Palestinian state recognition is cynical political theater
The approach of the leaders of France, Britain and Canada represents a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
By Mark Sachs and David F. Siegel
JNS
Jul 31, 2025
(L-R)
French
President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, US
President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Macron,
Starmer and Carney have announced their intention of recognizing a
Palestinian state. French President Emmanuel Macron recently
announced his intentions to recognize a Palestinian state in September,
and in pursuit of that goal, France and Saudi Arabia hosted a conference
in New York to discuss that possibility. It took the prime minister of
the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, less than a weekend to change his
position from withholding support for a Palestinian state to holding his
own press conference this week announcing his intentions to recognize a
Palestinian state should Israel fail to heed his conditions.
The international community would better
serve Palestinians and Israelis by focusing on the prerequisites for
sustainable peace, rather than engaging in counterproductive and
symbolic gestures.
Macron himself issued a list of essential
preconditions that Palestinian leaders must meet before any recognition
of statehood. None have been met, yet he is still pursuing this
irresponsible course of action. Why?
In June, he said that all hostages still
being held since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on
Oct. 7, 2023, must be released; Hamas must be demilitarized in the Gaza
Strip; Hamas cannot play a role in the future governance of the coastal
enclave; the Palestinian Authority must be significantly reformed;
Israeli and the Palestinian authorities must recognize each other’s
sovereignty; and Israel must be assured of its right to live in peace,
free from violence.
The Palestinians have not met even one of
Macron’s preconditions. So then why is he and Starmer—and now, Canadian
Prime Minister Mark Carney—pulling
this card while Hamas holds captive 50 Israelis in Gaza and while
Israelis are still reeling from the most catastrophic attack in Israel’s
history?
Macron’s turn from preconditions to no
conditions represents a cynical exploitation of one of the world’s most
tragic conflicts for narrow domestic political advantage. He is a
lame-duck president with an approval rating just under 30%. The
political right in France hopes to win control of the government, so his
best hope to keep the government afloat is to align with far left,
anti-Israel and antisemitic politicians.
Starmer is in a situation not too dissimilar to Macron’s.
Any discussion of Palestinian statehood
must confront an uncomfortable truth: Gaza, which would necessarily
comprise a significant portion of any Palestinian state, remains
controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s
destruction.
Recognizing a Palestinian state while
Hamas maintains control over Gaza essentially legitimizes a territorial
entity where part of the “state” is governed by an organization that
explicitly rejects the two-state solution. How can any country recognize
a Palestinian state when a substantial portion of its territory is
controlled by actors fundamentally opposed to that state’s peaceful
existence alongside Israel?
Beyond the Hamas challenge lies an even
more fundamental problem: The Palestinians currently lack the basic
institutional infrastructure necessary for functioning statehood. The
P.A. exercises limited control even in the West Bank areas under its
jurisdiction, and Palestinian governmental structures, economic systems
and educational institutions that form the foundation of any viable
state remain underdeveloped or dysfunctional.
This governance vacuum isn’t merely a
technical challenge; it’s a prerequisite for sustainable peace. Without
effective institutions capable of maintaining security, delivering
services and commanding legitimacy from Palestinians themselves, any
recognized state would exist primarily on paper.
The economic infrastructure necessary for a
functioning Palestinian state remains largely absent. Decades of
conflict, poor governance and international dependency have created an
economy reliant on aid rather than productive capacity. Meanwhile, the
educational system continues to promote narratives incompatible with
peaceful coexistence, often glorifying violence, martyrdom and
perpetuating conflict rather than preparing future generations for
peace.
These aren’t secondary issues that can be
addressed after recognition. They’re fundamental prerequisites for any
sustainable solution. A state without economic viability or educational
systems that promote peace is likely to become a failed state, creating
greater instability and suffering for Palestinians while threatening
Israeli security.
The approach of Macron, Starmer and Carney
represents a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. And it
sends problematic signals to the Palestinian leadership that
international support will flow regardless of their commitment to peace
or their success in building functional institutions. It also signals to
Hamas that their extremist positions won’t prevent international
legitimization of Palestinian claims but could accelerate them, thereby
strengthening hardline elements at the expense of more moderate voices.
We have already seen Hamas hardening its negotiating positions since
these leaders announced imminent Palestinian statehood.
Israelis, facing a “recognized” entity
that includes territories controlled by Hamas and lacks effective
governance structures, will naturally maintain security measures that
Palestinians view as occupation. Palestinians, having received
international recognition without building the capacity for effective
statehood, may become more entrenched in unrealistic positions rather
than engaging in the difficult work of compromise and
institution-building necessary for genuine peace.
Their Palestinian recognition scheme
exemplifies everything wrong with contemporary political leadership: the
subordination of principled governance to short-term political
survival, the exploitation of human suffering for domestic advantage and
the abandonment of serious diplomacy in favor of empty gestures.
Macron, Starmer and Carney stand apart
from heads of state such as U.S. President Donald Trump, German
Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and
many others who understand that recognition should remain contingent on
demonstrable progress toward these goals, creating incentives for
positive change rather than rewarding the status quo.
Only when Palestinians have developed the
institutional capacity for peaceful governance and explicitly renounced
organizations committed to Israel’s destruction will recognition
contribute to rather than undermine lasting peace. For their part,
Macron and Starmer should return to the preconditions they laid out in
June. They must demand Hamas release all hostages and call on all
Palestinians to end their incitement, recognize Israel and renounce the
right of return, a euphemism for the destruction of Israel.
Until that point, Israelis and
Palestinians deserve leaders committed to the hard work of genuine
peacemaking. Political theater will not solve this intractable conflict.
French President Emmanuel Macron recently announced his intentions to recognize a Palestinian state in September, and in pursuit of that goal, France and Saudi Arabia hosted a conference in New York to discuss that possibility. It took the prime minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, less than a weekend to change his position from withholding support for a Palestinian state to holding his own press conference this week announcing his intentions to recognize a Palestinian state should Israel fail to heed his conditions.
The international community would better serve Palestinians and Israelis by focusing on the prerequisites for sustainable peace, rather than engaging in counterproductive and symbolic gestures.
Macron himself issued a list of essential preconditions that Palestinian leaders must meet before any recognition of statehood. None have been met, yet he is still pursuing this irresponsible course of action. Why?
In June, he said that all hostages still being held since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, must be released; Hamas must be demilitarized in the Gaza Strip; Hamas cannot play a role in the future governance of the coastal enclave; the Palestinian Authority must be significantly reformed; Israeli and the Palestinian authorities must recognize each other’s sovereignty; and Israel must be assured of its right to live in peace, free from violence.
The Palestinians have not met even one of Macron’s preconditions. So then why is he and Starmer—and now, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney—pulling this card while Hamas holds captive 50 Israelis in Gaza and while Israelis are still reeling from the most catastrophic attack in Israel’s history?
Macron’s turn from preconditions to no conditions represents a cynical exploitation of one of the world’s most tragic conflicts for narrow domestic political advantage. He is a lame-duck president with an approval rating just under 30%. The political right in France hopes to win control of the government, so his best hope to keep the government afloat is to align with far left, anti-Israel and antisemitic politicians.
Starmer is in a situation not too dissimilar to Macron’s.
Any discussion of Palestinian statehood must confront an uncomfortable truth: Gaza, which would necessarily comprise a significant portion of any Palestinian state, remains controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction.
Recognizing a Palestinian state while Hamas maintains control over Gaza essentially legitimizes a territorial entity where part of the “state” is governed by an organization that explicitly rejects the two-state solution. How can any country recognize a Palestinian state when a substantial portion of its territory is controlled by actors fundamentally opposed to that state’s peaceful existence alongside Israel?
Beyond the Hamas challenge lies an even more fundamental problem: The Palestinians currently lack the basic institutional infrastructure necessary for functioning statehood. The P.A. exercises limited control even in the West Bank areas under its jurisdiction, and Palestinian governmental structures, economic systems and educational institutions that form the foundation of any viable state remain underdeveloped or dysfunctional.
This governance vacuum isn’t merely a technical challenge; it’s a prerequisite for sustainable peace. Without effective institutions capable of maintaining security, delivering services and commanding legitimacy from Palestinians themselves, any recognized state would exist primarily on paper.
The economic infrastructure necessary for a functioning Palestinian state remains largely absent. Decades of conflict, poor governance and international dependency have created an economy reliant on aid rather than productive capacity. Meanwhile, the educational system continues to promote narratives incompatible with peaceful coexistence, often glorifying violence, martyrdom and perpetuating conflict rather than preparing future generations for peace.
These aren’t secondary issues that can be addressed after recognition. They’re fundamental prerequisites for any sustainable solution. A state without economic viability or educational systems that promote peace is likely to become a failed state, creating greater instability and suffering for Palestinians while threatening Israeli security.
The approach of Macron, Starmer and Carney represents a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. And it sends problematic signals to the Palestinian leadership that international support will flow regardless of their commitment to peace or their success in building functional institutions. It also signals to Hamas that their extremist positions won’t prevent international legitimization of Palestinian claims but could accelerate them, thereby strengthening hardline elements at the expense of more moderate voices. We have already seen Hamas hardening its negotiating positions since these leaders announced imminent Palestinian statehood.
Israelis, facing a “recognized” entity that includes territories controlled by Hamas and lacks effective governance structures, will naturally maintain security measures that Palestinians view as occupation. Palestinians, having received international recognition without building the capacity for effective statehood, may become more entrenched in unrealistic positions rather than engaging in the difficult work of compromise and institution-building necessary for genuine peace.
Their Palestinian recognition scheme exemplifies everything wrong with contemporary political leadership: the subordination of principled governance to short-term political survival, the exploitation of human suffering for domestic advantage and the abandonment of serious diplomacy in favor of empty gestures.
Macron, Starmer and Carney stand apart from heads of state such as U.S. President Donald Trump, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and many others who understand that recognition should remain contingent on demonstrable progress toward these goals, creating incentives for positive change rather than rewarding the status quo.
Only when Palestinians have developed the institutional capacity for peaceful governance and explicitly renounced organizations committed to Israel’s destruction will recognition contribute to rather than undermine lasting peace. For their part, Macron and Starmer should return to the preconditions they laid out in June. They must demand Hamas release all hostages and call on all Palestinians to end their incitement, recognize Israel and renounce the right of return, a euphemism for the destruction of Israel.
Until that point, Israelis and Palestinians deserve leaders committed to the hard work of genuine peacemaking. Political theater will not solve this intractable conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment