Recognition without resolution won’t bring peace

Next month, at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, Australia will formally recognise a Palestinian state. The government’s intention is to signal support for Palestinian self-determination and to encourage momentum toward a two-state solution. Many will welcome the move as a step toward justice and peace.

But while the aspiration is worthy, the reality is more complex. Recognition may sound like progress, but in the current context it risks becoming symbolism at precisely the wrong moment - symbolism that could undermine both peace and the principles on which it must rest.

UNGA can adopt resolutions and declarations, but unlike the UN Security Council, it cannot create binding obligations on member states. An UNGA resolution to recognise a Palestinian state would carry political weight, but it would not compel Israel, Palestine, or any other party to alter their policies or actions.

Over 140 UN member states have already recognised Palestine, yet the reality on the ground has not shifted. Borders remain contested, governance is fractured, and violence continues. In 2010 Palestine was granted non-member observer status by the UN and in 2024, it received enhanced rights as a non-member observer State – but the diplomatic upgrades have changed little for Palestinians or Israelis.

Kosovo offers another warning: recognised by many Western countries after declaring independence from Serbia in 2008, it remains locked in disputes nearly two decades later, with its UN membership still blocked. Recognition without a negotiated settlement achieves neither peace nor stability.

Such decisions must be grounded in reality, facts and historic lessons – not in fantasy and wishful thinking. Israel has repeatedly accepted the principle of a two-state solution only to see Palestinian leaders walk away from the negotiating table. Almost twenty years ago to the day, Israel withdrew every resident and soldier from Gaza unilaterally in the hope of paving a path to peace. Instead, Hamas seized control, turning Gaza into a sophisticated terror base and radicalising a generation of Palestinians. It is a stark reminder of what can happen when political authority is granted before transparent, accountable governance exists.

Symbolism matters in diplomacy, but timing matters more. Recognising a Palestinian state now, not even two years after the atrocities of 7 October, risks being framed by Hamas as a vindication of its violence, even a “liberation day” of sorts. The 1,200 victims of that day, and the 250 hostages, including around 50 still held in Gaza, deserve far better.

Hamas still rules Gaza, continues to rearm, and refuses to renounce its commitment to Israel’s destruction. To declare Palestinian statehood in this moment sends a dangerous message that terrorism can deliver political dividends. Hamas has openly welcomed recognition moves by France, the UK, and Canada. As US Secretary of State Marco Rubio bluntly observed, ceasefire negotiations with Hamas “fell apart the day Macron made the unilateral decision to recognise the Palestinian state” - a gift to Hamas’s narrative and leverage.

The Australian Government is resting its hopes for a better Palestinian future on the vague assurances of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its 89-year-old leader Mahmoud Abbas – currently serving the 20^th year of his four-year term. The PA is plagued by corruption, inefficiency, support for terror and declining legitimacy. The last time it governed Gaza, it found itself in a violent civil war with Hamas and was ultimately expelled. The PA’s promise to reform remains largely unfulfilled and granting statehood now removes any incentive to deliver those reforms.

The focus on recognition diverts diplomatic energy that should be concentrated on the urgent priorities of ending the war, securing the release of hostages, and addressing the humanitarian crisis. That means exerting pressure on Hamas to free the remaining hostages.  It means supporting mediators who can bring Israel and the PA back to the negotiating table to reach a mutually agreed, durable peace. And it means ensuring that post-war governance in Gaza serves both Palestinian welfare and regional stability.

Symbolic recognition risks distracting from these tasks. It creates headlines but not change, and emboldens spoilers on both sides who prefer grandstanding to compromise.

A Palestinian state can and should come, but only as the culmination of a genuine peace process, not as a substitute for one. Australia’s role should be to help lay the groundwork for that moment by supporting Palestinian governance reform so any future state is transparent, accountable, and renounces terror; and by backing Israeli-Palestinian dialogue that addresses borders, security and mutual recognition.

If we truly want a Palestinian state to thrive, it must be established through an agreement both peoples accept and both governments uphold. Anything less risks creating another failed state and another generation trapped in conflict. We all want this war to end. We all want the hostages home. We all want children in Gaza and Sderot to sleep without fear. But peace will not come through symbolic recognition alone. It will come through painstaking diplomacy, grounded in realism, mutual compromise, and the shared conviction that the futures of both peoples are inextricably bound together.