The issue of recognizing the State of Palestine continues to reveal a clear divide, reflecting the complex layers of geopolitical interests and strategic alignments. So far, 12 European Union member states have recognized Palestine, while 15 others remain hesitant, despite publicly supporting a two-state solution.
At the Palace of Versailles during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the modern discourse on self-determination was born, inspired by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points. These principles laid the foundation for the right of peoples to self-determination as a cornerstone of peace and stability. Over a century later, President Emmanuel Macron announced his intention to recognize the State of Palestine at the upcoming UN General Assembly meetings in New York this September, sparking a diplomatic “tsunami” of declarations from global powers expressing similar intentions.
These reactions, however, reveal a striking duality between verbal support for the two-state solution along the 1967 borders and a continued reluctance to act — a duality that reflects the entrenched support for Israel’s state terrorism. Historically, the world has been divided on recognizing Palestine, shaped by various colonial legacies and levels of dependency on Israeli and U.S. foreign policy.
Today the American discourse denies the Palestinian right to self determination and instead promotes normalizing annexation, occupation, and forced displacement and practices pressure and intimidation against the states that express support or readiness to recognize the State of Palestine. As a result — the UN member states are facing a true test: Will their position remain limited to condemnation and diplomatic statements, or will they translate their words into concrete policies that support Palestinian rights?
The joint statement supporting Palestinian statehood released by 15 foreign ministers on July 29, more than two years into an ongoing campaign of genocide and crimes against humanity in Palestine, comes at a moment of rising legal accountability. Members of the international community now face potential legal repercussions, both domestically and internationally. This may explain why foreign ministers from Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, and Spain issued a coordinated call for recognition of the State of Palestine ahead of the UN General Assembly in September 2025.
The statement opened with a condemnation of what it called the “heinous terrorist attack” of October 7, without offering any balanced reference to the broader context of the ongoing occupation and crimes committed against Palestinians for over seven decades, as well as the genocidal war in Gaza. This selective framing suggests that these countries still provide implicit political justification for Israel’s actions. Such imbalance in language weakens the impact of any subsequent initiative supporting Palestinian rights.
While the statement may appear to be a step forward toward recognition of a Palestinian state, in essence, it reflects a familiar “carrot and-stick” approach. This has long been the pattern in dealing with the Palestinian cause, couched in coercive diplomacy, pressure tactics, and repeated conditionality.
Instead of treating recognition as an inherent right of a people who cannot be asked to negotiate over their existence, the statement is loaded with veiled conditions. The ministers welcomed commitments recently made by President Mahmoud Abbas on June 10, 2025 — commitments that included six specific points. However, these cannot be viewed outside the context of political conditions likely to be used later as leverage:
1. Condemnation of the October 7 attack.
2. A call for the release of hostages and the disarmament of Hamas.
3. Ending stipends for Palestinian prisoners.
4. Reform of the Palestinian educational curriculum.
5. Commitment to holding elections within a year to renew political legitimacy.
6. Acceptance of the principle of a demilitarized Palestinian state.
These points were explicitly listed in the statement, making them politically binding in future diplomatic processes. This is where the real danger lies: The price demanded in exchange for recognition of the Palestinian state is additional concessions from the Palestinians rather than any accountability for Israel’s ongoing war crimes in Gaza, denial of the Palestinians’ rights, ethnic cleansing, and occupation. Nevertheless, the significance of recognition itself cannot be dismissed. But what’s needed now is a clear and unified Palestinian position — one that welcomes these international decisions while firmly anchoring them to a non-negotiable requirement: an end to the Israeli occupation within a defined timeframe, as recommended by the July 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
As for the statement’s repeated reference to the so-called “day after” in Gaza, this must remain an exclusively Palestinian matter — one to be defined by the collective will of the Palestinian people in all its diversity and not dictated by external formulas or through the exclusion of any political actor.
Should international recognition of the State of Palestine materialize, it would mark an important step on the long road toward freedom and independence. However, true progress will only come when the guiding principle becomes crystal clear. The root cause of this tragedy is the occupation, and the only path to a just and lasting peace is its termination and not the trading of rights to comply with conditions.
The reality today demands that these countries go beyond symbolic gestures. They must take up their legal and moral responsibilities by imposing economic and diplomatic sanctions on Israel in adherence to the world order and by linking any future normalization or bilateral relations to an end to the occupation. Recognition of Palestine must become a political and legal reality, one that puts pressure on Israel and disrupts its perpetual impunity for the crimes it continues to commit against the Palestinian people.
Recognition is the Beginning of a Process, not its Culmination
Over the past three decades, international rhetoric has remained committed to the two-state solution, even as Israel has continued to entrench colonial facts on the ground — facts that have effectively destroyed any realistic opportunity for peace or statehood. All of this has occurred with complete impunity, largely due to the blanket immunity granted to Israel by the international community led by the United States, which continues to provide the legal, financial, diplomatic, political, and military shield for Israel’s system of organized state terror.
The international failure to take punitive or coercive diplomatic measures to stop Israeli violations has played into the hands of Israel. It is no longer just negligence; it has become a form of political luxury and diplomatic delay, buying time for the ongoing settler-colonial project at the direct expense of Palestinian rights.
If recognition is to be a starting point rather than an endpoint, there are several tangible steps countries can take to support it:
- Impose economic and political sanctions on Israel as an occupying power, including boycotts and accountability for settlement expansion.
- Grant full recognition to the State of Palestine as a sovereign entity on the 1967 borders, instead of continuing diplomatic ambiguity.
- Leverage international legal instruments to hold Israel accountable for its crimes rather than limiting responses to symbolic condemnation.
- Define Israel’s internationally recognized borders rather than allowing it to expand unchecked at the expense of neighboring states’ sovereignty.
- Enforce international legal standards in dealing with Israel, including halting arms transfers and ending its impunity.
Recognition of the Palestinian state must be seen as the beginning of a process, not its culmination. The right to self-determination and statehood is inalienable, and the responsibility of all member states has grown in light of recent legal and diplomatic developments, such as South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. These states now face unprecedented legal and ethical obligations and can no longer hide behind neutrality or procedural delays.
Recognition of the State of Palestine as a diplomatic milestone is undeniable, but it must not be mistaken for the ultimate goal. What is urgently needed now is for this recognition to be accompanied by real policies capable of establishing new facts on the ground, restoring the authority of international law, and delivering justice to the Palestinian people.
If these states genuinely wish to be partners in peace, they must go beyond slogans and translate their principles into concrete actions, especially in light of the mounting threats to Palestinian self-determination caused by recent U.S. policies.
The Debate on Annexation: Between Law and Politics
The debate around annexation is a long-standing one, involving both legal and political dimensions. From a legal standpoint, it is important to clarify that annexation violates various international laws, including:
- UN Security Council Resolution 338, which reaffirms Resolution 242 and other relevant international resolutions on Palestine. Annexation contradicts these due to its unilateral nature and the denial of both parties’ rights to jointly determine such matters.
- Fourth Geneva Convention, particularly Articles 49 and 146. Annexation is incompatible with the prohibition on forcibly transferring populations under occupation — an act that falls under the classification of war crimes before the International Criminal Court (ICC).
- United Nations Charter, specifically Article 2, which prohibits the acquisition of land by force.
- 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which condemns racial discrimination and apartheid.
- Signed agreements, particularly Article 7 of the 1995 Oslo II Agreement, which emphasizes mutual agreement and avoiding unilateral steps.
Despite annexation being in clear breach of all these international legal frameworks, Israel attempts to circumvent accountability by using alternative terminology, such as “applying sovereignty” or “applying Israeli law.” Here, it is important to note: Sovereignty, legally, is governed by international law. For example, Israel’s declaration of sovereignty over the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem remains legally invalid, as sovereignty over those areas belongs to the Syrians and Palestinians respectively under international law.
By contrast, the imposition of Israeli civil law is a domestic matter. The Israeli Government can impose its laws in the occupied territories based solely on Israeli domestic legislation, but this stands in direct violation of international law.
This is how Israel manipulates terminology to mask illegality. Sovereignty is governed by international law, and the Palestinians’ right to self-determination on the 1967 borders is a legal right, regardless of Israel’s policies. Similarly, the right of return for refugees is enshrined in UN Resolution 194, and no Israeli declaration or policy can annul it.
Annexation is inherently tied to sovereignty, and thus directly linked to international law. We conclude that annexation violates multiple international legal instruments, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and UN Resolutions 242, 338, 194, and 2334, all of which emphasize a mutually agreed-upon solution based on the 1967 borders and explicitly denounce unilateral actions. Therefore, any attempt by Israel to annex occupied territory is illegal.
Some might argue that annexation of small parts — such as settlements, the Jordan Valley, or even the 30% proposed in Trump’s plan — is more acceptable. The scale is irrelevant, however Whether Israel annexes 1% or 30%, the outcome is the same: a violation of international law, UN resolutions, and bilateral agreements, all of which stress mutual agreement and prohibit unilateral actions that alter the status quo.
A key dilemma remains: the relationship between law and politics, and the extent to which politics overrides the enforcement of international law. Palestinians should not surrender to the prevailing imbalance between law and politics. International law does not expire, and rights remain intact. Therefore, we must preserve and strengthen our diplomatic and legal tools, never abandoning them.
Upholding UN Commitments and International Law: The UNGA Resolution and the ICJ Opinion Must Not Be Derailed
While the recent diplomatic momentum around recognizing the State of Palestine is a welcome shift, it must not be allowed to overshadow or replace the legal obligations already established — particularly UNGA Resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 of September 18, 2024 and the ICJ advisory opinion issued in July 2024.
Resolution ES-10/24 explicitly mandated follow-up action, calling on the UN secretary general to report on implementation and on member states to consider appropriate measures in response to Israel’s continued occupation and violations of international law. This resolution is not rhetorical; it is a roadmap for enforcement and accountability, demanding serious international engagement in 2025 and beyond.
The ICJ’s July 2024 advisory opinion significantly reinforced this legal framework. The Court concluded that Israel’s prolonged military occupation, settlement enterprise, and de facto annexation of Palestinian territory are illegal under international law. It reaffirmed that the settlement project violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and declared that the occupation has lost any temporary justification and constitutes a breach of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.
Importantly, the ICJ opinion also underscored that third states are under clear legal obligations:
- Not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from Israel’s actions,
- Not to render aid or assistance to the maintenance of the occupation or the settlement enterprise,
- And to cooperate to bring the illegal situation to an end through lawful means.
This opinion is binding in its legal reasoning and must serve as a guiding framework for all member states, especially as they prepare for the September 2025 General Assembly session. Recognition of Palestine, while long overdue, must not become a substitute for action on the legal and political obligations established by both the ICJ and the UNGA. Recognition without accountability risks reinforcing a pattern of symbolic diplomacy and tactical delay — one that Israel has exploited for decades to cement its settler-colonial project and military control over Palestinian land.
Now, more than ever, the international community must:
- Act on the ICJ’s findings by enforcing legal consequences, including sanctions and the suspension of military cooperation;
- Follow through with the September 2024 UNGA resolution by ensuring the secretary general’s report leads to tangible, time-bound enforcement measures;
- And reaffirm that ending the occupation — not merely recognizing statehood — is the pathway to justice and durable peace.
The conflation of recognition with resolution must be resisted. The two must proceed in tandem, anchored in international law and institutional accountability. Anything less will only sustain the status quo of injustice and prolong Palestinian suffering.
Unlike Annexation, Recognition Serves Israel, Too
Annexation will also harm Israel strategically, particularly its image as a “Jewish state.” Israel is distracting the international community with technical details, aiming to lower Palestinian demands and expectations. We must return to the core goals of our national interest: freedom, dignity, and ending the occupation.
Annexation would be a de facto declaration by Netanyahu of the death of the two-state solution and a formal statement of intent to assert Israeli sovereignty, control, and military rule over the entire Palestinian territory. It would signal Israel’s continued occupation and its treatment of Palestinians under an apartheid regime.
Enacting annexation would draw attention to Israel’s violations of international law and place the country under serious diplomatic consequences that would damage its global standing. It would also place direct legal responsibility on Israel as an occupying power, accountable for the wellbeing of the occupied population, and could lead to prosecution of its military leaders as war criminals in international courts.
Moreover, annexation would place responsibility squarely on the international community, which has spent 35 years promoting a two-state solution without recognizing the Palestinian state or defining the borders of the Israeli state it recognized long ago.
In essence, annexation is synonymous with the settler-colonial project. It serves to legitimize widespread geographic settlement expansion and announces the official end of any meaningful peace process.
Recognizing Palestine as a state in accordance with international law is not only crucial (because it is the right thing to do), but it is also necessary for the accountability of Palestine. A well-functioning state is essential for people: It influences urgent issues related to everyday life. This became clear when Palestine obtained nonmember observer state status at the UN General Assembly in 2012 by a majority vote of 138 of the 194 UN member states (UNGA Resolution, A/RES/67/19), and the PLO declared that the State of Palestine is no longer obliged to postpone the exercise of its right to accede to multilateral treaties and conventions. As such, Palestine joined human rights conventions related to women, youth, health, education, infrastructure, and many other treaties that provide guidance for a well-functioning state. Joining those treaties, conventions, or organizations is crucial to continued Palestinian institutional building, good governance, and the upholding of human rights, all of which form the basis for an independent and sovereign state. This accession to core democracy and human rights treaties as per the UN is a significant step toward enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights in Palestine.
From a political science perspective, international recognition is indeed an important step — but sovereignty on the ground remains the ultimate objective of diplomacy and political struggle. This sovereignty cannot be achieved through statements or by waiting for elusive commitments that never materialize.
In the eyes of the Palestinian people, none of these diplomatic developments hold meaning as long as they continue to suffer from oppression, injustice, starvation, racism, terrorism, and genocide under the most brutal, prolonged, illegal occupation of the 21st century.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
• Israel / Palestinian Territories: Joint statement of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs - New York Call (29 July 2025) https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/israel-palestinian-territories/ news/2025/article/israel-palestinian-territories-joint-statement-of-the-ministers of-foreign-284968
• UNGA Resolution of September 18, 2024. https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/ES-10/24
• Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176
• Times of Israel poll: Narrow majority of Israelis oppose annexation of Gaza territory https://www.timesofisrael.com/times-of-israel-poll-majority-of-israelis-oppose annexation-of-gaza-territory
• 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, which condemns racial discrimination and apartheid. https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201015/volume-1015-i-14861 english.pdf
• 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the modern discourse on self-determination was born — inspired by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-woodrow-wilsons-14-points https://www.aaup.edu/about-university/faculty-members/dalal-iriqat/publications