Recognition of a Palestinian state: A moral low and a strategic folly of the West

Since October 7, European and other nations have worked to advance recognition of a Palestinian state, with the peak of these efforts occurring during last week’s UN General Assembly, led by France. To date, 156 out of 193 UN member states have recognised a Palestinian state, ostensibly aimed at ending the war and saving the “two-state” solution in the face of Israel’s moves to advance settlements in Judea and Samaria.

In his UN address, French President Emmanuel Macron claimed that “sacrificing the lives of additional civilians, expelling Gaza residents to Egypt, annexing the West Bank, the death of hostages held by Hamas, or creating facts on the ground that could irreversibly change the situation there” must be prevented. He further erred in his distorted perception of reality when he tried to explain that “recognition of a Palestinian state is a defeat for Hamas as well as for all those who foment anti-Semitism, cultivate anti-Zionist obsessions and want the destruction of the State of Israel”. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer even accused Israel of cruelty in the war.

To show that this is a considered move with considerable thought behind it, Macron and Starmer clarified that the Palestinian Authority must meet commitments to carry out reforms, including dismantling Hamas, stopping incitement against Israel, ending salary payments to terrorists and their families, fighting corruption, and even holding democratic elections.

More from Opinion

Trump wants India to pick a side, either be a client state or face the bitter wrath of a fading hegemon How Russia’s hybrid warfare amplifies Europe’s anxiety

Remarkably, European and other nations choose to base their political plan for a Palestinian state on the word of Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen, who has not hidden his Holocaust denial and his desire to see Israel wiped off the map. This illustrates the impracticality and lack of seriousness in the recognition move, and that in practice the two main things it promotes are a prize for the Hamas terror organisation and advancing the Palestinian Authority’s aspiration for a one-state solution – Palestinian instead of the State of Israel.

As mentioned, the decision to recognise a Palestinian state is primarily declarative, and it did not even have the power to change the status of the Palestinian entity at the UN to full membership, since the Palestinians, who do not meet the basic conditions for recognition as a state, need the support of nine members of the UN Security Council and hope that no veto will be imposed on such a decision by the United States. Although this might appear to be a decision that would advance a sustainable solution for the Palestinians, it seems to serve primarily to attack the State of Israel in the international arena.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

Time for Archaeological Survey of India to take a proactive approach to heritage conservation

How Russia’s hybrid warfare amplifies Europe’s anxiety

Indeed, despite being a declarative move, it provides a tailwind to those seeking to harm Israel, and we already see well-organised campaigns to demonise the State of Israel (mostly funded by Qatar), its citizens, and Jews wherever they are, regardless of their connection to Israel.

In sports, discussions are taking place behind the scenes to suspend Israel from UEFA (the European Football Association). In other sports, there are demands for Israeli teams to compete without the Israeli flag, and recently, in the bicycle race in Spain, riots by pro-Palestinian demonstrators who disrupted the competition led to calls to prevent the participation of the Israeli team, in what appears to be another prize for terror.

In culture, petitions by progressive liberal celebrities against Israel, claiming genocide, have featured in major film festivals, and awards have been given to works that echo the Palestinian narrative. In academia, research institutions refrain from publishing research by Israeli researchers, and funding for joint research with Israel has become difficult to impossible. On the security level, several countries have decided to impose an embargo on security procurement from Israel.

The supporters of this growing boycott are using the Russian case to base their claims. However, this comparison also sins against the truth and points to a sharp logical failure – in the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia was the aggressor that invaded Ukraine contrary to international law, while the State of Israel operates in Gaza to return the abductees and dismantle the Hamas terror organisation that invaded, murdered, and raped Israeli citizens.

In this sense, Israel’s position as the stronger side in the war leads the international community to identify the State of Israel as an aggressor rather than as a victim. In this context, suspending Israel would be tantamount to suspending Ukraine for daring to defend itself against Russia’s attacks.

So why do European countries choose to give a prize to terror? There are domestic and foreign reasons for this that are not at all related to the Palestinian issue. France quite regularly uses the Palestinian issue to strengthen its position as a leading country in the European Union and in the international arena, alongside an effort to please the Muslim population in France and to divert French public opinion from the failures of the government’s economic policy.

In Britain, the absurdity is even greater – it seems that the recognition of Palestine is intended to divert attention from Starmer’s political weakness, including within his own party, and the recognition of a Palestinian state has even exposed Britain to Palestinian claims for compensation due to British colonialism in the Land of Israel. In other countries, the decision depends on the composition of the current government and, given political change, may even be reversed.

Despite being a declarative move, Israel must not remain silent in the face of the international effort to harm Israel’s legitimacy, the war effort against Hamas, and negotiations for the release of the hostages. Israel should examine a variety of response moves that will strengthen Israel’s sovereignty and exact a price from the Palestinian Authority, but these need to be done with the required sensitivity so as not to harm the Abraham Accords, not allow Hamas to benefit from the Palestinian Authority’s weakness, and assist friendly countries to maintain their support of Israel.

Joseph Rozen is an expert on national security and international affairs, founder of Solaris Global Partners geopolitical consultancy, partner at i2 company which facilitates business activity between Israel and India, and a senior fellow at Misgav Institute. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.