Publications

Israel was established under UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, which recognized two states, Jewish and Arab, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In terms of international law and the position of most nations, the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is equal to that of the Jewish people, on whose basis the State of Israel was recognized and founded. Much has happened since, and the situation today is that a Palestinian state has not been established, and Israel’s borders are not formally agreed upon or finalized.

Currently, the driving force behind recognition of a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as its capital is the situation in Gaza and the ongoing war that Israel refuses to end. Images from the Strip of crowds storming humanitarian aid points with empty pots, starving children, and total destruction have shaped how Israel is perceived globally, leading to a diplomatic collapse for Israel and helping Hamas to erase the horrors of October 7. The gap between Israel’s self-conviction that justice is on its side and that its army is the most moral in the world versus the images from Gaza and the international criticism it faces has never been wider.

In the face of what seems to be an impasse after nearly two years of war and immense destruction and human suffering, the international community is forming the view that both Israel and Hamas must be stripped of veto power over resolving the bloody Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This is reflected in the joint initiative by France and Saudi Arabia at the UN conference from July 28–30, 2025, aimed at advancing a two-state solution. The concluding declaration, which received wide support, includes provisions favorable to Israel—such as denying Hamas control of Gaza and its weapons, and neutralizing its intention to destroy Israel. Concurrently, however, the international community is taking seriously the statements by Israeli ministers, which, in its view, must also be thwarted in their infancy. These include the annexation of territories in the West Bank and Gaza and the encouragement of “voluntary emigration” of Palestinians from these areas—measures that would mean managing the conflict indefinitely. From the perspective of the international community, there is only one course of possible action: a return to the negotiating table to agree upon the terms of a two-state framework.

The French–Saudi declaration outlines a phased plan to end the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the ongoing war in Gaza, centering on the establishment of a demilitarized, independent Palestinian state that coexists peacefully alongside Israel. It includes a condemnation of the October 7 attacks (a first for the Arab League countries). In parallel, it states that as part of ending the Gaza war, Hamas must relinquish power and disarm, transferring governance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) under international involvement and support. It also condemns Israeli attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza, the ongoing blockade, and the use of starvation tactics, which have caused a severe humanitarian disaster.

International demands from Israel in the French–Saudi proposal include a full ceasefire in Gaza; the withdrawal of the IDF; lifting the blockade; releasing Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the hostages held by Hamas; a commitment to establishing a sovereign, contiguous, independent, and viable Palestinian state; halting all illegal Israeli settlement activity and committing to stop future construction; refraining from unilateral actions (like annexation) that undermine the two-state solution; ensuring access to holy sites in Jerusalem and preserving the status quo; adhering to international law and the UN Security Council resolutions; fully cooperating with UN bodies and the international community, including support for inspection and enforcement mechanisms; and assisting in humanitarian efforts and economic reconstruction in Gaza and the West Bank.

Key Palestinian obligations include recognition of Israel and a commitment to the two-state solution and peace; establishing full PA control over all Palestinian territories under a unified governance framework (as emphasized repeatedly by PA President Mahmoud Abbas: “one state, one government, one law, and one weapon”); ending all violence and incitement against Israel; preventing terrorism and extremism in all forms; implementing political and economic reforms to build a stable and functional state; holding transparent and democratic elections; and upholding human rights, gender equality, and inclusion of all segments of Palestinian society in both political and economic processes.

The French–Saudi declaration also includes favorable elements for Israel, such as eliminating any scenario where Hamas remains in power in Gaza. It emphasizes the need to deploy an Arab/international force to stabilize the security situation in Gaza; to lead a comprehensive reconstruction plan for Gaza with international support; and to provide immediate humanitarian aid to its population. The Arab/international force would be tasked with the demilitarization of Gaza through a structured and gradual disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) process. This would involve: (a) deploying an Arab/international force to stabilize the area; (b) conducting a systematic and monitored disarmament of militias and individuals; (c) disbanding these militias and reintegrating their members into legitimate civilian and institutional frameworks; and (d) rehabilitating and developing effective non-Hamas Palestinian security forces dedicated to maintaining the public order.

The Consequences of International Recognition of a Palestinian State Depend on Israel’s Response

In principle, as part of a measured decision-making process, Israel could itself recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination—provided a long list of conditions is met. Some of these conditions are mentioned in the French–Saudi declaration and reflect Arab and international positions, such as, for example, that a Palestinian state must be demilitarized and pose no threat to Israel.

In contrast, if the government of Israel chooses retaliatory steps such as annexing territories in the West Bank and Gaza or encouraging Palestinian emigration from both Area C in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it may face international sanctions and the deterioration of diplomatic and economic ties with both Arab and Western countries. Regional normalization efforts, including the Abraham Accords, would be frozen until Israel changes course and shows a willingness to discuss a political arrangement based on two state for two peoples.

Moreover, Israeli opposition to recognizing a Palestinian state could halt the initiatives and willingness of the Arab states and the international community to stabilize and reconstruct  Gaza without Hamas rule and to create the conditions for a “renewed” PA to take control. This would mean that the burden of governing a completely devastated Gaza with two million residents would fall entirely on Israel.

Israeli retaliatory steps could make European threats of boycott and sanctions real and directed at a “sovereign” Israel and not only toward the settlements in Judea and Samaria. On the table are EU efforts to suspend the Association Agreement, exclude Israel from the Horizon funding program, impose arms embargoes, and damage trade deals.

Additionally, international recognition of Palestine may reinforce the Israeli perception that “the whole world is against us” and radicalize positions regarding the conflict. One possible result could be a rise in Jewish terrorism—as recognition of Palestine would be seen by extremist Jewish elements as a threat to the vision of Greater Israel and the biblical commandment to settle the land. Against this backdrop, motivation to attack Palestinians, expel them, and seize hilltops could grow. Violent acts by Jewish extremists, coupled with lack of enforcement, and moves that exacerbate Israel’s international isolation could increase internal tensions and deepen societal rifts within Israeli society.

The Trump administration is expected to continue supporting Israel and to veto any UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state. However, it will be hard-pressed to support Israel indefinitely against the majority of the international community, especially if Israel responds with extreme measures like bringing the Palestinian Authority to a state of economic collapse and annexation.

The issue of the PA is crucial: The Israeli government is preventing the PA’s strengthening and return to control over Gaza because it is seen as a platform for Palestinian statehood. But international recognition will bolster the PA’s diplomatic status and grant it greater access to international bodies and courts. The more the PA challenges and confronts Israel in international courts, the more the Israeli government will be motivated to bring about the PA’s economic and functional collapse. The collapse of the PA would mean the burden of day-to-day existence for Palestinians in the West Bank will fall on Israel.

It is doubtful whether Hamas intended to strengthen the two-state idea with the October 7 attack, but it may take advantage of the international recognition of a Palestinian state as a political gain and leverage it to shape the narrative that only violent resistance yields diplomatic results and the liberation of Palestine. A lack of cooperation with international peace efforts to advance an Israeli–Palestinian arrangement and unilateral retaliatory measures by Israel will erode the Arab and  international commitment to disarm Hamas and end its rule in Gaza—thus aiding its survival as a terrorist army and reinforcing its political relevance in the Palestinian arena.

***

The harrowing images from Gaza, the Israeli government’s rejection of diplomatic initiatives, and declarations of intent to annex territories in the West Bank and Gaza and expel Palestinians from their lands and homes—these are the factors contributing to the tsunami of international recognition for a Palestinian state, born from a growing global understanding that a two-state idea is the only way to resolve the ongoing, bloody conflict.

While the practical implications of international recognition are limited, the responses to it and actions that will be interpreted as evidence that Israel does not intend to seek and implement an arrangement to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians are likely to accelerate and intensify this political tsunami—with its threatening security and economic implications. By contrast, if the Israeli government chooses to condemn a unilateral international initiative but refrain from defiant countermeasures, it will be able to manage escalating diplomatic and security challenges while carefully navigating complex international relations.