Countries recognize Palestine: Will it be different this time?
Although many nations have recognized Palestine in recent years, these symbolic acts have not altered the regional situation.
In a nutshell
- Six Western countries will formally recognize a state of Palestine
- This move is intended to pressure Israel with international isolation
- Instead, it will encourage Hamas to resist ceasefire offers, prolonging the war
- For comprehensive insights, tune into our AI-powered podcast here
In October 2014, Sweden became the first Western European country to recognize the state of Palestine. This decision came just one month after the Social Democrats returned to power in Stockholm. Did this announcement alter the dynamics between Israel and the Palestinians? No. Swedish recognition of Palestine did not alter anything on the ground in the Middle East, not even for the Swedes.
Sweden does not have an embassy in the West Bank city of Ramallah, where the Palestinian Authority is based. Instead, Swedish diplomatic activities related to Palestinians are managed through its longstanding consulate in Jerusalem, which Stockholm does not officially recognize as Israel’s capital. In practice, however, Swedish diplomats assigned to Palestine reside in Israel rather than the West Bank. They rely on the Israeli government for their security and for their accreditation as diplomats, which grants them specific privileges and immunities.
In 2024, four more European countries – Spain, Norway, Slovenia and Ireland – followed Sweden in recognizing Palestine as a state, with the same lack of results. Perhaps the primary effect was to underline how little these countries’ foreign policy decisions truly matter to the people of Israel and Palestine.
Two former colonial powers with deep and enduring ties to the Levant, the United Kingdom and France, are announcing their recognition of Palestine during September’s annual United Nations General Assembly in New York. They will be joined by four other nations: Australia, Belgium, Canada and Portugal. Meanwhile, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Greece and several other European countries have chosen not to recognize Palestine at present.
France and Saudi Arabia plan to cohost a high-level international conference in New York “to promote a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.” The event will take place on September 22, which coincides with the holiday eve of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year), ensuring no participation from Jewish or Israeli representatives.
What could go wrong with a symbolic act?
Recognizing the state of Palestine is a token gesture. However, supporters argue that it is a “strong symbolic act.” They contend that its strength lies in numbers.
The recognition of a Palestinian state by Britain and France would mean that four out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have officially acknowledged this status. (China and Russia did so in 1988, when communist states collectively acted in support of the Palestine Liberation Organization.) This would leave the United States alone on this issue within the Security Council.
The theory suggests that as more countries officially recognize Palestine, Israel and its allies, including the U.S., may find themselves increasingly isolated on the international stage. Over time, this could lead to embargoes and sanctions against Israel, pressuring it to make concessions to Palestine.
What could go wrong with such a symbolic gesture? There are two short-term negative repercussions and a third, longer-term consequence.
First, the “strong symbolic act” by Britain and France could embolden extremists on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict. As for Hamas, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted: “The day the French announced their thing… Hamas walked away from the negotiating table. They immediately increased their demands and stopped negotiating.”
On the Israeli side, immediately after the French announcement, the government approved construction of homes for Israeli settlers on a sensitive land corridor between the northern and southern West Bank, known as E-1. Annexing parts of the West Bank was also added to the agenda for an upcoming cabinet of ministers meeting. It was removed only when the United Arab Emirates issued a public warning about reassessing bilateral relations if Israel proceeded with annexation.
Second, Israel could retaliate against states that recognize Palestine by, for example, withholding intelligence sharing, as unnamed Israeli diplomatic sources have hinted. Given the importance of Israeli intelligence in countering terrorism in many countries, this would be a very tangible repercussion. But it seems unlikely that Israel would follow through on this threat, since intelligence sharing often benefits Israel as well. For example, Israeli intelligence sources played a key role in Australia’s August decision to shut down the Iranian embassy in Canberra and designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran as a terrorist organization, which helps Israel isolate Iran.
The third negative consequence is the long-term deterioration in the credibility of French and British foreign policy. Making major foreign policy announcements and hosting international conferences that are widely seen as lacking substance and meaning can damage a country’s reputation among allies and rivals. The real symbolism of such actions may lie in the reflection of the underlying weaknesses of the nations that engage in them.
Read more about the Middle East
- Who will win the competition for influence in Syria?
- The uncertain future of Gaza
- The global permanence of war
All politics is local
Given the likely negative international repercussions, why are five G20 countries moving to recognize Palestine? As the late U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Neill often said, “All politics is local.”
Recognizing Palestine helps all five countries navigate their domestic politics. In Britain, Canada and Australia, center-left governments face significant lobbying pressure from pro-Palestine Muslim advocacy groups and progressive factions within their ruling coalitions. In France, where about 10 percent of the population is Muslim, and Belgium, with around 7 percent Muslim, support for Palestine is a dynamic internal issue. In all five countries, concerns over the humanitarian situation for Palestinians in Gaza dominate media coverage and public discourse on the Middle East.
Could the Emirati and German models be an alternative?
One might ask how middle-ranking powers like the UK and France can truly influence the Israel-Palestine conflict beyond mere diplomatic gestures. The answer lies in examining how two other middle-tier nations maintain their influence by preserving relations with both sides.
The UAE has influence because it has built strong relations with Israel. After signing a normalization agreement five years ago as part of the Abraham Accords, the UAE developed diplomatic, trade and investment ties with Israel, as well as less-publicized military and intelligence connections. It has maintained these ties throughout the ongoing war in Gaza. When radical elements within the Israeli governing coalition threatened to annex parts of the West Bank in reaction to France and Britain recognizing Palestine, it was the UAE that stepped in to put a stop to this plan. A senior Emirati official said in a statement that the proposed annexation represents a “red line” that would “severely undermine the vision and spirit” of the Abraham Accords.
Germany also wields influence due to its close ties with Israel. Like London and Paris, Berlin has voiced criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. However, while Britain and France have chosen to bar Israeli military industrial firms from participating in their aerospace and defense shows in a symbolic gesture of protest, Germany has threatened to halt the resupply of crucial military equipment to Israel, including tank turrets. German concerns resonate within Israeli leadership circles, leading to adjustments in the Israel Defense Forces’ tactics, whereas British and French concerns tend to go unheard.
Scenarios
The Middle East is a volatile and inherently unpredictable region. The decision by five G20 countries to recognize Palestine may have second-order effects that are unforeseen. There are three possible scenarios, with the most likely being that there will be no changes, except for an increased risk of terrorism.
Most likely: Nothing significant happens
The announcements made by Britain, France, Canada, Australia and Belgium receive positive media attention, particularly within their own countries. Still, they do not lead to any substantial impact – including no U.S. or Israeli retaliation. Hamas points to this diplomatic “success” as an outcome of its October 7, 2023, attack and continues to reject ceasefire offers. In response, Israel continues its offensive in Gaza with the aim of dismantling Hamas. Islamist terrorists may feel encouraged by this recognition to launch attacks on Israelis and on vulnerable Jews abroad.
Without meaningful outcomes, the credibility of both Britain and France wanes in Middle East political circles. Nonetheless, many foreign policy observers continue to believe in the theory that threats to pressure Israel with international isolation will result in positive change, despite decades of evidence showing that this approach has failed to deliver results.
Less likely: Israel retaliates by annexing parts of the West Bank
Israel’s military victories over Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran have emboldened political factions within the Israeli governing coalition that are eager to pursue annexation of portions of the West Bank. The recognition of Palestine by France and the UK provides the pretext. This scenario is unlikely to occur, as key allies of Israel, including the UAE, Germany, other European countries, and most importantly, the U.S., warn against it.
Least likely: Israel retaliates by cutting off intelligence sharing
Israel perceives recognition of Palestine as a hostile act aimed at isolating it and stops sharing intelligence on terrorists with the five countries. All five have, in the past, relied on this Israeli channel to counter Islamist terrorism, and would see an increase in domestic terrorism under this scenario. This would be an irrational act for Israel to take, since it also benefits from shared intelligence, and is highly unlikely.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
