of accountability plague the Palestinian Authority, which has not held elections in nearly two decades. Mahmoud Abbas remains in power despite his mandate expiring in 2009.

• Dependence on foreign aid defines the Palestinian economy, much of which is siphoned off by corrupt officials or funnelled into incitement and terror rather than development.

• Lack of rule of law means dissenters, journalists, and political opponents are routinely silenced.

This is not a state. It is a fragmented, unaccountable, and often lawless political entity propped up by international goodwill and funding. To recognise it as a state would be to ignore reality.

Inconceivable Recognition

The international community should ask itself one simple question: would it be conceivable to recognise any other entity that behaves like the Palestinian leadership? Imagine a government that rewards terrorists with salaries, glorifies murderers as martyrs, incites hatred against Jews from school textbooks to TV broadcasts, and cannot demonstrate control over its own territory. Would any responsible state recognise such an entity as legitimate?

The answer is obvious. Yet when it comes to the Palestinians, a different standard is applied. The political convenience of appearing “balanced” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has led some governments to abandon basic principles of governance, accountability, and morality. Not to mention, this sets a dangerous precedence, what is to stop others from attempting to attain statehood in a similar way? And why would they not try if they can see that violence and terror is rewarded with a state.

Recognition Undermines Peace

Far from advancing peace, premature recognition undermines it. By granting Palestinians the prize of statehood without requiring accountability, reforms, or genuine negotiations, the international community removes any incentive for compromise. Why return to the negotiating table when the rewards are handed over unconditionally?

Peace has always required two sides willing to engage in difficult compromises. Israel has demonstrated this willingness repeatedly, from the Camp David Accords to Oslo to disengagement from Gaza. The Palestinian leadership, by contrast, has consistently chosen rejectionism and violence. Recognising “Palestine” rewards rejection, not reconciliation.

The absurdity of recognising “Palestine” as a state lies not in denying Palestinian aspirations but in refusing to ignore reality. A state that does not function as a state, that glorifies terror, and that rejects peace cannot and should not be legitimised by the international community.

By pushing for recognition now, countries such as Ireland, Spain, Norway, and others are not advancing peace. They are rewarding violence, undermining accountability, and betraying the very principles they claim to uphold. Recognition under current conditions is not a step toward a solution—it is a step toward greater instability, emboldening terrorists, and prolonging conflict.

If the world truly wants to see peace between Israelis and Palestinians, it must stop indulging in empty symbolism and start demanding responsibility. Anything less is not diplomacy—it is delusion at best.