Israel now faces a choice: adapt to the changing international consensus or face growing isolation and the real possibility of sanctions. The 2-state solution, though challenged, remains the only viable path to peace
The anticipated decisions of France and the United Kingdom to recognize the state of Palestine mark a significant diplomatic shift, reinforcing the international consensus that a two-state solution is the only viable path to lasting peace in the Middle East, with global implications. While recognition alone will not alter the realities of occupation, it carries profound legal and political weight – affirming Palestine's right of self-determination and sending a clear message to Israel: the denial of Palestinian statehood is unsustainable and in violation of international law and the prevailing global consensus.
This move aligns with a broader trend in Europe, where frustration over Israel's continued settlement expansion and rejection of meaningful negotiations led several nations to reconsider their positions. The symbolic and legal implications of recognition cannot be overstated: it reinforces Palestine’s standing in international law and challenges Israel’s occupation, which has been declared by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to be "illegal" in two advisory opinions, in 2004 and in 2024.
-What recognition means in international law
Under international law, recognition of a state is a political act that acknowledges an entity's statehood based on Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States criteria: a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter relations with other states. While Palestine's territorial fragmentation under occupation complicates full state functionality, 148 UN member states have already recognized it, affirming its legitimacy as a sovereign state.
Admittedly, recognition does not end the Israeli occupation or settle matters related to border demarcation between Israel and Palestine, but it strengthens the latter's standing in international forums and legal disputes. It also signals to Israel that its current policies – settlement expansion, annexation threats, and the refusal to engage in good-faith negotiations – are incompatible with global norms and may lead to sanctions.
The ICJ and the UN General Assembly have repeatedly affirmed the principle of Palestinian self-determination and called for compliance with international law regarding the occupation. The ICJ is currently deliberating two significant cases: South Africa v. Israel, which examines the scope of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, including accusations under the 1951 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and an advisory opinion on Israel's legal obligations toward UN agencies, including the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), operating in the region. Recognition of Palestine by additional Western and European states would reinforce these legal precedents, further isolating Israel’s policies under international law.
-Kosovo’s independence: How recognition shapes statehood
The case of Kosovo offers a compelling parallel. Despite Serbia’s vehement opposition, recognition by a majority of UN members allowed Kosovo to consolidate its de facto statehood, participate in international institutions, and establish legal precedents that Serbia can no longer overturn. While Kosovo’s independence remains contested – given that Russia and China, two permanent UN Security Council members, continue to object – its recognition has normalized its sovereignty in practice.
Similarly, widespread recognition of Palestine would solidify its claim to statehood, making its exclusion from meaningful negotiations increasingly untenable for Israel. Like Kosovo, Palestine may not achieve full UN membership under the UN Charter owing to US exercise of its veto power in the UN Security Council, but diplomatic recognition by influential states would grant Palestine greater leverage in future talks.
-A growing Western consensus
France and the UK are joined by other states such as Portugal, Malta, San Marino, and Finland, joining Spain, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, and Belgium, all of which have already taken steps toward recognition. Even traditionally cautious nations, such as Canada and Australia, have hinted at reconsidering their positions. This momentum reflects frustration with Israel’s opposition to a two-state solution and aligns with broader efforts to revive diplomatic efforts. The EU’s gradual shift toward recognition underscores that the status quo – perpetual occupation, settlement expansion, and the absence of a political horizon for Palestinians – is unsustainable.
-Message to Israel: Recognition as a diplomatic reality check
Recognition should not be seen as hostility toward Israel but rather as a reaffirmation of international law. The Oslo Accords were meant to be transitional, yet three decades later, Israel continues to undermine Palestinian self-determination through military control, settlement entrenchment, and the fragmentation of Palestinian territory. By recognizing Palestine, European states underscore that Israel cannot indefinitely dictate terms without consequence.
A two-state solution remains the only framework endorsed by the UN, the EU, and major global powers. Recognition does not replace negotiations but reinforces their urgency. If Israel continues to reject Palestinian statehood, it risks further diplomatic isolation and the erosion of its own legitimacy as a democratic state. Therefore, recognition sends a powerful message: Palestinian statehood is not a concession but a right. As with Kosovo, international consensus can shape realities on the ground. For peace to prevail, Israel must accept that denial is no longer an option.
-Turning point for peace
The expected recognition of Palestine by France, the UK, and other Western states marks a turning point in the conflict's diplomatic landscape. While it will not immediately end the occupation or resolve all disputes, it reasserts the principle that Palestinian self-determination is non-negotiable.
Israel now faces a choice: adapt to the changing international consensus or face growing isolation and the real possibility of sanctions. The two-state solution, though challenged, remains the only viable path to peace. Recognition is not the end of the process – but it is an essential step toward a just and lasting peace under the UN Charter.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.
