To recognise or not to recognise is not the question

This coming September, France plans to formally recognise the State of Palestine—joining several European Union countries, most recently Spain, Norway, and Ireland, as well as the United Kingdom, which is following a similar path. In total, ten EU member states now recognise Palestine based on its 1967 borders. Announcing the decision on 24 July, President Emmanuel Macron framed it as a contribution to peace in the Middle East, declaring that France, alongside “the Israelis, the Palestinians, and our European and international partners,” could show that peace is indeed “possible.” Yet Macron’s statement, like many before it, glosses over a central truth: recognition alone has never brought Palestinians any closer to genuine statehood or to ending Israel’s occupation. This is especially poignant given the United Kingdom’s historic role in planting the seeds of Israel through the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate—actions that set in motion the complex and tragic conflict still unresolved today.

The reality remains stark: despite being recognised by 147 of the 193 UN member states, Palestine is still neither an independent state nor a full member of the United Nations. Most recognition came in the wake of the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, yet they largely stopped there. Few of those states followed up with meaningful action to translate recognition into real sovereignty. The result has been decades of empty declarations, which have allowed Israel to entrench its occupation while the world congratulates itself for symbolic gestures.

This failure stems from a dangerous misconception: that recognition on paper is an end in itself rather than a means to achieving Palestinian statehood. Almost every UN member state—including the United States—claims to support a two-state solution. Yet they refuse to act as Israel works relentlessly to make that solution impossible. The current Israeli government has turned the destruction of any prospect for Palestinian sovereignty into a political mission. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has built his entire career on rejecting a Palestinian state, and his political survival now depends on hardening that stance. The world saw in Gaza the kind of leader he is: a vengeful politician with total disregard for international opinion, for Palestinian lives, and even for Israel’s own long-term standing. No one seriously expects him to negotiate; for Netanyahu, it is his way or nothing at all.

The question is no longer whether to recognise a Palestinian state but what that recognition will actually deliver. Too often, governments use it as a low-cost way to signal moral concern while sidestepping the harder task of confronting Israel’s occupation—already declared illegal by the International Court of Justice, whose rulings are binding on all UN member states. This kind of empty symbolism has become a substitute for real action. Unless recognition is backed by concrete measures that force Israel to respect Palestinian sovereignty, it will remain political theatre with no impact on the ground.

The objective must be more than recognition on paper; it must be the establishment of a sovereign, viable, contiguous, and genuinely independent Palestinian state. Such a state will not emerge in a political vacuum. It requires sustained, coordinated pressure from major global powers to compel Israel to accept Palestinian sovereignty within a clear and enforceable timeframe. Without this decisive international will, recognition becomes a hollow declaration—misleading Palestinians with hopes that will never materialise.

READ: UK, Palestinian officials discuss practical steps towards recognising State of Palestine

The recent conference in New York, attended by representatives from over 125 UN member states, underscored a critical reality: Saudi Arabia will not normalise relations with Israel “unless an independent Palestinian state is recognised.” Given Saudi Arabia’s political weight and Israel’s high hopes for normalisation, this represents a significant political and moral defeat for Netanyahu, who believed an Abraham Accords-style outreach to Riyadh was within reach and only a matter of time. However, the conference’s final statement—the “New York Declaration”—dashed any such hopes Israel may have harboured since the original Abraham Accords were signed. Riyadh’s firm stance effectively quashes lingering illusions about expanding the Accords—an aspiration Netanyahu has publicly voiced. As a key regional player, Saudi Arabia’s position signals a growing consensus that the Palestinian question is not a peripheral issue to be bypassed but the very core of regional stability.

This development exposes the urgent need to dismantle the United States’ long-standing monopoly over the Middle East peace process. For decades, Washington has acted as the sole mediator—often perceived as biased—resulting in a stagnant, failed process that has produced no lasting solution. It is time for this exclusive role to end or, at minimum, be shared with other influential global actors, particularly European powers like France and the United Kingdom. As I argued in my recent MEMO article, Europe must assert an independent foreign policy grounded in international law and justice, rather than simply echoing Washington’s agenda. A multipolar diplomatic approach—leveraging diverse strengths and perspectives—is essential to breaking the deadlock and advancing peace. Israel must be made to understand that it is not above international law and will be held accountable for its actions. The UK and France, in particular, should send a clear message: they mean business this time, and relying on the US’s domination of the peace process is no longer viable.

Some countries, like Italy, argue that recognising a Palestinian state before it is fully established is counterproductive. This argument, however, is a non-starter bordering on absurdity. History provides multiple precedents where international recognition preceded full territorial control or complete state-building. For instance, South Sudan was widely recognised by the international community in 2011 before it had fully established stable governance or settled all territorial disputes. East Timor also gained widespread recognition while still recovering from conflict and building state institutions. Even Israel was recognised by key powers before its borders were finalised or it controlled all claimed territories. In each case, recognition was not a reward for a fully formed state but a political act affirming legitimacy and providing momentum for state-building and international engagement. Denying Palestinians this same pathway is a blatant double standard that perpetuates their statelessness.

As the late Ghassan Kanafani, the Palestinian intellectual and writer assassinated by Israel in Beirut in July 1972, famously said: ‘The Palestinian cause is not a cause for Palestinians only, but a cause for every revolutionary, wherever they are, as it is the cause of the exploited and oppressed masses in our era.” Similarly, Nelson Mandela’s profound insight resonates deeply: “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” These words underscore the global interconnectedness of justice and freedom, reminding us that Palestinian liberation is inseparable from the broader struggle against oppression worldwide.

The current wave of Western countries moving toward recognising a Palestinian state is a welcome, if overdue, development. Yet its true significance lies not in the act itself but in how recognition is strategically deployed—as a catalyst for genuine statehood. This requires coupling recognition with robust international pressure, a diversified mediation process, and an unwavering commitment to the emergence of a free, independent, and sovereign Palestine. Anything less remains mere symbolism, and symbolism without substance will neither advance peace nor grant Palestinians the independence they desperately deserve.

OPINION: Amman’s edge: The Kingdom’s perilous balancing act

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.