Is it time to Recognize a Palestinian State?

Is It Time to Recognize a Palestinian State?

If your vision of a “perfect solution” to the Middle East is an Israel or a Palestine existing “from the river to the sea,” this piece may not engage you. There is little here that will persuade those committed to that maximalist view. However, if you believe in the possibility of eventual peace, where Israel and Palestine coexist side by side with mutually agreed borders—perhaps not in friendship, but at least without ongoing hostilities—then consider that now may be the time to work toward making that vision a reality.

Gaza is devastated. Hamas, which stands for extreme anti-Israel positions, remains entrenched despite its crippled alliances and undeniable terrorism. Supporters of Hamas justify their brutality under the banner of liberation, acknowledging the harsh reality of their actions. Politically, Hamas has rallied anti-Israel forces and expanded their coalition by presenting itself as the sole alternative to what is seen as endless “occupation.”

This growing anti-Israel sentiment often blurs the line between legitimate political critique and anti-Semitism, leading to confusion and manipulation. The controversy surrounding the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which recently passed committee in New Jersey, illustrates the challenge of distinguishing hate speech from valid criticism without clear leadership separating the two.

Looking ahead to a “day after” Gaza, credible Palestinian leadership beyond Hamas is essential to manage rebuilding and restoring life for Gaza’s two million residents. That leadership, however imperfect, currently exists in the Palestinian Authority (PA) based in Ramallah. While neither the current U.S. administration nor the Netanyahu government in Israel support this, European leaders and the Arab League appear ready to recognize and invest in them. Notably, France’s President Macron recently announced that France will recognize the sovereign State of Palestine at the U.N. this September—without predefined borders—signaling a shift in international willingness to support Palestinian statehood.

Historically, recognition of a Palestinian State has been a litmus test tied closely to Zionist positions. The notion of a two-state solution has been championed mainly by moderates and the political left, with recognition contingent on diplomatic breakthroughs like the Camp David and Oslo Accords. Yet, with Hamas controlling Gaza and the Netanyahu coalition doubling down on military control, these breakthroughs appear out of reach, leaving only misery in their wake.

The current situation demands a new Palestinian power structure that can authentically represent Palestinian aspirations. Israel will never be accepted as sovereign over the Palestinian populations of the West Bank (Yehudah v’Shomron) and Gaza. Calls for complete annexation—such as the 71 Knesset votes in favor yesterday—are deeply problematic and unlikely to bring peace.

Campus movements and the wider Muslim world must be shown an alternative to Hamas. Meanwhile, amid an undeniable humanitarian crisis, the people of Gaza need relief, hope, and a future not dictated by Hamas’s unwavering commitment to Israel's extinction.  If the European Union, Arab League, African Union, and China were to recognize the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, investing and intervening to end hostilities, the political landscape could change fundamentally.

Regarding the current war, only two objectives matter: the return of hostages and an end to the killing. These steps would open the doors to sufficient humanitarian aid and begin the long process of recovery.

The Palestinian Authority has consistently refused to support Hamas or participate in the war against Israel. Their focus remains on a Palestine negotiated within pre-1967 borders, not the maximalist “river to the sea” slogan. They have earned international support as the only viable entity capable of governing and negotiating peace on the ground.

So, hold your nose if you must—but the time may have come to create the tools of statecraft. It may be time to assemble an international coalition of the willing, to end the war, to bring the hostages home, and to save the people of Gaza. Recognizing Palestine alongside Israel could be an essential step toward a peaceful future that ultimately guarantees the safety and security of Israel and its citizens. The moment to act is now.

Macron's leadership is a challenge to the status quo, and the status quo is terrible.

 IHRA, Israel Criticism & Antisemitism

This post is for those who wish to understand why criticism of Israel is not antisemitism, but delegitimization of Israel as a concept is.  Sadly, the extremist who are pro-Israel and Anti-Israel have dominated the furor over the need to have a legal definition of Antisemitism.  This is a quick summary of the issues, and why the IHRA definition of antisemitism really does matter.

Five reasons why some definition of Antisemitism is necessary:

1. Antisemitism is the basis of legal crimes of bias and hate.  Therefore it requires at the very least a working definition for local, state and national entities to refer to when assessing the motivations of bias crimes.
2. Antisemitism is a moral failing, deeply ingrained in many cultures, which requires a clear definition for those who are willing to undergo self-reflection of such matters in their own hearts and minds.
3. Antisemitism has motivated real crimes of humanity, up to and including the attempted genocide of the Jewish People, which remains a goal for extremists today.  Identifying it all along the spectrum  is a necessary part of educating the current and future generations.
4. Antisemitism is a hatred of both the Jewish Religion and the Jewish People, denying both any legitimate right to existence or validity.  This is not how other biases work, and requires explanation.
5. Free speech includes freedom of hate speech.  Yet hate speech must be defined and understood.

Why "Israel" must be accounted for in the definition, as in the IHRA definition:

1. Zionism is the religious and national aspiration of the Jewish People to live in their ancestral homeland.  Zionism - the hope for return and divine redemption - is a core component of the Jewish religion ever since the destruction of the Temple of Solomon in 586 BCE.  Denying the legitimate religious nature of this aspiration pits people who are anti-Israel in direct conflict with an essential component of the Jewish Religion.  The point of contact requires definition and clarity.
2. Many equate The State of Israel with the "Jewish State."  As such, many conflate and confuse the words "Israelis" and "Jews" especially when embroiled in amplified arguments and actions.  Attacking "Jews" when one means "Israelis" is a religious hate crime.  Attacking "Israelis" when one means "Jews" is also a religious hate crime.  The large number of such incidents cry out for consensus on this topic, which can only be achieved by a common definition.

Why "Criticism of Israel" must be explicitly permitted by any legitimate definition of Antisemitism.

1. Sadly, there are many who claim that any criticism of Israel is Antisemitism.  This is absolutely false, and tremendously unhelpful.  A definition that includes Israel can help to clarify that.
2. All opponents of the IHRA definition of Antisemitism have claimed that it curtails free speech.  This is also false.  Defining something to be racist, misogynistic, homophobic, islamophobic or antisemitic does NOT curtail someone's legitimate free speech use of those terms.  
3. Opponents of Israel are not all antisemitic, but many of them are.  No one likes to be called a bigot, so the opponents of the IHRA want to stop the definition as a whole.  This is unacceptable, because the Antisemitic content within the sprectrum of AntiIsrael voices are protected when there is no definition to call them out.  A clear definition will help everyone to see who is engaged in legitimate criticism of Israel, and who is engaged in Antisemitism.
4. "Criticism of Israel" is a constant political voice both inside and outside of the State of Israel.  That is what a democracy does. All supporters of Israel welcome all political discourse, and are also prepared to debate contrary points of view.  The IHRA definition explicitly makes this point clear.  The opponents of this definition are simply lying or deliberately obtuse to this fact.

So when do Antisemitism and AntiIsrael speech become the same thing?

First lets look at an example.  If one were to deny the Roman Catholic Church the legitimate aspiration to have Vatican City as a nation state for Catholics, one would be exhibiting anti-Catholic hate and bias.  If one were to violently act on that by attacking the Vatican City, killing its inhabitants and claiming that Italy is being freed as a result, one would be exhibiting anti-Catholic bias.  If one were to spray paint anti-Vatican slogans on Churches, Statues or private homes and businesses in America, that would also be exhibiting anti-Catholic bias.  You get the point.

Since Zionism is an essential component of the Jewish religion, Anti-Zionism is both a political point of view and a denigration of a Jewish religious teaching.  Anti-Zionism, the delegitimization of the very belief in a Jewish homeland is a form of AntiSemitism.  

In Summary

Denying the legitimacy of the Jewish aspiration for nationhood in Israel is a clear form of Antisemitism.  Denying the form of government which that takes is NOT Antisemitism.  Criticizing the policies and actions of the State of Israel is NOT ordinarily Antisemitism, unless it is wrapped up in the general denial of the very concept of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.  That would deny an essential teaching of the Jewish Religion, and the legitimacy of the Jewish People to live as a people, and would be clear Antisemitism to any objective observer.

A Personal Statement.

I am personally and politically horrified by the current Government Coalition's extreme methods in prosecuting the war in Gaza.  Hamas, Hezbollah, and their sponsors and supporters are Antisemitic terrorists, murderers and evil.  A war to kill them is just, but this war has not always been just.  And at this point, I have been calling for its end for many months (June 2025).  I am also horrified by the current Israeli governments domestic agenda, its anti-Palestinean Peace Process agenda, its continued settlement and annexation agenda, its anti-Jewish Pluralism agenda and more.  See?  My criticism of the policies of the actions of the State of Israel is deep and ongoing.  Yet I am a zionism, a liberal who believes in democracy, and a supporter of a two state solution with a State of Palestine living in peace with a State of Israel.