When the United Kingdom, France, Australia, and Canada recently announced their recognition of Palestine, they framed it as a bold step toward peace and the fruition of the two-state solution declared by the UN in 1947.
Their leaders described the move as a way to break the eternal deadlock of violence and give Palestinians hope for self-determination. But in Israel, where memories of October 7 continue to control daily life, and the war with Hamas and by extension, Iran, are about to enter a third year, the decision landed like a thunderclap.
Many have claimed that the recognition is pure idealistic trumpeting, with no real scope for implementation on the ground. However, for many Israelis, this recognition was in no way a path to a peaceful solution but a reward for rejectionism. As The Jerusalem Post and many others pointed out, it was simply a reward for October 7.
Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Iran’s other proxies have made no secret of their aims. They do not want a state alongside Israel, but a state in place of Israel. A two-state solution is hard to implement when one side believes in the destruction of the other.
To recognize Palestine now, while these groups remain entrenched and armed, despite claims that it is impossible for them to continue in a legitimate Palestinian state, feels less like international diplomacy and more like legitimizing a neighbor who still openly calls for your destruction.
And so the question emerges: if Western democracies are serious about recognizing a Palestinian state, are they also willing to guarantee Israel’s security?
The recognition of Palestine as a state is not a new idea. Over 130 countries have already extended diplomatic recognition to the Palestinians, most of them in the Global South. But the decisions by the UK, France, Australia, and Canada carry particular weight. These are Western democracies that present themselves as Israel’s allies, states that are part of NATO or its strategic partnerships, and countries that have stood with Israel in principle, even when disagreeing on individual cases such as settlements or military campaigns.
This year’s recognition, however, comes at a moment of profound vulnerability for the Jewish state. Israel is still fighting Hamas in Gaza, nearly two years after October 7, the Houthis of Yemen are still attacking Israel on a regular basis, and Israeli leaders have stated that the war with Iran is nowhere near fully over.
To recognize Palestine in this climate risks looking like appeasement. Far from encouraging a moderate approach, something unthinkable to the jihadists who run these groups, it sends a message that the Palestinian cause can be advanced despite committing the worst atrocities since World War II.
So the respective Western leaders - Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Mark Carney, and Anthoney Albanese - have stated that in no way will Hamas be allowed to remain in power in any future Palestinian state, therefore, how can statehood be a reward for October 7?
Are these leaders then considering implementing the Palestinian Authority as the ruling power? An authority that continues to shell out millions of dollars for Palestinian terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands. The leadership of Mahmoud Abbas? A man who has not held elections in nearly two decades and who is widely discredited among his own people.
Abbas on Thursday told the UN General Assembly (where he spoke via video link due to a US travel ban) said he was ready to work with US President Donald Trump, Saudi Arabia, France and the United Nations to implement a Gaza peace plan adopted at a September 22 conference, which he said could pave the way for a just peace and broader regional cooperation. To many in Israel, his words will not be treated with genuine earnestness.
This is a man who authored a doctoral thesis questioning the scale of the Holocaust, a fact that continues to stain his credibility as a partner for peace. To legitimize this leadership while branding it the foundation of a future democratic state is a blind step forward by the West.
The Palestinian Authority is the body that represents the interests of the Palestinian people on the international geopolitical stage. It is the group that sits at the UN and takes part in other international agencies and diplomatic relations. It has shown no inclination for true peace with Israel since the Oslo Accords were signed.
The recognition also complicates Israel’s military status. If a Palestinian state is indeed created, what happens after the first rockets come over from Gaza? What happens when a Palestinian climbs on a bus in Jerusalem and shoots half the bus dead? Does Israel have the right to respond with force against a sovereign state responsible for more dead Israelis?
Most dangerously, recognition could embolden Israel’s enemies. Hamas leaders, embattled in Gaza, may now feel they have the wind at their backs. Hezbollah, attempting to come back from the brink, can argue it is fighting not just for southern Lebanon but for a newly recognized Palestinian state.
History can offer lessons about what happens when states are given recognition or assurances without security guarantees. In 1994, Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for the Budapest Memorandum, in which the US, the UK, and Russia pledged to respect its sovereignty. Two decades later, Russia invaded Crimea, and the West’s promises proved paper-thin. The Russian invasion of Ukraine may have looked slightly different had Ukraine held on to those nuclear weapons, causing the Russians to think twice.
In 1938, Czechoslovakia was abandoned by Britain and France at Munich, told that concessions to Hitler would bring “peace in our time.” Instead, it was dismantled piece by piece.
Israelis are all too familiar with this history. For them, recognition without guarantees is existential peril. If Palestine is to be recognized, it cannot be a Czechoslovakia moment. The West cannot grant legitimacy to a Palestinian state without simultaneously ensuring that Israel’s existence is not endangered by that very act.
What guarantees could look like
What would meaningful guarantees to Israel look like? There are precedents. After the Camp David Accords in 1979 and peace between Israel and Egypt, the plan called for a multinational force to be stationed in the Sinai to maintain peace.
NATO’s Article 5, meanwhile, is the gold standard of international unity: an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, binding the alliance together in collective defense.
For Israel, guarantees could take several forms:
1. A multinational security presence along the Jordan Valley and Gaza’s borders, ensuring demilitarization.
2. Binding Western defense commitments, such as automatic military aid or intervention if Israel faces existential attack.
3. Conditional recognition, tying Palestinian statehood to recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, full demilitarization, and renunciation of violence.
4. Automatic sanctions on Palestinian factions or Iran-backed groups if they engage in terrorism against Israel.
What Israel should demand
Despite the difficulties in the implementation of a Palestinian state, Israel cannot afford to treat recognition as symbolic. It must insist that recognition come with conditions:
1. Recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
2. Complete disarmament of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terror groups.
3. Deployment of an international security framework guaranteed by the West.
Without these, recognition risks isolating Israel diplomatically while leaving it exposed militarily. Israel cannot allow Western leaders to pretend that symbolic gestures substitute for real security.
Israel has lived with many existential threats since its birth in 1948. It has fought wars of survival, endured waves of terrorism, and seen its neighbors call for its annihilation. But rarely has it faced the prospect of the West legitimizing a state that tolerates and celebrates those who wish to destroy it.
Yes, the West has changed during the course of the 21st century. Both in terms of its demographic nature and its ideology. The undercover rise of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and others may have led to a situation where recognition of Palestine may be inevitable. But if the West is serious about a peaceful region, it must also be serious about Israel’s survival.
If Western leaders want history to judge their recognition as a step toward peace rather than another dangerous illusion, they must answer one simple question: Will you also guarantee Israel’s right to exist?