What part of October 7th did UK PM Starmer not understand?

You have to admit that after the brutal massacre of October 7th, when whole communities were burnt to the ground and ransacked, at the same time that 1200 innocent Israeli civilians lost their lives, many of whom were young children, mothers, fathers and the elderly, such horrifying acts would confirm, once and for all, that a two-state solution is no longer a viable concept.

But if that still wasn’t convincing enough, the 20-year construction of terror tunnels, sophisticated plotting and military training, which took place, all with the expressed purpose of utterly destroying the Jewish homeland, should have been enough for any sane person to know that a two-state solution is not even a remote consideration for Hamas terrorists. 

In fact, Gazans don’t want it either. “A Birzeit University survey, revealed that nearly 90% of Palestinians would vote for Hamas in new elections,” affirming their own belief that “Israel has no right to exist.” Given such glaring facts, it was more than puzzling to hear UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer continue to express his belief in the two-state solution, on Thursday, when he appeared together with U.S. President Donald Trump at a White House press conference.  

Although Starmer was not yet the prime minister, on October 7th, he, just as everyone else, witnessed what took place, all pointing to the clear intent of Israel’s barbaric neighbors not to live side by side with the Jewish people.

So why would Keir Starmer cling to a doomed plan which has been a non-starter to Hamas, Gazans and now Israelis, who may have once naively believed that such a cooperative arrangement was possible?  For us, that ended on the day that we were confronted by the monsters next door who showed their hand and then some.

Has Starmer not been privy to what everyone else knows?  Has he never heard that the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza didn’t move the needle when it comes to the possibility of two states for two peoples? What could have been the start of a major development project to bring about prosperity, opportunity and self-determination for Gazans, instead, ended up becoming a massive plan, towards the goal of Israel’s destruction.

The first act of Hamas, once they seized power, was to murder their rival ruling class, Fatah, which had governed the Gaza Strip prior to 2006. That should have already tipped off Starmer, if he’d been paying attention, that if they were willing to brutally kill their own people, were there any limits to their cruelty and barbarism?

How does Starmer explain the repeated rejection of the most generous offers, providing for two states, which were made, time and again, an aspiration which the U.K. prime minister supposes they’ve always wanted.

This leads me to ask the question – is Starmer feigning ignorance in order to push a long-preferred agenda which no one wants? If he is, how does he propose a change of heart by the terrorist leadership so that they will no longer demand the blood of their own sons in order to fight a war which they cannot win? Or how will he guarantee that they will not continue to plot our demise? 

Has Starmer not internalized what is so obvious for all to see or has he thrown in with others who refuse to acknowledge the impossibility of rehabilitating a people bent on non-participation of civilized society?  

This time, it’s too easy to see all of this, which makes it all the more shocking – that a respected prime minister, with any level of intelligence, would honestly believe that this is still a doable plan, that people who voted for Hamas, and would do so again, have always wanted their own state and that once they get it, they will reform their behavior, turning into good citizens who no longer are interested in killing Israelis.

Emerging from the Labour party, Starmer is well-aware of the split which exists among his own members, especially those who supported Jeremy Corbyn, the now expelled former Labour Party member, known for his very anti-Israel positions.  So, it might explain why he has been so fervent in his call for a ceasefire while, simultaneously, demanding that humanitarian aid be flooded into Gaza, attempting to please everyone in his party.  

But one has to wonder how that plays with President Trump, who just weeks ago declared his intent to relocate the Gazan population in order to economically restore the area, turning it into the new Middle-Eastern Riviera. The two plans are polar opposites, leaving no room for compromise or negotiations.

Although Starmer expressed his hope for the return of the remaining hostages, he was careful to condition that on the continuation of the ceasefire and more aid for Gaza.  No word of Hamas’ insistence that the IDF must completely leave Gaza or their intent to remain in power as the governing force.  

Does he think that such an agreement would bring a different outcome with no repeat of another massacre? Would he recommend such a plan for the U.K. if they were faced with the same situation? 

Clearly not a pragmatist, Starmer’s popularity is on a sharp decline even in his own country, but that’s expected from a man who suffers from the ability to accurately see and properly discern the enemies who will not stop at anything to achieve their goal of annihilating the Jewish state? 

Not only is he deluded when it comes to Israel, but, under his watch, his own Jewish community has suffered an onslaught of antisemitic attacks which are not being forcefully deterred by him and his government coalition. It’s gotten to the point where British Jews no longer see a future for them and their children in the U.K. 

According to a recent article in Times of Israel, “only one-third of British Jews believe that Jews have a long-term future in the U.K. and half have considered leaving Britain in the past two years.” What does that say for how well he is managing a situation which threatens to cause a mass migration of nearly 300,000 of its people? 

If Keir Starmer is that out of touch, unable to face the reality of the problems within his own Jewish community as well as not understanding the real dangers of a two-state solution, why should he be given a seat at at the table to broker peace, if all he’s got is a plan that will strengthen those who are committed to our complete end?