Experts are cautioning that the recent declarations by leaders in France, Britain, Canada, and other nations to recognize a Palestinian state, amidst reports of famine in Gaza, could complicate future peace efforts. These announcements are seen as a response to global headlines and images.
However, this recognition may be undermined by the Israeli government’s announcement of expanding its military operation in Gaza to defeat Hamas, the group responsible for the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. This attack initiated the current conflict.
With Hamas still active in Gaza and holding hostages, and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank seen as weak, questions arise whether recognizing a Palestinian state, potentially as early as the next UN General Assembly, will hinder progress toward resolving the long-standing conflict.
Meir Ben Shabbat, former Israeli national security advisor, suggests the motivations behind the recognition may be a mix of foreign and domestic policy considerations, rooted in the belief that a Palestinian state is the solution.
Ben Shabbat, who headed the National Security Council from 2017 to 2021, believes that the “initiative itself is what matters, not its content or chances of success.”
He also questions whether the potential consequences, even within the Palestinian community, have been considered.
Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas official, stated that international recognition of a Palestinian state is a direct result of the October 7 attack, forcing the world to acknowledge Palestinian rights.
Israeli leaders warn that recognizing a Palestinian state now would reward terrorism and weaken Palestinian Authority President , who is accused of corruption and has not held elections in 20 years.
Furthermore, international recognition is unlikely to alter the situation in Gaza or the West Bank, both of which have undergone significant changes since the Oslo Accords were drafted 32 years ago.
Ben Shabbat notes that the practical effects of unilateral recognition are limited, particularly since most of the world already recognized a Palestinian state as a U.N. observer in 2012.
He believes the primary impact will be psychological, potentially generating momentum for future decisions.
Gayil Talshir, a political scientist from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the recognition efforts as “empty declarations” that could worsen the situation.
She argues that these actions are reactions to images rather than strategic diplomatic efforts for real change.
Talshir contrasts this with the Arab League’s “New York Declaration,” which calls for Hamas to release hostages, disarm, and relinquish control of Gaza, suggesting it offers a more viable path to peace.
She questions the logic behind supporting a Palestinian state without addressing Hamas’s role or the corruption within the Palestinian Authority.
Talshir believes these declarations, while perhaps well-intentioned, complicate the situation and may hinder future progress. She suggests focusing on international oversight and building Palestinian self-governance capabilities instead of supporting Hamas against Israel.
Some Palestinians also express reservations about the feasibility of statehood.
Huda Abu Arqoub, a Palestinian peace activist, believes that it has to happen through long-term negotiations.
She says that Palestinians are currently consumed by despair and unable to focus on long-term solutions like a two-state solution.
Abu Arqoub, an advisor to the EU and some Arab states, suggests that a transitional period is needed for Palestinians to rebuild trust in the system and have a genuine choice in their political future, rather than international community “just taking sides.”