Recognition of a Palestinian state is long overdue — now the West is understanding the urgency - ABC Religion & Ethics

3 days ago

Amidst the worsening famine in Gaza, where tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed in 21 months of war — many of them women and children — and others buried beneath rubble and ruins, recognition of the State of Palestine is back on the international agenda. But this time, there is an unmistakable urgency.
In what appears to have been a carefully choreographed move, President Emmanuel Macron lead the way with his 24 July statement on X that France will be the first G7 nation to recognise the State of Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September. Macron's announcement put pressure on other G7 members to follow suit and, sure enough, a few days later, after recalling his cabinet from their summer break, and speaking to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the phone, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that the UK would also recognise the State of Palestine in September 'unless Israel met certain conditions'.
These conditions include calling on Israel to take 'substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace', to revive 'the prospect of a two state solution' — and crucially, to allow 'the UN to restart the supply of aid' and make clear 'there will be no annexations in the West Bank'.
These conditions — especially those requiring Israel to refrain from annexing the West Bank and agree to a pathway toward a two-state solution — are impossible for Israel to meet. Netanyahu's coalition would collapse if he agreed to them, and he immediately rejected them. The Knesset has passed a resolution supporting the annexation of the West Bank, and Israel's civil administration has announced that it plans to press ahead with the controversial E1 project that would slice the West Bank in half.
To keep his coalition together, the Israeli prime minister and his cabinet have reportedly gone so far as to agree to far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich's demand that Israel annex parts of the Gaza Strip, not just the West Bank.
So what is recognition, anyway? Why does it matter, why do Palestinians cherish it so much, and why is Netanyahu so vehemently opposed to it? Should Australia recognise the State of Palestine, and what would that look like? Is this all just a matter of virtue signalling, as its critics and opponents allege?
Recognition as a first step
Recognition is an official act of state. It is usually bilateral but can also be done collectively in a multilateral forum like the United Nations, and results in an exchange of ambassadors between two states accorded full sovereign rights — including diplomatic immunity. Recognition of the State of Palestine by Australia would mean that the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific would become an embassy. Australia could sign treaties with the State of Palestine, rather than with the Palestinian National Authority, in areas of mutual interest covering the full gamut of international relations from tourism to trade.
Since I last wrote on the topic of recognition for this site, the State of Palestine has been recognised by Norway, Ireland, Spain and Slovenia. To date, 149 states recognise Palestine — including the Vatican — according to the official list maintained by Palestine's foreign ministry. France will be the 150th state.
For the UK, this would be a historic decision given that the conflict began with a British declaration — the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917 – promising the Jewish people 'a national home' in Palestine on the understanding that 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities'. As I have demonstrated at length, Palestinian rights were systematically prejudiced, if not violated, by Britain during its colonial rule in Palestine (1917–1948).
Keir Starmer's announcement, if he follows through with it, will at least correct part of the wrong that was done to the Palestinian people when Britain abruptly left in 1948. But recognition is just a first step.
The worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza
When I last wrote in February 2024, I did not think the war in Gaza would still be going these many months later. Nor did I think the world would stand by while Israel's military and private security contractors reduced aid to Gaza and turned food distribution sites into killing zones. I could not have imagined that Donald Trump would be elected to a second term and that his administration would remove the sanctions the Biden administration placed on violent settlers in the West Bank.
It was in the context of the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza and amid far-right calls to displace Palestinians that Australia, the UK, France and 25 other nations issued a joint statement on 21 July condemning Israel for what it calls 'the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food'. The statement warned Israel that those nations were 'prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region'.
At that stage, only ten of the nations had recognised the State of Palestine, indicating that more may be prepared to do so at the UN General Assembly in September.
The importance of international coordination
Macron's announcement on 24 July came in response to a letter from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that was addressed to him and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In that letter, Abbas condemned the 7 October attacks unequivocally, called for the immediate release of the remaining hostages being held by Hamas, and pledged to hold presidential and general elections in 2026. The exchange of letters was coordinated with France and Saudi Arabia, which are taking part in an international conference at the United Nations in New York to promote a plan for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. The conference was originally slated for June but had to be rescheduled following the US-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Speaking of coordination, it is also significant that on the same day the UK made its announcement, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong agreed to a joint statement with a dozen other foreign ministers in which they expressed their willingness to recognise the State of Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September. While the language used in the statement was somewhat fudged, the overall sentiment was clear: given the commitments made by President Abbas to Macron in his June letter — which included acceptance of the principle of a demilitarised Palestinian state — those states that have yet to recognise Palestine are prepared to do so in order to keep the two-state solution alive.
American and Israeli critics argue that the recognition of a Palestinian state is little more than 'virtue signalling' and will make no difference to the realities on the ground. The Israeli government has claimed recognition is a 'reward for terrorism'. Likewise, the Trump administration has called the French-Saudi conference at the UN a 'publicity stunt' that would 'prolong the war, embolden Hamas, and reward its obstruction and undermine real-world efforts to achieve peace'.
I believe these arguments are both unfounded and ignore the fact that it is not Hamas (or what remains of it) that France and the UK are proposing to recognise, but the State of Palestine governed by President Abbas's Fatah party, which was kicked out of Gaza by Hamas during the 2007 civil war.
A question of timing
Slowly, all too slowly, the world is dismissing the claim that Palestinian statehood represents a security threat to Israel. The recent report of the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, before which I appeared, stated:
The Government cannot continue to wait for the perfect time [to recognise the State of Palestine] because experience shows that there will never be a perfect time, and in hindsight it is possible to see times when it should have occurred.
The committee — made up of cross-party MPs, with two Conservative MPs dissenting — urged the UK government to 'now recognise the state of Palestine while there is still a state to recognise'.
As I explained on this site back in 2023, the argument that Palestine meets the criteria for statehood in international law, so far as the reality of the occupation allows, has been accepted by the UK and other states since 2011 — the year Palestine first applied for UN membership. Last year, the International Court of Justice declared Israel's occupation of Palestine unlawful. I emphasised in 2023 that recognising the State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel is a political choice for the Australian government to make: recognition could be constitutive and need not await a full Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, although that would be ideal.
The debate ever since 2011 has therefore been political, a question of timing — to ensure that any statement recognising the State of Palestine would have maximum political effect. Many states have decided that time is now.
Why recognition matters
Being a state matters. It matters because it is at the foundation of our fragile and primitive system of international relations. If you are not a state you cannot join the UN, that exclusive club of sovereign states. You cannot vote for UN resolutions. You cannot claim self-defence or ask other states to come to your defence. You cannot claim immunity — either for the state, or for your officials. You cannot become party to treaties or agreements with other states and enforce them in the courts. And if you are not a state, you will find yourself locked out of many of the most important decisions that affect your state's interests and those of your people, because you will not be given a seat at the most important international clubs and conferences where these decisions are made.
Recognition of Palestinian statehood is not just a recognition of Palestinian self-determination, as many have claimed — for these states had recognised Palestinian self-determination long ago. Rather it is recognition that Palestinians have sovereign title to their lands.
Of course, it would have been much better had these states recognised Palestine years earlier. The fact that it took what human rights organisations and historians deem to be a genocide before Western governments were willing to make this long-overdue decision is one of the most alarming aspects of this tragedy. Recognition is, after all, little comfort for a devastated Palestinian population. But if the Palestinian leadership plays its cards right and uses the moment to galvanise further international action against the Netanyahu government for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity — charges which will have to be addressed in any future peace settlement — this could be the beginning of a process that could lead to a prolonged peace between the two states.
Putting the onus on Israel and Hamas
The UK's decision to place conditions on Israel as part of its announcement of intent to recognise Palestine is noteworthy. Previously, the negotiating tactic was to make Palestinian statehood conditional on acts the Palestinians themselves were expected to perform — such as establish good government, conduct free and fair elections, uphold human rights and so on. What this overlooked, of course, is the fact that any Palestinian government would fail to meet these conditions due to Israel's prolonged occupation and ongoing military rule over the territories.
This time around, recognition is being used as a way of both circumventing the intransigence of Israel and Hamas and placing certain conditions on them — which include an implicit expectation that Israel will end its military rule over Palestinian life and annexation policy, that Hamas will release the hostages, agree to a ceasefire, disarm and have no future governing role in Gaza.
These are conditions that Israel and Hamas are unlikely to accept. Accordingly, the UK, France and now Canada are virtually guaranteed to recognise a Palestinian state in September. The question, then, is what happens next.
The question of UN membership
It is not a coincidence that the UK and France have said that they will recognise a Palestinian state in September. This is when the UN General Assembly's plenary session opens, when heads of state customarily give their speeches addressing the global themes of the day. Returning the perennial question of Palestine to the UN is poignant and highly symbolic, not least because this is where the conflict was exacerbated following a failed plan to create two states in 1947.
To become a member of the UN — that most coveted of prizes — any applicant needs the support of both the Security Council and the General Assembly. Palestine is a permanent observer state at the UN but not a full member state because its previous two membership applications were vetoed by the United States, most recently in April 2024. If the UK and France follow through with their stated intentions in September, it will mean that four of the five permanent members of the Security Council recognise Palestine. Only the United States will remain. The issue is whether the United States will veto Palestine's third application for membership or abstain.
It seems clear that the UK and France are paving the path for a collective act of recognition by Western liberal democracies by acting in concert and as a bloc. Whatever happens in September, one thing is clear: whether Palestine becomes a UN member or not, it will have been recognised as a state by nearly all UN members. Such a collective act of recognition will amount to a massive endorsement of Palestinian rights and hopefully go a long way toward ending the tired debate as to whether Palestine is a state.
Victor Kattan is Assistant Professor in Public International Law at the University of Nottingham. He is the author of From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891–1949, and the co-editor of Making Endless War: The Vietnam and Arab-Israeli Conflicts in the History of International Law, The Breakup of India and Palestine: The Causes and Legacies of Partition and Violent Radical Movements in the Arab World: The Ideology and Politics of Non-State Actors.