Britain and France, the two countries most responsible for the creation of the State of Israel, are going to punish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government for their abuses in Gaza recognizing a Palestinian state.

Will it even make the slightest difference in the suffering of the stripe or will it bring closer to the creation of a Palestinian state? Probably not.

These decisions are not as they sell them. They are not considered foreign policy measures designed to push the government of Israel to end the war, flood the gauze with food and medical assistance to launch a political process that would hope for a future settlement. Suspension of military aid to Israel could potentially help with it. The threat of recognition of the Palestinian state will not.

First, both the UK Prime Minister Kir Starmer and the French President Emmanuel Macron were mainly acted for internal political reasons. As Pierre Lellouche, a former minister in center -right French governments, wrote recently in a caustic article in Le Figaro, Macron is a leader desperately trying to gain prestige. He acted in response to a powerful philosopher movement inside and the need to be considered a player on the world stage.

Starmer faced both the voices of rebellion within his labor party leading and the conditions of a Gaza uprising on his left, in the form of a new party created by his predecessor in the labor leadership, Jeremy. Each of them is a major political threat to the Prime Minister and his government, and Palestinian recognition is a way to deal with them.

As if he wanted to restore part of the criticism, Macron joined Tuesday with 14 countries in the United Nations – including Canada and Australia – demanding the recognition of Palestine.

The United Kingdom did not sign, but unlike Macron, Starmer may argue that he put some data in his decision, prerequisite for recognizing a Palestinian state: he said he would not take the step if Israel agrees on a ceasefire in Gaza until September. This sounds smart: it uses the threat of recognition as a potential pressure lever to ensure a ceasefire and relief for gauze. But the terms of the United Kingdom put leverage in the wrong hands.

Hamas has an equal reason for any ceasefire. Indeed, he just rejected another agreement. And thanks to Starmer, Hamas now has an incentive to ensure that there is no truce before September, even if Netanyahu decides to accept it.

At that point, Hamas’ refusal to deposit her weapons, go to exile or deliver the rest of the hostages will be rewarded, indeed, with recognition. A terrorist organization that is in danger of losing its popular support, after deliberately causing Israel in an invasion that had only disastrous consequences for Gaza residents, it will be able to refer to a political victory.

So why not focus on Hamas instead of that? Why not offer her the British recognition of a Palestinian state if – and only if – agree on a ceasefire and give up hostages, weapons and control of gauze? The reason is that this threat would not solve the starmer’s problem inside, where Israel is regarded as the guilty place that needs pressure and punishment.

In addition, Hamas does not actually want a two -state solution. Its purpose is to eliminate the Jewish state and to establish Islamic sovereignty throughout Palestine. Nor is she interested in the constant suffering of civilians, whom she has toolize for her jihad.

The bottom line is that recognition will remain more than political gestures until the leaders of both the Jewish-Israeli and the Arab-Palestinian population are negotiating to create the conditions of the Palestinian state.

These are defined by a 1933 contract as defined borders, permanent population, government and trading with other states. Palestine does not yet have these. There are already more than 140 countries that recognize it as a state, and there is no reason to believe that the addition of some will suddenly make this state status real.

There are, of course, reasons for all this noise and rage. Because while Europe’s faded empires may no longer be great forces, Britain and France are of enormous diplomatic importance for Levante.

Both countries are traditional allies of Israel, as well as members of the G7, and are two of the five states that can veto the UN Security Council. Equally important is that they were the architects of the modern Middle East and its conflicts. The borders of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Syria were all largely products from British and French cartographers, as they carved this part of the collapsing Ottoman Empire towards the end of World War I.

In addition, the restoration of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was primarily a work of British political men, including then Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour, who set the beginning in a 1917 statement. Britain continued to command Palestine and hold the 1920s.

Even so, what the British and French leaders do today, in addition to resolving their own domestic political issues, is to punish Netanyahu. There is no doubt that it is worth it: He continued the bloodshed and destruction in Gaza for a long time after being legally or morally justified, explained strategically or publicly supported. But if he now agrees on a ceasefire, he will be despite the threats of recognition, not because of them.