Since Hamas’s October 7 massacre, we have witnessed the most significant wave of Palestinian statehood recognitions since the 1988 Palestinian declaration of independence, with more than 10 countries formally recognizing Palestine as a state in 2024 alone.
This “diplomatic tsunami,” as termed by some Israeli analysts, represents both unprecedented Western European participation and growing international consensus, with almost 80% of UN member states now recognizing Palestinian statehood.
However, beneath this diplomatic fanfare lies a complex legal question: Does such recognition constitute meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood under international law, or does it amount to little more than a symbolic gesture in an intractable conflict?
The answer lies somewhere in between.
While these recognitions create concrete legal consequences, such as enhancing “Palestine’s” treaty-making capacity, strengthening its standing in international courts, and expanding its diplomatic relations, they operate within fundamental constraints, such as Israeli actions and American veto power in the UN.
This so-called tsunami thus represents only incremental legal progress rather than transformative change, building momentum for Palestinian self-determination while highlighting the tension between international law theory and geopolitical reality.
Growing recognition
Some say that the defining moment of this recognition wave occurred in May 2024, when Ireland, Norway, and Spain made synchronized announcements recognizing Palestinian statehood. This coordinated effort, explicitly described as such by Irish Tánaiste (head of state) Simon Harris, marked the first major Western European involvement since Sweden’s recognition in 2014.
Others believe the turning point came earlier. In 2021, the International Criminal Court (ICC) ruled in a pre-trial decision that Palestine qualified as a state party under the Rome Statute and affirmed the court’s jurisdiction over the territories “occupied” by Israel since 1967 – namely Gaza, the West Bank, and east Jerusalem. This ruling laid a legal foundation that is now being referenced in diplomatic justifications for recognition.
The European announcements mentioned above followed rapid-fire recognitions by four Caribbean nations: Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Bahamas. In July 2025, the CARICOM (Caribbean Community) bloc received its first Palestinian ambassador. Slovenia and Armenia joined the list of recognizing countries in June 2024, bringing the year’s total to 10 new recognitions.
At last month’s United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the trend culminated in recognition by some larger, more significant countries, with France, Britain, Canada, and Australia also declaring their recognition of a Palestinian state.
The participation of such Western states represents a qualitative change from previous recognition waves, which were largely confined to developing countries and non-aligned states.
The inclusion of high-profile Western democracies creates unprecedented diplomatic pressure on holdout nations, particularly Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, while signaling a potential crack in traditional Western solidarity with Israel.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was a driving force behind this recognition, leading diplomatic tours across Europe and the Middle East to coordinate efforts. He described the move as “an act in favor of peace, justice, and moral consistency.”
Unlike previous waves, which were often ad hoc, this move was synchronized and demonstrates sophisticated diplomatic coordination.
Past waves
In the past, each major push for Palestinian state recognition followed similar patterns: a triggering event, a shift in Palestinian diplomatic tactics, regional or international mobilization, and then a clustering of recognitions.
In 1988, during the First Intifada, the PLO’s declaration of independence resulted in 78 immediate recognitions. The 2011-2014 “Palestine 194” campaign led to observer state status at the UN but failed to secure full membership due to US vetoes.
The current wave distinguishes itself not only with the rush of recognition from Western states but is also due to humanitarian motivations linked to the ongoing war in Gaza, with country leaders citing moral outrage over civilian casualties against the backdrop of domestic political unrest.
Enhanced international legal frameworks unavailable in previous decades have also altered the playing field. Palestine’s membership in the ICC, achieved in 2015, now provides mechanisms for accountability that didn’t exist during earlier recognition efforts. The International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israeli occupation unlawful creates an additional legal foundation for recognition decisions.
Ongoing challenges
However, fundamental challenges such as limited Palestinian territorial control, political fragmentation between the terror organization Hamas and other Palestinian leadership factions, such as Fatah, and consistent American opposition have persisted across all recognition waves.
The gap between symbolic recognition and practical statehood remains the central challenge facing Palestinian diplomatic efforts, regardless of recognition numbers.
In addition, Israel’s response has escalated beyond the usual diplomatic protests. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet has “seriously debated annexation of parts of the West Bank in retaliation.”
Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer has warned his European counterparts that Israel could annex Area C, which constitutes roughly 60% of the West Bank. Such steps represent unprecedented Israeli willingness to abandon the two-state solution framework entirely.
The United States has maintained opposition through both diplomatic and punitive measures. Secretary of State Marco Rubio imposed visa sanctions on Palestinian Authority officials, barring them from attending last month’s UN General Assembly. This represents the most severe American retaliation against Palestinian diplomatic initiatives since the 1980s.
In a statement reflecting long-standing positions, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) warned that US recognition of Palestinian statehood would reward terrorism and undermine peace efforts.
Visible shifts
Despite the challenges, American influence appears to be diminishing as traditional allies break ranks. France’s recognition marks the first G7 country to support Palestinian statehood, potentially triggering additional Western recognitions. The unprecedented Arab League condemnation of Hamas in July 2025, coupled with calls for PA governance in Gaza, creates new diplomatic configurations that may limit American veto effectiveness.
The practical legal consequences include enhanced treaty-making capacity; formal diplomatic relations; stronger international court standing; and triggering third-state obligations under international law. Palestine’s ability to bring cases before international tribunals, participate in multilateral treaties, and establish diplomatic missions represents a concrete legal advancement beyond mere political symbolism.
But these benefits operate within significant constraints. Recognition doesn’t automatically grant UNGA voting rights, which requires full membership, a step currently blocked by American vetoes. And the fundamental challenge of effective territorial control under Israeli occupation remains unresolved, regardless of recognition numbers.
When compared to other cases such as Kosovo or South Sudan, Palestine’s path to statehood is far more complex. Kosovo benefited from Western military intervention and support despite fewer total recognitions. South Sudan achieved independence through mutual agreement with its parent state and UN supervision. Palestine faces the distinctive situation of broad Global South support, coupled with great power opposition and ongoing occupation, preventing effective governance.
Some international legal scholars believe that Palestine’s situation may help develop new norms in international law concerning self-determination and occupation. If the ICJ opinions, mass recognitions, and legal claims reach critical mass, they might begin to form customary legal obligations for third-party states, even in the absence of territorial sovereignty.
This current recognition wave may represent a tipping point in international consensus, with major Western powers breaking from traditional positions, and potential G7 participation reshaping diplomatic calculations.
Whether this momentum translates into concrete progress toward Palestinian statehood will depend largely on broader geopolitical developments, particularly potential shifts in American policy and Israel’s willingness to engage with two-state frameworks rather than pursuing annexation alternatives.■
Yaron Zemer is a partner at John Geva, Hadar & Co. Law Offices and a lecturer for public international law at the Striks Faculty of Law, College of Management in Israel.