Just hollow words till there’s real action

The move by France, UK, Canada to ‘recognise’ Palestine should not be overestimated, writes Ashok Swain

Palestinian women sift the sand for foodgrains after aid is airdropped into Gaza
i
user

Ashok Swain

For decades, the recognition of a Palestinian state has been an aspiration, an act of diplomatic symbolism embraced by the majority of the Global South but shunned by Western powers.

That dynamic is now shifting. With France, Canada and the United Kingdom announcing their intention to formally recognise Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly this September, three G7 members — two of them permanent members of the UN Security Council — have moved the needle on one of the most fraught questions in global diplomacy.

It is a remarkable development, not least because it signals a crack in the united Western front that has long supported Israel diplomatically, financially and militarily, at the cost of Palestinian rights and self-determination. But even as momentum builds, the more sobering question remains: will this newfound recognition bring real change on the ground?

The timing of this diplomatic shift is no accident. Israel’s brutal military campaign in Gaza has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, and international outrage has surged over the mass starvation and targeting of aid-seekers. Gaza is now teetering on the edge of famine, and Israel’s siege has turned humanitarian corridors into kill zones.

With the International Criminal Court issuing arrest warrants for Israeli leaders and prominent human rights organisations documenting atrocities, the perception of Israel as a democratic outpost under siege is considerably eroded even in sympathetic Western capitals.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron, typically cautious on this matter, was the first major Western leader to declare that there is “no alternative” to recognising Palestine, calling Israel’s actions in Gaza a moral and strategic failure. The UK and Canada followed suit, though with attached conditions aimed at excluding Hamas and demanding reforms by the Palestinian Authority.

At one level, the shift is significant. For the first time, influential Western countries are aligning themselves, at least rhetorically, with an overwhelming majority of the international community.

France’s move is especially notable as it breaks ranks with the United States and asserts European agency on a global issue long dominated by Washington’s veto.

Canada’s announcement, despite direct trade threats from US President Donald Trump, also marks a moment of divergence from American foreign policy. If these three countries follow through in September, four out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council will have recognised Palestine, with the United States left alone in its categorical rejection.

It sends a clear message: Western governments can no longer credibly claim to support a two-state solution while refusing to acknowledge one of those states.

This symbolic shift should, however, not be mistaken for real transformation. Recognition is not liberation. None of these countries has announced serious material consequences for Israel’s continued occupation and military onslaught. Their announcements have not been backed with sanctions, weapons embargos or meaningful diplomatic isolation — steps that might actually pressure Israel to change its course.

Canada and the UK have tied their recognition to conditions that will delay and water down the impact. Prime Minister Mark Carney insists that Palestine must be demilitarised, that elections be held excluding Hamas, and that the Palestinian Authority commit to reform. These are not unreasonable demands in theory, but in practice they risk turning Palestinian statehood into a hostage of both Israeli aggression and Palestinian fragmentation.


Besides, the asymmetry of expectation is glaring. Israel’s far-right ministers, many of whom openly advocate annexing the West Bank and Gaza and call for the displacement of Palestinians, are never asked to disarm or commit to democratic reforms. Israel’s ongoing settlement expansion, deemed illegal under international law, is treated as a regrettable obstacle, not a deal-breaker.

By contrast, Palestinians are told they must prove their readiness for sovereignty, even as their basic right to exist as a people is still denied by Israel’s ruling coalition. France, the UK and Canada frame their recognition as a way to ‘revive’ the two-state solution. But that framework has long been gutted by decades of Israeli encroachment with Western collaboration.

It is also important to recognise the domestic calculations behind these announcements. Macron’s move came amid rising criticism from the French left and Muslim communities; Carney, a new Liberal prime minister, faces pressure from Canada’s growing Arab population and former diplomats urging a course correction; Starmer’s Labour government in the UK must navigate a post-Gaza electorate deeply disillusioned by the West’s complicity.

These recognitions are not acts of generosity, but reactions to geopolitical and domestic pressure. They are also efforts to rescue Western credibility in a rapidly shifting global order where the moral high ground on human rights can no longer be claimed unchallenged.

Despite their limitations, the recognitions may have a cumulative effect. They erode Israel’s narrative monopoly, especially in Western discourse. They maygive moderate voices in the Palestinian movement a modicum of diplomatic leverage. They may diminish Palestinian support for Hamas. They may also further strain the already fraying US–European alliance on West Asia, pushing Washington to reconsider its position. But none of this guarantees improvement on the ground.

Israel remains militarily entrenched in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinian Authority is politically weak, and Hamas, despite international condemnation, remains a potent force. Not the least because it is as much or more ideology as physical infrastructure.

Recognition by France, the UK and Canada does not shift these material realities. Nor does it give Palestinians control over their borders, their skies, their water, or their security. These are the true markers of statehood, not the number of flags flying at UN summits. A recognised state under occupation is still an occupied people.

The last time a diplomatic breakthrough appeared within reach — the Oslo Accords — it was sabotaged by bad faith, delays, spoilers from both sides and continued Israeli expansion. There is no reason to believe this moment will end differently unless international recognition is backed with international enforcement.

If France, the UK and Canada truly want their actions to matter, they must go beyond statements. They must lead a coordinated push to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes. They must condition weapons sales and trade agreements on Israel’s respect for international law. They must support Palestinian civil society and bolster efforts to unify a fragmented leadership of moderate factions. They must stop equating Palestinian sovereignty with Hamas and its terrorism and start addressing the structures of occupation and apartheid that make peace impossible.

Recognition alone will not end the war, nor will it end the suffering in Gaza or the disenfranchisement in the West Bank. But it can be a first step, if it leads to pressure, if it sparks real action, and if it challenges the impunity that has defined the status quo. If not, it risks being yet another moment of Western moral grandstanding, where the words are loud, but the will to act is as conspicuously absent as Palestinian freedom.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden. More of his writing may be read here

Follow us on: Facebook, Twitter, Google News, Instagram 

Join our official telegram channel (@nationalherald) and stay updated with the latest headlines