Media reports are increasingly suggesting that President Donald Trump favors U.S. recognition of a state for Palestinian Arabs. Then again, this is the Middle East — rumors abound endlessly.
Trump has not previously expressed any intention to acknowledge such a state of affairs. During his first term in office, he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, despite the Palestinians’ claim to East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state under the 1993 Israel-Palestinian peace accords.
But most importantly, the Palestinians have been utterly recalcitrant against living peacefully beside the Jewish state.
The White House is purportedly preparing to unveil a plan that would support the establishment of a State of Palestine — explicitly excluding Hamas, The Media Line reports, citing a Gulf diplomatic source. Such a move, the source claims, could dramatically shift the regional balance of power and pave the way for new normalization agreements between Israel and the Arab states.
Palestine is recognized as a sovereign nation by 147 countries, including Russia and most nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. However, most West European countries, the UK, Israel, and the U.S. do not officially consider it a sovereign entity.
Some analysts claim that if Trump does recognize a Palestinian state, it will not only mark a diplomatic milestone but also serve as a catalyst for expanding the Abraham Accords — Trump’s U.S.-brokered normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations introduced in 2020.
Riyadh has repeatedly stated that normalization with Israel is contingent upon a credible roadmap toward Arab Palestinian statehood and an end to hostilities in Gaza. A U.S. announcement recognizing “Palestine” could thus serve as a flexion point, easing Saudi entry into the Abraham Accords and shifting the regional paradigm.
If such a move materializes, it would mark a dramatic turn in U.S. policy and reflect a calculated effort to unlock Saudi-Israeli normalization, for which a credible solution to the Palestinian Arab question remains a precondition and historically — a stumbling block.
Yet such a move would clash with Israel’s current government, risking a rift between Washington and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, any serious shift toward recognizing Palestinian statehood would require a reset of Israeli domestic politics, potentially leading to internal polarization and upheaval.
In this light, a possible U.S. recognition of a “State of Palestine” is more than symbolic. It is a political act which could manifest serious consequences. While it has the power to reshape regional dynamics and recalibrate U.S. alliances, it also is not without potentially significant costs and peril.
The Where of a Palestinian State
What is absent from the current discourse about a “State of Palestine,” however, is crucial to its implementation. Under any scenario — for peace to prevail — two criteria must be fulfilled before the issue of statehood for Palestinian Arabs is pronounced by the U.S.: one, the issue of domicile — where would this purported “state” be situated; two, an understanding that its domicile will not be within the sovereign territory of the Jewish State of Israel, nor anywhere else that would render Israel’s borders indefensible. Only after these issues are considered — and most importantly, concretely determined — can the issue of a state for Arab Palestinians move forward with any hope of eventuation. Otherwise, the inertia of the status quo narrative becomes operative in which the West Bank (ancient Judea and Samaria) remains the default position for Palestinian Arab statehood — and this is untenable.
This brings me to my final point. Two opportunities exist for West Bank Arabs to experience self-determination. First, the 141 sq. mi. of Gaza must be rebuilt. Deliberations on that calculus are already underway.
One possibility is that supplemented with additional land contiguous with Gaza (by Egypt and/or Israel) to reduce population density, a portion of West Bank Arabs could be domiciled in Gaza with the existing population. Both groups profess to be of Palestinian Arab origin.
In addition, as I and others have previously proposed, Jordan would benefit hugely (financially and politically) by being seen as a “savior” to West Bank Arabs. Since some of the latter would opt for a rebuilt Gaza, their reduced number would not be viewed as a threat to King Abdullah II and the Hashemite Kingdom — already home to a demographic purporting to be of Palestinian Arab origin at roughly 70 percent of the total populace. Security guarantees — brokered by Trump — from the Arab League, especially the Saudis, would be crucial to the arrangement.
(Area A is 18 percent and Area B is 22 percent of the West Bank under Arab control, constituting about 873 sq.mi. — roughly just 2.4 percent of Jordanian territory).
If the money is available to rebuild Gaza (and numbers like $30-40 billion are already being discussed) why can’t it be fashioned so as to accommodate both Gazans and West Bank Arabs?
The point is — it can be — the question is why won’t it be? That’s a question that needs answering.
There is a solution to this 76-year-old problem — but there are those who do not want that to happen in any place other than where it cannot happen — in the Jewish State of Israel.
It is possible that the EU (especially France) and Britain do not want stability in the Middle East — because with it they lose influence and power for their own political agendas in the region, and they would lose the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a foil for their own domestic problems, including Muslim immigration run amok.
But most importantly, the Palestinians have been utterly recalcitrant against living peacefully beside the Jewish state. They have rejected the offer of a state at least four discrete times in the past. It seems unlikely that the Palestinians will agree to a state that allows Israel to exist within defensible borders — “from the river to the sea.”
A final detriment to Palestinian state recognition at this point in time must also be acknowledged. The perverse incentive implicit in the recognition of a Palestinian state in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on Israel in its 76-year struggle to exist must be recognized. It would be rewarding grotesque Islamist butchery as a successful strategy. And if stateless Palestinians have proven adept at terrorism, consider what could have been “accomplished” if on Oct. 7 the Palestinians had a standing army behind them.
READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: