The moral impulse to help the Palestinian people is both understandable and deeply human. In the face of a protracted conflict and immense suffering, the desire to find a diplomatic off-ramp, to offer a gesture of hope and recognition, is a powerful one. However, the path to peace is rarely paved with good intentions alone. Diplomacy that ignores the realities of power, the fragility of institutions, and the lessons of recent history becomes not a tool for peace, but a weapon in the hands of the violent. Recognizing a Palestinian state now, without the prerequisite conditions of security and accountability, is precisely such a diplomatic miscalculation. It is a dangerous mistake that grants a diplomatic prize to the very architects of October 7 and entrench a political order that rewards coercion, not compromise.
It empowers those who believe that force, not negotiation, is the only language that matters, and it disempowers the very Palestinians who seek a future of peace and stability.
The October 7 attack was not a mere skirmish; it was a strategic act of mass-casualty terrorism that killed and abducted hundreds, deliberately designed to reshape the incentives of the region. The perpetrators sought to derail any progress toward peace and demonstrate that violence is the most effective route to political legitimacy. In this context, awarding recognition while Hamas or its sympathizers hold significant power is an act of diplomatic capitulation.
It sends a clear message that terrorism works – that the path to statehood can be paved with the blood of civilians.
It empowers those who believe that force, not negotiation, is the only language that matters, and it disempowers the very Palestinians who seek a future of peace and stability.
Diplomacy must be tethered to reality
This act of recognition is far from mere symbolism. Statehood confers legal standing, unlocks diplomatic platforms, and grants access to new flows of money and legitimacy. In an environment where armed groups can translate violence into political outcomes, these instruments become tools of consolidation for the victors on the battlefield.
Hamas and its enablers have long used violence and intimidation as instruments of politics; awarding them with statehood effectively validates this tactic. Recent polling and public-opinion research have already underscored how the October 7 campaign has altered Palestinian political dynamics, making any assumption that unilateral recognition could empower moderates [among them] a perilous fantasy.
Moreover, diplomacy must be tethered to the realities on the ground, and in Judea and Samaria [West Bank], those realities have become increasingly complex. The expansion of settlements, infrastructure, and demographic changes has altered the map in ways that make a textbook two-state solution increasingly impractical. The scale of new construction in recent years has eroded the contiguous territory required for a viable, sovereign Palestinian state as traditionally conceived.
The naive belief that recognition would instantly empower moderates in the West Bank is a dangerous fantasy.
Recognizing a state while its territorial and institutional prerequisites are being hollowed out risks creating a “phantom sovereignty”: a recognition on paper but chaos and coercion in practice. Such a move does not solve the core issues but instead legitimizes a fragmented reality, undermining the very idea of a functioning state.
The greatest danger lies in the absence of robust, verifiable conditions. A genuine and durable peace requires a foundation of accountable governance and security. Gaza’s current reality—where an armed group has dominated political life, normalized hostage-taking, and used terror as an instrument of policy—cannot be papered over by a diplomatic declaration.
The naive belief that recognition would instantly empower moderates in the West Bank is a dangerous fantasy.
Instead, in the current circumstances, recognition strengthens the very networks that profit from instability and deprives Palestinians who seek accountable governance of the leverage they need to build it. It removes the primary incentive for a fundamental shift in political culture.
Genuine, lasting sovereignty must be tied to a series of non-negotiable benchmarks: the verifiable demilitarization of terror organizations, the establishment of credible governance structures across Judea and Samaria as well as Gaza, and transparent mechanisms that ensure humanitarian assistance cannot be siphoned to sustain militias.
Without these conditions, recognition becomes a short-term political payoff for actors who use the language of liberation to justify massacres. The difference between a tool for peace and a reward for violence is the presence or absence of accountability.
Recent diplomatic trends, with some capitals granting unconditional recognition, make this debate urgent. Leverage is a powerful tool, but it can be used for good or for harm.
The expansion of settlements, infrastructure, and demographic changes has altered the map in ways that make a textbook two-state solution increasingly impractical.
If recognition is granted unconditionally, it becomes a short-term political payoff for actors who use the language of liberation to justify massacres; if it is tied to strict conditions, it can be a tool to build peace.
In the shadow of October 7 and amid the changing realities on the ground, the safer, more moral path is the harder one. It requires a refusal to let emotion substitute for strategy and a commitment to using diplomacy to weaken the spoilers and strengthen the builders of peace. Unilateral recognition in the absence of demilitarization, institution-building, and clear enforcement will be remembered not as a courageous act of conscience, but as a diplomatic victory for terror.
Published originally on September 28, 2025.
