The Fiction of Palestinian Statehood: Why Recognition Is a Dangerous Illusion

I am sure that pro-Palestine activists are feeling hopeful this week. In a matter of days, there were multiple Western democracies that recognized Palestinian statehood, including Australia, Canada, France, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. This recognition is being hailed as "long overdue" and a "bold diplomatic move." Beneath the ceremonial language and moral grandstanding lies a more profound issue about accountability, legitimacy, morality, and what it means to truly be a state. Having Western democracies recognize Palestinian statehood does nothing to erase these realities, as we will see shortly. 

Recognizing Palestine Will Not Incentivize Good Behavior

I want to start with this point because it is the underpinning argument for such a move. Many in diplomatic circles believe in Palestinian statehood as a moral imperative that will help foster a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. The argument goes that by recognizing Palestinian statehood, Palestine will decide to play ball and work towards peace. The reality is that recognition without asking for any behavioral change on Palestine's part removes any incentive for it to reform or change, whether that is a demand to disarm, release the hostages, hold elections, reform its education to stop demonizing Jews, or make a concerted commitment to co-exist with Israel. Why implement reform when statehood is being handed to you on a silver platter?  

The idea that the "incentivize good behavior" theory will not end well is not mere conjecture. During the Oslo Peace Accords and the subsequent Camp David Accords, the Palestinian Authority received much of what they requested. They were granted semi-autonomy, international funding, and diplomatic legitimacy in exchange for peace. What resulted? Continued rejection of peace, massive corruption, and a second Intifada. 

Hamas is worse than Fatah. Aside from calling for the extermination of Israel in its initial 1988 charter, Hamas explicitly opposed the Oslo Accords, carried out atrocities, rejected negotiations, and has called for the destruction of Israel. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza to give them a chance to create a state. Gaza was given about two decades to establish a semblance of self-governance. What transpired? Hamas, a terrorist organization, takes over Gaza. Since then, Israel is barraged with rockets and multiple skirmishes with Hamas, and the October 7 attacks in which Hamas kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered civilians. The October 7 attacks is the reason why there is presently a war in Gaza. They could have chosen to live peacefully alongside Israel. Instead, it opted to build terror tunnels and focus on exterminating the only Jewish state with war and violence.

These are Palestinian case studies in how appeasement backfires spectacularly. They are also indicative of a larger pattern in the Middle Eastern conflict that dates back to 1948: Belligerent Arab entities attack Israel, Israel fights back in self-defense, Israel wins, Arab entities cry foul when they lose for trying to wipe Israel off the map, rinse and repeat.

Why would a new round of rewards suddenly change their incentive to behave properly? Recognizing Palestinian statehood rewards the absence of political reforms and the commission of human rights abuses against Israelis. In recognizing Palestinian statehood, it sends the message that you do not need to take responsibility or enact political reforms. It means that statehood can be recognized through bloodshed, terrorism, and rejecting your neighbor's right to exist. A worst-case scenario could be a precedent that incentivizes other aspiring states to use violence and bloodshed as a political strategy for future state recognition instead of accountability.

What Exactly Is Being Recognized?

With 156 countries recognizing Palestine as a state, I imagine you are wondering how I could possibly call it a farce or a delusion to recognize a Palestinian state. In part, recognizing Palestine is a classic example of argumentum ad numerum, which is the logical fallacy in which something is claimed to be true simply because a majority of people believe it. Simply because countries declare recognition of a Palestinian state does not make it so. 

While not binding globally, the Montevideo Convention is the most widely accepted legal framework for what constitutes statehood. It is important to apply those same objective standards to would-be states. In Article I, the Convention lays out four criteria: a defined territory; a single, functioning government; capacity to enter into foreign relations; permanent population. The supposed state of Palestine fails on at least three of those criteria. How so?

Defined territory - The West Bank and Gaza are territorially disconnected. The West Bank is governed by the PA (with partial Israeli control, depending on the Area of the West Bank), whereas Gaza is governed by Hamas. Also, there is no universally agreed upon definition of the border because they are disputed territories. 

Single functioning government - Which entity does the Western world recognize exactly? There never has been a sovereign Arab state called Palestine, and there is presently no coherent state. Neither Fatah nor Hamas have complete control over the territory, which is more important considering that the two factions are ideologically and militarily opposed to one another. The Palestinian Authority (PA) lost control over Gaza in 2007. Hamas rules Gaza, but because of its terrorist designation in multiple countries, is not a legitimate governing body under international norms. Abbas is in Year 19 of a four-year term, and he needs to rely on external funding and Israeli security to function. 

Diplomatic relations - Hamas cannot conduct international diplomacy due to being diplomatically isolated with its terrorist designation. While the PA has observer status at the United Nations, it lacks full diplomatic recognition. Between its internal divisions, donor dependency, and lack of institutional coherence, the PA is unable to effectively conduct diplomatic relations. International recognition of a state should follow institutional legitimacy, not the other way around. 

This is not an argument about Palestinian self-determination, although that could be another conversation for another time. This is about whether the entity known as Palestine in its current form is capable of such recognition. Statehood is not merely symbolic, but institutional. Palestine does not have defined borders, a unified government, or the institutional capacity to behave like a responsible member of the international community. Recognizing a state that does not exist in functional terms is as sensical as recognizing the statehood of Narnia. 

Recognition, in this case, is not sovereignty, but rather performative. It does not grant control over borders, airspace, security, or economic independence. Palestine remains a fragmented, dependent, and divided figment of the imagination as far as international relations are concerned. Diplomatic recognition cannot replace actual governance or territorial authority. 

Symbolic Recognition Undermines Real Diplomacy

If the goal is to help the Palestinian people, this is a lousy way of going about it. I do not say so simply because recognizing Palestinian statehood will do nothing to stop the fighting in light of the fact that Israel views this as too existential without seeing an actual good-faith effort from the other side. State recognition does not empower the moderates or the ones that would actually like to engage in a two-state solution. It entrenches Hamas and Fatah, the powers that have prolonged the conflict. The October 7 attacks were not a one-time outlier. They are part of a decades-long pattern of aggression and rejectionism towards the state of Israel, a pattern that symbolic recognition does nothing to break. 

By recognizing a state without actual governance or a peace agreement, it turns statehood into an empty gesture. Bypassing negotiations with state recognition removes leverage, thereby deepening division instead of resolving it. In short, it short-circuits the peace process instead of engendering it. If anything, it gives corrupt and violent actors the ability to pose as legitimate governments while perpetuating the conflict and oppressing its own people. Diplomacy without standards is merely performative. 

Symbolic Recognition Shows Western Moral Confusion

Recognizing Palestinian statehood creates a catch-22 argument. If Palestine is to be recognized as a state, it means that by definition, they must be held accountable as a state. After all, if they merit statehood, then they are sovereign enough to be held accountable for carrying out the October 7 attacks against Israel, thereby instigating this current war. If the developed world absolves them of responsibility, that means that by the standards of international law, Palestine does not meet the threshold for statehood. If the leadership is not responsible, they are not functioning as a state, which begs the question of why recognize their statehood in the first place. 

Statehood is more than airing a grievance; it is about moral and institutional legitimacy. You cannot have it both ways by demanding statehood while absconding from the responsibilities of statehood. This would mean that Palestine is not held to any standards while Israel is held to mythical double standards. 

By recognizing Palestinian statehood, these nations have shown how morally insincere they are. They say they want peace, but they cannot grapple with the consequences of legitimizing the terrorist organization Hamas or the fact that even Fatah does not want to have Jews in their midst. Ultimately recognizing statehood is to legitimize a dysfunctional, violent, and unaccountable leadership. Granting statehood would promote neither peace, justice, nor reform. It acts as a signal to bad actors that violence and bloodshed are acceptable forms of political strategy. This level of appeasement from Western powers will only perpetuate an unfortunate predicament in the Middle East.