Why reward a terrorist leadership holding Israeli hostages rotting on the verge of death?
By Jonathan Feldstein
French President Emanuel Macron must be feeling particularly good seeing nations of the world following one of his country’s most honored traditions:
SURRENDER
Macron announced that he intended to recognize “Palestine” at the U.N. General Assembly next month. Immediately following Macron were British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Several other countries have indicated their inclination to do so as well.
The Macron, Starmer, and Carney ideological surrender is akin to recognizing Nazi controlled Vichy France. Mon Dieu! It not only does not bring peace any closer but, it hardens the position of the terrorists and emboldens and rewards their aggression. That has been clear as Hamas has continued to entrench its intransigence any time serious talks of a cease fire and hostage release get close.
MIXED MESSAGING
There is something else critical to “recognize” in the announcement of the intent to recognize Palestine. Among other things, Starmer made clear threats to Israel that he would follow through to recognize Palestine if Israel:
“…takes substantial steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, renewing the prospect of a two-state solution.”
Then there is Starmer’s message to Hamas that remains “unchanged and equivocal” in that Hamas “must immediately release all of the hostages, sign up to a cease fire, disarm, and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza.”
While the British PM’s threats to Israel are crystal clear, his “messages” to Hamas – while not vague – are meaningless. Hamas will not run to London, the U.N., or anywhere else to lay down their arms, nor will it ever release the hostages without maximum pressure. Does Starmer’s conditional recognition of “Palestine” also require Hamas to disarm and release the hostages? Do they need to post on their social media “In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful we will not play a part of the government of Gaza?”
British-Israeli former hostage Emily Damari, who was kidnapped on October 7, 2023, and released after 471 days in captivity Gaza, used her own social media to condemn Starmer’s announcement:
“I am deeply saddened by Prime Minister Starmer’s decision to recognize Palestinian statehood. This move does not advance peace — it risks rewarding terror. It sends a dangerous message: that violence earns legitimacy.”
In another post, Damari wrote:
“Prime Minister Starmer is not standing on the right side of history. Had he been in power during World War II, would he have advocated recognition for Nazi control of occupied countries like Holland, France or Poland? This is not diplomacy — it is a moral failure. Shame on you, Prime Minister!!!!!!!”
In announcing his country’s intent to recognize “Palestine”, Canadian Prime Minister Carney also made this conditional. He said it is:
“…predicated on the Palestinian Authority commitment to much needed reform including… to hold elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarize the Palestinian state.”
He added that:
“Hamas must immediately release all hostages taken in their terrorist attack of October 7…. must disarm… and play no role in the future governance of Palestine.”
His language is troubling on many levels, but the premise is absurd. What if, in his Never-Never Land of diplomacy, the Palestinian Authority did hold elections, and what if a rebranded Hamas were to win? What if the PLO were to win, and then be summarily ousted in a coup in 2027 with Hamas in control of “Palestine”? Would “Palestine” be required to meet Carney’s standards or risk Canada withdrawing its recognition?
If any of these leaders were really sincere about recognizing “Palestine”, they would just do so and not need to announce their intentions to do so, or with all these unachievable conditions.
If I were a Palestinian Arab believing in the right to live in an independent “State of Palestine”, I would take offence to the provisional nature of recognizing what I would believe as the occupation of my country. Those who advocate the purported right of Palestinian Arabs to have an independent state should be up in arms (pun intended) that their “rights” are conditional.
What is interesting in the context of this war against Hamas now entering its 22nd month since the October 7, 2023 massacre, is the broad consensus across the Israeli political spectrum, against the Macron, Starmer, Carney bulldozing for Palestinian statehood amidst the unresolved hostages crisis. While there may be differences on the conduct of the war and priorities or imperative to get the remaining 50 hostages released, there is uniformity in their condemnation of this intended move.
Multiple voices throughout Israel, not just the government and not just on the right, have voiced their outrage, even harsh denunciation of such a declaration at this point in time.
The Hostages and Missing Families Forum is not an echo chamber for the Israeli government, and has largely been more critical of the government and its policies related to the hostages. But on this, there is widespread agreement. “Recognition of a Palestinian state while Hamas holds 50 hostages isn’t just a step away from peace, it is a blatant violation of international law and a dangerous moral and political violation that bestows legitimacy to horrifying war crimes.”
“The international community — if it wants peace — must join the efforts of the US and demand, before all else, the release of the hostages and then the end of the fighting.” The Forum represents most of the hostages’ families, and advocates a deal with Hamas to return all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war and the release of Palestinian Arab terrorists.
“Abducting men, women, children and babies, and holding them in tunnels against their will, amid starvation and physical and mental abuse, cannot — must not — be the grounds for establishing a state,” they added.
“The recognition of a Palestinian state before the return of the hostages will forever be remembered as a shameful, antisemitic step that renders terror acceptable as a legitimate means of achieving political goals.”
Unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state, enables terrorism and deprives Israel of leverage amid efforts to secure the hostages’ release. It also goes against the terms of the Oslo Accords to which France, the UK, and Canada all subscribed, requiring actual negotiations and not unilateral actions by all parties. These and other countries recognition of “Palestine” will not only not bring peace closer; it will harden the position of the terrorists and prolong the war.
About the writer
Jonathan Feldstein - President of the US based non-profit Genesis123 Foundation whose mission is to build bridges between Jews and Christians – is a freelance writer whose articles appear in The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Townhall, NorthJersey.com, Algemeiner Jornal, The Jewish Press, major Christian websites and more.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).