US says it wants Palestinians to have a country of their own – but its actions say otherwise

Palestinian and Israeli flags fly in old Jerusalem. iStock / Getty Images Plus

Spain, Ireland and Norway recognized a Palestinian state in May 2024, bringing the total number of countries that do so to 144.

The United States is not one of them.

The U.S. has officially favored a two-state solution, meaning both Israel and a Palestinian state would be recognized as official countries, since the Clinton administration in the 1990s. President Joe Biden reiterated that position at his July 11, 2024, news conference following the NATO summit, when he said, “There’s no ultimate answer other than a two-state solution.”

Yet the U.S. alone has consistently blocked the Palestinian territories from being fully recognized as a country – at least symbolically – by preventing them from becoming the 194th member state of the United Nations. Palestine does have the status of being a permanent observer at the U.N., where it is represented by the Palestinian Authority. Being a permanent observer lets Palestine attend most meetings, but it cannot vote on any international agreements or recommendations.

I am a scholar of international affairs and a former U.S. diplomat. Understanding this paradox requires a bit of history.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, speaks during a Security Council meeting for a cease-fire vote in March 2024.
John Lamparski/Getty Images

In the beginning

When the state of Israel was created in 1948, it was immediately attacked by its Arab neighbors Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, which refused to recognize its right to exist, but did nothing to create a Palestinian state. Subsequent wars and lesser hostilities have plagued the region ever since.

Over the years the U.S. has provided extensive support to Israel, in terms of politics, money and military aid. At the same time, the U.S. has tried to help move the Israeli, Palestinian and Arab-country leaders toward a day when they could all live in peace.

The current war in Gaza has prompted Israeli politicians and others to assert that discussion of Palestinian statehood rewards Hamas for the massacre of Israeli citizens that sparked the war. But at some point the war will end and the problem that caused it will remain unresolved. And, I believe that unless it is resolved, the end of the war will only be temporary.

Many issues would then have to be addressed by Palestinian and Israeli politicians, as well as the leaders of other countries that assist in their negotiations. The three most important would be the borders of a Palestinian state, the right of some Palestinians to return to land they were forced to flee in 1948, and the status of Jerusalem – which both Palestinians and Israelis insist must be their capital.

While the U.S. has tried to promote negotiations leading to peace without dictating the outcome, it has long officially embraced a two-state solution. Former President Donald Trump, for instance, said in 2018 that, “I like a two-state solution. That’s what I think works best … That’s my feeling.” Other presidents, like George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have also tried to nudge the parties toward negotiations.

But while the American government’s vision for peace includes the creation of a Palestinian state in theory, the U.S. has repeatedly prevented attempts in the U.N. to elevate Palestine from its status from observer to a full member state.

That would be more than a symbolic change, as a Palestinian state would be officially recognized as a country in the eyes of the international community and that would provide it standing in other international organizations and courts.

The U.S. blocked that from happening as recently as April 2024, when it vetoed a “resolution on Palestinian statehood” in the Security Council, which must approve new U.N. members. The U.S. is one of the five permanent members that make up the Security Council, alongside France, the United Kingdom, China and Russia. These countries each have the power to veto any declaration or statement the council tries to make – unlike the 10 other rotating council members who only get to vote.

What would a state look like?

Since reaching agreement on the borders of a Palestinian state and other issues will be so difficult, effective mediation is essential to achieving peace. The U.S. has largely forfeited any role in that process, however, by its isolated and inconsistent position.

A White House spokesperson explained in May 2024 that the U.S. maintains statehood should not come “through unilateral recognition,” but should instead happen “through direct negotiations between the parties.”

There are two problems with that rationale. First, 144 countries at the U.N. have already recognized a Palestinian state as a country, making recognition hardly unilateral. And it was the U.N. that created Israel in 1948.

Second, Israel currently has the most extreme, right-wing government in its history. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long made clear that he is adamently opposed to any Palestinian state. If he were to agree even to discuss the possibility of one, his coalition would immediately collapse, and he would be forced out of office.

In order to avoid pressure to discuss statehood, Netanyahu for years encouraged other countries to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas, knowing that organization would never negotiate. He did that to weaken the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, and is willing to talk.

A pro-Palestinian protester waves a Palestinian flag in front of the U.S. Capitol building in October 2023.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The origin of inconsistency

Why then, even before the current Gaza war, has the U.S. refused to allow a small step – recognition of a Palestinian state in the U.N. – toward a two-state solution, which it says is the only path to a sustainable peace? And why does the U.S. remain in lockstep with an Israeli government that will never allow that to happen?

The explanation is simple – domestic politics.

While 89% of Jewish Americans said in April 2024 that they support Israel’s reasons for fighting Hamas, the Gaza war has prompted some rifts in the Jewish-American community.

American Jews have heavily favored the Democratic Party for decades, and defending Israel remains an important issue to them. Believing that support might decline, however, decades ago Israel began to reach out to evangelical Christians. They are rock-solid base voters of the Republican Party. Unquestioning allegiance to Israel has become an article of faith for many of them.

Now Republicans and some Democrats compete to see who is a better friend to Israel. When the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor requested arrest warrants in May 2024 for Netanyahu and another Israeli leader, as well as Hamas leaders, the House of Representatives quickly responded in an uncharacteristically bipartisan effort, passing legislation that would sanction anyone helping the ICC prosecute Israelis.

To avoid that kind of divisive political controversy, President Bill Clinton did not embrace a two-state solution until the final weeks he was in office.

Given the political realities of the ongoing war, you might ask why this matters. A Palestinian state joining the U.N. as a member state would not make it a country. Israelis and Palestinians would have to reach agreement first. But getting this U.N. status would provide a glimmer of hope to people who dream of having their identity recognized and their desire for a country of their own someday realized.

There is no chance that such a significant change in policy could take place in the midst of a presidential election campaign in the U.S. But if peace is to ever be achieved, more people on both sides would need to think differently – and I believe that bringing a Palestinian state into being at least on paper would help bring that about more than anything else the U.S. could do.

Dennis Jett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.