Recognizing Palestine as a state is an act of diplomacy that certainly has no specific benefit for the people of Palestine.
But it makes incursions into Palestine by Israel explicitly of an international nature. Palestine is and has been considered occupied territory, but without recognizing Palestine as a state, what soverign country's territory is occupied?
Perhaps now that there is a recognized country whose territory is being occupied, the recognizing countries may oppose the occupation in more specific ways. Perhaps, the same sorts of protestations without specific action as in years past.
Real (positive) change for Palestinians would start with Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories[1], and that needs more than a declaration of statehood, but a declaration of statehood may be a tiny step towards that goal.
[1] It's not strictly required, but I suspect it's more likely for Israel to withdraw than it is for Israel to radically change how they interact with the occupied territories.
It is very unlikely that Israel will ever withdraw its 500,000 citizens from Judea and Samaria, given the result from the 8,000 citizen withdrawall from Gaza.
An equal territorial exchange is much more realistic, as part of a two-state comprehensive package. However, "63% of Palestinians, 65% of Israeli Jews, and 13% of Israeli Arabs are opposed to this two-state comprehensive package.', see https://pcpsr.org/en/node/989 .
Equal territory exchange seems reasonable to me, borders needed to be negotiated; moving borders may be easier than moving population. Ensuring equal territory is equal is a hard problem, and perceived unfairness could lead to future conflicts, but any chosen border could be perceived as unfair.
In my mind, if both sides are equally opposed to it, it's probably fair... But that poll also offers hope; it said there were steps each side could take unilaterally or paired that would get to majority support.
I didn't see list of those steps, except the two paired options which they said could individually make a big difference (anti-incitement, especially in textbooks and mutual employment authorization).
I don't disagree with you, but I think it's hard to convince the Israel government, since the last time Israel withdrew from Gaza (in 2005), a terrorist organization was elected and it resulted in multiple wars and waves of violence, leading up to the current conflict.
But it makes incursions into Palestine by Israel explicitly of an international nature. Palestine is and has been considered occupied territory, but without recognizing Palestine as a state, what soverign country's territory is occupied?
Perhaps now that there is a recognized country whose territory is being occupied, the recognizing countries may oppose the occupation in more specific ways. Perhaps, the same sorts of protestations without specific action as in years past.
Real (positive) change for Palestinians would start with Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories[1], and that needs more than a declaration of statehood, but a declaration of statehood may be a tiny step towards that goal.
[1] It's not strictly required, but I suspect it's more likely for Israel to withdraw than it is for Israel to radically change how they interact with the occupied territories.