Will recognition bring peace?

Canada has now joined France in announcing it’ll formally recognise a State of Palestine at the UN in September. And that’s just days after the UK flagged it’d do likewise unless Israel lets more aid in, signs a Hamas ceasefire, and halts expansions in the West Bank.

So what’s going on?

The legal definition of a state is clear, with four elements crystallised in the Montevideo Convention of 1933. There must be…

• A permanent population: the West Bank and Gaza have 5.4 million Palestinians
• A defined territory: modern disputes cite the UN’s 1947 vote to split the turf into Jewish and Arab states, subsequent wars, and Israel’s settlement expansion
• A functioning government: the secular-nationalist Palestinian Authority has had partial autonomy over the West Bank (under Israeli territorial control) since 1994, while Islamist group Hamas has run Gaza since it won an election then seized control in 2007, and…
• An ability to engage with other states: even capitals that don’t recognise a State of Palestine have diplomatic missions in Ramallah (West Bank), engaging with the Palestinian Authority (not Hamas) and managing local aid programs.

So what’s the debate around recognising a State of Palestine?

For ~147 states, there isn’t one. Many gave recognition after the 1988 Palestinian declaration of independence, with more following after the 1990s Oslo Accords. Ditto, ~165 capitals now recognise Israel, with announcements starting after Israel’s own 1948 declaration of independence, then continuing after Israel’s UN entry in 1949, through to the Oslo accords, and most recently Trump’s Abraham Accords.

So where’s the debate?

• ~30 mostly Arab or Muslim-majority states still don’t recognise Israel, and
• ~46 mostly Western or Pacific Island states still don’t recognise Palestine.

Why?

For those not recognising Israel, it’s mostly a) solidarity with the Palestinians, b) enmity with the Israelis, c) theology (eg Jewish control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, co-located with Judaism’s Temple Mount), and d) policy (the Arab League wants Israel back to its pre-1967 war borders). Hardliners also openly seek Israel’s destruction.

Meanwhile, for those not recognising Palestine, it’s about a) negotiating (not pre-empting) a two-state solution; b) backing a fellow West-aligned democracy; c) rejecting a semi-Hamas-run state; and d) a bit of theology, too (some constituencies see modern Israel as fulfilling prophecy). Hardliners also just reject a Palestinian state in principle.

So why now?

Since the October 7th Hamas attacks and the nearly two years of war that followed, nine more capitals have now recognised Palestine (Jamaica, Bahamas, Barbados, Trinidad, Spain, Norway, Ireland, Slovenia, and Armenia). And now France will follow suit, while the UK has attached the above conditions on Israel, and Canada is attaching conditions on the Palestinian Authority (PA), including a demand it hold elections next year.

Why? These capitals have variously cited outrage at suffering in Gaza, frustration at the stalled peace process, support for a two-state solution, and opposition to Israeli policies, actions, and words (Bibi and some cabinet members have openly opposed a Palestinian state). These capitals have also faced related domestic protests and political pressures.

But it’s really these last three announcements (France, UK, Canada) that are big because they’re all G7 powers, US allies, and generally supporters of Israel. France and the UK are also nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council. So there’s the real prospect that other Western powers might now be more likely to follow.

Then what’s the problem? Israel, the US, and other critics argue this all rewards terrorism, pressures Israel rather than Hamas (which still holds ~50 hostages, half alive), and undermines ongoing talks: the longer Hamas holds out, the more recognition.

Though on that last point, some very interesting news just broke this week: the 22-member Arab League has joined the EU and 17 others calling for Hamas to disarm and relinquish power in Gaza to end the war. For several of the region’s major players (like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar), that’s unprecedented.

Intrigue’s Take

So, what can we learn from all this?

• First, this is arguably a pivot to try building a two-state solution from the outside-in, rather than waiting (indefinitely?) for one to emerge on the ground. And to do that, it’s reframing recognition not so much as the end goal, but a starting point.
• Second, will it work? You only get to play this card once, but maybe the big three here will shift the dial in ways the 147 before them didn’t: the war persists, hostages remain, the Hamas-Fatah split festers, Bibi still rules, and the PA still hasn’t held an election since 2005-06. And speaking of elections…
• Third, a tricky thing about holding elections in the West Bank next year (per Canada’s condition) is the fact we might not like who wins: credible polling suggests there’s more support for Hamas than for the ruling secular-nationalist Fatah, hence Canada’s condition that Hamas can’t participate.

So maybe that’s what makes this week’s Arab League announcement every bit as big as the French, British, and Canadian announcements: not just seeking to shape events via external recognition, but via deep philosophical and political reforms from within.

Here at Intrigue, we’re incurable optimists. And maybe something’s moving.