At the upcoming United Nations General Assembly, the United Kingdom—along with Australia, Canada, France, and Malta—looks set to recognise a Palestinian state. Such a move, while symbolically significant, risks being little more than a meaningless soundbite unless it is paired with a credible path to a two-state solution and genuine statehood, not just in name only.
For decades, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been managed rather than resolved. Yet, at its heart, this remains a deal waiting to be struck. My experience in dealmaking—in business and in foreign policy—has taught me that the biggest error a dominant party can make is to press for a winner-takes-all outcome. The strongest agreements are those in which the less powerful party leaves the table believing its voice was heard and respected. An Israeli push for “total victory” is not only a non-starter for Palestinians, Arab neighbours, and the wider Muslim world, but also a recipe for Israel’s long-term insecurity.
Israel’s Crossroads—and Palestine’s Responsibility
Israel must decide whether its future lies as a fortress in a hostile neighbourhood or as a state integrated into a region where neighbours are not perpetual adversaries. For now, it enjoys two major advantages: unstinting U.S. backing and overwhelming military and intelligence supremacy. Neither is guaranteed to last.
American public opinion is shifting—especially among younger generations, universities, and neutral onlookers who increasingly regard the Palestinian plight as a moral cause. Electorates are fickle: what appears unconditional today can erode quickly, leaving Israel isolated. As for military dominance, history shows that no state can rely indefinitely on superiority; over time, it is challenged or eroded. Israel’s neighbours are becoming more capable.
Internally, Israel also risks undermining the democratic brand that long made it the darling of the West. The current administration has shown a willingness to curb the authority of the Supreme Court, to ignore public opinion, and to tolerate fissures within the military and intelligence establishment. Those are marks of democratic backsliding, not of a shining beacon. Persist, and Israel risks pariah status.
Palestinians, too, must rise to the moment. The atrocities of October 7 were unspeakable. History may debate whether they sprang from oppression or reckless violence, but they do not advance the cause of statehood. Violence of this kind is not rewarded by the international community—nor should it be.
For Palestinians, the first priority must be unity. The split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority weakens their claim to nationhood; the world rallies more readily behind a people who speak with one voice. Could Marwan Barghouti be that figure? The parallels with Nelson Mandela or Gerry Adams are instructive: leaders once branded terrorists who later emerged as national unifiers and peacemakers. Palestine needs a credible standard-bearer—perhaps shaped by hardship or imprisonment—to serve as a singular representative.
Whether it is Barghouti or not, Palestinians must seize this moment. A zero-state solution is not an unrealistic outcome. Worst case, they could even be shipped off to South Sudan or Somaliland, as has been suggested. Israel is dreaming, however, if they think they can permanently occupy the West Bank and Gaza without constant insurgency. That is no credible path to peace and security.
From Soundbite to Substance
The possible recognition of Palestine by France and the UK raises a hard question: What does recognition mean in practice? A state without land, a functioning government, or institutions capable of delivering services is little more than a slogan. Symbolism must be matched by substance. There must be tangible, irreversible steps toward a two-state solution for this move to matter at all.
The rhetoric from Israel’s government increasingly suggests a retreat from two states, amid talk of annexation and indefinite occupation. Yet the regional context is shifting. Iran and its hydra of proxies—once formidable—have been weakened and marginalised following U.S. intervention. That change reduces Israel’s rationale for deferring peace. If Israel is serious about deepening the Abraham Accords and about a durable peace with the Arab world, it must offer something concrete and irreversible on two states.
Saudi Arabia, in particular, will not accept the airy assurances that satisfied the UAE and Bahrain. Riyadh requires measurable movement toward Palestinian statehood if it is to make peace with Israel on solid footing. The same is true for Jordan and Egypt. Put plainly: regional integration for Israel now runs through Ramallah and Gaza City.
If the West wishes to exert influence, it must abandon double standards. Western leaders freely condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, yet hesitate to apply similar principles to Israel’s actions in Gaza. To regain moral authority, they must hold allies to the same standards as adversaries. Equal application of international law is not only ethical; it is strategically useful.
Given our singular history in the region, the UK has both an opportunity—and arguably a responsibility—to help broker peace. In 1917, the Balfour Declaration promised a home for the Jews, but not at the expense of the Palestinians. That balance remains instructive now. And those who insist peace is impossible under Benjamin Netanyahu forget their history: Camp David and other breakthroughs show that hard-liners with the political capital to make concessions can, at times, deliver peace precisely because only they can sell compromise to their base.
Whatever happens, it is unsustainable for a nation of eight million to remain surrounded and resented by 200 million neighbours. Israel’s future prosperity depends not on suppressing Palestinians but on making peace with them. A brain drain among the young, a faltering democratic identity, and mounting global criticism all point to decline if compromise is refused. To save Israel—and to end Palestinian suffering—a deal is the only way.
As the UNGA convenes, the world should not mistake gestures for policy. What is needed is pressure—from allies, from Arab partners, and from within Israel—to face the reality that its prosperity and security are achievable only through a meaningful, reciprocal peace settlement. Gestures may open doors; only substance will keep them open.
If you’re interested in writing for International Policy Digest – please send us an email via submissions@intpolicydigest.org