While we should not regard it as a “historical moment” or a “game changer”, the recognition does have the potential to help Palestinians lead us into a different future.

In the past, I was quite sceptical about the recognition of Palestine, as it seemed that those engaged in the conversation were referring only to parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as the state of Palestine, and to an autonomous rule by a body such as the Palestinian Authority, without proper sovereignty: a Bantustan Palestine. Such recognition could have created the wrong impression that the so-called conflict in Palestine had been successfully resolved.

Many of the heads of government and their foreign offices that speak on recognition today still refer to this kind of Palestine. So, should we be more supportive of this move right now? I would suggest that it should be approached in a more nuanced way at this particular historical moment, when the genocide continues.

It is not surprising that no one in Gaza drew any hope, inspiration or satisfaction from this declaration. It was only in Ramallah and among certain sections of the solidarity movement that it was celebrated as a huge achievement.

The governments that recognised Palestine associate it directly with the obsolete and long-dead two-state solution – a formula that is impractical, immoral and based on injustice from the moment it was conceived as a “solution".

And yet, there are potential and more positive dynamics that could be triggered by this current global recognition of Palestine. While we should not regard it as a “historical moment” or a “game changer”, it does have the potential to help Palestinians lead us into a different future.

It has symbolic significance as a counter-movement to the present Israeli strategy of eliminating Palestine as a people, as a nation, as a country and as a history. Any kind of reference — even symbolic — to Palestine as an existing entity right now is a blessing. On a very unsatisfactory, yet minimally necessary level, it prevents Palestine from disappearing from the global and regional conversation.

Secondly, it is part of an insufficient yet somewhat more encouraging global reaction from above against the continued genocide. It is not sanctions — which are far more important than the pageant we watched in the UN — nor is it a move that ends Western military trade with Israel, which would have been far more effective right now against the genocide than recognising Palestine. However, it conveys a certain readiness among Western governments to confront not only Israel, but also the US on the future of Palestine.

The recognition itself created — perhaps inadvertently — two important consequences. First, the occupied territories are now the occupied state of Palestine: the whole state of Palestine. This is not even comparable to partial Russian occupation of two provinces in Ukraine; this is total occupation of a state. At least on the face of it, this would be much more difficult to ignore from an international legal perspective.

Secondly, it is very clear what the Israeli reaction will be: officially imposing Israeli law first on parts of the West Bank, then on the region as a whole, and perhaps later on the Gaza Strip.

Although one expects so little from our current politicians — particularly in the Global North — they will not be able to claim they did all they could by recognising Palestine if that Palestine is occupied in its entirety by Israel and fully annexed. Even for these politicians, such inaction will expose a new nadir of moral cowardice and hammer the final nail into the coffin of international law.

For us, as activists, we are very much aware of the danger of diverting for even one second from the mission of stopping the genocide. Recognition is not going to stop the genocide, so what we are doing and what we plan to do to save Gaza is not affected by speeches and declarations at the UN on 22 September 2025. Our demonstration in London this October — hopefully with the expected one million people — is as important, if not more. The Italian general strike in support of the Sumud flotilla is equally as important, if not more.

But it is also a reminder that we should be alert and highly suspicious when France and its allies talk about “the day after". There is a sense of déjà vu in the histrionics that accompanied the signing of the Oslo Accords precisely 32 years ago. This could dangerously become another charade of peace that substitutes one form of colonialism with another, more palatable for the West.

This was all evident in the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron. The first part of his speech reiterated France’s commitment to Israel and its abhorrence of Hamas. The second part dictated to the Palestinians that only the PA would represent them, and that the Palestinian state would be demilitarised. He did not mention genocide or sanctions on Israel – not surprisingly.

Macron is a self-centred politician with no moral backbone, yet he is aware that 70% of his people are unhappy with his policy towards Palestine. Asserting that a PA Bantustan is what people wish for — whether in France, Palestine, or elsewhere — shows once again the detachment of so many European politicians from the reality on the ground.

So this is not where the importance of recognition lies. It is a double-edged sword. As far as I can see, the best strategy for us in the solidarity movement is to argue and insist — through activism and scholarship — that Palestine is the country stretching from the river to the sea, and that Palestinians are all those living in historical Palestine and those expelled from it. They are the ones who will decide the future of their homeland.

And more important than anything else, we must insist that as long as Zionism ideologically dominates the reality in historical Palestine, there will be no Palestinian self-determination, freedom or liberation.

Republished from The Palestine Chronicle, 23 September 2025

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.