Recognizing a Palestinian State: Implications and Arguments

By Randy Pinsky

In September 2025, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney took a bold and controversial move by following the United Kingdom and France in recognizing a Palestinian state. This action received immediate condemnation by Israel and the United States, and approval by others - including Hamas, the terrorist organization. What are the implications and concerns of such an action, and what impact is it projected to have for stability in the region?

Some Context

A global obsession on the Middle East has seen cities flooded by keffiyeh-wearing protestors demanding for a ‘free Palestine’, even before Israel responded to the Hamas attack. All they want, they assert, is for the Palestinians to have a state of their own. 

Partially to appease them and partially in response to claims for progress towards peaceful coexistence, since 2023, over 140 countries have endorsed a Palestinian state. Out of the five permanent members of the United Nations’ Security Council (China, Russia, France, the UK and the US), only the US has withheld its vote, meaning it would maintain observer status as opposed to becoming a full UN member.  

The New York Declaration

Momentum towards recognition of a Palestine state started with a ‘global alliance’ brokered between Saudi Arabia and the European Union, sparking a series of events starting in September 2024. As stated by The Crisis Group, “The objective has been to promote practical steps toward a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, as well as to revive a political process to resolve the conflict.”

At an earlier summit that year in July, a joint statement - what became known as The New York Declaration - “laid out commitments to end the Gaza war, empower the Palestinians with sovereignty, ensure both Israeli and Palestinian security, and advance Middle Eastern Integration.” It would be endorsed by the UN General Assembly a few months later. 

With various governments joining the recognition bandwagon, what are the implications of such a move? Will it lead to meaningful change for peaceful coexistence in the region? Is the two-state solution it is seeking to actualize, still a viable option…or has its infeasibility been demonstrated through the numerous past peace attempts?

First Off; What Is a State?

One of the most pressing concerns expressed by critics of a Palestinian state is the vagueness of several of its components. President Macron of France is a case in point, announcing, “We must finally build the State of Palestine, ensure its viability and enable it by accepting its demilitarization and fully recognizing Israel,” yet provided no details how this would be achieved. 

Traditionally, new states need to first have four necessary qualifications as stipulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States; a defined territory, a permanent population, a functioning government, and the capacity to open relations with other states. While some critics point to a eurocentric context in which the convention was drafted, does Palestine meet these requirements?

The Four Conditions

First; a defined territory: What would the borders be? Would it encompass the West Bank and Gaza? Where would be its capital? Would East Jerusalem be co-shared?

Second; a permanent population: The Palestinians pose a unique challenge in that refugee status is inherited as a political statement. For decades, billions have been funneled to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which exclusively focuses on Palestinian healthcare, education, and development projects. Would citizenship nullify the need and justification for this organization?

Third; a functioning government: What would the government of a Palestinian state look like? Currently Hamas rules Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, the West Bank. While Western countries have asserted that Hamas is to have no part in future governing (again, with very few details) would this by default grant almost automatic legitimacy to the Palestinian Authority, notwithstanding charges of abuse, corruption and incitement of violence?

And finally; having open relations with other states: Will a condition of a Palestinian state be to recognize the existence of neighbouring Israel and agree to peacefully coexist?

While critics expose the vagueness of these four points, advocates claim these are mere details to be ironed out. Additionally, while some feel statehood ought to only come about after the resolution of the conflict, the Saudi-EU conference message was one of advocating “a change of paradigm [where] Palestinian statehood should not be a result of peace, but rather its prerequisite." This sentiment was echoed by several leaders at the UN conference who stated, "Palestinian independence ought to be treated as an inherent right, not a reward.”

The Two-State Solution; Still a Viable Plan?

One of the main rationales behind recognizing a Palestinian state is to revive the long-espoused two-state solution touted by diplomats across the world as ‘the’ means for “settl[ing] decades of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” If only there were two states for two peoples, the theory went, there would be peaceful coexistence.

Yet many fail to recall that a Palestinian state has been offered - several times - being an integral part of all the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. On more than five occasions, including the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 1978 Camp David Accords, the Palestinians were offered a state of their own however rejected it, claiming they did not believe Israel would honor the commitment. 

To satirize the Passover quote, what would make this time any different? 

Security Concerns

Most Israelis are sceptical about the claims that a Palestinian state would result in inherent stability in the region, self-governance and advancement, as previous attempts have been derailed by extremist elements. 

The oft-cited example is how in 2005, Israel pulled out every single Jewish individual living in Gaza and gave the land to the Palestinians as a tangible opportunity for self-rule. With fully functioning businesses, hospitals, advanced greenhouses and homes left behind, it was projected that this would be a critical turning point. Instead, all infrastructure was destroyed and a focus was made on building a network of underground tunnels used for smuggling weapons. 

Additionally, it must be recalled that the language chanted at every protest- “From the river to the sea”- does not evoke a desire for peaceful co-existence. Rather, it alludes to a takeover of the land of Israel, not living alongside it. 

So is there truly a desire for two-states? 

Claims of Preconditions - and Yet…

While France promised to simply acknowledge Palestine as a state, countries like Canada specified that recognition would be contingent upon certain pre-conditions being met. These included moves towards a ceasefire, the disarmament of Hamas, and assurance it would not play a role in the future government of the state.

In a move which angered many, the Carney government did not wait for any progress to be made on the preconditions, but went ahead and approved the recognition in September 2025. Not only did this unilateral act undermine the inherent meaning of pre-conditions, but it removed all incentive on the part of Hamas for any action. This in fact, led to a delay in the very delicate negotiations of a ceasefire. 

According to The American Jewish Committee, "Recognizing a Palestinian state now sends a dangerous message - that political gains can be achieved through mass violence. It strengthens extremists at the very moment they should be losing legitimacy.”

They continued, “on the surface, recognition may appear to be a bold diplomatic gesture aimed at jump-starting a two-state solution and placing political pressure on Israel. In reality, it risks rewarding terrorism, deepening instability, and delaying the hard work that real peace demands.” 

All Those in Favour…

Those who have advocated for a Palestinian state believe this is critical for self-determination and self-rule. With most of the member states of the European Union - both Israel’s largest trading partners and the biggest sponsor of the PA - formally recognizing Palestine, many believe this will result in sanctioning pressure to be placed on Israel for compliance.

As a state, Palestine would be able to engage in trade negotiations, partnerships and international forums with other nations, open embassies with full diplomatic status, and approach the International Criminal Court. According to Nomi Bar-Yaacov, a peace negotiator with The Geneva Centre for Security Policy, recognition "doesn't change anything immediately but it gives the Palestinians a much higher stake in negotiations, because when you're negotiating state versus state, it's not the same as negotiating between a state and an unrecognized state [or] a state that is just an entity."

Yet for many, recognition is still not deemed as sufficient. They claim this is merely a symbolic means for Western governments to ‘save face’ and appear to be doing something when little tangibly would improve for the average Palestinian life.

…And All Those Against

The timing of state recognition by the triad of Canada, the UK and France was not in fact arbitrary, but rather, quite intentional. Many speculate Carney rushed through the process, bypassing several regulatory actions, in order to make an impact when presenting at the September 2025 General Assembly. For the United Kingdom, this is seen as a means for reconciling decades of colonial guilt. For France, “Macron is struggling domestically with both a political and an economic crisis [so] has responded, not unexpectedly, by redoubling his efforts to play a leadership role on the international scene.”  

The New York Declaration spoke about promises of reform made by the Palestinian Authority, including a commitment to hold elections in the coming year, yet no mention was made about disarmament, “any process of mutual recognition," or the release of the hostages. “From Israel’s perspective, this seems backward,” stated The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “giving the concession on recognizing a Palestinian state today in exchange for something (elections) the PA leader promises to do in the future, a promise made and broken many times before.”

According to Thinc Israel, “recognition as a state of an entity that is not a state conflicts with international law; it does not address the true causes of the conflict, and it makes a peace agreement less, not more, likely.”

The outcome remains to be seen.