On Monday, Australia joined a growing number of Western countries that say they will soon recognize a Palestinian state. That list includes France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, while other Western nations, including Norway, Spain, and Ireland, formally recognized a Palestinian state last year.

The rhetorical shift indicates just how much Israel has isolated itself from even some of its allies as it continues its relentless assault on Gaza — a horrific military campaign that has destroyed the enclave, starved the population, and killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, with experts and leading human rights organizations deeming Israel’s actions an ongoing genocide.
Israel has denounced the move to recognize a Palestinian state as “shameful.” Responding to the UK’s announcement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a post on X that such a move only “rewards Hamas’s monstrous terrorism & punishes its victims.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed similar criticisms, saying that recognitions of a Palestinian state have “emboldened Hamas and made it harder to achieve peace.”

But, if anything, the recent announcements are coming in a little late. The State of Palestine has already been recognized by 147 out of the 193 member states of the United Nations. Most notably, if France and the UK follow through and recognize Palestine, the US would be the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that doesn’t recognize a Palestinian state — adding international pressure on the US to change its position in the future.

But just because there’s widespread (and growing) recognition of a Palestinian state doesn’t mean that Israel’s occupation will suddenly end. After all, Israel still occupies the West Bank and Gaza, continues to illegally build settlements in Palestinian territories, and has full military control between the river and the sea. And Israel’s recent announcement that it plans to seize Gaza City only deepens and perpetuates its occupation of Palestine.

So what does recognizing the State of Palestine actually achieve?

What it means to recognize a state

Even though states exist all around us, there is no universally agreed upon definition of statehood. But under international law, one treaty — the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which went into effect in 1934 — is often cited to outline the criteria that make up a state. The convention lists the following qualifications: “(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

International law experts tend to agree that Palestine meets this definition. But even when states check these boxes, without widespread recognition, they would be limited in their ability to exercise their sovereignty or enter diplomatic agreements with much of the world.

So, on a technical level, recognizing Palestine as a state is important. It allows Palestine to be party to various international treaties, like the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). That’s what allowed the ICC to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, charging them with war crimes and crimes against humanity. (Since Israel is not party to the Rome Statute, the ICC would not have had jurisdiction over any of the territories had the State of Palestine not signed on.)

Recognition can also deepen diplomatic ties. States that recognize Palestine could open up full embassies in Palestine and allow Palestine to open up more embassies around the world. They would also have more obligations to stand up for Palestinian sovereignty when Israel violates international law, which means they would face more pressure (both domestically and internationally) to impose more diplomatic and economic sanctions on Israel.

Ardi Imsies, an associate professor at Queen’s University Faculty of Law in Ontario, recently told The New York Times that recognizing a Palestinian state would provide a basis for “a complete revision of bilateral relations with Israel.” That means that states might have to review their agreements with Israel, both political and economic, to ensure that they do not impede on the Palestinian state’s rights and sovereignty. For example, if Israel’s trading partners recognize the state of Palestine and still import products manufactured in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, those states would be complicit in violating Palestine’s sovereignty according to their own acknowledgement of Palestinian statehood.

Why the latest recognitions of statehood aren’t enough

Recognizing a Palestinian state should be largely uncontroversial. By granting Palestine state recognition, these Western states would be in line with the two-state solution that they have been pushing for decades. The basic idea is to have two states — one Palestinian and one Israeli — represent two peoples, but negotiations have repeatedly failed.

That’s in large part because the two-state solution, as supported by the United States and its allies, has always aimed for creating two unequal states, with Israel maintaining its economic and military dominance and Palestinians having a permanent quasi-state that’s not fully sovereign or independent. And that’s exactly what’s happening with these new recognitions of Palestine, with Western states putting strict conditions on what a Palestinian state looks like, including requirements like not having a military. (The recent plans to recognize a Palestinian state have also not articulated where its borders would be, which ultimately make it harder to establish and defend Palestinian sovereignty.)

“What does this two-state solution look like?” said Alonso Gurmendi Dunkelberg, an international law scholar at the London School of Economics. “A demilitarized state, with Israeli control over national security in Palestinian territory, subjected to future negotiations on boundaries.”

By and large, these countries’ recognition of a Palestinian state fall far short of a tangible step towards establishing a full-fledged, sovereign nation. The UK, for example, said it would recognize a Palestinian state only if Israel fails to secure a ceasefire. That means that if a ceasefire does take hold, the UK will simply go back to the status quo of not recognizing Palestine. That does not indicate any real movement toward recognizing Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

If these Western states want to have a real impact and put meaningful pressure on Israel, then they have to go beyond just recognizing a vague, demilitarized Palestinian state. Their recognition of Palestine would be much more forceful if it is immediately coupled with coordinated sanctions on Israel, since it is violating another nation’s sovereignty. There should also be fewer conditions that hamper Palestinians’ right to self determination and stronger commitments to ensuring equal rights for Palestinians, whether they live in Israel, Palestine, or a future state that encompasses the whole territory.

The recent wave of states recognizing Palestine is doing little more than offering a gesture toward establishing two unequal states, with Israel continuing to have much more control and autonomy over territory than the Palestinians.

“So will the underlying dynamic between Israel and Palestine shift under this set up of recognition? No it won’t,” Gurmendi Dunkelberg said. “The underlying problem of colonialism, the underlying problem of apartheid, the underlying problem of a supremacist ideology that sees Palestinians as an inconvenient people … that will still be there.”

Why are countries recognizing a Palestinian state now?

Since these countries are not necessarily endorsing Palestinians’ right to self-determination, several other factors might be at play in the recognition movement.

The first is geopolitics. Take the last time a major wave of states recognized Palestine in 2011. According to Gurmendi Dunkelberg, the move to recognize Palestine back then was a foreign policy maneuver by Latin American countries to create distance between them and the United States — Israel’s biggest ally — on the world stage. “What can you do to signal to the United States, ‘I am angry at you’ and ‘I am distancing myself from your foreign policy’?” he asked. “You recognize Palestine.”

Similarly, Gurmendi Dunkelberg argues, European countries now are angry with the Trump administration for reasons including tariffs, limited security guarantees, and its posture towards Ukraine. So, recognizing Palestine can send a similar message to the US that it is drifting away from its allies.

“I think this is a brazenly political move that has nothing to do with actual concern for [Palestinians],” Gurmendi Dunkelberg said.

The second factor is domestic politics. Throughout the Western world, major demonstrations have repeatedly cropped up over the last two years, protesting Israel’s war in Gaza. There’s also a growing movement of voters looking for leaders who aren’t afraid to take a strong moral stance on this issue. Just as Zohran Mamdani worried establishment Democrats after winning the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City despite his pro-Palestinian views, politicians in Europe are also afraid of potential backlash for supporting Israel as it continues to turn every last corner of Gaza into rubble. So, making a largely symbolic gesture like recognizing a Palestinian state allows these governments to say they’ve been harsher on Israel without actually doing much to stop the ongoing bloodshed.

Ultimately, these recognitions from Western states can be viewed as a sign of some incremental progress. But they aren’t, on their own, going to deliver meaningful change. Without any follow through, all that these recognitions signal is a complacency with the status quo, allowing the occupation to go on with no real end in sight.