Recognition without reality

By rushing to recognize a Palestinian state, Western leaders embolden Hamas and delay the only real path to peace: disarmament, reform and negotiation.

Western recognition of Palestinian statehood without reform or disarmament is symbolism, not peace—and risks emboldening terror.

This past week, several Western governments—the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Australia—announced their recognition of a Palestinian state. At the United Nations, their diplomats framed the move as a bold step toward reviving the two-state solution.

 In reality, it is neither bold nor helpful. It is a symbolic gesture that will not bring peace to either Israelis or Palestinians. Worse, it risks encouraging further violence from Hamas and other terror groups who already view murder as the most effective tool in their arsenal.

 

Steve Cadman, CC BY-SA 2.0
via Wikimedia Commons

I understand the appeal of recognition from a distance. But it’s symbolism without substance. It costs nothing politically at home for Western leaders to talk about peace. It allows them to signal moral concern without having to grapple with the brutal reality of what Palestinians have built—or, more accurately, failed to build—in Gaza and the West Bank.

 But symbolism is not statecraft. Recognition does not create security forces, disarm terror groups, establish functioning institutions or teach accountability to a population fed a steady diet of anti-Israel propaganda.

 As The Wall Street Journal editorial page noted this week, recognition is detached from Middle East reality. It changes the diplomatic conversation in New York, not the facts on the ground in Nablus or Rafah. The New York Times, for its part, has carried sympathetic voices arguing that recognition is an overdue correction to decades of imbalance. But what these “pro” arguments overlook is crucial: Unless the underlying problems are addressed, this shortcut guarantees more bloodshed, not less.

Consider the timing. Hamas still controls Gaza. Its leaders openly promise more horrific days like Oct. 7. Hostages remain in captivity. Palestinian politics are fractured, elections are nonexistent, and corruption is rampant. To declare “Palestine is a state” in such conditions sends exactly the wrong message: Violence works, governance doesn’t matter, and the world will hand you rewards even if you refuse to disarm.

 Terror groups understand incentives. If recognition comes without demilitarization, then they will trumpet it as vindication of their strategy. For Israelis, this means living under the renewed threat of rockets, kidnappings and cross-border attacks—all justified in the name of a “recognized” cause. For Palestinians, it means another generation consigned to leadership by warlords instead of reformers.

Real peace requires sequencing, not shortcuts. First must come an end to terror, and the disarming of groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Second, there must be credible Palestinian governance reforms—transparent institutions, accountable security forces and leaders chosen in free elections. Third, the parties themselves must negotiate borders, security arrangements and the status of Jerusalem. Only after those steps are credibly underway does recognition become meaningful. Anything else is play-acting.

Imagine if Britain or France had recognized the Confederate States of America in 1862. Such a move would have legitimized a rebellion before the United States had resolved the fundamental questions of slavery and secession. That is exactly what today’s premature recognition of “Palestine” does; it cements dysfunction instead of curing it.

Supporters of recognition like to claim it “levels the playing field” between Israelis and Palestinians. But leveling the playing field while one side is armed to the teeth with Iranian missiles and the other is a democracy fighting for survival is not balance. It is folly. Others argue that recognition restores hope. Yet hollow hope is dangerous; it creates expectations that cannot be met, setting the stage for more disillusionment and more violence.

Even voices sympathetic to the Palestinian cause concede the point. Barbara Slavin, writing for the Stimson Center, described such recognition as “a largely symbolic gesture” that lacks real pressure or follow-through. Vox columnist Abdallah Fayyad likewise acknowledged that recognition by Western nations is “largely symbolic,” motivated by domestic politics more than a workable peace strategy. Pro-Palestinian legal scholar Noura Erakat noted in a piece published by L’Orient Today that recognition, unaccompanied by enforcement or reparations, remains symbolic at best.

 When your own advocates acknowledge that recognition does not change the reality on the ground, it should be a red flag.

 There’s a better path. Western leaders who genuinely care about Israeli-Palestinian peace should stop chasing headlines and start demanding accountability. Recognition should be tied to hard benchmarks: the disarmament of Hamas, the release of hostages, the creation of functioning Palestinian institutions and the holding of real elections. Without those steps, statehood is not a bridge to peace but a recipe for war.

 The Jewish people have always prayed for peace, and Israel has proven again and again its willingness to negotiate, compromise and sacrifice for the chance at a lasting settlement. But peace cannot be built on illusions. Recognizing a Palestinian state in today’s conditions does not hasten peace; it delays it. It does not empower moderates; it emboldens extremists.

 Those who care about a true two-state solution should be the loudest voices opposing this premature recognition. Otherwise, they will find themselves applauding a symbolic victory that becomes a practical tragedy for both Israelis and Palestinians.

 Eight Senate Democrats Support Palestinian Statehood — Here’s Why It’s Dangerous

At first glance, the surge of support by Democratic elected officials for recognizing Palestinian statehood seems an act of moral clarity: After decades of suffering, political displacement and human tragedy, isn’t it overdue for Palestinians to receive the diplomatic recognition so many world powers already afford them?

Beneath the veneer of humanitarian concern and lofty rhetoric, however, lies a host of practical, ethical and strategic problems that Democratic politicians seem to gloss over—and that deserve a harder look from voters and policymakers alike.

Here are the problems with the resolution:

• Recognizing a state of ‘Palestine’ rewards weak governance and terrorist complicity.

One of the central promises made by advocates of statehood is that recognition will help moderate and stabilize Palestinian governance, especially the Palestinian Authority. But much of the Palestinian territories, especially the Gaza Strip, is controlled by Hamas, a group many nations, including the United States, classify as a terrorist organization. How can recognition that bolsters a formal state apparatus avoid strengthening this group or enabling its influence?

U.S. Capitol, CC0 Public Domain

Demands for Palestinian recognition often come with conditions—elections, reform, demilitarization—but there is little credible mechanism or pressure to ensure these conditions are met. Without enforceable guarantees, what many Democratic endorsements risk doing is to reward organizations that have repeatedly undermined peace, nurtured extremism and violated human rights themselves.

• Ignoring the security realities for Israel.

Israel shares a border—and often shares the consequences—of policies in neighboring territories. Every recognition of Palestinian statehood must contend with the decades-long history of cross-border attacks, rocket fire, tunnels and incitement from factions that reject Israel’s right to exist. Democratic politicians who favor recognition as a fait accompli often underplay the real threats to Israel’s security and sovereignty.

To press forward without ensuring robust security arrangements, counterterrorism cooperation, border control and demilitarization is not just naive. It is reckless. The United States has long had an ally in Israel with deep existential concerns; those concerns don’t vanish simply because a political statement is made.

• Undermining peacemaking by preempting negotiation.

The soundest path to peace would seem to be direct negotiation between Israelis and Palestinians, including compromises from both sides. But unilateral recognition—without mutual agreement on borders, security guarantees, the status of Jerusalem, refugees and much else—is tantamount to picking winners before the peace process begins. Democratic support for statehood often reduces complex, bitter disputes into sloganeering. It signals to Israel that diplomatic recognition is the goalpost, not the long journey of compromise.

Meanwhile, Palestinians may be promised recognition without obtaining de facto sovereignty or stability in daily life. Symbolism, after all, does little for those without jobs, clean water or safety from rockets.

• Enter the Senate resolution.

This is no longer a fringe idea. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has introduced a non-binding resolution calling on the United States to recognize a demilitarized State of Palestine alongside Israel. He was joined by a list of co-sponsors: Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). These are not backbenchers; they include leading figures in foreign policy and national security committees.

Their proposal may be symbolic, but symbolism carries weight. A resolution like this signals to the world that swaths of the Democratic Party are willing to bypass negotiations, downplay terrorism and demand concessions from Israel without reciprocal demands of the Palestinians. It validates the long-standing Palestinian strategy of pursuing unilateral recognition in international bodies while avoiding the tough compromises needed for actual peace.

• Domestic accountability and hypocrisy.

Democratic politicians who push for Palestinian statehood tout their humanitarian values, the importance of international law and human rights. Yet many of these same leaders have been silent or weak when it comes to corruption, lack of democratic rule, suppression of dissent and the treatment of minorities within Palestinian governance. Worse, voters within the United States who raise concerns—about antisemitism, about Israel’s security, about inconsistent values—are too often dismissed as being “on the wrong side of history.”

The risk is a foreign policy based more on political identity and grandstanding than on careful, consistent principles. And in democratic systems, that kind of policy tends to produce backlash.

• Consequences: Not just diplomatic, but strategic.

Politically, this position risks alienating crucial allies and donors, both Jewish Americans and others who see Israel’s survival as non-negotiable. Strategically, it could weaken U.S. leverage: If recognition is given without a strong negotiating posture, the United States loses bargaining chips for insisting on peace, reforms or guarantees. It also risks emboldening regional actors who are less interested in peace than in confrontation.

• A call for humility and tough love.

Senators such as Merkley, Van Hollen, Kaine, Sanders, Peter Welch, Tina Smith, Baldwin and Hirono may believe that they are advancing peace by championing Palestinian statehood, but in reality, they are advancing instability. By pushing recognition without demanding disarmament, reform and accountability, they risk creating not a peaceful neighbor for Israel, but another failed state dominated by terror.

Voters should remember exactly who is willing to gamble with Israel’s security—and America’s credibility—in the name of symbolism.

* * *

This column and others by me can be read at JNS.ORG here. 

Stephen M. Flatow

Is the United Nations insane? Another declaration about Palestinian statehood

 As Einstein (or whomever) said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  If that's true, the UN is insane.

Another UN resolution, another exercise in futility

From 1947 to today, every chance for Palestinian statehood has been rejected. No declaration in New York will change that reality.

 

The U.N. General Assembly has once again stepped onto the stage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with grand declarations and high-minded pronouncements. Just last week, it voted to endorse a seven-page declaration that outlines “tangible, timebound and irreversible steps” toward a two-state solution.

 The resolution was backed by Gulf Arab states and European powers, boycotted by the United States and Israel, and condemned by Jerusalem as a “publicity stunt.”

 And a stunt it is.

 

Seal of the United Nations

It is worth reminding ourselves—and the diplomats in New York—that this is hardly the first time that the United Nations has promised to deliver a Palestinian state. In fact, the very body that gathered this past Friday voted for just that in 1947. Resolution 181, known as the Partition Plan, proposed the division of British-ruled Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under international control.

 The Jewish leadership reluctantly accepted the plan, understanding that it was far from perfect but represented a historic opportunity. The Arab world, on the other hand, rejected it outright and chose war instead.

 The Jewish state was born. The Arab state never was.

 Seventy-seven years later, that international body is still talking about creating one. What does that say about the seriousness of these resolutions?

 The fundamental fact that diplomats prefer to ignore is that the Palestinians have had multiple opportunities to establish their own state, and each time they have chosen rejectionism and violence. The 1947 partition plan. The 2000 Camp David talks, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat nearly everything he claimed to want. The 2008 Annapolis process, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went even further.

 In each case, the answer from the Palestinian leadership was “no”—or worse, a new wave of terrorism.

 The current resolution, like so many before it, tries to skirt this history. Instead, it pretends that peace is only a matter of more conferences, more paperwork and more signatures on symbolic declarations. But there is nothing tangible, time-bound or irreversible about demanding concessions from Israel while holding the Palestinians to no standard of accountability whatsoever.

 Consider the grotesque irony of the United Nations condemning both Hamas’s atrocities and Israel’s defensive actions in the same breath. On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas launched the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, massacring civilians, kidnapping children and burning entire families alive in their homes. Yet somehow, in the halls of Turtle Bay, Israel’s efforts to dismantle the Hamas terror organization are given equal moral standing with the terrorists’ crimes. That moral equivalence alone should disqualify the United Nations from being taken seriously as an arbiter of peace.

 The United States and Israel rightly boycotted the July conference that produced this declaration, co-hosted by Saudi Arabia and France. It was clear from the outset that it would be another round of diplomatic theater, aimed not at resolving the conflict but at isolating Israel. No one in Riyadh or Paris truly believes that a U.N. vote will erase decades of Palestinian rejectionism. But it plays well in Arab capitals and provides European leaders with a chance to posture as peacemakers without dealing with the hard truths.

 The hard truth is this: Palestinian statehood cannot be willed into existence by international resolutions. It can only come about through direct negotiations with Israel, based on recognition of the Jewish nation’s legitimacy and a commitment to peaceful coexistence.

 Neither of those preconditions exists today. The Palestinian Authority glorifies terrorists, pays stipends to murderers in Israeli jails and rejects recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad openly declare their goal to destroy Israel and its people. How, then, can any serious person talk about “irreversible steps” toward a two-state solution?

 U.N. diplomats love to use the language of inevitability. They speak as though history bends inexorably toward their preferred outcome. But history has already spoken. The Arabs could have had a state in 1947, but they chose war. They could have had a state in 2000 and 2008, but they chose terrorism. Even today, the Palestinian leadership refuses to make peace, preferring to keep its people in perpetual grievance.

 What the world body is really doing with resolutions like this one is perpetuating that grievance. Each new declaration tells the Palestinians that they don’t have to compromise, don’t have to reform, don’t have to recognize Israel. Just sit back, and the world will deliver you a state on a silver platter. That message is not just misguided. It is dangerous. It fuels more rejectionism, more extremism and more violence.

 Meanwhile, Israel continues to build a thriving, democratic society under constant threat. It has made peace with Egypt, with Jordan, and through the Abraham Accords, with several Arab states. Those breakthroughs happened not because of U.N. resolutions but because leaders in Cairo, Amman, Abu Dhabi and Manama decided that peace and progress were preferable to endless war.

 If Palestinian leaders ever make the same decision, peace with Israel will follow. Until then, the United Nations can churn out as many declarations as it likes. They will be as meaningless as the ones that came before.

 The United Nations loves words like “tangible,” “timebound” and “irreversible.” But for nearly eight decades, its resolutions on Israel and the Palestinians have been anything but. What is truly irreversible is the reality that Israel exists, will continue to exist and will defend itself against those who seek its destruction. That is the one fact the United Nations should accept—if it truly wishes to be relevant.

 (This column first appeared on jns.org.  To read it on line go here.)

Stephen M. Flatow

 

 

 When criticism becomes collapse: J Street’s genocide reckoning

Once “pro-Israel, pro-peace,” its president now says the Jewish state may be committing genocide, raising urgent questions about where dissent ends and damage begins.

In the wake of Hamas’s brutal Oct. 7 massacre and the war that followed, most of the American Jewish community stood where they always have—on the side of Israel’s right to self-defense. But a vocal minority chose another path: undermining Israel at one of its darkest hours.

 

Kibbutz Be'eri in southern Israel, Dec. 19, 2023.
Photo by Moshe Shai/Flash90.

Organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, and increasingly, even J Street, have not merely criticized Israeli policy. They’ve crossed a moral line—providing rhetorical ammunition to Israel’s enemies, weakening U.S. support and sowing confusion in the American Jewish community.

 Their rhetoric may be cloaked in humanitarian language, but their actions—and now their slander—raise an urgent question: Have these groups done harm to Israel during wartime?

 Start with JVP. This group responded to Hamas’s atrocities not with condemnation but with justification. Within days, JVP blamed Israeli “apartheid” and “occupation” for the slaughter of 1,200 men, women and children in southern Israeli communities. They demanded an end to U.S. military aid, accused Israel of war crimes and staged disruptive protests in congressional offices and on major highways.

 This is not moral clarity—it’s moral inversion.

 IfNotNow, a group that claims to represent young progressive Jews, joined the ceasefire chorus almost immediately, even before Israel had buried its dead or begun rescuing the 251 people taken hostage and dragged into Gaza. In August 2025, its activists led protests outside Trump Hotel and Columbus Circle in Manhattan, demanding that Washington halt arms shipments to Israel.

 One wonders if they would have protested U.S. arms to Britain in 1941.

 But perhaps the most troubling shift has come from J Street, long the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby. Until recently, many in the Jewish community believed that while J Street could be sharply critical of Israeli policy, it still operated from a place of concern for Israel’s survival. That illusion collapsed this week.

 In a shocking turn, J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami announced that he now believes Israel may be committing genocide in Gaza. In a Tisha B’Av newsletter, he wrote:

 “I have … been persuaded rationally by legal and scholarly arguments that international courts will one day find that Israel has broken the international genocide convention.”

 He went further: “Until now, I have tried to deflect and defend when challenged to call this genocide. … I simply won’t defend the indefensible.”

 And as if anticipating the backlash, he added: “How can it be that Israel—the state founded by a people who experienced genocide—could itself be committing this most heinous of crimes?”

 Ben-Ami’s words are not merely irresponsible. They are inflammatory. Genocide is the most serious accusation one can level against a nation. It is not a policy critique; it is an allegation of premeditated, systematic mass murder. And to make that claim while Israel fights an enemy that openly calls for its annihilation is a betrayal of both truth and decency.

 This is not a fringe activist speaking. This is the head of a Washington lobby with access to lawmakers and influence in the halls of power. When Jeremy Ben-Ami accuses Israel of genocide, it sends a signal to the media, to Congress and to Israel’s enemies: The Jewish consensus is cracking.

 These groups insist that they are acting in defense of Jewish values. But their words and actions have made Israel’s job harder, not easier. They have given cover to anti-Israel resolutions, weakened bipartisan support and contributed to a global narrative that blames Israel for a war it did not start and never wanted.

 When Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran see Jewish groups denouncing Israel in terms indistinguishable from their own propaganda, they see weakness—and opportunity. These terror regimes aren’t interested in nuance. They are interested in victory. And when J Street speaks of genocide, they hear: “Keep going. The Jews are turning on each other.”

 Let’s be clear: Israel does not demand silence. Israelis themselves debate every aspect of this war. But there is a line between loyal criticism and disloyal defamation. These groups—and now, J Street, most shamefully—have crossed it.

 They do not represent most American Jews. Polling shows that a clear majority support Israel’s war against Hamas and understand that Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization, not a national liberation movement. Most American Jews understand that this is not a war of choice. It is a war of survival.

 We can debate strategy. We can question policy. But accusing Israel of genocide—while under rocket fire, while grieving its dead, while rescuing hostages—is not righteous. It’s reckless. And it’s very, very wrong.

 At moments like this, solidarity matters. So does truth. And the truth is this: When Jewish leaders like Jeremy Ben-Ami repeat the slanders of Israel’s enemies, they don’t defend peace. They damage the one Jewish state we have.

 That’s not dissent. That’s betrayal.

Stephen M. Flatow

This column originally appeared on JNS.ORG.  You can read it and others by me here.

 

 

American Jews, this is your war, too

Hamas doesn’t care whether you support Netanyahu or not. When Jews are murdered for being Jews, unity must come before politics.

Let’s be honest: Benjamin Netanyahu is not everyone’s favorite politician. That’s fair. Debate over policy, leadership and politics is healthy in any democracy, including Israel’s. But there comes a point in times of war when internal disagreements must be set aside.

Because this war is not about Bibi. It is about Israel’s survival. And the Jewish people, especially American Jews, must not let personality distract from principle.

Photo by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90.

Since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has faced a military, moral and psychological assault of unprecedented complexity. Hamas’s slaughter of 1,200 people and the kidnapping of 250, including children, the elderly and entire families, was not just a “battle.” It was a pogrom, fueled by genocidal ideology and celebrated openly by its perpetrators. Yet today, Israel is the one on trial in the court of public opinion, not the murderers who triggered the war.

Hamas doesn’t care whether you support Netanyahu or not. When Jews are murdered for being Jews, unity must come before politics.

 

What Israel faces in Gaza is not a conventional war or even a typical counterterrorism campaign. It is asymmetric warfare against a terrorist organization that intentionally uses its own civilians as tools of war. Hamas stores weapons in schools, digs tunnels under hospitals and launches rockets from densely populated neighborhoods. It steals food aid from the population. This is not incidental; it is strategy.

 

Hamas leaders have made this explicit. In 2008, Fathi Hammad, then Hamas’s interior minister, declared:  “For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry. … This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly and the mujahideen.”

 

What sane person would say that?

 

That’s not rhetoric; it’s policy. Hamas relies on images of dead civilians, especially children, to inflame world opinion and pressure Israel into submission. Tragically, too many in the West, including some Jewish voices, fall for this manipulative theater. They call for ceasefires, condemn Israeli “disproportionality” and wring their hands at the humanitarian crisis, while ignoring how Hamas engineers that crisis.

 

But put this in perspective. During the U.S.-led assault on ISIS in Mosul from 2016 to 2017, between 9,000 and 11,000 civilians were estimated to have died, according to The New York Times. That battle, fought by Western militaries with advanced precision weaponry, still resulted in tens of thousands of casualties. No one accused the United States of genocide. No one proposed sanctions.

 

Yet Israel, which goes to unprecedented lengths to warn civilians, including dropping leaflets, making phone calls and pausing operations to allow evacuations, is treated like a rogue state.

 

The moral asymmetry here is staggering. Hamas celebrates death. Israel mourns it, even when forced to cause it to protect its own people.

 

And yet, Western diplomats—many from countries that have never faced a single rocket attack—dare to lecture Israel on restraint. The European Union, Canada and even the United States have called for a “ceasefire,” as if peace can be restored by papering over mass murder.

 

Some American Jews have joined that chorus, distancing themselves from Israel out of discomfort with its current government. That’s not just misguided. It’s dangerous.

 

Hamas doesn’t hate Israel because of the policies of Netanyahu and his government. It hates Israel because it exists. Article 13 of the Hamas Charter states: “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad.”

 

Diplomacy, negotiation, peace-building? “All are a waste of time,” the document says.

 

This is the enemy Israel is fighting. An enemy backed by Iran and Qatar, supplied by global jihad networks and committed—openly, unapologetically—to the eradication of the Jewish state.

 

To our fellow Jews in the Diaspora, especially in America: This war is about you, too. Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran don’t care whether you vote Likud or Labor, whether you’re Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or unsure. On Oct. 7, Hamas murdered Thai farm workers and Israeli Bedouin alongside Jews. Their hatred is not nuanced. It is total.

 

And as antisemitism, let’s call it what it is—Jew-hatred—surges on campuses, in public squares, and online, it’s clear that Hamas’s war against Israel is fueling a broader war against Jews everywhere. This is not just a political crisis but a civilizational one.

 

So, what is the role of American Jews?

 

It is to stand with Israel—not conditionally, not reluctantly and not just when it’s easy. It is to reject the moral fog that equates a democratic state defending its citizens with a terrorist group that hides behind children. It is to recognize that you can critique Israeli policy at another time, but right now, we must remain united.

 

To those who are hesitant, ask yourself this: Would you demand moral perfection from any other country under siege? Would you have told Britain in 1940 to cease fire until Winston Churchill stepped down?

 

Israel’s democracy will sort out its leadership in due time. However, today, it needs our solidarity. Our advocacy. Our unapologetic defense in the face of global slander.

 

As the Psalmist wrote: “He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.” But Israel still needs us to stay awake—and to stand up.

Stephen M. Flatow

This column originally appeared on JNS.ORG.  You can read it and others by me here.