What Is New?
Following the conclusion of the Two-State Solution Conference at the UN in New York last month and the French Foreign Minister’s announcement of an international call for recognition of the State of Palestine, there has been growing discussion about the importance of these past and future recognitions, both expected and potential.
France, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Malta all say they are preparing to recognize a state of Palestine at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly meeting in September. They would join another 147 UN countries that already do so. In some senses, the move is symbolic: It will not change the realities on the ground in the Middle East, at least not in the short term. But it might be considered a major step nonetheless.
In recent months there has been a new push by European countries to recognize the State of Palestine. However, recognition of Palestinian statehood goes back decades. On 22 November 1974, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 recognized the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine. It also recognized the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and accorded it observer status in the United Nations. The designation “Palestine” for the PLO was adopted by the United Nations in 1988 in acknowledgment of the Palestinian Declaration of Independence, but the proclaimed state still has no formal status within the system.
United Nations General Assembly resolutions to support the Palestinians and the Palestinians right of self-determination are not new. Tens if not hundreds of resolutions were adopted by the UN with big majority votes in support of the Palestinians. Some of them are renewed every year without any change on the ground, so why will the recognition by additional states make any difference?
In 1988, the Palestine National Assembly convened in Algiers, and announced its “Independence Document.” Soon 85 states worldwide recognized the State of Palestine. In the following decades, due to bilateral diplomatic efforts, including many of the states from the global South and East. In 2012, the State of Palestine was granted “observer status” at the UN, allowing Palestine to join several United Nations agencies and international pacts. On May 10, 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to upgrade Palestine’s status at the UN, with 143 member states voting in favor, although the United States vetoed the resolution at the UN Security Council that would have made Palestine a full member of the UN. The State of Palestine is also a member of regional and international organizations and forums including the Arab League, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
The international movement to recognize the State of Palestine cannot be placed in one basket. Some countries have already recognized it, others have announced their intention to recognize it unconditionally, while others have made recognition conditional on a future assessment based on their expectations of both parties, most notably the Palestinians. Meanwhile, some countries are trying to use it as a tool of pressure on Israel. Despite the general importance of international action to recognize the Palestinian state, and the challenge it represents to successive Israeli governments’ attempts to obliterate the entire Palestinian issue, this movement has had limited impact on the ground due to several shortcomings.
Statehood Under International Law
Under international law, the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933 provides the criteria for statehood. These criteria require a state to have a 1) permanent population, 2) a defined territory, 3) a government, and 4) the capacity to enter relations with other states. Even if a state doesn’t fulfill all the requirements of the Montevideo Convention, it can still be considered a state if it is recognized as such by other states.
When applied, Palestine fulfills at least three of the four criteria of the Montevideo Convention: it has a permanent population, it has a government, and it can enter relations with other states. While it does not have a defined territory, its status remains unaffected, considering Israel occupied Palestinian land illegally. Considering that Palestine is now recognized by 147 countries, “Lawyers for Palestine” argue that “it appears uncontroversial to conclude that Palestine has the requisite features and widespread support to be legitimately recognized as a state.”
As described above, in May 2024, Palestine’s status at the UN was upgraded from a “non-member Observer State” to a “permanent Observer State.” As a permanent Observer State, Palestine has more rights at the UN, including full participation in international and UN conferences, the ability to submit proposals and amendments, and the ability for members of the delegation of the State of Palestine to be elected as officers or members of the main committees of the General Assembly.
In order for a state to gain membership in the General Assembly, its application must have the support of two-thirds of member states with a prior recommendation for admission from the Security Council. This requires the absence of a veto from any of the Security Council's five permanent members.
What Does Recognizing a Palestinian State Mean?
While Israelis are divided deeply on questions regarding their own government’s prosecution of the war in Gaza and its level of culpability in the continued failure to secure freedom for the remaining hostages being held captive there, they are mostly united — supporters and detractors of the Netanyahu government alike — in the perception that any moves to recognize Palestinian statehood at this juncture would constitute a counter productive prize to Hamas and its accomplices on October 7, 2023.
Palestine is a state that does and does not exist. It has a large degree of international recognition, diplomatic missions abroad and teams that compete in sporting competitions, including the Olympics. But due to the Palestinians’ long-running conflict with Israel, it has no internationally agreed boundaries, with zero ability to control those who are entering the 1967 borders and no army. Due to Israel’s military occupation, in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is not even in control of its land or people.
Several U.S. presidents have expressed their support for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. But Donald Trump is not one of them. Under his two administrations, U.S. policy has leaned heavily in favor of Israel. Without the backing of Israel’s closest and most powerful ally, it is impossible to see a peace process leading to an eventual two-state solution.
Why Now?
Many European and non-European governments have talked about recognizing a Palestinian state for years, but only as part of a peace process, ideally in conjunction with other Western allies and “at the moment of maximum impact.” To do it simply as a gesture, the governments believed, would be a mistake. It might make people feel virtuous, but it would not actually change anything on the ground. But events have clearly forced the current government’s hand. The scenes of creeping starvation in Gaza, mounting anger over Israel’s military campaign and a major shift in public opinion - all of these have influenced government thinking.
That’s an understandable position, as far as it goes. European recognition will have no impact on the actual establishment of a Palestinian state. But it cannot be denied that these recognitions are a direct result of Israel’s failure to articulate any plausible day-after plan for Gaza. The Biden Administration’s efforts to define the security, governance, and humanitarian aspects of such a plan got little traction.
To Which Level Recognition of Palestine as a State is Meaningful?
As mentioned above, the efforts of recognizing Palestine as a state date back to 2011. Following the Palestinian division between the PA and Hamas in 2006, and the Israeli military operation against Gaza in 2008/2009, the Palestinian Authority found itself politically empty-handed. With the collapse of the negotiations-based two-state framework and no peace process in sight, President Mahmoud Abbas turned to the international arena.
Similar to the situation then, the PA is in urgent need of legitimacy nowadays. The last Palestinian presidential elections took place in 2005, and the last parliamentary elections were in 2006, and there was never an election for the PLO’s leadership (it’s mainly appointed by the heads of the fractions). In the West Bank, the PA is seen as a very corrupt system with little space for civil society, and as an Israeli “security subcontractor and collaborator” for the occupation of Palestinian land and against the Palestinian people. As an institution, it serves mostly to protect Israel while offering almost no protection for Palestinians living under the violence of the Israeli army and settlers’ daily attacks.
Given some of these basic realities, it is unsurprising that the PA is deeply unpopular among Palestinians. According to a Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research poll published on December 13, 2024, only 10 percent of Palestinians were satisfied with the PA in the West Bank, where it governs. The same poll found that 88 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would like PA President Mahmoud Abbas to resign, with 58 percent supporting the complete dissolution of the PA.
The recent wave of recognition or intention of recognition is not a support for the Palestinians right of self-determination but rather a political support and endorsement for the Palestinian Authority. None of those that recognized the State of Palestine or promised to do so spoke about accountability of Israel, none of them spoke about the ways they will support the establishment of the future Palestinian state, none of them, spoke about the lack of legitimacy and the corruption of the PA, and none spoke about how to stop the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza and/or the West Bank. The countries also pushed for the two-state solution without addressing in a substantive and practical way the barriers Israel has placed before it.
In other words, the new campaign to recognize the State of Palestine is a political theater rather than a real action, its main idea is to calm down the public opinion in those states without taking real action against Israel or confronting it. The campaign offered European states a way to avoid confronting Israel — a confrontation that would have required measures such as sanctions or embargoes.
Some will argue that recognizing the State of Palestine will help to end the occupation, and will make it clear that Israel is occupying a member state of the UN, but since the UN member states are not moving to save the Palestinian people, why will they save the Palestinian state? From the other side, some will argue that recognition will put many of those recognized states in the position of why Palestine will be different from Ukraine and will not get similar support?
Actions not Words
Every time there is talk about the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967, borders, the countries that initiate such talks do not hesitate to accompany it with an agenda for the Palestinians to complete, including security, administrative, and financial reforms.
Not only this, some states are using the recognition as a tool to pressure Israel in the context of the war on the Gaza Strip. For example, Britain’s announcement, made by its Prime Minister Keir Starmer, that London would recognize the State of Palestine if Israel did not halt its war on the Gaza Strip, halt annexation of the West Bank, and commit to a political path toward a two-state solution.
Here, I think there is a lax approach to Israeli political and field behavior. The threat of future recognition of the State of Palestine considering it a sufficient step to halt Israel’s plans to undermine any possibility of establishing a Palestinian state, ignores a reality summarized by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who commented on the collective call to recognize the State of Palestine: “It is important that there is nothing to recognize when the time comes.”
This growing international effort to recognize the State of Palestine must not be limited to calls for a two-state solution. This call operates in safe spaces and fails to address the fundamental obstacle of the lack of a truly influential Israeli party willing to support a two-state solution.
Based on the above, continued international action for a Palestinian state is important, but its continuation, using the same ineffective tools, the same logic that employs recognition tactically, and the same perspective that fails to engage decisively with Israel’s actions, is a testament to the latter’s determination to pursue its goal and its willingness to endure this international inconvenience.
To conclude, all those who recognized or intend to recognize the State of Palestine should take in consideration that recognition is only the beginning of the road not the end. If they intend to make the recognition meaningful, they have to guarantee that Israel will adopt a clear and strict timeline to end the occupation and allow the creation of the State of Palestine, otherwise they will need to take actions that might include sanctions, arms embargo, or other meaningful steps to make Israel do that. These countries also must obligate Israel to enable holding a free general election to allow the Palestinian people to elect their own legitimate representatives without any restriction. If the countries are really interested and able to do that, the recognition of the State of Palestine will be a real substantive step towards achieving peace and stability in the region, otherwise, it will be a declarative act without any impact on the ground. Hopefully it will bring the needed outcome.