France first, after the United Kingdom and now Canada.

Three of the most powerful states in the western world have recently added their loud, economic and geopolitical voices to calls for the creation of a Palestinian state – an idea already supported by more than 140 countries around the globe.

Their movements are concerned with many motives: the frustration for Israel itself, the political pressures inside, the anger caused by the images of the starving Palestinians. Whatever the reason, the Palestinians welcomed the announcements of the three states, which they see as positive developments for their struggle. The Israeli government, on the other hand, condemned them, describing them as terrorism reward moves.

At the same time, US President Donald Trump seems to be losing his patience with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, mainly because of the starvation in Gaza – something Netanyahu refuses, but has annoyed Trump.

Trump wishes to be peace in the region, but also the credit – a Nobel Peace Prize – preferably – that would ensure it. Saudi Arabia also wants to normalize its relations with Israel, expanding Abraham’s agreements that were concluded between Tel Aviv and Arab countries after his mediation during his first term. But Riyadh’s position is clear: this is not going to happen without the design of an irrevocable course towards the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Recent US allies, such as France, Britain and Canada – and to a large extent symbolic – have isolated Washington in terms of its support for Israel.

The recognition of a Palestinian state could lead to the end of the Gaza war that has claimed the lives of more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza after a brutal attack on Hamas on October 7, which claimed the lives of about 1,200 Israelis, about two years ago. It could also lead to the liberation of hostages that are still held in Gaza.

But one of the great “thorns” that make it difficult to such a possibility is about how this state will be, since it has never been in modern history.

When Israel was founded shortly after World War II, it quickly received international recognition. For the Palestinians, this period is known as “Nakba” – that is, the “destruction” – as hundreds of thousands of people then abandoned or expelled from their homes.

Since then, Israel has expanded, especially during the Arab -Israeli war of the six days in 1967, when it defeated the Arab coalition and occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. On the contrary, the Palestinian regions have since been limited or even split.

The only period that was sketched a future Palestinian state was in the 1990s peace process, which remained in history due to the signing of Oslo Agreements.

In general, under Oslo agreements, the Palestinian state would be based on the border that was formed in 1967 – a proposal accepted by both the Palestinians and the Israeli negotiators.

The historic handshake in the White House between then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, in the presence of then US President Bill Clinton, is one of the most important achievements of modern diplomacy.

But Rabin’s assassination by a far -right extremist in 1995 deprived Israel his peacemaker.

Although the framework of Oslo’s agreements remains alive at the negotiations and university conferences, today there is a minimum will to discuss. The terms of that proposal are no longer considered realistic.

In recent years, Israeli settlements in the West Bank have expanded massively, often with the support of the official state, undermining the possibility of creating a single Palestinian state.

At the same time, there has been a difficult question to answer: Who would rule this state. The Palestinian Authority, which rules parts of the West Bank, is considered by many Palestinians weak or corrupt.

But even if we assume that it was a way to overcome all the above obstacles, the current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the possibility of a Palestinian state, as he had only recently stated that he would be a “springboard for Israel”.

Some members of his government even want even more radical solutions: they not only reject the independence of the Palestinians, but also want the attachment of territories.

While some Netanyahu ministers – parties supporting his government coalition – have also expressed much more extreme views: such as they would prefer to let the Palestinians starve rather than help them, and how they will throw the government if the prime minister is doing so.

Netanyahu, of course, shows no intention of receding, and probably sees the pressures of France, Britain and other countries as a “badge” for his attitude.

Without an “ally” within the Israeli government, the international recognition of a Palestinian state is in danger of falling into a vacuum – or even further consolidating Netanyahu in power.

As it would be a great victory for him, if Israel managed to make the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state impossible.

But as the discontent of the former Israeli allies is intensifying and the voices and pressures of the international community calling Donald Trump to change attitudes, Israel can eventually find it isolated – no matter how much it complains.