France has announced its intent to recognize a Palestinian state. The headlines frame this as a diplomatic earthquake. For many Israelis and Zionists, it feels like a gut punch: an ill‑timed gesture that emboldens Hamas even after it has sabotaged every serious ceasefire effort.  I don’t need to amplify those voices—they’re already loud and persuasive. Instead, I want to focus on the flip side of this decision: specifically, the accountability state recognition might impose on Palestinian leadership for aiding and abetting terror.

France envisions a “State of Palestine” that includes Gaza geographically, excludes Hamas politically, and presumes that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority will one day govern Gaza. That day hasn’t come, but Paris is betting it will. What’s been less discussed is that statehood carries obligations. Surely, France’s declaration is largely symbolic. It doesn’t redraw borders, disarm Hamas, or change the reality in Gaza. France cannot create a state without security counsel consent (which the US and UK will veto).  Nevertheless, this symbolic gesture does enshrine the Palestinian project with the aura of statehood—and that purported statehood isn’t just a banner for the Palestinians to wave—it’s a burden they must carry. A state can be held responsible before international courts like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Take as but one example the Palestinian Authority’s infamous “pay‑for‑slay” program.  For years, the PA has paid monthly stipends to Palestinians convicted of attacking Israelis, and to the families of those killed while doing so. The more deadly the attack, the higher the payout.  As long as Palestinians were treated as a “cause”, they enjoyed some diplomatic cover. But as an avowed state, if Palestine’s government uses its treasury to fund, incentivize, and reward acts of terror—that’s not just bad optics. That’s accessory liability for war crimes under the Rome Statute. Article 25(3)(c) of the Statute provides that any person who “aids, abets or otherwise assists” in the commission of crimes can be held criminally liable by the ICC. If a state budget pays bonuses for stabbing Israelis, that state is aiding and abetting.

In other words, France’s symbolic recognition of “Palestine” opens a door Israel has rarely walked through: using international law offensively.  In fact, Israel has almost always been on the defensive at the ICC and ICJ.

• At the ICC, Israeli leaders now face warrants for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
• At the ICJ, Israel is fighting an advisory opinion labeling its presence in the West Bank “illegal.”

But here’s the irony: Palestinian leaders have already acceded to ICC jurisdiction. Since 2015, the ICC has had the authority to investigate all crimes committed on Palestinian territory—not just by Israelis, but by Palestinians themselves. Israel has almost never used that fact to its advantage. ICC jurisdiction doesn’t just apply to Israelis—it applies to the Palestinians. Accordingly,Israel should be pressing the ICC Prosecutor to demand that the PA’s “pay‑for‑slay” payments be treated as what they are: state‑funded rewards for murder.

I’ve previously argued that Israel should establish an Office for Victims of Terror within its Ministry of Justice. That office could collect evidence, coordinate with victims, and lobby the ICC—not just respond when charges are leveled against Israelis, but initiate cases against Palestinian officials who orchestrate or incentivize terror.

France’s recognition will not create a Palestinian state overnight. But it could change the legal landscape. It provides Israel with a powerful, if underused, tool: holding Palestinian leaders to the same legal standards they want to apply to Israel. For decades, Israel has fought in The Hague with its back against the wall. France just handed it a lever. It’s time for Israel to start pushing.

Published on Channel 7.