“The fact of the matter is that today Palestine does not exist, except as a memory or, more importantly, as an idea, a political and human experience, and an act of sustained popular will.” – Edward Said, The Question of Palestine.
Palestine’s inherent right to self-determination and independence is not a new development. Its acknowledgement at the international level goes back to 1988, when the UN General Assembly affirmed “the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967”. Such a right was reaffirmed when Palestine was granted non-member observer status at the UN in 2012. During these periods, it was mostly non-Western states that moved toward Palestinian statehood recognition, acting in accordance with the UN’s statements, which also conferred an important level of legitimacy on Palestine.
In the aftermath of the events of 7 October 2023, certain Western states have taken action in the recognition of Palestinian statehood, with the most notable coordinated action in September 2025. These recent moves raise several questions about the West’s true intentions in an increasingly failing international system.
It could be argued that the recognition is a moral statement against the genocide, which can no longer be denied or tolerated, especially given the recent findings of the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. However, beyond a simple moral justification, this move could be regarded as a deceptive political tool, with no practical effects for Palestine other than the visibility of the decades-old oppression the Palestinian people have endured. From the statements made by France and Belgium in ‘recognizing’ Palestine as a state, there is little reason to believe that Palestine’s status (both in law and in daily life) will see any positive impact. It does nothing to end Israeli occupation in the West Bank or the assault on humanity in Gaza. The only point of clarity in every statement is the unequivocal condemnation of Hamas.
Recognition is indeed another step toward the preparation for West-led negotiations that offer little advantage, let alone respect, for Palestinian sovereignty. This is evident in the overarching emphasis on a two-state solution, which is a symptom of the West’s intention to find a quick political solution to a conflict it has deeply contributed to. It is unfortunate that a genocide had to be perpetuated for the most powerful states to take concrete action. Whereas some of them, like Canada, have highlighted their long-standing support for a two-state solution, it is only in 2025, 37 years after the proclamation of the State of Palestine, that Canada moved to recognize the second state in such solution.
Even if negotiations for a two-state solution eventually become successful, the two states would not be on equal footing. Palestine would be left without the means to defend itself from future oppression. In this scenario, Western calls for a demilitarized Palestine are neither surprising nor new. The fact that the PA is also committed to demilitarization brings to forefront questions about whether they carry the confidence of the Palestinian people. Who would feel secure in a state with no legal means to defend themselves against occupation? The state that has actively occupied and committed genocidal acts against Palestine will continue to retain the ability to perpetuate those offences.
Another hint of the West’s intentions can be detected in the conditionality some states have set. Belgium, for instance, has conditioned the entire recognition on the release of hostages and the removal of Hamas from any position of influence in Palestine. Whether good-willed or not, Belgium’s move is solely political pressure masked as solidarity. Rather than contributing to the end of the genocide, it enables its continuation. In simple terms, if the hostages are not released, Palestinian statehood will not be recognized by Belgium, and the likelihood of the end of the oppression is, consequently, narrowed. Such a condition contributes to the deepening of polarization in the West, as it advances underlying assumptions about Hamas as the official representative of Palestine. It assumes Hamas will cease to have an influence once an agreement to end the war is reached. Although Hamas has agreed to release the remaining hostages, it has not yet committed to the demilitarization the West is seeking. Belgium’s conditions, thus, not only set an unreasonable standard for Palestine as a state, but also set it up for failure if Hamas does not act accordingly. The practical effect of its ‘intention’ to recognize Palestine is, then, irrelevant. It is only a side-effect in the continuation of the advancement of political interests and a step toward a level of stability that allows the West to avoid being accused of complicity in the genocide.
If not to duly acknowledge Palestinians’ right to sovereignty, perhaps recognition is used by some states as political pressure against Israel, who has even stated that “there will be no Palestinian state.” Belgium, in response, views this statement as “an additional reason for reaffirming the right and the need of the Palestinians having their own State.” However, the recognition of Palestinian statehood should not be tied to an ulterior motive to punish Israel for the genocide it is responsible for, especially when legal avenues for justice have been severely undermined. Doing so only weaponizes Palestinian statehood, making it void in substance.
Recognition as punishment is also impractical because it gives no incentive for Israel to stop the aggression. In practice, since Israel is reluctant to acknowledge Palestine’s right to self-determination, the negotiation then becomes a push-and-pull dynamic where the West aims to (re)draw separation lines and Israel wishes to erase all of them, even if Palestine consistently recognizes Israel’s right to existence. That even a demilitarized, bifurcated Palestinian state is unacceptable to Israel –to whom every country affirmed their allegiance in the recognition statements of 2025– raises significant concerns over what Palestinian state might actually exist in practice.
In addition to this, most of the states that vowed to recognize Palestine have expressed their support for Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza. This move hints to yet another point of dissonance between their words and their actions. On the one hand, they claim to recognize Palestinian self-determination. On the other hand, they eagerly support a plan that, far from being the remedy to all, is antithetical to sovereignty and outrageously oppressive against Palestinians. It is a tool for further oppression, which blatantly excludes the voice of Palestinians in a seemingly just path toward peace. The plan, among other things, decides to set up a ‘Board of Peace’ managed by Western politicians, vaguely alludes to the ‘redevelopment’ of Gaza, and conditions the delivery of humanitarian aid to the acceptance of the terms of the agreement by ‘both parties’. In addition, leaders from Arab and Islamic countries have welcomed the plan, and some states have even committed to supply troops for a ‘peacekeeping’ force in Gaza.
Throughout the Israeli onslaught in Gaza, dialogue with Arab and Islamic leaders has served as a stand in for Palestinian involvement in the determination of their future. Trump’s proposal takes Hamas as the representative of Palestine in negotiations with Israel. The Palestinian Authority –who although lacks democratic legitimacy functions as the official representative of Palestine at the international level– is granted a minimal role, if any. The most disruptive aspects of the plan are envisioned to be carried out without the express consent of the people it will impact the most.
For the Palestinian people, it seems that the recognition of Palestine does not change much of the reality they have been facing for many years. The overall feeling is clearly captured in the words of Majed Abusalama, “this recognition is not a step toward justice –it is part of our ongoing genocide.”
Hamas’ most recent acceptance of Trump’s peace plan may mean that Israel has at least one reason to stop the indiscriminate killing. Once (or if) the killing ceases, however, it remains to be seen whether Palestinian statehood will be given due space by the international community. This should inevitably involve strict respect for Palestinian sovereignty and the right of Palestinians to decide for themselves, demonstrable in concrete actions rather than empty declarations.
Leave a Reply