Recognising Palestinian statehood is largely symbolic – but symbols are powerful
Over the past few days, the leaders of France, Canada and the UK have all announced their intention to recognise Palestine as a state at the next UN General Assembly (Unga) in September. All declared that they would use this diplomatic mechanism as a way of forcing a ceasefire in Gaza. Their announcements made global headlines but what will such recognition actually change? In the short-term, not much. Palestine will be able to send an ambassador to the three countries, though it has already been sending heads of mission (roughly the same thing) for many years. Nor are these pronouncements exactly breaking new ground: 147 out of 193 UN members already recognise a Palestinian state. Among European governments, Spain, Ireland and Norway made a joint declaration to do so last year.
But numbers aren’t everything. Any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council can veto a country’s full membership of the UN. China can thus block Taiwan, which has official diplomatic relations with 12 countries, though it has thriving economic relations with many more. Russia can block Kosovo, which is recognised by 110 countries, including many in Europe. And the US can – and will – block Palestine.
Even in terms of Palestine’s current “observer” status, more votes will not change the basics. The territory of South Ossetia, for example, has been recognised by a lonely gang of five – Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria and the Pacific island of Nauru. Nothing about South Ossetia’s status would change if another 20 governments were suddenly to jump in on Moscow’s behalf. Palestine, too, will gain no new voting powers, even as more countries recognise its statehood.
The furious response from Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who accused the UK’s Keir Starmer of “appeasing terrorists”, is a reminder that even symbolic declarations have power. And Netanyahu knows better than most that apparently arcane developments can have real-world implications.
In 2012, Unga voted to upgrade Palestine from “non-member observer entity” to “non-member observer state”. That might sound like an empty distinction worthy only of satire – but the tweak paved the way for historic developments. As a direct result of that change, the International Criminal Court (ICC) accepted Palestine’s request, which it had previously rebuffed, to open an investigation into alleged crimes in Gaza. In 2024, a panel of ICC judges authorised an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant, as well as for Hamas leaders in connection with the atrocities of 7 October 2023. Like his fellow indictee, Vladimir Putin, Netanyahu must curb his travel plans for fear of arrest. None of that would have happened without the institutional tweak made a little more than a decade earlier.
Theoretically, the latest announcements carry no more weight than existing recognitions by the majority of UN member states. Still, symbolism matters. France, Canada and the UK are traditionally staunch allies of Israel. They have been eager not to put Netanyahu under pressure, even as the bombing and starvation in Gaza worsened and civilian deaths multiplied. The UK insisted that recognition must come later as part of a two-state solution and peace process. Netanyahu’s defiance means that logic is no longer sustainable. Australia and others have indicated that they could follow up with declarations of their own. The US president will continue to defend Israel’s actions but the latest diplomatic declarations mean the country’s global isolation is now undeniable – and that will have consequences, too.
Steve Crawshaw is a Monocle contributor and the former UK director of Human Rights Watch. For more opinion, analysis and insight, subscribe to Monocle today.
