Recognizing a Palestinian state will not resolve current conflict

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 22/08/2025 (385 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Calls to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state are gaining momentum around the world. They come from a place of empathy. As Gazans continue to suffer unbearably, the desire to respond meaningfully is real.

But recognition of statehood is not a symbolic act of solidarity. It is a legal and political decision that carries irrevocable consequences.

The widely accepted legal test for statehood comes from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which outlines four criteria a would-be state must possess: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government and the capacity to conduct foreign relations. A permanent population arguably exists, but the other essential elements remain unresolved.

Territorial control is deeply fragmented. The Palestinian Authority, ruled by the political party Fatah, exercises limited self-governance in parts of the West Bank. Gaza, meanwhile, is ruled by Hamas, which is designated a terrorist group by many of the same governments now pushing for recognition, including Canada. There is no unified control over a defined area, and the borders of a potential Palestinian state remain undetermined.

These are not technicalities. They go to the heart of sovereignty.

The question of governance is equally fraught. A state must have a functioning government capable of maintaining internal order and fulfilling international obligations. The current Palestinian leadership is divided not just geographically, but also ideologically and institutionally. Hamas and Fatah are political rivals, not partners. Hamas does not support a two-state solution. Its leadership rejects Israel’s right to exist, and has long called for a single Palestinian state in its place. Recognizing a state in this fractured context raises serious questions: who, exactly, is being recognized? And to what end?

Diplomatic capacity is the final element. While the Palestinian Authority maintains a diplomatic presence abroad, it remains heavily reliant on international donors and Israeli co-operation. It does not yet operate with the independence expected of a sovereign state. Hamas has no embassies.

Some argue that recognition, even if premature, should be pursued to advance pro-Palestinian justice efforts or pressure Israel toward compromise. In practice, the impact is likely to be ambiguous at best. For instance, recognition may strengthen criticisms of Israeli military presence in the West Bank by reframing it as an “invasion” of another state. But it would simultaneously undercut the legal basis of apartheid accusations, which rely on the idea that Israel exercises singular authority within a single regime. One cannot argue both. The result is not clarity, but contradiction.

Perhaps most troubling is the broader precedent this would set. If borders are declared by outsiders and imposed from afar, the message is not one of liberation. It is one of neo-colonialism. Even the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan, which emerged through a multilateral vote rather than unilateral recognitions, failed to bring lasting peace.

Despite its international legitimacy, it was still an externally drawn map that lacked consent from all parties on the ground. That lesson holds. The future of both Palestinians and Israelis cannot be drawn in foreign capitals without their presence or agreement. Surely such an approach will not result in a just or durable peace.

There is no shortcut to resolving a conflict that has remained intractable for decades. A Palestinian state that is peaceful, democratic and sovereign remains an important goal. But statehood cannot simply be declared into being. It must be built through negotiation, compromise and commitment.

Performative politics will not resolve this conflict, and neither will unilateral declarations. Recognition should be the outcome of statehood, not a substitute for it.

» Sarah Teich is an international human rights lawyer, co-founder and president of Human Rights Action Group, legal adviser to Secure Canada and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. This article originally appeared in The Hill Times