As the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 80) convenes tomorrow and runs through Sept. 23, the air is thick with the familiar rhetoric of peace, development, and human rights. Yet, in a profound irony, this gathering is set to become a stage for a deeply divisive campaign: the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.
This move, championed by influential European nations, is not a principled act of diplomacy. It is a politically convenient gambit that risks rewarding terror, undermining a genuine peace, and emboldening the very forces of Islamism gaining ground in Europe.
Shaky Ground
The push for immediate statehood is built on a dangerous fallacy. A state requires a defined territory, a permanent population, and crucially, an effective and independent government.
The Palestinian Authority fails this most basic test. It has not held elections since 2006 and is locked in a bitter power struggle with Hamas, the terrorist group that holds total control over Gaza. Unilateral recognition would legitimize a fragmented leadership, while ignoring the reality that Hamas has built a vast, concealed military network, a city of terror with tunnels large enough for vehicles running under schools, hospitals, and mosques. The very idea of a two-state solution at this moment is a strategic mistake and a moral fallacy. It ignores the fundamental reality that peace cannot be built with a partner committed to Israel’s destruction.
The timing of this diplomatic maneuver is its most profound strategic and moral error, especially in the wake of Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacres. This effort is a reward for Hamas’s shocking attack on Israel, and it validates the dangerous narrative that mass murder brings diplomatic reward. By granting a diplomatic prize that Hamas has long sought, the international community would implicitly tell the Palestinian people that armed jihad is a more effective path to political gains than peaceful negotiation. It would sideline the very preconditions for peace that many nations themselves have demanded, such as the immediate and unconditional release of all of Hamas’s hostages.
This campaign is not an honest attempt to resolve the conflict, but a reflection of Europe’s domestic vulnerabilities. For countries like France and Belgium, the decision to recognize Palestine is not just, or even mostly, a foreign policy issue but a domestic political move meant to appeal to the Muslim voting bloc. Both nations have struggled with a documented rise in Islamist influence and antisemitic incidents. In 2024, France alone recorded over 1,500 antisemitic incidents, making up more than 60% of all religion-based hate crimes in the country. This has led to a chaotic foreign policy, with the French government attempting to ban pro-Palestinian protests at home while calling for a Palestinian state abroad. This approach risks empowering the very radical elements they seek to appease, sending a message that a hostile and uncompromising stance can sway government policy.
The UNGA 80 must reject this politically convenient and counterproductive path. A true and lasting peace requires a return to direct, bilateral negotiations, not a surrender to the demands of terrorists. The international community must insist on accountability from all parties.
The first step towards any peace is the total and complete elimination of Hamas. It means demanding that Hamas releases all hostages and disarms its vast terror infrastructure. It means insisting on the fundamental reforms that alone can lead to a stable and demilitarized region. The diplomatic push is a dangerous gambit that threatens to undermine a lasting peace, reward terror, and empower the forces of extremism. The UNGA must demand the hard work of genuine negotiations that alone can lead to a secure Israel and a peaceful Palestinian people.
This is a test of resolve. Will the world choose to reward a dangerous and self-destructive strategy, or will it stand for the principled diplomacy that alone can lead to a secure Israel and a peaceful Palestinian state? The answer will define the future of the conflict for generations to come.
Amine Ayoub is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco.
