Is Recognition of Palestine the Pressing Issue?
States have a legal obligation to stop genocidal acts against civilians, whether or not they belong to a recognised country.
Also see
Palestine: European Recognition Without Results
The Europeans already have the tools to sanction Israel for violations, but still refrain from taking meaningful action.
Netanyahu’s Never-Ending War
The Israeli leader’s virulence against Palestinian statehood has extended even unto undoing the building blocks of his own state.
Kosovo and Palestine: Diverging Self-Determination
Though united by aspirations for independence, they ended up in opposite geopolitical camps.
As the genocidal campaign launched by the Israeli army against the Gaza Strip was still unfolding and causing heavy human losses and material damage, French President Emmanuel Macron suddenly declared his intention to recognise the State of Palestine.
Several countries, like Australia, Canada, Portugal and even the UK followed suit, and it was reported that such declarations would take place during the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly in September 2025.
Such initiatives are certainly welcomed for their moral support to the Palestinians during the scourge they are going through; but is this the quintessential issue that Palestine needs or is missing?
If Palestine were a sovereign independent state, such recognition would definitely be of significant value. It would expand the arena of its diplomatic activities, investment spaces, and access to the courts of the states that recognise it
Palestine was recognised as an observer state by the UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19 of December 4, 2012. Ever since, Palestine has received the recognition of 147 states, more than two-thirds of the total number of UN members.
Palestine acceded to many international agreements including the Rome Treaty of 1998, which is the founding instrument of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Palestine has a seat at the UN General Assembly on equal footing with other member states. It can propose items to the General Assembly agenda, although without the right to vote. It has been invited (and the PLO before it) to Security Council meetings when discussing issues related to Palestine on the basis of Rule 37 of the Security Council procedures which is allocated for “states”.
Palestine is a full member of UNESCO admitted by the General Conference as the 195th state on October 31, 2011. It assumed the chairmanship of the Group of 77, the largest UN bloc of developing countries, in 2019.
Admittedly, such a volume of recognitions has not stopped Israel from its colonisation activities.
Israel, like all settler colonial states, remains thirsty for more land, and recognition of Palestine has not made an impact on its practices or policies. With deference due to the status and standing of Australia, Canada, Portugal, the UK and others, more recognition would not change, add or subtract any material value to the status of Palestine.
It should be questioned, however, why certain states are moving fast to recognise the State of Palestine but dodge the imperative duty to stop the genocide. A country is under no legal obligation to recognise a newly established state or government, and the lack of recognition thereof does not adversely undermine its status. On the other hand, states are invariably under a legal and definitive obligation to stop genocidal acts when committed by a state against a civilian population, regardless of whether or not such civilian population belongs to a recognised country.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) held in the Gambia v Myanmar case in 2022 that all states that are parties to the Genocide Convention “have a common interest to ensure the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide, by committing themselves to fulfilling obligations contained in the Convention”.
This obligation is owed irrespective of recognition. All these states that are planning to recognise Palestine are fully aware of the three Provisional Orders rendered by the ICJ in the South Africa case. These orders were premised on the fact, as the ICJ held, that “some of the rights claimed by South Africa… are plausible” and therefore “there is urgency in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused” to those plausible rights.
Those provisional orders were rendered in January, February and March 2024 and, with their imperative language, should have impacted some of the states that already recognise Palestine. Needless to add that such provisional orders are legally binding.
Nowhere, however, did the ICJ direct the member states to recognise the state of Palestine in order to alleviate the Israeli genocide.
On July 19, 2024, the ICJ rendered an advisory opinion in response to a question submitted by the UN General Assembly enquiring as to the legal consequences arising from Israeli’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).
The ICJ opined that Israel’s continued presence in the OPT was “unlawful” and that the General Assembly and the Security Council should “ensure an end to Israel’s illegal presence” in the OPT. The ICJ considered that “all States must co-operate” with the UN to liquidate the legacy of a prolonged occupation.
The question then is why have Australia, Canada, Portugal, the UK and others not complied with what is legally obligatory and binding, but rush to recognise Palestine - a voluntary act of little material value.
Is this a technique of structural complicity? Are these states selling the Palestinians fiction or valuable goods? Which does Palestine need more now: diplomatic recognition or the ending of support for Israel’s genocidal assault on Palestinian civilians?
