French President Emmanuel Macron took to X on July 24 to announce: “Consistent with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine.” He placed no conditions on that recognition, beyond a vague remark that the demilitarization of Hamas “should be ensured,”— a formulation so vague as to be meaningless.
Moreover, he made no demand that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, end its policy of paying stipends to terrorists, or abandon its narrative of perpetual struggle against Zionism and incitement to hatred of Jews.
Several other major countries have since followed suit—among them the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia—with New Zealand too now considering its position. All, like France, are considered allies of Israel. Slovenia, Ireland, Norway, and Spain have also announced recognition since the start of the Gaza war, which began with the October 7, 2023, massacre of some 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of 251 others.
France and the UK stand out—not only as permanent members of the UN Security Council, but as G7 economies —along with Canada—whose actions carry global political weight.
Macron’s statement—set to be formalized before the United Nations General Assembly in September—was not a bold diplomatic stroke but the opening shot in a wave of international moves that legitimize the fruits of mass violence and signal that terrorism can yield diplomatic rewards.
The French President has secured “commitments” in a letter from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas yet has offered no indication of concrete steps to ensure they are met.
France has not even conditioned its recognition on removing the most dangerous obstacle to peace: Hamas’s control of Gaza with its stated mission to destroy Israel. Far from a harmless gesture, the move legitimizes a territory ruled by a terrorist organization, effectively rewarding mass slaughter and hostage-taking as a path to statehood. In fact, Gaza was—and remains—a quasi-Palestinian state, serving as a clear example of what such a state would look like: a launchpad for vicious attacks against Israel. Macron’s stance takes willful blindness to an extreme.
The United Kingdom says it will recognize a Palestinian state in September unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire, halts annexation measures in the West Bank and formally commits to a two-state solution. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said Hamas “must release all hostages and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza,” he has stopped short of making those demands a condition for recognition. In other words, the UK is prepared to extend diplomatic legitimacy to a Palestinian state even while Hamas remains armed, entrenched, and free to attack again some day.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy has argued that Britain bears a “special burden of responsibility” as the former mandatory power in Palestine and the author of the Balfour Declaration. While professing “steadfast” support for Israel’s security, Lammy claimed that the Balfour pledge that Palestinian rights “would not be prejudiced” had not been fulfilled—calling it a “historical injustice which continues to unfold.” This is historical revisionism cloaked in morality: a selective rewriting of the past to justify present policy, sidestepping the fact that the main driver of conflict today is Palestinian rejectionism and terrorism.
This revisionism is central to both the British and French positions. The colonial powers that divided up the Middle East after World War I now seek to absolve themselves of their “original sin.” Lammy might first reread the Balfour Declaration, which did not mention the Palestinians or their national rights. It stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”—a territory that included Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip—where His Majesty’s Government viewed “with favor the establishment… of a national home for the Jewish people.”
Neither France nor the UK has placed enforceable conditions on Hamas. Macron’s aside about demilitarization is a diplomatic fig leaf; Starmer’s references to hostages and political exclusion are aspirations, not red lines. From Israel’s standpoint, this is a dangerous omission. Recognition without dismantling Hamas’s military infrastructure or removing it from power grants the group both a symbolic and strategic victory: statehood in all but name, while living to fight another day.
Canada and Australia, by contrast, have at least linked recognition to conditions such as democratic reform, exclusion of Hamas from governance, and demilitarization of Palestinian territories. These measures are far from watertight but at least acknowledge that recognition without change is meaningless.
The reluctance to make Hamas’s removal a prerequisite reflects a toxic mix of appeasement and domestic political calculation. European leaders are playing to constituencies that have grown increasingly hostile to Israel. In doing so, they sidestep the hard security reality: a Palestinian state in which Hamas remains intact is not a partner for peace, but an armed launchpad for future war.
Nor do the French and British statements, as mentioned above, impose real demands on the Palestinian Authority. Instead, they accept at face value Abbas’s letter to Macron—full of familiar promises to urge Hamas to disarm, condemn terrorism, and implement reforms. Israelis have decades of experience with such broken promises.
October 7 proved—at horrific cost—that Hamas will use any respite to rearm and prepare for the next assault. By refusing to make disarmament and political exclusion the minimum price for recognition, Paris and London risk confirming the lesson that terrorism works. Rather than advancing peace, they are creating a precedent that will embolden every faction committed to Israel’s destruction.
Recognition without neutralizing Hamas legitimizes an entity that may remain under the control or influence of a terrorist organization. This entrenches the problem Israel has faced since Hamas seized Gaza in 2007: a hostile, well-armed enclave committed to Israel’s destruction, free to restock rockets, train terrorists, and plan its next campaign—this time under the shield of sovereignty.
Imagining that Hamas will be removed by the Palestinian Authority is unrealistic to say the least. The PA has repeatedly failed to assert its sovereignty. It is worth recalling that in 2005, when Israel withdrew from Gaza, a well-armed PA was in charge and Hamas was still only a militia. Within two years, the PA had been driven out entirely. And while the PA’s rhetoric and tactics differ from Hamas’s, its long-term vision regarding Israel is not that different from that of Hamas
If the massacre of 1,200 Israelis and the abduction of more than 250 hostages are rewarded with recognition, Hamas’s position will only be strengthened. Recognition under these conditions tells Palestinian leaders that violence and rejectionism carry no cost—and may even pay dividends. As Hamas political bureau member Ghazi Hamad told Al-Jazeera on August 2, 2025, international recognition of a Palestinian state is an outcome of the October 7 attack.
Recognition outside a negotiated framework emboldens hard-liners, marginalizes moderates, and erodes Israel’s leverage. Worst of all, Europe will have thrown away one of its few sources of pressure, trading real influence for empty symbolism.
Despite the headlines, recognition will change little on the ground. Its main impact will be symbolic, with tangible consequences likely confined to the legal arena—such as expanded Palestinian recourse to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. These gestures may generate diplomatic theater but will do nothing to address the conflict’s core drivers. Moreover, against the backdrop of recognition, Israel appears poised to advance strategically located settlement construction, notably the E-1 plan.
The danger is not that recognition will instantly enhance Palestinian capabilities, but that it will hand Hamas a political lifeline at the very moment Israel is pressing hardest on the battlefield. Hamas’s long-term goal remains Israel’s destruction, but its immediate priority is survival—maintaining its grip on Gaza and its influence over the Palestinian national movement. Recognition without disarmament bolsters Hamas at the very moment Israel is pressing to break its grip, hardening its resolve to reject a hostage deal and cling to power—handing it a lifeline just as military pressure reaches its peak.
The questions ahead are stark: Is this wave of recognition a passing gesture or the start of a sustained shift? Is Europe engaged merely in moral posturing, or will it move toward sustained pressure and even sanctions that undermine Israel? Either way, Israel cannot afford to wait. It must act decisively—militarily and diplomatically—to ensure that events on the ground, not gesture politics, determine the outcome. Only then can it lay the foundations for a Gaza that is no longer a launchpad for terror.
JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
Home page / Articles / Rewarding October 7: Why Recognizing a Palestinian State Now Is a Dangerous Mistake
Rewarding October 7: Why Recognizing a Palestinian State Now Is a Dangerous Mistake
Photo: IMAGO / Bestimage
French President Emmanuel Macron took to X on July 24 to announce: “Consistent with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine.” He placed no conditions on that recognition, beyond a vague remark that the demilitarization of Hamas “should be ensured,”— a formulation so vague as to be meaningless.
Moreover, he made no demand that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, end its policy of paying stipends to terrorists, or abandon its narrative of perpetual struggle against Zionism and incitement to hatred of Jews.
Several other major countries have since followed suit—among them the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia—with New Zealand too now considering its position. All, like France, are considered allies of Israel. Slovenia, Ireland, Norway, and Spain have also announced recognition since the start of the Gaza war, which began with the October 7, 2023, massacre of some 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of 251 others.
France and the UK stand out—not only as permanent members of the UN Security Council, but as G7 economies —along with Canada—whose actions carry global political weight.
Macron’s statement—set to be formalized before the United Nations General Assembly in September—was not a bold diplomatic stroke but the opening shot in a wave of international moves that legitimize the fruits of mass violence and signal that terrorism can yield diplomatic rewards.
The French President has secured “commitments” in a letter from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas yet has offered no indication of concrete steps to ensure they are met.
France has not even conditioned its recognition on removing the most dangerous obstacle to peace: Hamas’s control of Gaza with its stated mission to destroy Israel. Far from a harmless gesture, the move legitimizes a territory ruled by a terrorist organization, effectively rewarding mass slaughter and hostage-taking as a path to statehood. In fact, Gaza was—and remains—a quasi-Palestinian state, serving as a clear example of what such a state would look like: a launchpad for vicious attacks against Israel. Macron’s stance takes willful blindness to an extreme.
The United Kingdom says it will recognize a Palestinian state in September unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire, halts annexation measures in the West Bank and formally commits to a two-state solution. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said Hamas “must release all hostages and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza,” he has stopped short of making those demands a condition for recognition. In other words, the UK is prepared to extend diplomatic legitimacy to a Palestinian state even while Hamas remains armed, entrenched, and free to attack again some day.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy has argued that Britain bears a “special burden of responsibility” as the former mandatory power in Palestine and the author of the Balfour Declaration. While professing “steadfast” support for Israel’s security, Lammy claimed that the Balfour pledge that Palestinian rights “would not be prejudiced” had not been fulfilled—calling it a “historical injustice which continues to unfold.” This is historical revisionism cloaked in morality: a selective rewriting of the past to justify present policy, sidestepping the fact that the main driver of conflict today is Palestinian rejectionism and terrorism.
This revisionism is central to both the British and French positions. The colonial powers that divided up the Middle East after World War I now seek to absolve themselves of their “original sin.” Lammy might first reread the Balfour Declaration, which did not mention the Palestinians or their national rights. It stated that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”—a territory that included Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip—where His Majesty’s Government viewed “with favor the establishment… of a national home for the Jewish people.”
Neither France nor the UK has placed enforceable conditions on Hamas. Macron’s aside about demilitarization is a diplomatic fig leaf; Starmer’s references to hostages and political exclusion are aspirations, not red lines. From Israel’s standpoint, this is a dangerous omission. Recognition without dismantling Hamas’s military infrastructure or removing it from power grants the group both a symbolic and strategic victory: statehood in all but name, while living to fight another day.
Canada and Australia, by contrast, have at least linked recognition to conditions such as democratic reform, exclusion of Hamas from governance, and demilitarization of Palestinian territories. These measures are far from watertight but at least acknowledge that recognition without change is meaningless.
The reluctance to make Hamas’s removal a prerequisite reflects a toxic mix of appeasement and domestic political calculation. European leaders are playing to constituencies that have grown increasingly hostile to Israel. In doing so, they sidestep the hard security reality: a Palestinian state in which Hamas remains intact is not a partner for peace, but an armed launchpad for future war.
Nor do the French and British statements, as mentioned above, impose real demands on the Palestinian Authority. Instead, they accept at face value Abbas’s letter to Macron—full of familiar promises to urge Hamas to disarm, condemn terrorism, and implement reforms. Israelis have decades of experience with such broken promises.
October 7 proved—at horrific cost—that Hamas will use any respite to rearm and prepare for the next assault. By refusing to make disarmament and political exclusion the minimum price for recognition, Paris and London risk confirming the lesson that terrorism works. Rather than advancing peace, they are creating a precedent that will embolden every faction committed to Israel’s destruction.
Recognition without neutralizing Hamas legitimizes an entity that may remain under the control or influence of a terrorist organization. This entrenches the problem Israel has faced since Hamas seized Gaza in 2007: a hostile, well-armed enclave committed to Israel’s destruction, free to restock rockets, train terrorists, and plan its next campaign—this time under the shield of sovereignty.
Imagining that Hamas will be removed by the Palestinian Authority is unrealistic to say the least. The PA has repeatedly failed to assert its sovereignty. It is worth recalling that in 2005, when Israel withdrew from Gaza, a well-armed PA was in charge and Hamas was still only a militia. Within two years, the PA had been driven out entirely. And while the PA’s rhetoric and tactics differ from Hamas’s, its long-term vision regarding Israel is not that different from that of Hamas
If the massacre of 1,200 Israelis and the abduction of more than 250 hostages are rewarded with recognition, Hamas’s position will only be strengthened. Recognition under these conditions tells Palestinian leaders that violence and rejectionism carry no cost—and may even pay dividends. As Hamas political bureau member Ghazi Hamad told Al-Jazeera on August 2, 2025, international recognition of a Palestinian state is an outcome of the October 7 attack.
Recognition outside a negotiated framework emboldens hard-liners, marginalizes moderates, and erodes Israel’s leverage. Worst of all, Europe will have thrown away one of its few sources of pressure, trading real influence for empty symbolism.
Despite the headlines, recognition will change little on the ground. Its main impact will be symbolic, with tangible consequences likely confined to the legal arena—such as expanded Palestinian recourse to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. These gestures may generate diplomatic theater but will do nothing to address the conflict’s core drivers. Moreover, against the backdrop of recognition, Israel appears poised to advance strategically located settlement construction, notably the E-1 plan.
The danger is not that recognition will instantly enhance Palestinian capabilities, but that it will hand Hamas a political lifeline at the very moment Israel is pressing hardest on the battlefield. Hamas’s long-term goal remains Israel’s destruction, but its immediate priority is survival—maintaining its grip on Gaza and its influence over the Palestinian national movement. Recognition without disarmament bolsters Hamas at the very moment Israel is pressing to break its grip, hardening its resolve to reject a hostage deal and cling to power—handing it a lifeline just as military pressure reaches its peak.
The questions ahead are stark: Is this wave of recognition a passing gesture or the start of a sustained shift? Is Europe engaged merely in moral posturing, or will it move toward sustained pressure and even sanctions that undermine Israel? Either way, Israel cannot afford to wait. It must act decisively—militarily and diplomatically—to ensure that events on the ground, not gesture politics, determine the outcome. Only then can it lay the foundations for a Gaza that is no longer a launchpad for terror.
JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
may interest you
Partnering for Common Interests
“Iran in Light of the Nuclear Talks” – Biweekly Status Report (May 11 – May 25, 2025)
Star Wars Rebooted
Egypt-China Air Drill Signals Deepening Strategic Alignment
The Japan, China, Iran Triangle: Strategic Implications for Israel
Putin Cannot Influence Iran to Succumb to Trump’s Nuclear Ultimatum
Houthi Expansion to the Horn of Africa: Understanding the Nature of the Threat
With Sudan’s Parallel Government Deepening the Divide, Can Common Ground Still Be Reached?
Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser
Director of JISS
Ilan Evyatar
Recent publications
Former IDF Intel Chief: Can Hamas Release All Hostages in 72 Hours?
A Mediterranean Partnership: A Faded Idea Israel Should Put Back on Its Diplomatic Agenda
Iran’s Antisemitic Campaign against the Baku Rabbis’ Conference
By signing up, you agree to our user agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions), our privacy policy and cookie statement, and to receive marketing and billing emails from jiss. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Sign up for the newsletter
For up-to-date analysis and commentary.