The idea of a two-state solution goes back to United Nations Resolution 181 of 1947, which proposed the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. While Israel declared independence in 1948, a Palestinian state was never established, leaving the proposal circulating as a political solution ever since.
In a historic moment, the Palestine Liberation Organization declared the State of Palestine from Algiers in 1988, a declaration that became a diplomatic reference point for many subsequent recognitions.
Since the late 1980s, dozens of states have recognized Palestine, particularly across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Another milestone came in 2012 when the UN General Assembly granted Palestine the status of “non-member observer state,” allowing it to join international bodies such as UNESCO and the International Criminal Court.
The most recent Western recognitions in 2025 (by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and France) mark a qualitative precedent, shifting recognition from countries in the Global South to central powers in the international system.
The Gap Between Recognition and Reality
Although more than two-thirds of the world’s states now recognize Palestine, political and geographical realities remain far from the model of a fully sovereign state. Settlement expansion in the West Bank, internal Palestinian division, and Israel’s strict restrictions on sovereignty and movement make the Palestinian state more of a legal or symbolic entity than an actual one on the ground. This gap lies at the heart of the ongoing debate on the practical value of such recognitions.
The Israeli government has fiercely rejected the new recognitions, branding them “a reward for terrorism.” This rhetoric serves several purposes at once: reinforcing ideological opposition to a Palestinian state, using the recognitions to mobilize domestic opinion, and justifying settlement policies and security crackdown. At the same time, the vehemence of this rejection reflects Israel’s growing anxiety over deepening diplomatic isolation on the international stage.
For decades, the United States monopolized the role of mediator in the peace process. However, Palestinian mistrust in Washington, particularly after successive administrations openly favored Israel, has opened space for other actors such as Europe and the United Nations to attempt a greater role.
The recent European recognitions, along with the UN “New York Declaration,” represent an international attempt to reshape the framework of negotiations, and perhaps to create an alternative or complement to traditional U.S. mediation.
The central question remains: can these recognitions become a genuine launching point for a new negotiating process, similar to experiences in the Balkans or South Africa, especially if combined with international pressure and effective guarantees? Or will they remain merely symbolic gestures added to a long archive of unenforced UN resolutions?
At the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2025, world leaders voiced divergent positions on Palestinian statehood.
French President Emmanuel Macron officially declared that France would recognize the State of Palestine during a summit on the sidelines of the Assembly. He stressed that the decision supports a political track that revives negotiations rather than overlooks the October 7 attacks. Yet he tied recognition to specific conditions, including a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and reforms within the Palestinian Authority.
Read also: Mount Hermon: Israel’s Strategic Vantage Point and Diplomatic Asset
Multilateral International Positions
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese affirmed that his country would not reverse its decision to recognize Palestine, citing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He conditioned recognition, however, on Hamas laying down its arms, abstaining from governance, and the holding of free elections.
By contrast, Donald Trump criticized the countries that recognized Palestine, describing the move as a “reward” to Hamas for its “atrocities.” He denounced the United Nations as ineffective and reiterated his “America First” approach.
The UN Secretary-General urged leaders to “choose cooperation over chaos” in the midst of global crises, insisting that a Palestinian state is not a “prize to be granted” but a right that must be restored. The General Assembly adopted the non-binding “New York Declaration,” which called for a permanent ceasefire and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed Britain’s recognition as “a ridiculous prize for terrorism,” while Israel’s UN ambassador called the related summit “a political circus” disconnected from reality.
These statements reveal that recognition is not absolute but conditional, raising questions about its seriousness. Israel and Trump’s rhetoric of “rewarding terrorism” also provides rich material for analyzing internal political dynamics.
Tying leaders’ remarks to the “New York Declaration” highlights how this framework may serve as a reference for future accountability. At the same time, divergences among Western states underscore fractures in their once-unified approach to the issue.
The Nature of Political Transformation
On international recognition of Palestine, Dr. Fawzi Al-Samhouri, head of the Roots Center for Human Rights in Amman, argues that it does not represent a true political transformation in the deep sense. A real transformation, he explains, would require finally abandoning biased alignment with the Israeli colonial entity and disentangling from its interests and objectives, particularly since that entity was originally a colonial project established by Britain, France, and the United States before and after the Partition Plan.
Speaking to +963, Al-Samhouri stresses that while these recognitions may seem symbolic, they hold two important implications. First, they undermine the U.S.-backed Israeli narrative that the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem are either Israeli territories or “disputed lands.” Second, they come from permanent members of the Security Council, leaving only the United States outside the emerging international consensus recognizing a Palestinian state under occupation.
He explains that this creates a future basis for Palestinian, Arab, Islamic, and international action to pressure or hold the United States accountable in the Security Council, especially since Washington has become a direct party to the conflict under Article 27/3 of the UN Charter.
Thus, for the Palestinian people, these recognitions go beyond mere symbolism. Yet he insists they must be converted into practical measures that pressure both Israel and the United States to implement international resolutions.
Regarding the internal Israeli scene, he notes emerging cracks and campaigns to place blame on Netanyahu’s government, alongside a noticeable decline in the unconditional support Israel once enjoyed from strategic allies.
On Europe’s role, Al-Samhouri believes it could play a leading part in peace efforts if it shifts away from U.S. bias. He argues that if the European Union takes concrete steps concerning the EU-Israel Association Agreement and imposes political, economic, cultural, academic, and technological sanctions, it could generate significant new pressure.
Read also: Unspoken Confrontation: Turkish–Israeli Tensions at a Crossroads After Mossad Spy Scandal
International Pathways and the Palestinian Position
Al-Samhouri describes the New York Declaration process as “hijacked by statements and resolutions that were filed into archives without implementation.” He argues that the U.S. interpretation of Charter provisions, such as Article 51, contradicts their intended spirit and purpose.
In the absence of constructive alternatives, he finds no positive factor likely to compel Israel to respond so long as it enjoys unconditional backing. He urges Palestinians to prioritize national unity and for forces outside the PLO to agree on a unified strategy.
He warns that if the two-state solution collapses, it will directly endanger Arab national security. He calls for a genuine Arab axis to form around a unified strategy, even if initially limited to six states, in order to confront the threat and protect regional and national security.
Saleh Abu Rukn, a political analyst based in Haifa, takes a different view. He sees the latest recognitions as a significant political transformation that lays a solid foundation for demanding an end to the “occupation.”
Nevertheless, he cautions against viewing these recognitions as a magic solution that will resolve the conflict overnight. The real challenge, he emphasizes, lies in transforming diplomatic momentum into tangible realities on the ground.
Likely Scenarios and Consequences
Abu Rukn predicts that the most likely near-term scenario is the continuation of the status quo, with ongoing Israeli expansion and no genuine political process. This stems from both Palestinian disunity and the lack of a unified Arab stance.
As immediate consequences, he highlights growing diplomatic isolation for Israel, which could pave the way for calls for economic sanctions. These recognitions also intensify political tensions within Israel and beyond.
Still, he reiterates that true benefit from recognition depends on Palestinians themselves, with internal division remaining the greatest obstacle.
Abu Rukn also points to a surprising and controversial stance from major Islamic states, particularly Indonesia, which declares openly that “any solution to the conflict must begin with recognizing Israel as a legitimate and existing state before discussing the establishment of a Palestinian state.”
He explains that some observers view this as a smart diplomatic move, while others see it as open to misinterpretation. In his view, it reflects a shift among some major Islamic powers toward “political realism.”
He concludes that the conflict is no longer merely a bilateral struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, but rather a mirror of a broader international contest between political realism and moral legitimacy. This transformation makes the Palestinian cause a genuine and immediate test for global policies.
Abu Rukn ends by noting that ongoing statements and emerging proposals tied to the so-called “American plan” add further layers of complexity, reminding that the road from announcing an initiative to implementing it on the ground is fraught with formidable challenges.
