Symbolism Fails at Building States — The Five Conditions for a Realistic Palestinian Future

By Mark L. Cohen
Monday, 15 December 2025 05:26 PM EST

This writer was asked a straightforward but critical question:
“Is a Palestinian state actually possible — especially today, after the antisemitic terror attack in Australia?”

The response often falls into emotional rhetoric, symbolic gestures, or diplomatic platitudes. Yet one principle remains clear: establishing a new nation in a volatile conflict zone is impossible if it risks perpetuating violence — including threats that extend far beyond its borders.

This question has resurfaced as central to global diplomacy following recent events and will intensify political discussions in the coming days.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., emphasized that recognizing Palestinian statehood without first achieving Hamas’s definitive defeat and securing Palestinian acceptance of Israel would only escalate attacks against Jews and undermine Western values.

Conversely, at the recent Doha Forum, Qatari and Saudi officials pushed for immediate Palestinian statehood, suggesting that a conflict initiated by Hamas should now lead to rapid political recognition.

Prominent U.S. figures attended this forum, highlighting growing divisions within Western discourse.

These contrasting perspectives reveal a fundamental split: one group warns of the dangers in diplomatic gestures disconnected from reality; another — including Australia and key U.S. allies — continues demanding immediate Palestinian statehood, sometimes with the goal of pressuring Israel for perceived civilian casualties in Gaza.

Realism must anchor any solution.

No Israeli government—left, center, or right—would accept a Palestinian state if it believed such a state could become a platform for rocket attacks or terrorism.

This concern is shared globally. The international community bears responsibility to ensure new states reduce conflict, not exacerbate it.

History shows no durable peace was built by ignoring security concerns of the coexisting nation.

Yet global discussions often treat statehood as a diplomatic switch that can be flipped with a declaration.

A functional state—capable of governance, security, and improving lives—cannot be created through sentiment or symbolism.

While a Palestinian state may become possible, it requires five critical conditions. Without them, the discussion remains an illusion.

First, the Gaza war must conclude and be diplomatically acknowledged as such. We need not use the term “victory,” but there must be recognition that Israel has restored security while all parties mourn immense suffering and continue to assess the conflict’s conduct.

For decades, the region has cycled through truces without closure, enabling extremists to claim conflicts remain unresolved. After October 7, 2023, this ambiguity is unsustainable. A sense of finality is not a concession to Israel—it’s essential for Palestinian political rebuilding.

Second, regional signatories must implement the ceasefire framework, with European allies openly supporting it.

The 20-point plan endorsed by Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE will only matter if these nations—and in coordination with the U.S. and Israel—actively enforce, fund, and administer it, particularly Hamas’s exclusion and disarmament.

European governments, though not signatories, must align policies with this framework rather than remain in strategic ambiguity.

Third, symbolic “recognitions” must give way to real state-building.

Leaders such as Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Justin Trudeau, and Anthony Albanese have pursued recognition of a Palestinian state that does not yet exist or function.

These gestures serve political purposes: expressing disapproval of Israel and meeting domestic pressures. But symbolism cannot build institutions, security forces, or economic systems. Recognition without foundations is not diplomacy—it’s political theater that undermines future credibility.

Fourth, Palestinian leadership must accept that statehood is a process, not an instant declaration.

A state emerging from devastation requires rebuilding infrastructure, reforming governance, establishing credible security, and managing aid transparently. This demands breaking from past practices—corruption, factionalism, and policies rewarding violence. Statehood must be earned through capability, not slogans.

Fifth, the right of return must be addressed with honesty.

Millions of Palestinians believe in returning to homes lost in 1948. Israel cannot accept an outcome that dissolves its demographic identity. While this issue may not resolve quickly, no durable agreement can exist without confronting it directly and soberly.

Ultimately, a Palestinian state cannot be built against Israel’s security needs. Israel need not embrace every step but must have confidence that the emerging state will not become another platform for violence.

That confidence won’t come from UN declarations. It will emerge only from a disciplined framework where Israel’s security is prioritized, Palestinian aspirations are grounded in real governance, and reality replaces illusion.

Only on this basis can a Palestinian state become both sustainable and credible—enabling the international community to confront the global rise of antisemitism.

Mark L. Cohen practices law and was counsel at White & Case starting in 2001, after serving as international lawyer and senior legal consultant for the French aluminum producer Pechiney. Cohen was a senior consultant at a Ford Foundation Commission, an adviser to the PBS television program “The Advocates,” and assistant attorney general in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He teaches U.S. history at the business school in Lille l’EDHEC.