In a significant diplomatic move, France is expected to formally endorse Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September 2025, with support from Saudi Arabia. Reports indicate that Britain is also thinking in that line. These initiatives reflect renewed efforts to resuscitate the long-stalled two-state framework amid intensifying humanitarian distress in Gaza, where conditions such as famine and displacement have escalated.However, both Israel and the United States have condemned the move, exposing a greater contradiction within Western stance – particularly the inconsistency between present-day postures and the ideals promoted during the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which initially advocated for both Jewish and Arab states in the region.The principal question is obvious. If the U.S. and its allies once supported the idea of two states – one Jewish and one Arab – what moral and legal grounds do they have today to reject or stall its realisation? And who pays the price for this continued hesitation? The answer, tragically, is unfolding daily on the ground–in a Gaza choked by siege, airstrikes, and starvation, and in a West Bank fragmented by settlements and military checkpoints.The West’s eroding commitmentThe two-state solution has its origins in the 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which was endorsed by Western powers, including the United States, and accepted by the Jewish Agency. In contrast, it was rejected by Arab nations and Palestinian representatives at the time. The plan represented an early global effort to use territorial division as a means to achieve peace. However, following the establishment of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent Arab-Israeli war, the U.S. extended recognition solely to the new Israeli state, while Palestinian aspirations were sidelined. American policymakers, instead, pushed for bilateral negotiations as the path to future agreements.Over the years, U.S. support for Israel remained steadfast, though it occasionally pushed for dialogue. The Camp David Accords in 1978 offered a framework for Palestinian autonomy, but they stopped short of proposing full statehood. A more explicit endorsement came in 2002 when President George W. Bush publicly supported the creation of a Palestinian state, later articulated in the 2003 “Road Map for Peace.”Under President Obama, this policy direction was reaffirmed. Secretary of State John Kerry, in a 2016 address, emphasised the vision of two states along 1967 borders, with provisions for mutual land swaps and a shared Jerusalem. Despite this rhetoric, the United States consistently resisted Palestinian efforts to gain recognition through international forums such as the United Nations, preferring negotiations directly with Israel.This contradiction – voicing support for Palestinian statehood while blocking meaningful international support – has contributed to the stagnation of the peace process and undermined the credibility of the two-state solution.Trump, the Abraham Accords, and the collapse of pretenseThe Trump administration significantly disrupted the already delicate two-state framework. In 2017, it formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital and relocated the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv – effectively abandoning America’s previously neutral stance on the city’s disputed status.In 2020, the administration released the “Peace to Prosperity” initiative. Although couched in the language of a two-state solution, the proposal undermined Palestinian sovereignty. It excluded East Jerusalem as a potential Palestinian capital, dismissed the right of return for refugees, and sanctioned Israeli control over large portions of the West Bank and Jordan Valley – areas critical to forming a contiguous and viable Palestinian state. What Palestinians were offered, instead, were uneven enclaves, lacking real independence and remaining under Israeli security dominance.Rather than engage Palestinian leadership, the Trump administration prioritised regional normalisation through the Abraham Accords. These agreements – with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan–broke from the long-standing consensus of linking Arab-Israeli normalisation to a just resolution of the Palestinian question, as laid out in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.Statements made by Trump during 2024–25 indicate an even more controversial turn. He reportedly suggested U.S. oversight of Gaza and hinted at relocating Palestinians to other countries – remarks widely interpreted as violating international norms and potentially amounting to forced displacement. His vision of Gaza as a future economic hub, akin to Monaco, has been criticised for overlooking the rights and realities of the region’s existing population.These developments not only came as a decisive shift in U.S. foreign policy but also toughened Israel’s far-right leadership. Prime Minister Netanyahu, in both 2023 and 2025, reiterated his opposition to Palestinian statehood –reinforcing the perception that the two-state solution is no longer viable under current geopolitical conditions.Europe’s dilemma and the growing divideWhile the United States remains firmly opposed to unilateral recognition of Palestine, a number of European nations have taken more assertive steps in that direction. Sweden began this trend in 2014, and by 2024, other countries such as Ireland, Norway, Spain, Slovenia, and Armenia had followed. France’s anticipated recognition of Palestine at the UN is particularly significant, given its prominent role in European and global diplomacy.This development shows growing dissatisfaction within Europe toward both Washington’s policy reversals and Israel’s ongoing settlement expansion. France’s action also reflects alarm over the escalating humanitarian disaster in Gaza, where famine, displacement, and a breakdown of basic infrastructure have intensified since the 2023 conflict.Despite these movements, the European Union remains far from united. Germany and the United Kingdom, for instance, continue to support a two-state solution in principle but resist recognising Palestinian statehood without Israeli agreement. However, in a surprise move on Tuesday, British prime minister Keir Starmer announced that it has plans to formally recognise the state of Palestine this September, citing the worsening crisis in Gaza – unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire and a two-state solution. Under growing domestic pressure and in response to France’s move, Keir Starmer’s cabinet has approved a peace roadmap for the region.But The EU collectively calls for negotiated settlements but generally avoids initiatives that would apply pressure on Israel. This ambivalence of EU weakens Europe’s credibility and undermines the framework it purports to uphold. By conditioning Palestinian rights on Israeli approval, the EU sends a troubling message – that international law and justice are selectively enforced.Who Pays the Price, and What Remains of the Promise?The dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza–characterised by siege, bombardments, and widespread hunger – are not accidental byproducts of conflict but point to the consequences of sustained diplomatic failure. These realities highlight how political apathy has directly contributed to civilian suffering.The rise of Hamas, which began in the late 1980s and solidified after the 2006 elections and its takeover of Gaza in 2007, has further complicated the peace process. In 2017, Hamas indicated conditional acceptance of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders but maintained its refusal to recognise Israel and upheld its commitment to armed resistance. The group’s control of Gaza and its rivalry with the Palestinian Authority have hindered the formation of a unified Palestinian political front, weakening their negotiating power on the global stage. The October 7 attacks in Israel further isolated Hamas and its leadership. What followed was a rain of death, as relentless Israeli bombings killed more than 60,000 people and displaced tens of thousands.Nevertheless, Hamas’s attacks or internal Palestinian divisions cannot justify the collective punishment of over two million people. Delaying recognition of Palestinian statehood on this basis shifts responsibility away from the international community, which often proclaims support for Palestinian rights but fails to act decisively.It is ordinary Palestinians who suffer the most – many living under blockade in Gaza, others trapped in refugee camps across the region, stateless and with no clear future. Those who gain from the ongoing stalemate include expansionist settler groups, the global arms industry, and political leaders who substitute instant opportunities for policy change.While France’s expected recognition of Palestine at the United Nations this September may not immediately alter conditions on the ground, it represents a critical moment of reflection. If Western nations–especially the United States – still claim to support the two-state vision, then opposing recognition now exposes a profound inconsistency, both politically and morally.Continually postponing justice under the pretence of further negotiations amounts to hands-on complicity. The urgency of the crisis in Gaza, the relentless expansion of settlements, and the ongoing deprivation of an entire generation demand more than rhetorical support.History will eventually judge not only those who violated international norms, but also those who had the authority to intervene and chose inaction. The stakes are too high to maintain silence.The author is Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research, Mahatma Gandhi University, who earlier served as Senior Professor of International Relations and Dean of Social Sciences.