Public support for the recognition of Palestine is growing across much of the world—especially among the populations of Western democracies. In countries like the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany—whose governments continue to provide substantial financial, military, and diplomatic support to Israel amid its devastating campaign in Gaza—public opinion increasingly favors Palestinian rights and condemns Israel’s decades-long occupation and aggressive policies in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet these governments consistently ignore the will of their own people—excluding fringe elements such as Christian Zionists, who support Israeli expansionism in pursuit of apocalyptic religious prophecy.
These Western powers—each with a legacy of colonialism—have delayed the formal recognition of the State of Palestine. In doing so, they have helped enable Israel’s continued colonization of Palestinian land through illegal settlements, apartheid-style laws, and the siege of Gaza. The enclave is frequently described by human rights groups and UN experts as a form of collective punishment. Its more than two million residents live under constant military control, economic blockade, and the threat of bombardment—locked within what many now call the world’s largest open-air prison.
(map from newsweek here )
Yet, despite this institutional inertia and resistance, the international tide is beginning to turn.
New Recognitions Reflect a Changing Global Mood
In 2024, several European and post‑Soviet countries formally recognized the State of Palestine, signalling a shift in global alignment:
-
Norway – 28 May 2024
-
Ireland – 28 May 2024
-
Spain – 28 May 2024
-
Slovenia – 4 June 2024
-
Armenia – 21 June 2024
Each of these countries has its own reasons for breaking with the West’s longstanding position—and their histories reveal common themes of resistance, injustice, and the pursuit of self-determination.
Norway, known for its strong social democratic values and global peace efforts, played a central role in brokering the 1993 Oslo Accords. Its recognition of Palestine reflects its commitment to international law and conflict resolution based on diplomacy, not domination.
Ireland, long subjected to British colonisation, famine, and forced suppression, has long aligned itself with struggles for justice across the Global South. For many Irish citizens, Palestinian resistance echoes their own national trauma under colonial rule.
Armenia, still seeking global recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire (1915–1923), recognizes the need to stand with nations denied justice and survival. Their support is grounded in historical solidarity with oppressed peoples.
Slovenia, once a republic in socialist Yugoslavia, retains vestiges of the progressive and egalitarian ethos that defined its political roots. Its recognition of Palestine appears as a nod to those earlier ideals of internationalism and anti-colonial solidarity.
Spain, emerging from nearly 40 years of Francoist dictatorship, is still working through the legacy of fascism. Its decision to recognize Palestine reflects growing public awareness that modern Europe can no longer ignore or excuse Israel’s system of apartheid and ethnic domination.
Though diverse in geography, language, and culture, these countries are united by a common rejection of colonisation, fascism, and historic injustice. Their recognition of Palestine is more than symbolic—it is a statement that justice should not be delayed any longer.
The Stubborn Resistance of the Western Powers
While other western states are murmuring about Palestine statehood , for eg France has publicly stated its willingness to recognize a Palestinian state, despite the growing momentum, the most powerful Western governments remain obstructive—especially the United Kingdom, United States, and Germany, who are Israel’s key military and financial backers.
. Canada and the UK have both expressed interest in recognition "under appropriate conditions," but such conditions remain vague and unachievable while Israel continues to dominate the situation militarily—with full Western support.
The UK, in particular, continues to arm Israel, supply intelligence that may assist military operations in Gaza, and offer diplomatic cover in international forums. This occurs even as Israel's military campaigns kill thousands of civilians and its occupation deepens into a permanent regime of apartheid.
The hypocrisy is stark: these governments preach democracy and international law while actively sabotaging those same principles when applied to Palestine. Recognition, in this twisted framework, is only possible when it serves geopolitical interests—not when it is morally or legally justified.
A Stark Double Standard: Recognition of Israel vs. Palestine
The double standard is laid bare when comparing the international treatment of Israel’s creation to Palestine’s ongoing struggle for recognition.
In 1948, Israel declared statehood despite lacking defined borders, functional governance, or legal sovereignty over the territory it claimed. It immediately launched military operations to seize land and displace over 700,000 Palestinians in what became known as the Nakba (catastrophe). Yet it was swiftly recognized by the United States, Soviet Union, and other powers.
In contrast, the State of Palestine was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at a meeting of the Palestinian National Council in Algiers. Led by Yasser Arafat, this declaration was quickly recognized by over 70 countries. Today, more than 130 UN member states officially recognize Palestine—yet key Western powers continue to block full recognition, particularly through the UN Security Council, where the United States regularly exercises its veto power.
This imbalance isn’t just unjust—it actively prevents peace.
Divide and Rule: How Hamas Became a Factor
Another major obstacle to recognition is the perceived division among Palestinians—especially the rivalry between Hamas in Gaza and the PLO/Fatah in the West Bank. But this division didn’t arise in a vacuum. Many analysts argue that Israel actively encouraged the rise of Hamas in the 1980s to undermine the secular-nationalist PLO, which was gaining global recognition and political traction.
Israel permitted—and in some cases, facilitated—the development of Islamist infrastructure in Gaza, including the Islamic Association led by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the precursor to Hamas.
As Avner Cohen, a former Israeli military official in Gaza, admitted:
“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.”
(The Wall Street Journal, 2002)
This divide-and-rule strategy has fractured Palestinian political unity and made it easier for Israel and its allies to claim that no “viable partner for peace” exists—justifying endless delay.
The Question of One State or Two
From the outset of the conflict, Palestinians—who made up the overwhelming majority of the population in the early 20th century—advocated for a single, democratic state where Jews and Arabs could live together with equal rights. This vision persisted through the 1920s and beyond, even as Zionist ambitions moved increasingly toward establishing an exclusively Jewish state. Today, despite decades of displacement, expulsion, and occupation, a single democratic state remains the preferred solution for many Palestinians, international socialists, and human rights advocates. Such a state would likely have a roughly equal population of Jews and Arabs and could offer equal citizenship under a shared constitutional framework.
But the current reality is deeply shaped by entrenched religious extremism on both sides. Far-right Zionist movements, backed by messianic ideologies, push for full Jewish sovereignty over all of historic Palestine. In parallel, Islamist factions such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad reject coexistence under secular or neutral frameworks, instead seeking control of the land under their own religious terms. These competing visions have driven the conflict into a zero-sum framework, where each side sees exclusive control—not shared governance—as the ultimate goal.
In this fractured and increasingly radicalised context, a two-state solution is often seen as the only viable starting point for political resolution—even if it falls short of the original, more inclusive vision. Without at least formal recognition of Palestinian statehood and equal diplomatic standing, no just or lasting peace can emerge.
Recognition Delayed Is Justice Denied
The refusal of powerful Western governments to recognize Palestine—despite overwhelming public support—has not only delayed justice; it has prolonged suffering. Their inaction has allowed Israel to deepen its occupation, expand illegal settlements, entrench apartheid systems, and launch devastating military operations with impunity.
For many Palestinians and international socialists, a single democratic state—with equal rights for Jews and Palestinians—remains the ideal solution. But given the current realities, a two-state solution is seen by many as a minimum requirement for beginning any form of political resolution.
Recognition of Palestine will not, by itself, bring peace. But it is a necessary foundation for negotiations and accountability. It places Palestine on equal diplomatic footing, rooted in international law—not dictated by the military realities imposed by occupation.
The longer the West delays, the deeper its complicity in what many now describe as a system of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Justice will not be delivered by words alone. It will require moral courage—and that begins with recognition.
Comments
Post a Comment