What would a recognised Palestine state mean for the world?

First Post

2 days ago

A growing wave of nations — including Canada, France and the UK — is preparing to recognise Palestine as a state. What does such a recognition mean? Does it change facts on the ground or simply carry symbolic weight? Here's everything to know about what a Palestinian state would actually look like read more
Palestinian demonstrators hold Palestinian flags as they celebrate after the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a Palestinian-drafted resolution to fly Palestine's flag at United Nations headquarters, September 11, 2015. File Image/Reuters
The question of Palestinian statehood has long been at the heart of one of the world's most intractable conflicts.
Now, an unprecedented wave is taking shape as major global powers move toward recognising an independent State of Palestine.
Canada has become the latest country to signal a historic shift in policy. Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Ottawa is preparing to formally recognise Palestine during the United Nations General Assembly in September, but only if key prerequisites are fulfilled.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Speaking after a virtual cabinet meeting on West Asia, Carney made it clear that recognition would depend on elections under the Palestinian Authority in 2026 and on Hamas — the armed group that controls Gaza — being excluded from governance.
Carney outlined strict conditions for the move, saying Canada would require Hamas to 'release all hostages it is holding, disarm, and play no role in the future governance of Palestine.'
The statement came at a time of rising pressure on Israel to halt its military campaign in Gaza, which began after Hamas's October 2023 raid that killed almost 1,200 people, mostly Israelis, and resulted in the kidnapping of more than 250 individuals.
Since then, the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza has reported over 60,000 deaths in the territory.
Carney's declaration places Canada alongside a growing bloc of nations reassessing their approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
France and the United Kingdom have already announced plans to recognise Palestine in the coming months, while Australia and New Zealand have signed on to a joint declaration signalling that they may follow.
That declaration — known as the New York Call — was issued by French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot and co-signed by 15 countries, including Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, and San Marino.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Several of these states have not previously recognised Palestine, while others — such as Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain — already have.
In the declaration, the signatories 'have already recognised, have expressed or express the willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine' and pledged support for 'the vision of the two-state solution where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders.'
The statement also pointed out the 'importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority,' a long-standing diplomatic priority.
France's President Emmanuel Macron has said his country will move forward with recognition 'in the near future,' and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that Britain would do so in September 'unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
People take part in a 'National March for Palestine' protest in London, UK, July 19, 2025. File Image/Reuters
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese voiced similar intent but highlighted timing, 'What we're looking at is the circumstances where recognition will advance the objective of the creation of two states,' he said.
'My entire political life, I've said I support two states, the right of Israel to exist within secure borders and the right of Palestinians to have their legitimate aspirations for their own state realised. That's my objective.'
How has Israel responded?
Israel has sharply condemned these recognition announcements. Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Damon, accused the countries of diverting attention from the plight of hostages taken by Hamas.
'While our hostages are languishing in Hamas terror tunnels in Gaza, these countries choose to engage in hollow statements instead of investing their efforts in their release,' Damon said.
He called the recognitions 'hypocrisy and a waste of time that legitimises terrorism and distances any chance of regional progress,' adding that 'those who truly want to make progress should start with an unequivocal demand for the immediate return of all the hostages and the disarmament of Hamas.'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly argued that the creation of a Palestinian state would undermine Israel's security.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
His coalition government includes hardline, far-right ministers and prominent settlers who are vehemently opposed to any Palestinian statehood, making recognition efforts deeply contentious domestically.
Netanyahu faces the risk of fracturing his ruling bloc if he signals even minimal openness to the idea.
Defining a State: Does Palestine meet the criteria?
The question of whether Palestine qualifies as a state under international law is not new.
The Montevideo Convention of 1933 established four key criteria for statehood: a permanent population, defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to engage in international relations.
By those standards, legal scholars say Palestine essentially meets the requirements, albeit with complications.
There is a population and territory — the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem — though all three are subject to varying degrees of Israeli control.
East Jerusalem has been effectively annexed by Israel, while Gaza is under Hamas rule and devastated by ongoing conflict.
The Palestinian Authority, which administers parts of the West Bank, was created under the Oslo Accords and has limited administrative and security functions.
It represents Palestinians internationally and maintains some government structures, even though its powers are restricted by the Israeli occupation and Hamas's control of Gaza.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Recognition would not resolve these limitations but would formalise diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority and symbolically affirm Palestinian sovereignty.
Recognition is a legal step with broader implications. According to Ardi Imseis, associate professor at Queen's University Faculty of Law and a former UN official, 'a complete revision of bilateral relations with Israel' would follow.
Speaking to The New York Times, he explained that any country recognising Palestine would have to reassess its agreements with Israel to ensure they don't infringe on the Palestinian state's rights, including 'political and territorial integrity, as well as economic, cultural, social and civil relations.'
Paul Reichler, an attorney who has represented sovereign states at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), elaborated that recognising states wouldn't need to sever all economic ties with Israel.
But there are limits: 'if, for example, a country that recognises a state of Palestine imports agricultural products from farms belonging to settlers in occupied territories, those agreements would be aiding and abetting the commission of a wrongful act,' he told The New York Times.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
How many nations already recognise Palestine?
Palestine has been recognised by a significant majority of the world's nations — 147 out of 193 UN member states — and has maintained that level of support for years.
It currently holds 'permanent observer state' status at the United Nations, which allows it to participate in debates but not to vote.
Recognition by the UK and France would mark a turning point, because both are permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Their support would align them with China and Russia, meaning the United States would stand alone as the only permanent member withholding recognition.
The US has acknowledged the Palestinian Authority since the mid-1990s, but it has consistently stopped short of recognising a state of Palestine.
While several past US presidents endorsed the idea of an eventual two-state solution, US President Donald Trump's administrations have leaned heavily toward Israel and rolled back US commitments to the Palestinian cause.
Symbolic step or real change?
The idea of recognition raises a fundamental question: does it simply carry symbolic weight, or can it produce tangible change on the ground?
Palestine is often described as a 'state that does and does not exist.'
It fields Olympic teams, issues passports, and maintains embassies in countries that already recognise it. Yet it lacks several core attributes of full sovereignty: its borders are disputed, it has no standing military, and it has no uncontested capital.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Because of these realities, recognition alone will not instantly transform life for Palestinians living under occupation. But it does send a clear political message.
Recognition acknowledges the Palestinian right to self-determination, rejects Israeli policies seen as undermining that right, and lays the groundwork for stronger pressure on Israel from civil society, lawmakers, and courts in recognising countries.
International law experts say that recognition can also have practical effects, particularly in trade and diplomacy.
As Imseis pointed out, agreements that conflict with obligations to a Palestinian state — for example, transactions involving goods produced in illegal settlements — may have to be reexamined or halted. This creates new legal obligations for countries that take the step.
What about the two-state vision?
The recognition campaign is fundamentally tied to the decades-old goal of a two-state solution, an idea enshrined in UN resolutions and repeatedly cited by world leaders.
Reichler summed up the principle: 'There are two peoples living between the river and the sea, not one, and they are entitled to separate states in which each of these peoples enjoys the full panoply of civil and human rights. The only solution is two states, and it so happens that is what international law requires and is reflected in UN resolutions and in determinations of the ICJ.'
Some nations, such as Norway, had long argued that recognition should come only after a negotiated settlement.
But with the peace process stalled and frustration mounting over Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank, more states are now taking the opposite approach — recognising Palestine first, hoping that diplomatic momentum might eventually push both sides back to the negotiating table.
If the UK, France, and Canada go ahead as planned, Palestine will have the backing of four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — leaving the United States increasingly isolated in its position.
With inputs from agencies