With slight delay from major United Nations conference that was set to promote Palestinian statehood, the question of recognition has returned to the diplomatic agenda appears to be back on its dangerous track. The same President Macron who declared expectation for Israel’s gratitude of  the ‘creation by UN recognition’, ignoring history, heritage and identity of the Jewish people, a prototypical indigenous people who for millennia yearned, prayed and longed to return to Zion and Jerusalem, will lead the emboldening of genocidal terror proxies, and their patrons and collaborators; collapse the foundational principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity that France is built upon; fuel the alarming normalization of antisemitism that is threatening Jews, Zionists and all supporters of Israel’s right to exist, in France as well.

Following up on joint statements issued by 25 countries that have de-facto normalized terror and tyranny rather than holding them and their enablers to account, it can be presumed this is but the harbinger of international support for Palestinian statehood, built on denial and replacement of Jewish statehood. Fifty years after Patrick Moynihan’s titillating response to the ‘Zionism is Racism’ 1975 UN Resolution, the United States should clarify there is no shift in policy and that now is most certainly not the time to discuss a Palestinian state. Participation in any forums that will advance this possibility will reflect how far the conversation has drifted from legal standards and moral clarity. The timing is no coincidence. In recent months, several European countries, including Norway, Ireland, and Spain, have ceremonially awarded recognition to a Palestinian state, bypassing legal standards and rewarding the very forces that continue to obstruct peace.

To recognize a Palestinian state in the aftermath of the October 7 massacre, the deadliest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, and the raging multi-front war launched that day by the criminal Islamic Regime in Iran and its genocidal proxies - would not simply be a diplomatic misstep. It would mark the collapse of the moral, legal, and civilizational order built after World War II. International law would be abandoned. Political violence would be normalized. The human rights framework itself would be turned against the values it was meant to protect. October 7 cannot become Palestinian Independence Day.

Recognition of statehood is not symbolic. Under the 1933 Montevideo Convention, it is a legal status that requires a permanent population, defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The Palestinian national movement fails every one of these criteria.

There are no agreed-upon borders. The often-cited pre-1967 lines have been rejected by Palestinian leaders in multiple rounds of negotiations. Hamas claims all of Israel as Palestinian territory. The Palestinian Authority regularly undermines its own prior recognition of Israel’s right to exist. Without a defined territorial framework, legal jurisdiction is impossible.

There is no unified government. The Palestinian Authority controls parts of Judea and Samaria through a decaying, unelected administration. Hamas governs Gaza with violence and repression and is a designated terrorist organization with an explicit charter calling for Israel’s destruction. The two factions operate separate legal systems, have not held national elections in nearly twenty years, and have violently clashed with each other. There is no single, accountable governing body capable of exercising legitimate sovereignty.

Worse, both factions institutionalize and glorify terrorism. The Palestinian Authority’s “pay to slay” law rewards convicted terrorists and their families with salaries funded in part by foreign aid. Hamas took this further on October 7, committing premeditated atrocities that included the murder of babies, the rape of women, and the burning of entire families alive. These were not spontaneous acts of war. They were coordinated war crimes. No political entity that celebrates murder as national identity can meet the standards of statehood.

The consequences of recognition go beyond legality. Recognition now would reward massacre with legitimacy. It would signal to other actors that sovereignty can be claimed through atrocity, that hostage-taking is an acceptable bargaining tactic, and that genocide is negotiable if framed in political terms. October 7 would become a roadmap, not a red line.

This normalization of political violence is not occurring in a vacuum. It is fueled by an ideology that long predates October 7, one that has adapted across generations and now presents itself in the language of rights and justice. Antisemitism has always mutated to fit the dominant moral framework of its time. In our era, it has attached itself to human rights discourse, international law, and anti-colonial narratives. It no longer excludes only individual Jews. It now targets the Jewish state itself, reestablished by an indigenous people after thousands of years of exile and persecution, denying it equal standing in the international system.

Systematic demonization, delegitimization, and double standards are not accidental. They are the modern architecture of antisemitism, embedded in global discourse and institutions that claim to speak for justice but increasingly act as platforms for incitement and erasure.

This is not an Israeli concern alone. It is a threat to the foundations of democratic civilization. The international infrastructure built after World War II is being hollowed out from within. Institutions created to safeguard humanity are now manipulated to shield terror regimes and to criminalize those who defend against them. The frameworks that once protected human dignity are being turned inside out. What was meant to prevent another Holocaust is now being used to justify the next atrocity.

Palestinian self-determination may be a legitimate aspiration. But sovereignty requires more than grievance. It requires a defined territory, a legitimate and unified government, and a commitment to reject violence and live in peace with neighbors. Until Palestinian leadership meets these standards, recognition would not represent justice. It would represent capitulation.

Recognizing a Palestinian state now would destroy any incentive for reform. It would entrench division, glorify terror, and sideline those seeking genuine coexistence. It would weaken the moral credibility of international law and strengthen the strategic position of actors who see civilian slaughter as a pathway to statehood.

This is not a diplomatic breakthrough. It is appeasement. And appeasement in the face of evil is how democracies fall.

In 2025, the choice is clear. Uphold the legal, moral, and strategic standards of sovereignty and peace, or abandon them in the name of political symbolism. If the legacy of October 7 is a Palestinian flag raised at the United Nations, it will not represent hope. It will represent the day the rules stopped mattering.

Statehood must be earned. It is not a prize for bloodshed. To grant it now would confirm to the world that even the most sacred principles of the international order are negotiable.

That must never happen.

Source: X

The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.