As the world holds its breath over an apparent ceasefire in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and accusations of violations keep tensions high, the question of Palestinian statehood remains on the table—at least for the United States. Many other nations, particularly across Europe, have already answered that question. And they may have set a dangerous precedent in its wake.
Before Hamas’ October 7th attacks in 2023, only 137 UN Member states recognized Palestine as a sovereign entity. Since then, that number has climbed to 157 in a key effort to show solidarity with the inhumane attacks occurring in the region. Yet these twenty new recognitions raise a troubling question: has the world begun rewarding acts of terror with the very outcomes they seek? For years, the debate has centered on whether Palestine deserves statehood. But in doing so, the world has ignored a far more crucial question—what are the repercussions of granting it now?
The U.S. government has long reiterated that it does not negotiate with terrorists. The argument is simple. If we step up to the table and make an exchange, we are also legitimizing terroristic activities and rewarding these advances. Yet, both the U.S. and the U.K.—nations that uphold this principle—have, at times, made exceptions. They have negotiated to secure hostage releases, end wars, and establish peace agreements. In these instances, the potential benefits outweighed the costs of legitimizing terrorism.
Today, however, several nations appear to have forgotten that balance. In September 2025, leaders in France, Canada, and the U.K. officially recognized Palestine as a state. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney defended his stance by invoking Canada’s long-standing support for a two-state solution since 1947. Yet, the timing reveals a troubling inconsistency: after nearly eight decades of silence, Canada’s acknowledgment came only after Hamas’s attacks. French President Emmanuel Macron described his recognition as a “defeat for Hamas,” but in reality, it handed the terrorist group a huge victory. Likewise, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer insisted that his government’s decision was “not about Hamas.” However, by disregarding the political context and the sequence of events that led to these decisions, these leaders risk reinforcing the notion that violence is an effective means to an end—a dangerous precedent that threatens both Palestinian stability and global security.
Such recognition sends a message heard well beyond Gaza. In Lebanon, Hezbollah, much like Hamas, claims to defend its nation as a “free, sovereign, independent Arab state,” even as its actions keep the country gripped by fear. Members of Parliament aligned with the group have even recently urged the Lebanese army to take action against Israel. By mirroring Hamas’s strategy of speaking on behalf of an entire nation while refusing to disarm, Hezbollah has only been emboldened by Hamas’s perceived success. And now, what is to stop Hezbollah from believing that if it tightens its grip on Lebanon, it too could one day be recognized as a legitimate governing power?
This precedent will not only endanger the Middle East—it has the power to spread that same dangerous confidence far beyond those borders. If Boko Haram, an Islamist movement behind mass killings in Nigeria, comes to believe that greater violence will force the West to listen and permit the imposition of its version of Sharia law, what would stop it? And if al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia, aspires to rule the country outright, does it have reason to believe that the Western world won’t merely look the other way—but might even aid its path to power?
In recent years, frustrated Americans and Palestine supporters have ridiculed the United States’ refusal to recognize Palestine as a state. However, the U.S. has long been a proponent of a two-state solution. Unlike many of its twenty counterparts that proceeded with recognition, however, the U.S. understands the serious consequences of taking such a step at this moment. Earlier this June, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee stated that, given the lack of meaningful progress in Palestinian governance and civil society, there is “no room for statehood.” Echoing this concern, Israel’s UN ambassador Gilad Erdan argued that if the Security Council were to grant full membership to the Palestinian Authority, it might as well be called a “terror council.”
For the nations that have only now chosen to recognize Palestine, one must ask—why not sooner? And did they truly consider the global consequences of doing so now? In expressing hope for an eventual two-state solution, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said his decision was made to not “let that light go out.” Yet the light of peace talks now flickers. And the world should fear what rises in its absence, for the darkness that lies ahead may be the result of this very precedent.
