On Monday, Australia joined a growing number of countries planning to recognize a Palestinian state at the 80th United Nations General Assembly in September. New Zealand said it is exploring the possibility, but has not yet committed to such a move.
Although a Palestinian state is widely recognized in the UN already (by about 75% of member states), significant media attention has been focused on the new announcements from Canada, the UK, France, and now Australia.
One reason for the furor is that the war between Israel and Hamas is ongoing, 20 living hostages are still believed to be held in Gaza – alongside 30 bodies – and Hamas still has control over the Gaza Strip.
Israel, as a result, has argued that recognizing a Palestinian state is both premature (as the hostages have not been returned, and Hamas has yet to be thwarted) and a reward for terrorism, given that none of the recent countries have set conditions on the recognition.
“This is effectively unconditional recognition, which is astounding,” Senator for Western Australia Michaelia Cash commented on Monday.
That being said, even if Canada, the UK, France, Australia, and potentially others choose to go ahead and recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly next month, what, if anything, will change on the ground?
International recognition of a Palestinian state does not automatically lead to the state’s creation.
There are still no internationally-agreed upon borders, no capital city, no army, and no set government. Gaza is in the middle of a war, and there is yet to be discussion on significant minutiae such as land swaps, what happens to Jewish settlements in the West Bank, what happens to Israeli Arabs, and the like.
Recognition is mostly symbolic. It is not an order or a plan. If anything, it is designed to put pressure on Israel to end the war and to ramp up humanitarian aid provision to the Strip.
This was made evident in UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s July 29 speech in which he said that the recognition of a Palestinian state would go ahead “unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agrees to a ceasefire, and commits to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.”
In other words, recognition – at least on the UK’s part – is a bargaining chip for cajoling Israel into acting in line with international consensus on how the war should be carried out.
International law regarding the creation of a state is generally based on the Montevideo Convention of 1933. This lists four specific criteria in order for something to qualify as a state.
First, it must have a permanent population. Second, it must have a defined territory. Third, a government. And fourth, the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Palestine does not necessarily meet all of these four criteria. While it is generally considered to have a permanent population, it doesn’t have a stable government (the Palestinian Authority has only limited control over the West Bank and no control over Gaza) and has disputed borders.
As the Israel Democracy Institute recently explained, the traditional position in international law is that a state either exists, or it does not: “If it does not meet the factual conditions for statehood, recognition of it has no meaning.”
Additionally, Article 10 of the Montevideo Convention states that “The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature that arise between them should be settled by recognized peaceful methods.”
Critics have argued that this will not be upheld by a future Palestinian state.
What say does Israel have?
From a legal and diplomatic standpoint, Israel has very little say over the recognition of a Palestinian state.
However, from a practical standpoint, it does. This is primarily because any final peace deal requires Israel’s approval and because Israel has significant military and territorial control over the area, including borders, airspace, movement of people and goods, and most of Area C.
Additionally, an agreement would have to be reached over Jerusalem. Israel considers all of Jerusalem to be its capital, while Palestinians believe east Jerusalem to be theirs.
A lot of focus in the speeches of international leaders has also been on the 1967 borders, to be used as a demarcation of a future Palestinian state. However, “1967 borders” never existed.
The “1967 borders” do not appear in any agreed-upon international documents.
What leaders such as New Zealand Prime Minister Luxon are likely referring to are the demarcation lines set during the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and its neighbors, which remained after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War until the Six-Day War. This is often known as the Green Line.
Prior to the Six-Day War, the Jewish people were denied access to the Old City and its holy sites.
Additionally, there is the security element of the 1967 borders. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once said that if Israel were to revert to them, the Jewish state would be militarily “indefensible.”
Then there is the matter of whether a Palestinian state is capable of reforming its government and stamping out terror.
In his Monday speech, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that his decision to recognize a Palestinian state was predicated on commitments received from the PA to reform its governance, along with its recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
Albanese seemed confident with the PA’s alleged promises, “including to reform governance, terminate prisoner payments, institute schooling reform, demilitarize, and hold general elections,” and sees the PA as the best option for a future government.
And yet, the Palestinian Authority has been unable to eradicate terror, despite launching Operation Protect the Homeland in Jenin in December 2024, to crack down on local Palestinian militia.
This is also the same PA that has been providing monthly stipends to the families of Palestinian terrorists since the 1960s. In 2018, the stipends were estimated to be over $300 million.
While the PA said it was canceling its pay-for-slay policy earlier this year, senior security officials called the commitment to do so a “deception.”
The US’s veto power
Nevertheless, the diplomatic recognition of Palestine by the stated countries does have implications, partially because it makes Israel more dependent on the US for its use of veto power in the UN Security Council.
If the UK and France recognize a Palestinian state next month, Palestine will have the support of four of the UN Security Council’s five permanent members (alongside China and Russia).
The only remaining permanent member not to recognize a Palestinian state – the United States – will be a minority. While US Vice-President JD Vance has said the US has no plans to recognize a Palestinian state, there is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case.
If a future US government were to recognize a Palestinian state, Israel would have to stand alone against international pressure.