After war with Iran, countries call for a Palestinian state
Recognition without security measure in place undermines peace and endangers Israel.
By Stephen M. Flatow
Stephen M. Flatow is president of the Religious Zionists of America. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995, and author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror. (The RZA is not affiliated with any American or Israeli political party.)
Israel, with support from the United States, makes the Middle East and Europe safer. So, how is it being repaid? With calls for the creation of a Palestinian state, made unilaterally.
Countries such as France, Ireland, Spain and Norway have already moved toward recognizing Palestinian statehood. The United Kingdom and others may soon follow. Some present this as a bold step toward peace. In reality, unilateral recognition undermines Israel’s security, emboldens extremists and sets back the cause of genuine peace.
From Israel’s standpoint, these declarations bypass the essentials of any viable two-state solution: re-educating the Palestinian public away from violence, enforceable security guarantees, mutually agreed borders and complete demilitarization. Without these, Palestinian statehood could become a launching pad for further violence, not a foundation for peace.
For decades, international consensus held that a Palestinian state should emerge from bilateral negotiations—covering security, refugees, Jerusalem and borders. That was the premise of the Oslo Accords, backed by successive U.S. administrations and U.N. resolutions.
Unilateral recognition upends that process. It rewards a corrupt Palestinian leadership with statehood while demanding no concessions. Worse, it empowers rejectionist forces like Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, disarm, or abandon terrorism. If statehood is handed over without commitments to coexistence, why would Palestinian leaders compromise in future talks?
Such recognition removes incentives for negotiation and undermines Israel’s leverage over existential issues: defensible borders, airspace, intelligence-sharing and control over the presence of foreign forces. One has to ask: How long before North Korean “advisers” show up in Palestine?
This isn’t just about pride or symbolism. It’s about Israel’s ability to defend itself from terror and regional threats.
Geography matters. The pre-1967 lines—central to many recognition proposals—leave Israel just nine miles wide at its narrowest point. Those “Auschwitz borders,” as they’ve been called, would make it easy for an invading army (think Oct. 7) to split the country in two. Giving up security control of such areas without ironclad guarantees is a risk no Israeli government can take.
A premature Palestinian state could also unravel the fragile network of counterterrorism coordination and border arrangements that protect both Israelis and Palestinians. Any future Palestinian entity must be fully demilitarized—no rockets, tunnels or heavy weapons—and subject to strict border oversight to prevent arms smuggling and foreign fighters.
Israel’s current, if imperfect, coordination with the Palestinian Authority relies on Israeli control of key zones. Granting statehood before new security arrangements are in place would likely break those ties and create a vacuum—one that terror groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad would be quick to exploit.
Supporters of recognition claim that statehood will moderate Palestinian politics. But the Gaza experience tells a different story. Israel’s 2005 disengagement was meant to reduce tensions and empower Palestinian self-rule. Instead, Hamas seized power and launched repeated wars. More than 20,000 rockets have been fired at Israel from Gaza since, culminating in the horrors of Oct. 7.
The lesson? Sovereignty without accountability breeds violence. Goodwill gestures can be hijacked by extremists. Real peace requires mutual responsibility, not unilateral giveaways.
European governments may act with good intentions, but their actions could worsen the conflict. By rewarding intransigence and bypassing negotiations, they sideline pragmatic voices and empower militants.
Across Israel’s political spectrum, there’s broad agreement: Palestinian statehood must not come at the cost of Israeli security. Recognition, if it comes, must be tied to enforceable commitments:
- A demilitarized Palestinian state with no offensive weapons;
- A verifiable end to incitement and terror support;
- Full Israeli access to intelligence and early warning systems;
- Agreed borders ensuring defensible perimeters;
- Permanent Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.
These are not obstacles to peace; they are its foundation. Any agreement must reflect the region’s hard realities, not idealism from afar.
The desire for peace is real on all sides. But peace cannot be imposed, especially not by sacrificing one nation’s security for symbolic gestures. If the world truly seeks a lasting solution, it must return to negotiation, mutual recognition and reciprocal obligations.
As Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann said in 1947 following the U.N. partition vote, statehood is not handed over “on a magesh hakessef”—a silver platter. It must be earned and secured by those who genuinely seek to live in peace.
Anything less risks not reconciliation, but continued bloodshed.
This column can be reviewed on line
here.
Posts
