The most perilous shifts in international diplomacy often unfold with a veneer of moral inevitability. The current stampede of Western nations to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state is one such maneuver a catastrophic reward for terrorism that will deepen the region's conflicts and undermine the very foundations of a future resolution.
It is as if there were a race among the free nations of the world, where established democracies compete to grant Hamas the grand prize: recognition. This frenzy, ignited by the Saudi French "Two-State Solution Conference" at the United Nations, culminates in a summit-level conference from which the United States is conspicuously absent. In a rush to preempt the gathering, Australia, the United Kingdom, and most recently Canada have leapt forward. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's declaration on X that Canada "recognizes the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building a peaceful future" is based on a profound deception.
A senior Canadian official justified this recognition by claiming, "The Palestinian Authority has renounced violence, recognized Israel, and is committed to a two-state solution". This statement represents the height of distortion. Which authority does he mean? The one led by Mahmoud Abbas Fatah Chairman who began a Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee meeting with a moment of silence for Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar? The authority that continues to pay monthly stipends to the families of terrorists?
The dispute between Abbas's faction, Fatah (which translates as "Conquest"), and Hamas is not a moral rejection of violence, but a tactical squabble over its monopoly and timing. Fatah itself, the foundational movement of the PLO, was built on guerrilla warfare and terrorism, and its leaders were instrumental in the process that established the Palestinian Authority. This history underscores that the internal Palestinian conflict is a struggle for power, not principle.
The core tension is not Israeli intransigence, but a century of Palestinian and Arab refusal. Contrary to the prevailing narrative, Israel has repeatedly presented initiatives for a fair resolution, only to meet an impenetrable wall of rejection. The pattern began with the 1937 Peel Commission, which proposed a Jewish state on a fraction of the land and a larger Arab state connected to Transjordan. The Jews accepted; the Arabs refused.
The ideological roots of this rejection are dark. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, allied directly with Adolf Hitler, visiting Auschwitz and securing from the Führer a promise to annihilate the Jews of the Middle East. The UN Partition Plan of 1947, calling for separate Arab and Jewish states, was again accepted by Jews and rejected by Arabs. Most tragically, in 2008, Ehud Olmert offered Abbas a deal including a Palestinian state on nearly all the West Bank, land swaps, and a shared Jerusalem. Olmert warned it was the best offer Abbas would ever receive. Abbas hesitated, and the opportunity vanished.
The parallels between past and present are stark. From al-Husseini's embrace of the Final Solution to Hamas's repeated declaration since October 7th, calling for repeat massacres until Israel's annihilation, the thread of rejectionism is unbroken. Hamas itself has confirmed that the current wave of recognition is a "direct result of what we achieved on October 7." By recognizing a state now, the West is not promoting peace; it is validating a strategy of mass murder, and heinous crimes against humanity, including the kidnapping and murder of babies. This alignment places these nations in the camp of Hamas's backers: Iran, and other regional proxies, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and a network of Iraqi militias.
The danger of this recognition is threefold, accelerating a regional fragmentation that rewards violence.
- First, it represents an existential betrayal of freedom-loving Middle Eastern voices in the West.Hundreds of thousands fled to Europe and North America to escape the very Islamist tyranny that Hamas embodies. This recognition normalizes the ideology they escaped, reproducing their nightmare at the gates of the West itself.
- Second, it establishes a disastrous double standard.When democracies grant political legitimacy to entities that have not renounced terrorism, they make violence a viable political currency. The message is clear: atrocities like those of October 7 are an effective path to relevance, legitimacy and statehood. This poisons the well for future generations, normalizing violent rhetoric over the values of freedom and equality.
- Third, and most critically, it paralyzes any genuine peace process.By granting the prize of statehood unconditionally, the international community removes any incentive for Palestinian leaders, or Hamas, to finally compromise, recognize Israel's right to exist, and end the campaign of violence, or at least release the hostages. They have condemned the hostages, many Israelis and Palestinians to much more suffering than they needed to.
Western leaders face a dilemma: they seek a quick diplomatic win but in doing so, they undermine long-term regional stability. The coming years will likely see calibrated escalation increased militancy, emboldened terror groups, and the entrenchment of Hamas's rule all under the legitimizing banner of statehood.
Ultimately, this potentially well-intentioned but foolish rush may prove more damaging to the prospects of peace than any single war. It rewards the very forces that have consistently destroyed peace and plants the seeds for future conflict. As Kemi Badenoch, Leader of the Opposition in the U.K., stated: "Disastrous. Absolutely disastrous. We will all rue the day this decision was made". The silent rift this creates between the West and the realities of the Middle East will have consequences far graver than today's headlines suggest.
The million-dollar question for Western leaders remains: why act before the hostages were freed?
Mohamed Saad Khiralla is a political analyst specializing in Middle Eastern affairs and Islamist movements, an opinion writer and member of PEN Sweden.
Khaled Hassan is an Egyptian British national security and foreign policy expert and council member of Israeli President Isaac Herzog's Voice of the People Initiative.
