The British parliament’s vote last week to recognize a nonexistent Palestinian state will not have any real effect on foreign policy. But the fictional state endorsed by Parliament is one that supports terrorism, allows no religious tolerance, and is dedicated to Israel’s destruction—not to mention one that stands on the brink of a Hamas takeover. All in all, therefore, the vote reveals something deeply wrong with the UK, writes Melanie Phillips:

What is so dismaying, indeed sickening, is what this vote says about Britain. Parliament has endorsed an agenda which should be anathema to all decent people. MPs have endorsed a racist Palestine state ethnically cleansed of Jews, encouraged Palestinian rejectionism, and put rocket fuel behind the Israel-bashing and Jew-hatred provoked by the unprecedented demonization of Israel based on lies, distortion, and bigotry.

Blaming Israel for its own victimization—endorsed so shallowly and treacherously by the Israeli left—the MPs ignored the fact that the sole reason there is no Palestine state alongside Israel is that the Arabs won’t accept it.

There was no mention of Abbas’s rejectionism; instead, harsh words against the settlements policy which apparently “makes it hard for its friends to make the case that Israel is committed to peace.” Why? Surely only for those who believe a precondition of peace is the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a state of Palestine.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.