The Five Conditions That Must Be Met Before a Palestinian State Can Truly Exist

A recent question has resurfaced with urgency: “Is a Palestinian state actually possible — especially today, after the antisemitic terror attack in Australia?”

This query, often met with emotional responses or diplomatic slogans, overlooks a critical reality. The establishment of a new country in an area rife with conflict cannot succeed if its outcome is further violence — including attacks that extend far beyond the region itself.

The question has returned to the forefront of international diplomacy following recent events and will fuel intense political debate.

Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, stated plainly that affirmatively declaring a Palestinian state without first achieving a definitive defeat of Hamas or securing clear Palestinian acceptance of Israel would only invite further attacks on Jews and Western values.

At the recent Doha Forum, Qatari and Saudi officials renewed calls for immediate Palestinian statehood. This implicitly argues that the war initiated by Hamas should now culminate in rapid political recognition.

The differing positions among prominent American figures at the forum highlight a growing split within Western discourse: some see grave dangers in political posturing divorced from reality, while others — including Australia and several close U.S. allies — push for immediate Palestinian statehood, often with the explicit aim of addressing what they consider unnecessary civilian casualties in Gaza.

A serious approach must begin with reality.

No Israeli government — left, center, or right — will accept a Palestinian state if it believes such a state could become a launchpad for terrorism.

This concern is not unique to Israel. The international community also bears responsibility to ensure that new states reduce conflict rather than exacerbate it.

History offers no example of durable peace built by ignoring the security concerns of the party that must coexist with the new state.

Yet global debate often treats statehood as if it were a diplomatic switch that can be flipped by declaration alone.

A functioning state — capable of governing, providing security, and improving lives — cannot be created through sentiment or symbolism.

For a Palestinian state to become viable, five difficult conditions must be met:

First, the Gaza war must end — and this conclusion must be recognized diplomatically. While the language of “victory” may not be necessary, acknowledgment that Israel has restored basic deterrence and security is essential, even as all sides mourn immense suffering.

Second, regional signatories must implement the ceasefire framework, while European allies must openly support it. The 20-point plan endorsed by Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE will matter only if these governments actively enforce, fund, and administer it — particularly the exclusion and disarmament of Hamas. European nations, though not signatories, must align their policies.

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 two purposes: expressing moral disapproval of Israel and satisfying domestic political pressures. However, symbolism does not build institutions, security forces, or economic systems. Recognition without foundations is not diplomacy; it is political theater.

Fourth, Palestinian leadership must accept that statehood is a process, not a proclamation. A state cannot emerge from devastation without rebuilding infrastructure, reforming governance, establishing credible security institutions, and managing large-scale aid transparently. This requires a decisive break from past practices — including corruption and policies that rewarded violence.

Fifth, the question of the right of return must be addressed with honesty. Millions believe in the right to return to homes lost in 1948. Israel cannot accept an outcome that dissolves its demographic identity. While this issue may not be resolved immediately, no durable agreement can exist without confronting it directly.

Ultimately, a Palestinian state cannot be built in opposition to Israel’s security needs. Israel does not need to embrace every step of the process but must have confidence that the emerging state will not become a new platform for violence. This confidence will not come from symbolic United Nations declarations but from a disciplined framework where Israeli security is taken seriously and Palestinian aspirations are grounded in workable governance.

Only on this basis can a Palestinian state become sustainable — and only then can the international community credibly confront the global spread of antisemitism.