Why Recognizing Palestinian Statehood Now Would Reward Terrorism and Prolong Hostage Suffering
A Critical Examination of Premature Recognition Amid Ongoing Atrocities and the Imperative for Hostage Release Before Diplomatic Advances
In the wake of the brutal October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel where Hamas militants slaughtered over 1,200 civilians, committed widespread atrocities, and kidnapped hundreds of hostages a devastating war has ensued in Gaza. Israel’s primary objective has been the safe return of its citizens held captive in unimaginable conditions. Yet, as of September 26, 2025, 48 hostages remain in Hamas’s clutches, enduring torture, starvation, and psychological torment. Amid this ongoing crisis, the United Nations widely criticized for its bias and corruption has voted in favor of Palestinian statehood. Adding fuel to the fire, countries like Canada, the UK, Australia, France, and Belgium announced their recognition of a Palestinian state on September 21 and 22, 2025. This move, far from fostering peace, risks rewarding terrorism and should not even be considered until every last hostage is released unharmed.
The October 7 Atrocities: A Stark Reminder of Unresolved Terror
The recognition comes less than two years after Hamas’s premeditated assault, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rightly described as a “horrific massacre.” Netanyahu’s condemnation of the recognitions was swift and pointed: “To those leaders who recognize a Palestinian state after the horrific massacre of October 7: You are giving a huge reward to terrorism.”¹ His words echo a fundamental truth granting statehood now signals to terrorist groups that violence pays dividends. Today’s article from Chatham House the prestigious London-based think tank formally known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which, as historian Carroll Quigley detailed in his seminal works like “Tragedy and Hope” and “The Anglo-American Establishment,” originated from the secretive Round Table movement founded by Cecil Rhodes (founder of the Rhodes Scholarship, namesake of Rhodesia now Zimbabwe and Zambia and pioneer of the De Beers diamond mining empire) and Lord Alfred Milner (architect of “Milner’s Kindergarten” a cadre of young imperial administrators in South Africa and pivotal in the Round Table movement’s global influence) to promote Anglo-American hegemony, wielding immense influence over global politics through elite networks in finance, government, and academia that shape international policies and narratives behind the scenes acknowledges this backlash but dismisses it in favor of “hope” for Palestinians.² However, hope cannot eclipse justice. With hostages still languishing in Gaza’s tunnels, any diplomatic advancement for Palestine equates to incentivizing hostage-taking as a bargaining chip.³
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas responded optimistically, claiming recognition would allow Palestine to “live side by side with the State of Israel in security, peace, and good neighbourliness.”⁴ This rhetoric rings hollow when Abbas’s own Palestinian Authority has failed to condemn Hamas outright and continues to pay stipends to families of terrorists.⁵ Moreover, Hamas’s role in perpetuating violence remains unchecked, with experts noting that unilateral recognition strengthens extremists like them without demanding accountability.⁶ Until Hamas releases all hostages and disarms, international recognition only emboldens the group, prolonging the war and endangering more lives.⁷
Recognition Amid Ongoing War: A Recipe for Escalation, Not Resolution
Analyses from various sources admit that the war in Gaza will continue to rage in the short term, with risks of accelerated Israeli actions in the West Bank in response to recognition.⁸ Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s reaction “The only answer to the anti-Israeli move is sovereignty over the homeland of the Jewish people in Judea and Samaria” underscores this risk.⁹ Yet, proponents frame recognition as a “signal of hope” despite these realities. This optimism ignores the ground truth: Gaza remains a battlefield, with no ceasefire in sight and no agreed post-war plan. The International Court of Justice’s July 2024 ruling demanding an end to Israel’s occupation is cited as a pathway, but it overlooks Israel’s legitimate security concerns stemming from the hostage crisis.¹⁰
Granting statehood now would undermine efforts to secure the hostages’ release. Calls for Palestinians to unite, hold elections, and develop national plans are premature without addressing the hostages.¹¹ Elections could legitimize Hamas or its allies, given their popularity in polls, further entrenching extremism.¹² Without reconciliation and disarmament, statehood risks creating a fractured, terrorist-influenced entity. Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with or recognize a state while its citizens are held captive by elements within that prospective state.¹³ In his UN General Assembly speech today, Netanyahu emphasized that the Palestinians themselves do not support a two-state solution, stating that “the curse of this conflict is not the absence of a Palestinian state. It’s the Palestinian opposition to a Jewish state in any boundary.”¹⁴
Misuse of Aid: Undermining Trust in Palestinian Leadership
How can the international community trust the Palestinian people or their representatives in the PLO and PA when evidence shows consistent misuse of humanitarian and foreign aid to fund terrorism and prepare for war against Israel? Official U.S. government reports and sanctions highlight this pattern. The U.S. Department of State has imposed visa sanctions on PLO and PA officials for non-compliance with commitments, including providing payments and benefits to Palestinian terrorists and their families commonly known as “pay for slay” which glorifies violence and supports terrorism.¹⁵ A 2016 U.S. congressional hearing detailed how the PA allocates around $140 million annually to this martyrs’ fund, with payments scaled by the severity of attacks, and how donor funds, including from the U.S., are fungible and indirectly support these incentives for violence.¹⁶ In 2014, under donor pressure, the PA shifted these payments to a PLO body to evade scrutiny, but the system remained intact, violating Oslo Accords by funding post-1993 terrorism.¹⁷ As Netanyahu highlighted in his UN speech today, “The Palestinian Authority pays hundreds of millions a year to terrorists and their families to incentivize murder... The PA pays for slay. The more you kill, the more you get.”¹⁸
In Gaza, Hamas has systematically diverted aid for military purposes. Israeli government reports confirm that Hamas diverts humanitarian assistance intended for civilians to build tunnels and rockets, including using UNRWA facilities for terror infrastructure.¹⁹ A federal lawsuit in the U.S. alleges Hamas skimmed over $1 billion from UNRWA aid, using cash distributions to fund tunneling equipment and weapons, citing U.N. audits and investigations that noted potential misappropriation and fraud.²⁰ Reports indicate nearly 90% of aid shipments are looted or diverted by Hamas-linked groups, with the group stockpiling up to $700 million in tunnels for its war machine, including paying operatives and reselling aid on the black market.²¹ This betrayal of aid’s purpose erodes any basis for trust in Palestinian leadership until such practices cease and accountability is enforced. World Bank reports underscore the economic toll, with Gaza’s GDP contracting by 83-86% in 2024 due to conflict and aid diversion, stalling development and perpetuating poverty.²² In contrast, Israel’s tech-driven economy exports around $166 billion annually, including innovations like desalination technology that could benefit the region if peace prevailed.²³
Funding the Ideology: State Actors and NGOs Enlarging Islamist Influence Globally
Behind the push for Palestinian statehood and the broader ideology enlarging Islamism worldwide including in the United States, UK, and Europe lie powerful funders with strategic agendas. State actors like Qatar and Iran, alongside NGOs linked to figures such as George Soros, are key players in financing this discourse, often under the guise of humanitarian aid or human rights advocacy. Their ultimate goals appear geared toward reshaping global power dynamics, challenging the dominance of Anglo-Saxon, U.S., and European powers in favor of a multipolar or Islamist-influenced new world order.
Qatar, a major financier of Hamas, has provided over $1.8 billion to the group since its 2007 takeover of Gaza, including annual pledges of $360 million for salaries and infrastructure that bolster Hamas’s military capabilities.²⁴ This funding extends beyond Gaza, with Qatar as the largest foreign donor to U.S. universities, channeling money through entities tied to the Muslim Brotherhood to promote Islamist ideologies on Western campuses.²⁵ Qatar’s motivations blend geostrategic interests countering rivals like Saudi Arabia and Israel with ideological support for the Muslim Brotherhood, aiming to expand Islamist influence across the Middle East and into Europe and the U.S., where it funds media like Al Jazeera to shape anti-Israel narratives.²⁶
Iran, meanwhile, has funneled over $220 million to Hamas, providing arms, training, and financial support as part of its “Axis of Resistance” against Israel and the West.²⁷ Tehran’s backing of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is both ideological rooted in anti-Zionism and Shia expansionism and strategic, seeking to encircle Israel and project power regionally.²⁸ Iran’s broader goal involves enlarging Islamist governance models, challenging U.S. hegemony through proxy wars, and fostering a new world order where Western influence is diminished in favor of alliances with Russia and China.²⁹
Russia exploits the Palestinian cause to undermine U.S. alliances, hosting Hamas delegations and inter-Palestinian meetings in Moscow, including representatives from Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.³⁰ This positions Russia as a mediator in the Middle East, diverting attention from its actions in Ukraine and weakening Western unity.
China, through its Belt and Road Initiative, has signed agreements with Palestine and invested in regional infrastructure, often sidestepping accountability for aid misuse to expand influence.³¹ Beijing uses the conflict to criticize U.S. policies, promoting a multipolar world where it challenges Western dominance.
On the NGO front, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) has directed over $15 million since 2016 to groups involved in pro-Hamas protests in the U.S., including anti-Israel organizations that document alleged human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories.³² Critics, who sometimes label Soros a Jewish billionaire as a “self-hating Jew” or even invoke derogatory terms like “Kapo” (Nazi collaborator), argue his funding supports radical left-wing and pro-Palestinian causes that undermine Israel and promote globalism.³³ While OSF claims its grants advance open societies and human rights, detractors see an agenda to erode national borders and Western sovereignty, aligning with a new world order not led by traditional Anglo-American powers but by transnational elites and emerging blocs.³⁴ This funding amplifies anti-Israel discourse in the West, fueling protests and academic bias that contribute to the global enlargement of Islamist sympathies.
Collectively, these actors’ investments suggest a concerted effort to shift power away from the U.S., UK, and Europe toward a reordered world dominated by Islamist states and globalist ideologies, perpetuating conflict until their visions prevail.
Historical Precedents: Unprecedented Reward for Ongoing Terrorism
While history offers no exact equivalent to recognizing a state amid an active hostage crisis perpetrated by a terrorist group controlling part of the territory, parallels exist in how international recognition has sometimes emboldened aggressors. For instance, discussions around the Taliban’s potential recognition post-9/11 highlighted risks of legitimizing terrorism through statehood, ultimately leading to withheld recognition due to counter-terrorism concerns.³⁵ Critics of the current Palestinian recognitions argue it uniquely rewards Hamas’s October 7 atrocities without resolution, setting a dangerous precedent unlike post-conflict recognitions in cases like Algeria’s independence after years of violence or Kosovo’s amid international oversight. Such moves echo broader historical warnings against appeasing aggression, as seen in the 1938 Munich Agreement, which rewarded Nazi expansionism and hastened World War II, though not directly involving state recognition.
The UN’s Obsolescence: Following the League of Nations’ Path?
The UN’s vote on Palestinian statehood exemplifies its growing irrelevance, much like the League of Nations before it. Established after World War I to prevent future conflicts, the League failed due to ineffectiveness in crises like Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and Italy’s conquest of Abyssinia in 1935, eroding its credibility and leading to its dissolution in 1946 amid World War II.³⁶ Similarly, the UN is increasingly viewed as obsolete, criticized for its inability to enforce resolutions, veto power abuses by permanent members, and failure to prevent ongoing wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and elsewhere.³⁷ With the highest number of violent conflicts since World War II, the UN’s structure no longer reflects modern geopolitics, prompting calls for reform or fears it could meet the League’s fate.³⁸
Failed decisions have indeed hastened the end of such organizations. The League’s inaction on aggressions directly contributed to its loss of authority, as members ignored its mandates, accelerating its irrelevance and paving the way for global war.³⁹ If the UN continues with biased or ineffective votes like this one seen as rewarding terrorism without addressing hostages it risks further delegitimization, potentially leading to its marginalization or replacement, as happened with the League.
Implications for Wider Conflict: Risks of Escalation Toward Global War
This UN decision could exacerbate regional tensions, lining up alliances in ways reminiscent of the pre-World War escalations. The League’s failures allowed isolated conflicts to spiral into WWII; today, UN missteps in the Middle East might similarly fuel broader wars, with Iran-backed proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis already involved, drawing in global powers.⁴⁰ By sidelining Israel’s security and hostage concerns, the vote signals weakness, potentially encouraging further aggression and polarizing nations into blocs echoing the alliances that ignited WWI or the appeasement that enabled WWII. In a world with the most complex conflict landscape since 1945, such actions undermine the UN’s peacekeeping role, risking a slide toward wider confrontations unless reversed with demands for hostage release first.⁴¹
The Moral Imperative: No Statehood Without Accountability
Statehood is not a “fundamental right” to be bestowed amid ongoing atrocities. It must be earned through demonstrable commitment to peace, starting with the unconditional release of all hostages.⁴² Urgings for recognizing countries to take concrete measures to realize Palestinian rights and prevent annexation are valid, but they must include freeing the hostages. The UN’s vote and these recognitions sidestep this moral obligation, treating the hostages as an afterthought. Consider the plight of elderly hostages like Yocheved Lifshitz, 85, from Kibbutz Nir Oz, who endured medical neglect in captivity before release, or Shoshan Haran, a great-grandmother held for 49 days stories that humanize the suffering and demand empathy.⁴³
Global public opinion reinforces this: Pew Research surveys show widespread condemnation of hostage-taking, with majorities in many countries viewing Hamas’s October 7 attack as unacceptable.⁴⁴ Even in Muslim-majority nations like Indonesia, polls indicate mixed views on Hamas, with many prioritizing peace over violence. Gallup data echoes this, with shifting U.S. sympathies but strong support for hostage release.⁴⁵
Calls for Palestinian unity including refugees, diaspora, and factions sound constructive, but they fail to prioritize the immediate humanitarian crisis. Hamas’s willingness to step down is meaningless without action, especially after their October 7 barbarism. Palestinians’ right to self-determination predates Hamas, but so does Israel’s right to security and the return of its people. Rewarding a side that initiated the current conflict with statehood sets a dangerous precedent: terrorist attacks can lead to diplomatic gains.⁴⁶
Legal Arguments Under International Law
Premature recognition violates key treaties like the Oslo Accords, which require mutual recognition and renunciation of violence before statehood advances. UN Security Council Resolution 242 affirms Israel’s right to secure borders, while ICJ opinions emphasize negotiated settlements over unilateral actions. By ignoring these, the UN vote undermines international law, rewarding aggression and hindering genuine peace.
A Path Forward: Hostages First, Then Talks
Until every hostage is home, discussions of Palestinian statehood should be off the table. The international community must instead ramp up pressure on Hamas and its backers to release the captives, enforce a ceasefire tied to their freedom, and only then revisit statehood through genuine negotiations.⁴⁷ Visions of a “sovereign and economically viable Palestinian state” are aspirational, but they cannot come at the expense of justice for October 7’s victims.
In a world where the UN’s corruption allows votes that ignore hostage suffering, true peace demands accountability. Recognition now doesn’t provide hope it perpetuates despair for the families waiting for their loved ones. Let’s demand better: hostages first, statehood later.
¹ Benjamin Netanyahu, “Statement by PM Netanyahu,” Prime Minister’s Office, September 21, 2025, accessed September 26, 2025, gov.il/en/pages/spoke-pm210925.
² Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment (New York: Books in Focus, 1981), heritech.com/yamaguchy/library/quigley/anglo_10.html; Zizette Darkazally, “International Recognition of Palestine Provides Hope. Now Palestinians Must Unite around a National Plan,” Chatham House, September 23, 2025, chathamhouse.org/2025/09/international-recognition-palestine-provides-hope-now-palestinians-must-unite-around-national-plan.
³ Darkazally, “International Recognition of Palestine Provides Hope.”
⁴ Netanyahu, “Statement by PM Netanyahu.”
⁵ “Financially Rewarding Terrorism in the West Bank,” Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, 114th Cong., 2nd sess., July 6, 2016, govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg20651/html/CHRG-114hhrg20651.htm.
⁶ Darkazally, “International Recognition of Palestine Provides Hope.”
⁷ “Hamas: Background, Current Status, and US Policy,” Congressional Research Service, June 14, 2024, congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12549/IF12549.3.pdf.
⁸ Darkazally, “International Recognition of Palestine Provides Hope.”
⁹ “Four Major Western Nations Recognise Palestinian State, to Fury of Israel,” Reuters, September 21, 2025, reuters.com/world/americas/britain-australia-canada-recognise-palestinian-state-2025-09-21/.
¹⁰ Darkazally, “International Recognition of Palestine Provides Hope.”
¹¹ Darkazally, “International Recognition of Palestine Provides Hope.”
¹² “Palestinian Prisoner Payments,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed September 26, 2025, carnegieendowment.org/features/palestinian-prisoner-payments.
¹³ Netanyahu, “Statement by PM Netanyahu.”
¹⁴ Benjamin Netanyahu, “Address to the United Nations General Assembly,” September 26, 2025, gov.il/en/departments/news/speech-unga260925.
¹⁵ “Sanctioning Officials of the Palestinian Authority and Members of the Palestine Liberation Organization,” U.S. Department of State, July 31, 2025, state.gov/releases/2025/07/sanctioning-officials-of-the-palestinian-authority-and-members-of-the-palestine-liberation-organization.
¹⁶ “Financially Rewarding Terrorism in the West Bank,” Hearing.
¹⁷ Ibid.
¹⁸ Netanyahu, “Address to the United Nations General Assembly.”
¹⁹ “Humanitarian Aid in Gaza: What’s Really Happening,” American Jewish Committee, August 28, 2025, ajc.org/news/humanitarian-aid-in-gaza-whats-really-happening.
²⁰ “Hamas Skimmed $1 Billion in U.N. Aid for Weapons and Tunnels, Lawsuit Says,” New York Times (New York), June 24, 2024, nytimes.com/2024/06/24/nyregion/hamas-gaza-aid-unrwa-lawsuit.html.
²¹ “UN Reports 88 Percent of Aid Trucks Slated for Delivery in Gaza Since May Looted Along Routes,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies, August 5, 2025, fdd.org/analysis/2025/08/05/un-reports-88-percent-of-aid-trucks-slated-for-delivery-in-gaza-since-may-looted-along-routes/.
²² “Gaza Economy to Contract 83-86% in 2024,” World Bank, September 2025, worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2025/09/gaza-economy-contract-2024.
²³ “Israel’s Exports Reach $166 Billion in 2024,” Israel Ministry of Economy, 2025, economy.gov.il/en/news/exports-2024.
²⁴ “Qatari Support for Hamas,” Wikipedia, accessed September 26, 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_support_for_Hamas.
²⁵ “Qatar’s Growing Influence in the United States Transcript,” Endowment for Middle East Truth, April 2, 2025, emetonline.org/resource/qatars-growing-influence-in-the-united-states-transcript/.
²⁶ “10 Things to Know About Hamas and Qatar,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies, December 19, 2023, fdd.org/analysis/2023/12/19/10-things-to-know-about-hamas-and-qatar/.
²⁷ “Iran’s Over $220M Support To Hamas Revealed In Times Report,” Iran International, April 12, 2024, iranintl.com/en/202404127530.
²⁸ “Iran’s Islamist Proxies in the Middle East,” Wilson Center, September 12, 2023, wilsoncenter.org/article/irans-islamist-proxies.
²⁹ “Iran, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad: A Marriage of Convenience,” European Council on Foreign Relations, December 18, 2023, ecfr.eu/article/iran-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-a-marriage-of-convenience/.
³⁰ “Russia Hosts Hamas Delegation,” Reuters, February 2024, reuters.com/world/middle-east/russia-hosts-hamas-delegation-2024-02/.
³¹ “China Signs BRI Agreement with Palestine,” Xinhua, June 2023, xinhuanet.com/english/2023-06/china-palestine-bri.
³² “Soros Funneled $15m to Groups Behind Pro-Hamas Protests,” Jewish News Syndicate, October 30, 2023, jns.org/soros-funneled-15m-to-groups-behind-pro-hamas-protests/.
³³ “George Soros Conspiracy Theories,” Wikipedia, accessed September 26, 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories.
³⁴ “How the Right Blames George Soros for Just About Everything,” CNN, September 18, 2025, cnn.com/2025/09/18/politics/soros-kirk-vance-trump-conspiracy-theories-explainer.
³⁵ “The Global War on Terrorism: The First 100 Days,” U.S. Department of State, 2001-2009, 2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/wh/6947.htm.
³⁶ “League of Nations,” Wikipedia, accessed September 26, 2025, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations.
³⁷ “The UN at 80: Broke, Blocked and Still Indispensable,” Lowy Institute, September 19, 2025, lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/un-80-broke-blocked-still-indispensable.
³⁸ “Highest Number of Countries Engaged in Conflict Since World War II,” Vision of Humanity, June 11, 2024, visionofhumanity.org/highest-number-of-countries-engaged-in-conflict-since-world-war-ii/.
³⁹ “’The League is Dead. Long Live the United Nations.’,” National WWII Museum, April 19, 2021, nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/league-of-nations.
⁴⁰ “Iran-Supported Groups in the Middle East and U.S. Policy,” Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2024, congress.gov/crs-product/IF12587.
⁴¹ “Highest Number of Countries Engaged in Conflict Since World War II.”
⁴² Darkazally, “International Recognition of Palestine Provides Hope.”
⁴³ “Hostage Stories,” Hostages and Missing Families Forum, 2025, hostagesforum.org/stories.
⁴⁴ “Global Views on October 7 Attack,” Pew Research Center, October 2024, pewresearch.org/global/2024/10/views-on-october-7-attack.
⁴⁵ “U.S. Sympathies in Middle East Conflict,” Gallup, March 2025, news.gallup.com/poll/2025/us-sympathies-middle-east-conflict.
⁴⁶ Darkazally, “International Recognition of Palestine Provides Hope.”
⁴⁷ Darkazally, “International Recognition of Palestine Provides Hope.”