Following French President Emmanuel Macron’s lead, several nations, including Canada and Australia, have declared their intention to recognize a Palestinian state during the upcoming United Nations General Assembly session. This significant development could generate fresh impetus for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and simultaneously diminish the appeal of violent resistance promoted by groups like Hamas and other jihadist organizations. It is advisable for more prominent Western nations to endorse this recognition of a Palestinian state.
The concept of two states coexisting is not novel. As far back as 1947, the United Nations endorsed a resolution to create two states for two distinct peoples—one Jewish and one Arab—contingent on specific conditions. While Arab leaders rejected this partition proposal, Israel was established soon after. Currently, 147 out of 193 UN member states have formally recognized Palestine, with 114 maintaining full diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority. Nevertheless, most major Western democracies have refrained from recognition until recently, despite their vocal support for a two-state solution.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), internationally acknowledged as the representative of the Palestinian people, recognized Israel’s right to exist as early as 1988; this acknowledgment was later reinforced during the Oslo process and incorporated into the Arab Peace Initiative. Conversely, Israel has yet to recognize a Palestinian state, even during discussions ostensibly designed to achieve such a result. The French-led initiative, despite opposition from the Israeli government, seeks to rectify this inherent imbalance.
The diplomatic momentum generated by key Western nations has the potential to become a turning point. Such a move would position them at the vanguard of an international consensus already evidenced by UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, and even President Donald Trump’s 2020 Middle East peace plan. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has disregarded the declarations from these nations.
As patriotic Israelis, we are convinced that a two-state solution, providing for two distinct peoples, constitutes the sole feasible route to enduring peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Rather than instinctively rejecting France’s diplomatic initiative, Israel ought to leverage it and subsequent announcements to enhance its national security and global reputation.
We support this increasing international recognition due to multiple factors.
Firstly, it conveys a potent message to extremists across the spectrum: maximalist aspirations for sole sovereignty over the entire territory lack legitimacy and will not receive international endorsement.
Secondly, this recognition offers a constructive ideological counterbalance to Hamas and other jihadist groups. Military operations alone are insufficient to overcome extremism; they must be complemented by a credible, alternative political framework. Acknowledging Palestine as a state introduces a peaceful and practical path that discredits the narrative of violent opposition and offers hope to Palestinians seeking a viable future. When such an alternative materializes, it inherently bolsters moderate factions within Palestinian society, sidelines extremists, and enhances security. Concurrently, Israel must retain responsibility for its own security and persist in its campaign against Hamas and other Jihadist organizations.
Thirdly, the recognition of Palestinian statehood carries consequences for subsequent negotiations, particularly regarding the sensitive matter of Palestinian refugees. A recognized Palestinian state offers a definitive framework for the integration and rehabilitation of refugees, thereby assisting in the resolution of one of the conflict’s most intricate and emotionally charged dimensions.
Fourthly, this proactive recognition could facilitate the delineation of a clear border between Israelis and Palestinians, potentially improving security for both states. Upon the establishment of such a border, national self-determination within agreed-upon boundaries would inherently entail a responsibility to mitigate violence.
Fifthly, disruptive elements like terrorism, violence, settlement expansion, and mutual delegitimization have dominated the narrative over the past decade and a half, largely due to the absence of negotiations. After the October 7 Hamas massacre and the subsequent Gaza conflict, the differing perspectives diverged even further. Initiating future discussions with mutual recognition of Palestinian statehood would help bridge these divides and foster more robust negotiation processes.
Lastly, the call for United Nations member states to endorse a declaration outlining “tangible, time-bound, and irreversible steps” towards a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians carries additional strategic weight. This development complicates President Trump’s previously stated opposition, particularly given the U.S. presence in Riyadh. Furthermore, it strengthens the structure of the Arab Peace Initiative, initially proposed by Saudi Arabia, which envisions comprehensive regional peace. This framework is crucial for Gaza’s future, as it will unite with the West Bank to form the Palestinian State, especially for post-war rebuilding, humanitarian aid, and the release of hostages. Regionally, without a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood, normalization among Arab nations will not occur, and the broader Middle East will remain unstable.
The peace process thus far has been hindered by a lack of clarity regarding its ultimate objective: two states for two distinct peoples. The desired outcome—a secure, Jewish-democratic Israel alongside a functional, albeit demilitarized, Palestinian state—must be articulated precisely and pursued via a phased, progress-driven implementation.
Palestine’s recognition, supported by other key Western nations, could signify a pivotal moment, presenting a constructive pathway to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would facilitate a shift from merely managing the conflict—a strategy that has caused immense pain and suffering for both populations—towards actual conflict resolution. Should this initiative be adopted and broadened by more international participants, it could inspire a renewed global push to forge a new reality of coexistence, peace, and security across the Middle East.
President Trump should not merely abandon his opposition to this development; he ought to take the lead in championing it.