A gift to Hamas

The UK, France and Canada threatened yesterday “concrete action” against Israel – not for starting a war, but for trying to win one.

Their ultimatum to the Jewish state to end its Gaza offensive and allow more aid came just as Israel ramped up supplies. These are the same Western powers that helped reduce Raqqa and Mosul to rubble to defeat Isis. Now they cite humanitarian concerns to shield Hamas from the same fate – which is exactly what Gaza’s jihadis were counting on.

The diplomatic statement was laced with the usual distortions. Take the tired accusation that Israel’s response has been “disproportionate” – a legal term flung about with no regard for its precise meaning. Then there’s this gem: “We must all work towards the implementation of a two-state solution, which is the only way to bring long-lasting peace.”

As if the massacre of 1,200 people was an impassioned plea for diplomatic compromise. Hamas rejects the two-state solution. As Islamists, they don't even have much use for a Palestinian one; they dream of a Muslim caliphate. That’s why, when Israel withdrew in 2005, Hamas spent the next two decades not building a state but digging tunnels, amassing rockets, and planning October 7.

What message do Western leaders send when they demand Israeli withdrawals but turn on the Jewish state when concessions are met with massacres? Why would Israel cede more territory when it cannot rely on its supposed allies when attacked from that territory?

The statement ends with a promise to recognise a “Palestinian state” – a reward for terror that would entrench Hamas and make a genuine Palestinian state less likely.

The omissions are as damning as the distortions. On the same day videos emerged of thousands of Gazans risking their lives to call for Hamas to capitulate, all these Western leaders could muster was the hope that a ceasefire and some vague “long-term political solution” would somehow, inexplicably, lead to the end of Hamas' control. Not once do these leaders demand that Hamas surrender and disarm.

That’s not an oversight. It’s policy – and one Hamas quickly welcomed in its own statement.

We don’t recall such thank-you notes from Isis. When a death cult responsible for mass rape and child slaughter applauds your policy, maybe it’s time for a policy review.

Hamas certainly banked on this Western reaction. That’s why, on October 7, Hamas added 251 Israeli hostages to the two million Palestinians it already holds captive. It knew it couldn’t beat the IDF. Its wager was that a web of human shields – Israelis and Palestinians alike – would divide Israeli society and summon enough Western outrage to save it.

And indeed, Israelis are debating, intensely, whether to prioritise returning the hostages or destroying Hamas. Every day the war continues is a day of mortal danger for the captives. But every ceasefire gives Hamas time to regroup and plan the next October 7. This is the unbearable dilemma Israel faces.

Yet the country is more united than Hamas expected. Tens of thousands of reservists have returned to the battlefield, not because they love war but because they know two basic truths: if Hamas survives, peace is an illusion and their children will never be safe; and without pressure, Hamas is unlikely to release all hostages. Why would they? The hostages are their last remaining leverage.

Where Israel has been clear-eyed, the West has lost its moral compass. After initially calling for Hamas’s defeat, many Europeans shifted to demanding a ceasefire that would leave Hamas in power. And now, Britain, France and Canada have escalated – not against the hostage-takers, but the hostage-rescuers.

This shift followed a remarkable PR makeover for Hamas, aided by their Qatari funders. One day Hamas were genocidal rapists livestreaming mass murder; the next, they were elevated to negotiators with “demands” and “conditions” that deserve consideration. The real obstruction to peace? The Israelis who still insist the genocidal jihadists on their border be defeated.

A biased media and activist NGOs helped cement this moral inversion. Western reporters scrutinise every comma in Israeli press releases while treating Hamas’s doctored casualty figures as fact. Politicised NGOs and compromised prosecutors accuse Israel of genocide while ignoring the real one in Sudan. The effect was to embolden Hamas and prolong the fighting.

There has always been a clear path to end this war. Hamas could surrender. It could release the hostages. It could accept Israel’s pragmatic offer to let its leaders leave Gaza unharmed. But why would it, when Western democracies keep signalling that salvation is just one more UN vote away?

Imagine if the UK, France, Canada and other Western leaders had said this: Hamas alone is responsible for every death in this war. The path to peace begins with its defeat. Perhaps Gaza would already be rebuilding.

As this goes to press, the situation remains fluid. Maybe the IDF advance will push Hamas to accept the deal Israel embraced two months ago – a temporary ceasefire in exchange for some hostages. Or perhaps the jihadis are still stalling, waiting for the next surge of international pressure to rescue them from defeat.

But one thing is certain: unless Hamas is defeated, this war won’t end – it will only pause, until the next massacre. And the UK, France and Canada will have the grim distinction of having helped condemn Israelis and Palestinians to perpetual conflict.