By: Fern Sidman

The announcement by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer that the United Kingdom will recognize a Palestinian state by September if Israel does not agree to a ceasefire has ignited intense criticism across the Atlantic. According to a report that appeared on the Jewish Breaking News website, leading American Jewish organizations have denounced the move as a dangerous concession to Hamas, with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) issuing one of the sharpest rebukes.

In a statement released on Monday, AIPAC accused Starmer of joining French President Emmanuel Macron in “rewarding Hamas for its barbaric terrorism against the Jewish state and its refusal to free the 50 hostages it’s held captive for 662 days.” As Jewish Breaking News reported, the pro-Israel lobbying group emphasized that such recognition under current conditions would not only embolden terrorists but also prolong the conflict in Gaza.

AIPAC’s response, covered by Jewish Breaking News, stressed the group’s conviction that Starmer’s proposal distorts the reality of the war. “Starmer’s demand that Israel agree to a ceasefire is a sick rewriting of history that only benefits Hamas and extends this terrible war,” the organization declared.

The group pointed out that Israel has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to accept U.S.-brokered ceasefire proposals, while Hamas has consistently rejected them. “Time and again, Israel has accepted U.S.-brokered deals while Hamas rejects them, including just last week,” AIPAC said, highlighting the asymmetry in negotiations.

By placing the onus on Israel to halt its military campaign while hostages remain in captivity, AIPAC argued, Britain is effectively shifting accountability away from Hamas. This framing has become a focal point for U.S. Jewish organizations determined to emphasize Hamas’ culpability in perpetuating the war.

Beyond condemning the recognition plan as a reward for terrorism, AIPAC also criticized the broader diplomatic implications. According to the information provided in the Jewish Breaking News report, the group accused Starmer, Macron, and other European leaders of “undermining the Trump administration’s pursuit of peace when they should be joining with the president to unequivocally condemn Hamas for rejecting these offers.”

The reference to the Trump administration highlights the growing divergence between European and American diplomatic approaches. Whereas Washington under President Donald Trump has positioned itself as Israel’s staunch ally, seeking to pressure Hamas into compliance, Britain and France are now signaling that recognition of Palestinian statehood can proceed even without Hamas’ disarmament or the release of hostages.

As the report at Jewish Breaking News noted, AIPAC sees this not only as counterproductive but as actively harmful to U.S.-led peace efforts. By moving ahead with unilateral recognition, London and Paris risk isolating themselves from Washington’s approach while emboldening Hamas to maintain its hardline stance.

Central to AIPAC’s argument, as reported by Jewish Breaking News, is the unresolved fate of the 50 hostages who remain in captivity more than 660 days after Hamas’ October 7 assault. The lobbying group stressed that rewarding Palestinian statehood while hostages are still held amounts to legitimizing terrorism as a viable diplomatic tactic.

“Hamas’ ideology is the primary impediment to peace,” AIPAC asserted, insisting that permanent stability can only be achieved through direct, bilateral negotiations between Israel and Palestinian representatives who reject Hamas’ rule.

By setting a September deadline for recognition regardless of the hostages’ status, Starmer and Macron, in AIPAC’s view, are creating perverse incentives for Hamas to prolong the suffering of captives. The Jewish Breaking News report highlighted this as one of the most troubling dimensions of the current debate.

In its statement, AIPAC also sought to counter narratives portraying Israel as neglecting humanitarian concerns in Gaza. The organization emphasized Israel’s wartime humanitarian initiatives, including medical aid, safe passage corridors, and coordination with international agencies.

The group argued that Britain and France’s recognition proposals overlook these efforts while instead rewarding Hamas’ aggression. “This would not be just nor would it bring peace and reconciliation any closer to reality,” AIPAC warned.

By foregrounding Israel’s humanitarian record, AIPAC sought to reinforce its broader point: that international actors should be condemning Hamas and supporting Israel’s security measures rather than pursuing what the group views as premature recognition of statehood.

The controversy comes amid a growing push in European capitals to recognize Palestinian statehood independently of direct negotiations with Israel. Macron’s declaration earlier this month that France would seek recognition at the United Nations General Assembly in September set the stage, with Starmer’s announcement adding further momentum.

For AIPAC and other U.S. Jewish groups, the timing is particularly troubling. They argue that unilateral recognition in the current climate not only undermines U.S. diplomatic initiatives but also sends a signal to Hamas and similar groups that violence yields political gains.

The report at Jewish Breaking News pointed out that AIPAC’s emphasis on direct, bilateral talks between Israel and Palestinians reflects a long-standing principle of U.S. policy: that peace can only be durable if negotiated by the parties themselves, not imposed externally.

While AIPAC’s condemnation has drawn the most attention, Jewish Breaking News reported that other Jewish advocacy groups in the United States have expressed parallel concerns. Many have echoed the central themes of hostage return, Hamas’ accountability, and the danger of rewarding violence.

The consensus emerging across the American Jewish organizational spectrum, according to the report at Jewish Breaking News, is that recognition of Palestinian statehood must not be tied to the outcome of terrorism. Instead, they insist, such recognition should come only through a negotiated process in which both sides commit to peaceful coexistence and renounce violence.

The clash over Palestinian recognition is also reshaping the diplomatic landscape between the United States and its European allies. Washington’s firm stance against premature recognition contrasts sharply with the moves by Paris and London, raising questions about transatlantic unity in addressing one of the world’s most protracted conflicts.

AIPAC’s explicit call for world leaders to “join with the president” rather than chart their own course underscores the extent to which U.S. Jewish organizations view American leadership as indispensable. The concern is that European initiatives risk fracturing the international consensus needed to pressure Hamas into compliance.

As September draws closer, the question of Palestinian statehood recognition is set to dominate diplomatic conversations in both Europe and the United States. For Jewish organizations such as AIPAC, the issue is not merely symbolic but existential: recognition offered under the shadow of terrorism, without the release of hostages or the rejection of Hamas’ ideology, is seen as a profound threat to both peace and security.

The central divide is clear. For European leaders, recognition is framed as a tool to advance peace and pressure Israel toward compromise. For American Jewish organizations, it is a dangerous gamble that risks rewarding Hamas while sidelining the very negotiations that could one day deliver a durable solution.

In an unrelated development, AIPAC appears to have withdrawn its support for freshman Republican Representative Randy Fine, following a series of incendiary remarks he made on social media regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. As reported by The Times of Israel on Tuesday, Fine drew widespread criticism after a July 22 post in which he wrote: “Release the hostages. Until then, starve away.”

In the same thread, Fine dismissed mounting reports of famine conditions in Gaza as “a lie,” accusing media outlets of “regurgitating Muslim terror propaganda.”

The Times of Israel noted that President Donald Trump, in remarks to reporters on Monday, publicly rejected Fine’s denial of starvation, stating: “You can’t fake that.” Trump’s acknowledgment placed him at odds with Fine’s rhetoric and underscored the growing divergence within Republican ranks on how to balance humanitarian concerns with support for Israel’s security policies.

AIPAC had endorsed Fine earlier this year as part of its support for pro-Israel candidates in the 2026 election cycle. However, by Monday evening, The Times of Israel report observed that Fine’s name no longer appeared in the organization’s database of endorsed candidates. In a statement, a spokesperson for AIPAC said only that the group “will be endorsing candidates for the 2026 election throughout the cycle – current endorsees for 2026 so far are listed on the AIPAC-PAC website.”

While AIPAC did not explicitly comment on Fine’s remarks, The Times of Israel reported that the removal is widely interpreted as a quiet rebuke of the lawmaker’s language, which has stirred unease across party lines. Analysts noted that AIPAC rarely withdraws support once endorsements are granted, signaling the unusual weight of this particular controversy.

The fallout from Fine’s comments has also illuminated emerging divisions within the Republican Party over the conduct of Israel’s campaign in Gaza. According to the information provided in The Times of Israel report, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene condemned Fine’s remarks as “disgraceful,” noting that “a Jewish US Representative calling for the continued starvation of innocent people and children is disgraceful.” Greene went further, stating: “It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza.” Her use of the term “genocide” marked one of the first times a Republican lawmaker publicly applied the label to Israel’s war, a term previously embraced by many Democrats.

Representative Lance Gooden of Texas also voiced his concern, tweeting that “standing with Israel means eliminating every barbaric Hamas terrorist. It also means rejecting the killing and starvation of children in Gaza.” He stressed the importance of allowing humanitarian aid to enter the enclave, adding: “Ending this hunger crisis will not only spare the lives of children but will strip Hamas of its ability to use innocent children as pawns in their depraved acts of barbarism.”

The Times of Israel report emphasized that Greene and Gooden are among the first Republicans to join the overwhelming number of Democratic lawmakers raising alarms about starvation in Gaza, pointing to a potential shift in bipartisan discourse on the war.

The controversy surrounding Fine highlights the political risks for lawmakers navigating the fraught balance between support for Israel and recognition of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. As The Times of Israel report indicated, AIPAC’s decision to remove Fine from its roster speaks volumes about the pro-Israel lobby’s desire to distance itself from rhetoric that could undermine its broader bipartisan standing. At the same time, the episode reflects mounting tensions within both parties as the war drags on and images of civilian suffering continue to dominate international headlines.

With hostages still in captivity, Gaza’s humanitarian crisis worsening, and divisions opening within U.S. political ranks, Fine’s case has become emblematic of the volatile fault lines shaping Washington’s approach to one of the most intractable conflicts in the world.