ACLJ to Secretary of State Blinken and the UK: Creating a State of "Palestine" Right Now Would "Reward the Terrorist Groups"

There could not have been a worse time to consider recognizing Palestinian statehood than now, just months after the horrific attacks of October 7 perpetrated by Hamas on innocent Israelis. Even worse is such consideration coming from the two closest allies of the Jewish state—the United States and the United Kingdom.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has recently “asked the State Department to conduct a review and present policy options on possible U.S. and international recognition of a Palestinian state after the war in Gaza.” A similar statement has been made by David Cameron, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom.

We have sent both Secretary Blinken and Secretary Cameron letters not only raising our serious concerns but also providing information about both the U.S.’s and the U.K.’s previous policy as well as the law on this matter.

For over 70 years since the creation of the modern State of Israel in 1948, U.S. and U.K. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the same—a two-state solution based on good faith negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Multiple administrations—both liberal and conservative—in both countries have rejected the idea of recognizing Palestinian statehood without the settlement of issues related to security and borders, among others, through peaceful negotiations between the parties. Our letters reminded both countries about their longstanding policy. We also emphasized to them that “to prematurely recognize Palestinian statehood would be tantamount to bypassing negotiations agreed to by Israeli and Palestinian leaders.”

In fact, our letter to Secretary Blinken pointed out that, not long ago, Secretary Blinken stated, “The Palestinians do not qualify as a sovereign state and therefore, are not qualified to obtain membership as a state in, participate as a state in, or delegate jurisdiction to the ICC.” Similarly, in 2014, a U.K. official made the following statement: “How can you recognise a state when the borders have not been agreed? This is profoundly unhelpful to the peace process.” These statements were correct then and are correct now. Nothing in terms of fulfilling the legal requirements for statehood has changed. The Palestinian Authority does not meet the international law criteria for statehood.

The letters further stated that “the only way to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a process of direct peaceful negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. This process has been recognized not only by many United Nations resolutions, both by the Security Council and the General Assembly, but also by the United States and the United Kingdom.” Recognizing Palestinian statehood without peaceful negotiations between the parties would sabotage the decades-long efforts by both the U.S. and the U.K.

Our letters also stated that “recognizing Palestinian statehood after the horrific attacks of October 7, 2023, would reward the terrorist groups that do not seek a two-state solution but are bent on eradicating the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Regarding the statements by Secretary Blinken and Secretary Cameron that their policies would also include recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, we reminded them that the U.N. has no authority to recognize states or grant statehood. In fact, in November 2012, when the U.N. General Assembly changed the Palestinian Authority’s designation at the U.N. from “Entity” with Observer status to “Non-Member State” with Observer status, (former) U.S. Permanent Representative Susan Rice correctly noted that “[n]o [General Assembly] resolution can create a state where none exists.” During the same discussions, the U.K.’s representative expressed grave concern “about the action the Assembly had taken, saying that ‘the window for a negotiated solution was rapidly closing.’ Israel and Palestine must return to credible negotiations to save a two-State solution. The Palestinian leadership should, without precondition, return to the table.”

Finally, and more importantly, our letters stated:

Based on the widespread celebrations of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and elsewhere of Hamas’ indiscriminate acts of murder, rape, desecration of bodies, and kidnapping visited upon Israelis [on October 7], it appears that the Palestinians are neither ready nor able to work with Israel peacefully to resolve their outstanding issues and create a real state. .  . .

Until Palestinians are ready to foreswear violence targeting defenseless civilians, cease committing war crimes against both Israelis and their fellow Palestinians in Gaza, and negotiate in good faith, the Palestinians are not ready for statehood, much less UN membership.

We urge the United States and the United Kingdom that they must not reward terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza by choosing to lend their support for Palestinian statehood.

For more on this issue, check out the ACLJ’s comprehensive multimedia history of the Jewish homeland and the myth of the state of “Palestine.”