Daily Mail column blasts Starmer for Palestinian state recognition, calling it a betrayal of Gaza hostages

A Daily Mail opinion column published Sunday attacks Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer for recognizing a Palestinian state, calling the move a “shameful betrayal” of Gaza hostages and a reward for murder. The author argues that honoring a state that includes Hamas leaders and is perceived as a path to wipe Israel off the map would undermine both the safety of Israeli civilians and the prospects for a sustainable peace in the region.

The columnist frames the decision as a calculated political gesture aimed at courting a large Muslim vote within Starmer’s party, rather than a principled shift toward peace. The piece asserts that the use of hostages as a weapon of war has long been a tactic of tyrants and psychopaths, and that recognizing Palestine amounts to rewarding those who employ such tactics. It emphasizes that international law views hostage-taking as a war crime and a crime against humanity, arguing that a moral duty to secure the release of hostages should take precedence over any formal recognition of statehood.

The article recalls that Hamas began the latest round of fighting by massacring about 1,200 Israelis and abducting around 250 people. It notes that, two years on, dozens of hostages remain unaccounted for or are said to be confined in tunnel networks and bunkers under Gaza. The columnist contends that Starmer’s gesture fails to make any concrete condition tied to the hostages’ release, instead presenting a future Palestinian state as a step toward a two-state solution without guaranteeing the safety or freedom of those held by Hamas and allied groups. The author argues that recognizing a state of Palestine without securing the captives’ freedom is both morally and strategically misguided.

The piece questions the viability of the proposed Palestinian state as described by Starmer, highlighting concerns about who would govern it in practice. It points to the Palestinian Authority as the intended governing body, but raises doubts about its ability to maintain order and keep Hamas out. The columnist notes that Fatah, which controls around 40 percent of the West Bank, has not held elections for two decades and is widely perceived as corrupt. The argument follows that such conditions do not create a solid foundation for statehood and, by extension, do not support a durable peace or a stable regional security environment.

There is also skepticism about the practicality of drawing new borders or enforcing a two-state framework on a map that has long been unsettled. The column asks who would determine future boundaries, and what safeguards would prevent extremist groups from rebranding under a different name while pursuing similar goals. It questions the legitimacy of instituting a state based on the 1967 lines, given the historical and ongoing disputes over territory, security arrangements, and the status of Jerusalem. The author emphasizes that Gaza has had de facto self-government since Israel’s withdrawal in 2005, yet Hamas has continued to pursue an agenda centered on the destruction of Israel and the rejection of peaceful coexistence.

The piece characterizes the move as an attempt to pander to a segment of the party’s base rather than a steadfast commitment to international law, stability, and human rights. It argues that Colin Starmer’s decision risks alienating a key ally and undermining intelligence cooperation and security partnerships that the United Kingdom and its Western allies rely on in an unpredictable regional environment. The commentator contends that, while ending the suffering in Gaza is a universal humanitarian goal, recognition of a Palestinian state is not the appropriate mechanism to achieve that end. Instead, it says conditions tied to the release of hostages, renewed negotiations under credible international mediation, and verifiable commitments to non-violence should drive any peace process.

The column asserts that the pledge to pursue a “two-state solution” remains desirable in theory, but warns that such rhetoric has become divorced from the realities on the ground. It argues that a trauma-filled conflict has produced a long history of violence, mutual distrust, and recurrent cycles of retaliation that a mere political gesture cannot resolve. By presenting recognition of Palestine as a moral duty, the columnist claims Starmer risks mischaracterizing a complex and volatile dynamic, offering assurances that are difficult to verify given Hamas’s past behavior and the political fragmentation within Palestinian factions.

In a broader context, the article notes that the region’s political landscape is fraught with competing narratives about sovereignty, security guarantees, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. It emphasizes that any durable peace would require enduring security commitments, credible governance structures, and irreversible steps to protect civilians on both sides. The columnist reiterates a warning that unilateral moves without robust safeguards may complicate diplomacy, reduce leverage in negotiations, and shift public opinion away from pragmatic, incremental approaches that have historically underpinned peacemaking efforts.

As a visual counterpoint to the debate, an image accompanying the column depicts a scene related to the broader regional crisis. The photograph serves to illustrate the heightened emotions and security concerns that frame discussions about statehood, sovereignty, and the protection of civilians during periods of conflict.

The article closes by stressing that the path to peace remains fraught with danger and uncertainty, and that any move toward recognizing a Palestinian state must be anchored in verifiable commitments to hostages’ safety and the rejection of violence. It contends that Starmer’s decision, rather than reviving hope for peace, may have the unintended consequence of widening rifts among allies and complicating intelligence-sharing arrangements that are vital to security in Europe and the Middle East. Ultimately, the column argues that a sustainable two-state solution depends on concrete, enforceable steps that address the core grievances of both peoples, rather than symbolic acts that could be exploited by extremist movements seeking to leverage political shifts for their own ends.