Why Canada Must Support a Negotiated Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Recently, Canada’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development recommended that Canada recognize a Palestinian state without requiring direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. While well-intentioned, this approach diverges from Canada’s longstanding policy of advocating for a negotiated, fair, and sustainable solution. Such a move would not only complicate peace prospects in the Middle East but would also undermine Canada’s position as a principled advocate of diplomacy and negotiated conflict resolution.

To be clear, CIJA fully supports a two-state solution as the only viable path to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, Palestinian statehood must come with conditions. The United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, foundational texts on this issue, make it clear that Palestinian statehood is not an absolute right. Rather, statehood should come after recognition of Israel’s security and the legitimacy of a Jewish state in its historic homeland. This process also obliges Palestinians to engage in direct negotiations, which are essential for a stable and lasting peace.

Unilateral recognition sends a damaging message to Palestinian leadership and the international community, signaling that diplomacy and patience are unnecessary. Worse, it implies that rejectionism and extremism will yield results, effectively rewarding the Palestinian leadership for its continued avoidance of negotiations. This stands in stark contrast to Canada’s commitment to a peace process grounded in mutual compromise and respectful engagement. A shift toward recognition without these conditions would be both irresponsible and a departure from Canada’s core principles.

It’s equally important to consider the glaring accountability issues within Palestinian leadership. Currently, there is a striking lack of governance infrastructure and a deep-seated culture of corruption within Palestinian authorities. Recognizing statehood without demanding accountability would elevate Palestinian agency without responsibility—treating statehood as an entitlement without attaching the obligations of good governance. This risks the creation of a failed state, which would only further destabilize the region and harm the very Palestinians it aims to help.

Moreover, recognizing a Palestinian state without resolving critical issues such as borders, water rights, the electrical grid, and the status of Jerusalem would guarantee perpetual conflict. Palestinian leadership continues to insist on the “right of return,” a demand that, if granted, would undermine Israel’s status as a Jewish state. These core issues must be addressed through direct negotiation if a functional and peaceful state is to emerge. Attempting to impose a solution by recognizing statehood before addressing these matters is both impractical and dangerous.

One of the key aims of a peace process is to establish an “end of conflict” status—a situation where both parties agree that no unresolved issues remain. Recognizing a Palestinian state unilaterally disregards this goal, leaving all these critical issues on the table and unresolved. Without negotiated frameworks, the region would face unending tension, with no clear pathway to settle fundamental disputes.

In the wake of recent violence, it’s clear that the timing of this recommendation could not be worse. On October 7, Israel experienced one of the deadliest attacks in its history, an event that has redefined how Israelis view their future security. For Israelis, a recommendation that Canada recognize a Palestinian state now would be seen as disregarding the trauma they continue to endure and would embolden rejectionist elements rather than foster conditions for real peace and compromise.

Canada has historically maintained a balanced, principled approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advocating for peace processes that prioritize negotiation, mutual recognition, and security. Departing from this stance would contradict decades of Canadian foreign policy, embolden extremist factions, and send a message that peace can be achieved without addressing the needs and security of all parties involved. This would not be just a policy shift; it would be a dangerous and destabilizing precedent, signaling that diplomatic processes are dispensable.

One day, we hope to see a vibrant, democratic Palestinian state at peace alongside Israel. But to pretend that there is a viable Palestinian state today—or that one will emerge in the next few years, ready for Canadian recognition—is inaccurate and misleading. Recognizing Palestinian statehood prematurely could ultimately defer the hope of peace even further, leaving both Palestinians and Israelis trapped in a cycle of frustration and conflict.

As Canada considers its next steps, it must remain committed to supporting a fair, negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A true two-state solution, achieved through direct negotiation, is the only way to ensure lasting peace, stability, and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Canada’s role in advocating for meaningful engagement rather than unilateral actions will reinforce its values and leadership on the world stage.