Why declaring a Palestinian state isn’t enough Recognition without rights?

In a recent article for Foreign Ministry, professors Marc Lynch and Shibley Telhami explores the renewed international push to recognize a Palestinian state, particularly in the wake of escalating violence in Gaza and shifting political dynamics in the Middle East. As the authors point out, while recognition of Palestine holds symbolic weight and potential diplomatic leverage, it is fraught with challenges in the absence of meaningful change on the ground.

The revival of recognition efforts

The scheduled UN conference on the two-state solution, led by France and Saudi Arabia, was poised to revive the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as a framework for peace. Yet its postponement, caused by the outbreak of a 12-day war between Israel and Iran (with U.S. involvement), underscores the fragility of international diplomatic efforts. 

Nonetheless, French President Emmanuel Macron’s declaration of intent to recognize Palestine, “whatever the circumstances,” reflects growing frustration among global powers toward Israel's actions and a desire for an alternative path.

The U.S. government’s rejection of the conference, especially under the Trump administration, illustrates the deepening ideological divide. Ambassador Mike Huckabee’s suggestion that a future Palestinian state should not be in the occupied territories but in “a Muslim country” captures the administration’s stark departure from established international norms.

Shifting ground realities

On the ground, the authors argue, the two-state solution appears increasingly obsolete. The war in Gaza has intensified Israeli control, accompanied by settler violence and efforts at West Bank annexation. Netanyahu’s public opposition to a Palestinian state, along with the absence of Palestinian statehood in Trump’s broader regional “grand bargain,” points to a consolidation of a one-state reality where Palestinians live under unequal conditions.

However, Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy might unexpectedly open a path toward recognition. The spiraling costs of the Gaza war, both financial ($22 billion) and strategic (e.g., dealing with the Houthis), could pressure the administration to seek an exit strategy. Recognition of Palestine, even symbolically, could serve multiple objectives: satisfying Gulf allies, easing domestic discontent, and redirecting the broader Middle East agenda.

Symbolism vs substance

Lynch and Telhami caution that recognition without enforcement or real political consequences for Israeli expansionism risks becoming a hollow gesture. De jure sovereignty must not substitute for confronting Israel’s actions in the occupied territories. Without accompanying mechanisms—such as penalties for violations of international law or support for Palestinian institution-building—recognition could dilute international political capital.

Historical precedent supports skepticism. Palestine’s 2012 nonvoting UN membership enabled access to international institutions but failed to secure independence. Still, a surge in recognition—especially by influential European states—could mark a turning point. It would isolate Israel diplomatically and amplify Palestinian claims under international law, particularly after the International Court of Justice ruled Israeli occupation illegal.

Strategic leverage for Saudi Arabia

The authors highlight how recognition could serve Saudi Arabia’s interests. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, under regional pressure following the Gaza war, could reclaim leadership by tying normalization with Israel to Palestinian statehood, outmaneuvering rivals like the UAE. This linkage would restore some legitimacy to the Arab Peace Initiative and potentially restart regional diplomacy.

Trump's unpredictable calculus

Although Trump has consistently supported Israel and sanctioned international legal bodies like the ICC, he is not bound by convention. His moves on Syria and Iran, as well as his alignment with Gulf monarchies, demonstrate a willingness to deviate. 

Given Israel’s deepening isolation and dependence on U.S. support, Trump may see in recognition an opportunity to reassert U.S. dominance in the region while leveraging it for other strategic gains, such as an Iran deal.

“Recognizing Palestine” presents a nuanced analysis of a moment of both risk and opportunity. Recognition, while powerful, cannot replace accountability. It may restore international focus and provide leverage—but only if coupled with concrete demands and strategic follow-through. 

In the absence of a credible pathway to statehood, it risks becoming another symbolic act in a decades-long stalemate. 

By Aghakazim Guliyev