French President Emmanuel Macron’s declaration that France intends to officially recognize a Palestinian state has triggered strong condemnation in Israel. That outrage deepened after the UK and Canada joined the list of countries warning they may follow suit unless Israel ends its military operations in Gaza. Norway, Spain, Ireland, and others have already extended recognition.
Israeli officials see these moves as a dangerous reward for terrorism, claiming they embolden Hamas and compromise national security. However, while criticism is understandable, such recognition could offer Israel a strategic legal opportunity.
If the Palestinian Authority (PA) is granted statehood, it would be subject to international legal standards and scrutiny. This includes potential exposure to criminal liability for actions that support terrorism. In turn, Israel could begin using international law not just defensively, but offensively — a shift that may explain why Palestinian leaders have historically hesitated to fully embrace statehood despite multiple opportunities.
Currently, the PA operates as a semi-autonomous entity, enjoying certain privileges — including a form of diplomatic immunity — while maintaining international sympathy for its “just cause.” Statehood, however, brings with it new responsibilities. As a recognized state, Palestine would be accountable under international law, including the jurisdiction of bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
France’s proposal envisions a Palestinian state that includes Gaza, sidestepping the contentious role of Hamas. But recognition also brings legal consequences. One major example is the PA’s controversial policy of paying stipends to imprisoned terrorists and their families. These payments increase with the severity of the attack — a policy many see as incentivizing violence.
Under statehood, such practices would no longer be shielded by political ambiguity. Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute — the legal foundation of the ICC — makes clear that anyone who “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in committing crimes can be held criminally liable. Thus, state-funded payments for acts of terror could expose Palestinian officials to prosecution for facilitating war crimes.
This shift presents Israel with a rare opportunity: to proactively leverage international law. Until now, Israel has mostly found itself on the defensive — fending off ICC arrest warrants or facing ICJ proceedings on the legality of its presence in the West Bank. But since 2015, when the PA accepted ICC jurisdiction, the court has had the authority to investigate crimes on Palestinian territory — committed by both Israelis and Palestinians. Israel has barely used this to its advantage.
If Palestinian statehood moves forward, Israel should push for ICC investigations into the PA’s financial support for terrorism. Establishing a dedicated Prosecutor’s Office within Israel’s Justice Ministry — an idea previously proposed — could support victims of terrorism in gathering evidence and initiating legal action against responsible Palestinian officials.
Still, it remains likely that Palestinian leaders will resist full statehood. The current status quo offers the best of both worlds: the political and diplomatic benefits of being seen as a liberation movement without the legal burdens of statehood. Formal recognition would expose their policies to international legal judgment and could reclassify certain actions as war crimes.
For decades, Israel has been cornered in The Hague. Now, ironically, it may be France and its allies offering Israel a powerful tool — one that should not be ignored.