Which countries recognise the state of Palestine. What would statehood look like?
Zena Chamas
Moroccans chant slogans and wave the Palestinian flag during a march to express their solidarity with the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Rabat on 19 July, 2025.
Photo:
AFP
As of 2025, there are about 147 countries that officially recognise the state of Palestine.
France is set to recognise a Palestinian state
at the United Nations General Assembly in September, bringing the total to 148 countries.
Currently, there is no Palestinian state.
Instead, there are the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which include Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Only the Jewish state - Israel - exists.
Some Palestinians live in Israel as citizens. Others live as refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.
As of March 2025, the state of Palestine has been recognised as a sovereign nation by 147 of 193 member states of the United Nations, about 75 percent.
In 2024, a group of UN experts called on all United Nations member states to recognise the State of Palestine, in order to bring about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza war.
Since then, nine countries - Armenia, Slovenia, Ireland, Norway, Spain, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Barbados - formally recognised the State of Palestine.
Most of the Middle East, Africa and Asia recognise Palestinian statehood.
On Thursday (local time), France's President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would recognise a Palestinian state in hopes it would bring peace to the region.
In response to Macron's move, Netanyahu said that such a move "rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy".
"A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel - not to live in peace beside it," Netanyahu said in a post on X.
In other parts of Europe, Slovenia, Malta and Belgium are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood.
Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Japan and South Korea also do not.
Australia does not recognise a Palestinian state.
On its website, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states Australia is: "Committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders."
Public outrage as the Palestinian death toll has climbed has been followed only slowly by official statements from governments reluctant to criticise Israel - until now.
The Australian Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) has argued that Australia symbolically recognising Palestinian statehood would mean "establishing a formal diplomatic relationship with Palestine".
Australia currently has an ambassador to Israel, but only a representative to Palestine.
In recent comments, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not refer directly to recognising Palestine, but pointed to Australia's long-standing ambitions around recognition.
"Recognising the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own has long been a bipartisan position in Australia," Albanese said.
"The reason a two-state solution remains the goal of the international community is because a just and lasting peace depends upon it.
"Australia is committed to a future where both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can live in peace and safety, within secure and internationally recognised borders."
Last year, Foreign Minister Penny Wong indicated Australia was considering recognising a Palestinian state as part of a peace process, rather than at the endpoint.
This week, Australia joined 27 other countries demanding an immediate end to the war.
In November 2024, Australia voted in favour of a draft United Nations resolution recognising "permanent sovereignty" of Palestinians and the Golan Heights to natural resources in the Occupied Territories for the first time in more than two decades.
A total of 159 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution in a UN committee, including Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Germany and Japan.
The State of Palestine was formally declared by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) on 15 November, 1988.
It claims sovereignty over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.
According to senior lecturer in law at the University of South Australia, Juliette McIntyre, a state has certain defining features under international law.
These features include a permanent population, a determinate territory, an "effective" government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
"In some ways, the most important thing is recognition by other states - this enables entering into diplomatic relations, and membership of international organisations," McIntyre said.
She added that the governance of a Palestinian state could look like "free and fair elections for all Palestinians exercising their right of self-determination".
"It is up to the Palestinian people to elect their representatives and decide on their form of governance," she said.
Recognising a Palestinian state could mean the beginning of a "two-state solution" where both a Jewish state and an Arab state would exist at the same time.
"A two-state solution requires two states. Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory has been found to be unlawful.
"Recognition of Palestine is not hostile to Israel, Israel is an established state and recognition of Palestine does nothing to impact on this," McIntyre said.
The two-state solution is still widely regarded by world leaders as the only way to end the conflict, but is not as popular in Israel and parts of the occupied Palestinian territories.
"The territorial integrity of both states should be respected, and new borders could only come about by treaty agreement between both states," McIntyre said.
What are the one-state and two-state solutions?
Photo shows Benjamin Netanyahu stands in front of two Israeli flags. Benjamin Netanyahu stands in front of two Israeli flags.
On Wednesday, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, voted 71-13 in favour of annexation of the West Bank, raising questions about the future of a Palestinian state.
The non-binding vote was backed by members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition, as well as some opposition members of parliament.
In a recent post on X, Netanyahu said: "Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel."
Both Netanyahu and other members of Israel's parliament have shown their lack of support for a two-state solution.
This year, the UN, which largely supports a two-state solution, will hold an international conference on the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution in New York from 28 to 29 July.
The United States has opted out of attendance.
-
ABC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
21 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Israel 'quite clearly' breaking international law
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Israel has "quite clearly" breached international law by limiting food deliveries to starving civilians in Gaza as he escalates his criticism of the Jewish state. Mr Albanese spoke of his emotional response to images of gaunt and dying children in the Palestinian territory, while acknowledging increased airdrops of aid by Israel was "a start". "It just breaks your heart," he told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. "A one-year-old boy is not a Hamas fighter, and the civilian casualties and deaths in Gaza is completely unacceptable. It's completely indefensible. "Quite clearly it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March. It's a breach of decent humanity and of morality, and everyone can see that." But the prime minister would not commit Australia to following the lead of France in recognising Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September. Any resolution would need to guarantee Hamas, the defacto ruling authority in Gaza which is listed as a terrorist organisation by Australia, had no part in Palestine's future, he said. "We need security for the state of Israel, but you need to have the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for their own state realised as well," Mr Albanese said. "That will mean security arrangements, it will need agreements as well about the rebuilding of Gaza and the West Bank. It will need the issue of settlements to resolve as well." Recognising a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution in the Middle East is included in Labor's national platform. "Are we about to imminently do that? No, we are not," Mr Albanese said. "But we will engage constructively. The United States as well will have a critical role in this, they have to play a role." Mr Albanese once again called for an immediate ceasefire and for Gaza to release Israeli hostages. But opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said the government had failed to lay the blame for the war at the feet of Hamas in a statement condemning Israel's denial of aid on Friday. "What this statement does not do is squarely say to the global community, we would like to see the end of the war in Gaza. And the next sentence should have been, 'and we call on the terrorists Hamas, who commenced this war, and who are ensuring the suffering of the civilians in Gaza, to end this war tomorrow'," Senator Cash told Sky News.
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Israel allows aid airdrops to Gaza as famine looms
Israel has said it would allow food to be airdropped to Gaza and designate humanitarian corridors for UN aid convoys, as thousands of Palestinians face the threat of widespread famine. Before Israel announced that the flights would resume, the United Arab Emirates had said it would restart aid drops and
Newsroom
21 hours ago
- Newsroom
Why NZ must resist the trashing of international law
Opinion: Last week, the foreign ministries of 30 countries, including New Zealand, belatedly issued a joint statement that acknowledged the 'suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths', demanded 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire', and warned Netanyahu's government of 'further action' if this was not achieved. However, this statement highlights something even bigger than the escalation of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, since the Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023, has led to the death of more than 61,000 people – around 59,500 Palestinians and 1710 Israelis – and cost the lives of hundreds of journalists, academics and humanitarian aid workers. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is a symptom of the post-9/11 erosion of an international rules-based order, enshrined in institutions like the United Nations and norms like multilateralism. The US' illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, China's assertiveness in the South China Sea, Putin's annexation of Crimea and subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as well as recent US trade protectionism are examples of an increasing trend that has weakened the importance of rules in global politics. During this period, the United Nations Security Council, the organ with formal responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, has repeatedly been paralysed by the veto powers of its five permanent members. The biggest offenders in this regard have been Russia, the US and China, three states imbued with a strong sense of national exceptionalism, that have not hesitated to cast a veto or act unilaterally to protect their perceived national concerns even if it undermines international law. It should be emphasised that most states including relatively small players like New Zealand and middle powers like Australia are dependent on an international-rules based order for their prosperity and security. While rules are often seen as an encumbrance by great powers, they are viewed by most small and middle powers as essential in order to conduct their international activities in a relatively safe, equitable and predictable fashion. Nevertheless some observers believe that smaller states like New Zealand are powerless to prevent the slide towards the 'law of the jungle' in the international arena. According to the so-called realist perspective, great powers do what great powers do and 'little' New Zealand has no choice but to quietly accept blatant violations of international law when they are committed by powerful traditional friends like the US or its close allies such as Israel. However, such a perspective exaggerates the role of great powers in the interconnected world of the 21st century. We should recall the founders of the UN in 1945 conferred the right of veto on five great powers of that time to ensure they remained in the organisation and helped solve the world's problems. This logic explains why the Labour New Zealand government, led by Prime Minister Peter Fraser, was prepared to reluctantly concede the necessity of the veto mechanism in the Security Council when the UN was established. Fast forward 80 years. In 2025, it is clear that superpowers such as the US or China cannot run the world – even if they want to – simply because key challenges such as climate change, pandemics, transnational terrorism and financial contagion do not respect borders and are simply too big to be resolved unilaterally or with the assistance of a few allies. This means, despite intensified geopolitical rivalries, small states and middle powers are not doomed to be fast followers and can, if they choose to act strategically in a multilateral fashion, exert some agency and influence on international issues where there is a void in great-power leadership. The precedent of the Christchurch Call in 2020, when New Zealand collaborated with France in a bid to curb online extremism which won the support of more than 55 states, including Biden's America, points to the potential for bottom-up multilateral initiatives in the contemporary era. Confronted with the steady decline of international rules in trade and security matters, smaller powers cannot rely on veto-wielding states in the UN Security Council to reverse this damaging trend. But the New Zealand government does have the option of reaching out to other members of the UN to build international support for a diplomatic initiative to reinvigorate the idea of an international rules-based order. This vision would involve reforming the Security Council to make it a more reliable barrier to war by curtailing the use of the veto by the permanent five states or at least pressing for a new arrangement whereby General Assembly resolutions with more than two-thirds' support become binding and not subject to a veto. Without curbing the use of the veto in the Security Council or significantly increasing the power of the UN General Assembly, certain states will continue to believe they are 'above the law' and the prospect of more barbaric conflicts like Gaza will remain an ever-present possibility in our world.
