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