The Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange last week was a very emotional moment for thousands of Palestinians who were reunited with family members they had not seen for years. But it came at a price. Some of the public perceive the prisoner release deal as an achievement for Hamas’ militant approach, a success story that Palestinian diplomatic efforts and negotiations with Israel have not yet been able to deliver.

The prisoners swap came only a few weeks after all eyes were on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as he stood before the United Nations General Assembly and submitted a request to recognize Palestine as a full and permanent member of the international organization.

One of the reasons that Abbas had decided to go to the U.N. was his belief that diplomatic work would bring better results to the Palestinian people than armed resistance. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) leadership is convinced that renewed violence would bring disastrous results for the Palestinian cause. Whether or not the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) diplomatic approach will trump Hamas’ militant route now depends to a large extent on the international community’s response to the Palestinian bid at the U.N.

For now, it looks pretty certain that the bid at the Security Council will be met with a veto by the United States. Despite this, the Palestinian leadership continues to pursue efforts to enter Palestine as a non-member state in the United Nations through the U.N. General Assembly. It is also working to enter Palestine into other international organizations, such as UNESCO and the World Trade Organization, and to gain recognition by the European Parliament. These latter efforts are aimed at arriving at the UN General Assembly vote with the largest number of recognitions by international organizations possible, which will in turn put pressure on the countries that do not presently recognize Palestine.

Many political leaders around the world criticize the new Palestinian policy, calling it unilateral. Yet they have not suggested any alternatives to the Palestinians to secure their rights apart from a return to negotiations which, in over 18 years, have achieved nothing for the Palestinian people.

The U.N. bid represents a loss of faith in the negotiation process at this stage, and a decision by the PA leadership to transfer the struggle from Ramallah and Jerusalem to international forums, thereby placing a greater responsibility on the international community. Now the international community must show the Palestinians that there are concrete outcomes and real rewards for their diplomatic efforts.

The day Abbas made his speech at the U.N., thousands of Palestinians filled the streets calling for a two-state solution in which a Palestinian state exists next to Israel along the 1967 borders. This is considered a great compromise in the eyes of the Palestinian people for whom recognizing a state of Israel within the 1967 borders means giving up on 78 percent of historical Palestine. But will the international community understand how important it is to build on this momentum?

Whether it will be in the Security Council, the General Assembly or any other international organization, support from any of these actors for Palestinian diplomatic efforts will empower those who are working towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict and encourage the Palestinian street to support the two-state solution.

This could be a critical crossroads. The prisoners swap has shown people that Hamas’ tactics can yield results. If the Palestinians feel that both the path of negotiations and diplomatic routes fail to achieve results in the near future, they could easily lose faith in the non-violent approach.

The international community must show the Palestinian people that they support their quest for a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders and, by doing so, demonstrate that they support those who believe in negotiations and diplomacy as a way to solve the conflict and achieve peace.