Secretary of State Marco Rubio has sharply criticized international efforts to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, dismissing recent moves by key US allies including Canada, France, and the United Kingdom as counterproductive and ultimately meaningless.

In a Fox News interview, Rubio challenged the 140 heads of state who have threatened to recognize or already recognized Palestinian statehood, arguing they “can’t even tell you where this Palestinian state is” or “who will govern it.” The Secretary emphasized that such recognition efforts are fundamentally flawed because “none of these countries has the ability to create a Palestinian state.”

Central to Rubio’s argument is the principle that sustainable statehood must emerge through negotiated agreement rather than unilateral declaration. “There can be no Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to it,” Rubio stated, reflecting longstanding US policy that echoes commitments made under the Oslo Accords framework.

The Oslo Accords, signed in the 1990s, established the principle that final status issues—including Palestinian statehood—must be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. This framework requires that any Palestinian state emerge as the result of a negotiated settlement rather than through unilateral recognition by third parties.

Rubio expressed particular concern that international recognition efforts are emboldening Hamas and undermining ceasefire negotiations. He argued that the terror group views the international support as validation of their strategy.

“At the end of the day, Hamas is sitting there saying: We’re winning the PR war. We’ve got all these countries lining up on our side of this argument. We’ve got leverage now,” Rubio explained. He warned that this dynamic gives Hamas incentive to reject ceasefire agreements, knowing that Palestinian statehood recognition will proceed regardless in September.

The Secretary characterized the situation as rewarding terrorism, noting that “the Hamas side is the Palestinian statehood side” and arguing that recognition would serve as a reward for the terror group’s actions.

Coinciding with Rubio’s statements, the State Department announced new visa sanctions targeting Palestinian Authority officials and Palestine Liberation Organization members. The restrictions, authorized under existing US law, target individuals accused of “undermining the prospects for peace” and “continuing to support terrorism.”

The sanctions specifically cite Palestinian efforts to “internationalize its conflict with Israel” through bodies like the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, as well as the continuation of the Palestinian Authority’s controversial “pay-for-slay” program that provides financial support to terrorists and their families.

The broader Trump administration has expressed strong opposition to the recognition plans. President Trump wrote on Truth Social that “The fastest way to end the Humanitarian Crises in Gaza is for Hamas to SURRENDER AND RELEASE THE HOSTAGES,” while White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump “expressed his displeasure and disagreement” with the leaders of France, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

The administration views the recognition timing as particularly problematic, coming while Israeli hostages remain in Hamas captivity and ceasefire negotiations continue.

Rubio also criticized international media coverage, particularly singling out the BBC for what he characterized as biased reporting. He argued that “95 percent of their coverage is about how evil, in their narrative, Israel is” while paying “very little coverage” to the hostages and their families.

The Secretary emphasized that media outlets fail to capture “the suffering of 20 people living in tunnels right now, taken hostage by Hamas,” arguing that this imbalanced coverage contributes to an anti-Israel narrative that emboldens Hamas.

The US position reflects decades of diplomatic precedent establishing that durable peace requires negotiated agreements between the parties themselves. This principle, embedded in the Oslo framework and subsequent peace initiatives, holds that outside recognition cannot substitute for direct agreement between Israelis and Palestinians on final status issues.

Rubio’s statements reinforce this traditional approach while arguing that premature recognition efforts actually hinder rather than help peace prospects by removing incentives for Hamas to engage constructively in negotiations.

Israel objects to calls for a ceasefire with Hamas primarily because of past experience showing that the terror group routinely exploits ceasefires to regroup, rearm, and prepare for further attacks. For over a decade, Israel has entered into multiple ceasefire agreements with Hamas—often brokered by Egypt or the United Nations—only to see them violated repeatedly by Hamas. Notable examples include the 2014 Gaza war (Operation Protective Edge), during which Hamas broke numerous humanitarian ceasefires, often using the lulls in fighting to launch rockets, reposition fighters, and build up its tunnel infrastructure. In the years that followed, Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israeli civilians even during supposed truces, leading many Israelis to view ceasefires not as steps toward peace, but as temporary tactical pauses used by Hamas to recover and prepare for the next round of violence.

The most devastating example of Hamas’ disregard for ceasefires was on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched an unprecedented cross-border massacre on Israeli civilians, breaking a period of relative calm with a surprise attack that killed over 1,200 people and triggered the current war. This betrayal of apparent calm confirmed for many Israelis that Hamas is not a partner for peace but a persistent and deceptive enemy. Calls for a ceasefire today, in this context, are seen not only as premature, but as potentially dangerous—a diplomatic lifeline that could allow Hamas to survive, regroup, and strike again. For Israel, true peace requires the dismantling of Hamas’ military capabilities—not another cycle of violence and temporary truces.

Beyond political backlash, legal experts have raised serious questions about the validity of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood under international law.

One of the greatest legal contradictions in the push for Palestinian statehood stems from UNRWA’s unique definition of Palestinian refugees.

Unlike the UN’s universal refugee definition, which applies only to first-generation individuals displaced by conflict, UNRWA classifies Palestinians as refugees in perpetuity, with the status inherited across generations—even for those who have never lived in pre-1948 Israel or its surrounding territories.

This creates a legal paradox:
If most Palestinians—including those in Gaza and Judea and Samaria—identify as stateless refugees, how can they simultaneously claim citizenship in a sovereign Palestinian state?

Under international law, a state must have:

• A defined territory
• A permanent population
• A functioning government
• The capacity to enter into foreign relations

The refugee identity, sustained and expanded through UNRWA, undermines the permanence of population and political identity required for sovereignty.

Critics also point to the UK’s historic inconsistency on Palestinian territorial claims. From 1948 to 1967, Jordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria, an occupation recognized only by the UK and Pakistan, despite violating international norms and the UN Partition Plan.

During this period, Jordan annexed the territory, denied Jewish access to holy sites in Jerusalem, and destroyed Jewish religious infrastructure. The UK’s recognition of this illegal occupation stands in sharp contrast to its current stance against Israeli settlement in the same areas.

This historical precedent raises further questions: if Britain was willing to recognize Jordan’s illegal occupation, why is it now treating Israeli control—even in areas with clear historic and legal claims—as illegitimate?