Cart Pulls Horse

How does the recognition of Palestinian statehood by Western allies make any sense? A political entity without clear borders, no means of defense, no independence, and no capacity for self-sustainability—how can such a state be recognized? It's putting the cart before the horse. Recognition doesn’t create a viable state, it merely offers a symbolic gesture that lacks substance, and that's counterproductive in a number of ways.

The argument that recognizing Palestine will encourage a two-state solution is flawed. Israel, the more powerful actor in the equation, has made it clear they’re unwilling to participate in such a solution. How does recognizing Palestine when one side refuses to negotiate advance peace? Recognition, in this context doesn’t promote a two-state solution, it widens a growing divide.

The western allies argue that recognition lends legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority (PA). But the PA’s legitimacy is questionable, even among Palestinians, many of whom view it as corrupt and ineffective. How does this "legitimacy" support the creation of a state when the entity being legitimized lacks the internal credibility to govern effectively?

A key concern is what recognition of Palestinian statehood would mean for Hamas. If the October 7th attack is seen as a path to statehood, it sets a precedent that violence can lead to political gains, undermining the importance of peaceful negotiation. Furthermore, Hamas’s influence within the Palestinian political landscape is growing, and recognizing a Palestinian state at this moment could empower Hamas, making them more relevant to the Palestinian identity, not less.

Given that Hamas and the PA have fought for control of Gaza, it’s hard to see how any future Palestinian state can be unified. Recognition is likely to exacerbate internal divisions and lead to further civil conflict.

From an Israeli perspective, external pressure for Palestinian statehood will harden opposition. After the October 7th attacks, many Israelis view negotiations with groups like Hamas as dangerous. Any move towards Palestinian statehood, particularly without a unified Palestinian government or clear intentions, risks deepening Israeli mistrust and resistance. This makes any genuine two-state solution even more distant.

The Palestinians themselves are not united on what statehood means. Some factions view it as the first step toward eliminating Israel. Until there’s internal consensus among Palestinians on what statehood entails—whether it’s peaceful coexistence or the total rejection of Israel—recognizing a state that’s divided on its purpose is premature and counterproductive.

Recognition of a Palestinian State when none exists also does further damage to a UN that has shown itself to be impotent on matters of international security and terrorism, and misguided in the way it handles human rights and international justice.

The most egregious aspect of this happening at this time is that Hamas continues to hold Israeli hostages, releasing them was not a condition of recognition. So recognition is worse than just political theatre, as the Israeli ambassador to the UN has said. It puts a stamp of approval on the use of political violence, further divides the Palestinian leadership, and further hardens Israeli resistance. 

A meaningful peace process, built on mutual understanding and compromise, cannot take place until the Palestinians can agree on what they want. And by handing over, free of charge as it were, the critical incentive of international recognition, the net result is the exact opposite.