Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. The United States is not among them. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” But concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

In the face of mounting evidence of starvation and even genocide in Gaza, France indicated that it will formally recognize the State of Palestine at the upcoming 80th session of the U.N. General Assembly. The United Kingdom indicated that it will recognize the State of Palestine if Israel does not take certain steps (using recognition as a stick for the Israeli government), and Canada announced that it will grant recognition if the PA meets certain conditions (using recognition as a carrot for the PA). These recognition announcements underscore the gravity of the humanitarian situation and the consensus that neither side can use violence to further expansionist aims.

Like many internationally recognized borders, Israel’s borders entrench certain historical injustices. As a practical matter, borders are designed to reduce conflict by ensuring the territorial integrity and political independence of each state. Hamas’s call to establish a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” violates Israel’s international right to territorial integrity and political independence; so too do certain Israeli politicians’ (and evangelical Christians’) calls to extend Israeli sovereignty throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), which are not lawfully part of Israel.

Jews and Palestinians share a deep historical and emotional connection to the same territory and deserve to live in community without fear of persecution or further displacement. Formal recognition of both Israel and Palestine reinforces the message that neither Israeli Jews nor Palestinians can claim exclusive control of all the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Regional dynamics, including the desire to avoid a nuclear threat from Iran, should not prevent a clear-headed assessment of the current Israeli government’s extremism and its embrace of eliminationist rhetoric that sounds eerily like that of Israel’s enemies.

Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose codependence many have noted, have not served the interests of the populations they claim to protect. Hamas’s authoritarianism and suppression of dissent in Gaza are well known, and Arab countries are now adamant that Hamas play no role in Gaza’s future. The Israeli government’s unrelenting militarism and decimation of Palestinian life in Gaza, as well as violence in the West Bank and the subversion of domestic rule-of-law institutions, are tearing apart the fabric of Israeli society and further endangering Jews in the diaspora.

Those who care about the future of the region and its peoples should not let the mantra of “rewarding terrorists” stop them from supporting efforts to end starvation in Gaza, disarm Hamas, and empower actors on both sides whose vision for the “day after” involves coordination and coexistence, not extermination and expansionism.

Chimène Keitner is a professor of law at the University of California, Davis School of Law, a PD Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project. She previously served as Counselor on International Law at the U.S. Department of State.