The Western collective recognition of the Palestinian state: between symbolism and political pressure

In recent months, the international arena has witnessed rapid movements towards recognizing the Palestinian state, in a step described as a strategic shift in the Western stance on the Palestinian issue. Following the ongoing Gaza war for two years, which has resulted in crimes of genocide, starvation, and siege, Britain, Australia, Canada, and Portugal officially announced their recognition of Palestine, joining a growing diplomatic wave. These recognitions, despite their symbolic nature, open the door to a new equation in the relationship between the Israeli occupation, Palestine, and the international community.

This step was not isolated. Last year, European countries such as Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia recognized the Palestinian state, followed this year by Britain, Canada, Australia, Portugal, and Malta. Thus, Palestine now enjoys recognition from 145 countries out of 193 UN member states, which is about three-quarters of the international community.

Despite this momentum, the European scene remains divided: Sweden recognized Palestine in 2014, followed by a second wave in 2024, and a third wave in 2025. However, pivotal countries like Germany and Italy refuse to take this step, adhering to the American position that rejects any talk of a Palestinian state. This division reveals that recognition remains a political tool more than a binding international consensus.

From a legal perspective, international law professor Roman Luboff explains that recognition is "one of the most complex issues in international law," as it remains a sovereign decision for each state without a central mechanism to register it. Philip Sands, a British-French law professor, considers recognition a "game changer," as it places Palestine and Israel on equal footing in dealings under international law, even if it does not directly lead to a change in the balance of power on the ground.

Despite the expanding recognition, the biggest challenge lies in the limited practical outcomes. The West, so far, has not linked this step to any real sanctions or pressures on Israel, making recognition closer to a symbolic stance or political message rather than a tool for changing the ground reality.

Israel, for its part, has shown no willingness to respond positively to these developments. On the contrary, the Israeli government has escalated its rhetoric and actions: expelling Australian and Norwegian diplomats and accelerating the pace of annexation in the West Bank. In fact, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich recently hinted at severing Palestinian banks from the Israeli economic system, which some Western diplomats described as a "nuclear bomb" that could push the region towards a wide political and security explosion.

The American position remains the main obstacle to transforming Western recognition into effective policy. Washington, along with its direct allies like Germany and Italy, completely rejects the idea of a Palestinian state, considering that any step in this direction undermines Israel's security. This position limits the impact of recognition and reflects the limits of Europe's and Commonwealth countries' ability to change the rules of the game without American cover.

Despite the limited direct results, these recognitions have implications that cannot be ignored, particularly regarding Israel, as recognition places it in an increasingly isolated position in international forums, with the risk of escalating European reactions, especially if it proceeds with a formal annexation of areas in the West Bank. Such a step could push the European Union to reconsider free trade agreements or restrict economic cooperation, which would exert direct pressure on the Israeli economy.

Recognition enhances Palestine's international legitimacy and grants it a stronger position in UN institutions and international courts. However, it does not stop settlement activities, lift the siege on Gaza, or halt the bombardment. Legitimacy on paper does not necessarily mean protection on the ground.

President Mahmoud Abbas has not ceased to emphasize the implementation of all commitments and reforms that the State of Palestine has pledged, while Palestinians doubt the Palestinian Authority's ability to bring about real changes in the Palestinian system without presenting any commitments that open a national discussion and convince the general Palestinian public that the upcoming phase will establish a Palestinian system committed to democracy, peaceful transfer of power, and the rule of law.

There is a fear of the continuation of the current state of stagnation and the persistence of policies based on the interests of the upper class linked to the Palestinian leadership, and the state of denial it lives in.

Will the Palestinian leadership carry out reforms based on the will and interests of the Palestinians rather than on European conditions for renewing the Palestinian political system?

The anticipated speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations General Assembly will reflect the extent of the pressures he faces. Following the expansion of the wave of recognitions and the