THE international recognition of Palestine by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Portugal — just ahead of the 80th UN General Assembly, with France being the latest country to follow — marks a pivotal moment in global diplomacy. In London, the Palestinian flag now waves over what has formally become the embassy of Palestine. Yet, as historic as this imagery may be, it raises an unsettling question: will recognition remain confined to symbolism, or will it translate into meaningful action for a people long denied their right to self-determination?
For decades, Palestinians have lived under Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank, enduring displacement, dispossession and despair. What was once a homeland that welcomed persecuted Jews and Armenians has become a landscape of war, rubble and mass suffering. Gaza, once bustling, now resembles a killing field. Despite possessing all the core attributes of statehood — population, defined territory and governing institutions — Palestine has been systematically dismantled, piece by piece, under Israeli policies of expansion and occupation.
Ìý
Weight of recognition
RECOGNITION alone does not secure a Palestinian seat at the United Nations, nor does it grant new privileges within intergovernmental institutions. Without US support, Palestine remains a ‘non-member observer state,’ its full membership obstructed by Washington’s repeated use of the veto. As Palestinian political scientist Abu Rass notes, recognition is moral support rather than material change. It is a symbolic step, but one fraught with limitations.
Nevertheless, the declarations from Western states break new ground. For the first time, countries that traditionally aligned with Israel have shifted towards supporting a two-state solution. This recognition enables Palestine to forge bilateral treaties, trade agreements and establish embassies — symbolic yet tangible expressions of sovereignty. More importantly, it signals Israel’s growing isolation in the international arena. That said, one must remain cautious: recognition born of domestic political pressure or global outrage over Israel’s military campaign risks becoming an exercise in face-saving rather than genuine transformation.
Ìý
Israel’s unyielding stance
ISRAEL’S response has been both swift and dismissive. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing supporters in occupied East Jerusalem, vowed there would be ‘no Palestinian state.’ For Israel, recognition of Palestine by foreign governments is seen not as a step towards peace but as an endorsement of terrorism. This hardline stance underscores a central truth: peace will remain elusive unless Israel accepts the basic rights of Palestinians to self-determination. Symbolic recognition, while significant, cannot dismantle Israel’s entrenched opposition to Palestinian statehood and continued atrocities over the civilian population in Gaza and settlement in West Bank.
Ìý
American veto
AT THE core of this impasse lies US policy. Since the 1960s, Washington has relied on Israel as its most reliable proxy in the Middle East, a region critical for its geostrategic position at the crossroads of Africa, Asia and Europe. In the Cold War era, Israel served as a bulwark against Arab nationalism and socialism, movements seen as threats to Western access to resources and influence. For over 60 years, US support — financial, military and diplomatic — has enabled Israel to act with impunity, from wars against neighbouring states to the blockade and bombardment of Gaza.
Lobbying power has cemented this alignment. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) ensures bipartisan backing for policies that strengthen US-Israel ties, often at the expense of Palestinian lives. Washington’s consistent use of the veto at the UN Security Council has blocked Palestinian membership and shielded Israel from accountability. In effect, US interests and domestic political pressures intertwine to perpetuate Palestinian statelessness.
Ìý
Long shadow of Balfour
TO UNDERSTAND today’s crisis, one must revisit history. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, Britain’s pledge to establish a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ in Palestine, set the stage for decades of dispossession. Although it contained a caveat about protecting the rights of non-Jewish communities, the British Mandate facilitated Jewish self-rule while denying Palestinians similar opportunities. By 1948, the groundwork had been laid for the Nakba, when Zionist militias — trained and armed under the mandate — expelled over 750,000 Palestinians.
As Ralph Wilde of University College London has pointed out, international law under the League of Nations mandates envisioned Palestine as a single state for all its people, not one carved for a particular racial group. Instead, demographic engineering and discriminatory governance created conditions for Palestinian expulsion and Jewish statehood. The Nakba was not an accident of history but the outcome of deliberate policy.
Ìý
Gaza’s bleak present
FAST forward to today, and Gaza stands as the starkest symbol of occupation’s cruelty. Israeli military campaigns, coupled with a blockade on essential goods, have produced what many describe as a genocidal reality. Food, medicine and clean water are scarce. Entire neighbourhoods lie in ruins. With continued Israeli expansion, the demographic and geographic fabric of Palestine is being reshaped to make Palestinians strangers in their own land. Recognition by foreign capitals cannot, on its own, shield Gaza’s residents from starvation or bombardment.
Ìý
Beyond symbolism: towards action
IF RECOGNITION is to matter, it must be paired with concrete measures. Western states cannot continue supplying arms and military support to Israel while simultaneously recognising Palestine. Such contradictions reduce recognition to diplomatic theatre. Instead, recognition should be accompanied by sanctions against Israel, an arms embargo, and international mechanisms to enforce humanitarian access into Gaza. A no-fly zone, enforced by a coalition of willing states, may be necessary to prevent further aerial bombardment. Anything less risks condemning Palestinians to continued exile and suffering.
Recognition of Palestine is more than a flag over an embassy; it is a test of global will. History will not remember the number of governments that issued declarations but whether those declarations were backed by decisive action. The choice before the international community is clear: will Palestine’s recognition become a genuine step towards justice, or will it remain confined to words while Gaza burns?
Ìý
Mustafa Kamal Rusho, a retired brigadier general, works with the Osmani Centre for Peace and Security Studies.
