On September 21, four Western nations formally recognised the State of Palestine, aligning with over 140 countries and intensifying pressure for a two-state solution amid the escalating Gaza conflict.

On September 21, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Portugal officially recognised the State of Palestine. This move marks a significant shift in Western policy, aligning these countries with about 140 others that support Palestinian statehood.

What’s the big deal?

The recognition breaks longstanding Western reluctance to formally acknowledge Palestinian statehood, thereby increasing pressure for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

It challenges Israel’s position and signals growing frustration with the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The recognition is symbolic but also practical, reinforcing Palestinian aspirations for sovereignty and international legitimacy.

Why wasn’t Palestine recognised as a state earlier?

.

The quest for Palestinian statehood has deep roots in the 20th-century conflicts over the territory historically known as Palestine, which spans modern-day Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and parts of neighbouring countries. This territory was called the British Mandate till 1947.

In 1947, the United Nations proposed partitioning the Mandate into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under international administration (UN Resolution 181).

This plan was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab states, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Israel’s declaration of independence that year resulted in the displacement of around 7,00,000 Palestinians, and no independent Palestinian state emerged. Instead, the West Bank fell under Jordanian control and Gaza under Egyptian administration

After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and other territories, placing them under military occupation. This occupation, ongoing for Palestinians in those areas, became the core grievance fueling demands for statehood based on pre-1967 borders.

Declaration of Statehood

In 1974, the UN General Assembly recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”

In November 1988, when the PLO, under Yasser Arafat, declared the State of Palestine in Algiers, based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem, as its capital. Within days, over 25 countries—including the Soviet Union, India, and much of the Global South—extended recognition.

By the early 1990s, this number grew to around 100, largely from non-aligned and developing nations. But major Western powers (US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Australia) held back, viewing recognition as premature without Israeli agreement

Why was the West hesitant?

The hesitation from Western allies stemmed from strategic alliances with Israel. The US, in particular, has vetoed multiple UN resolutions on Palestinian membership, arguing it would “reward terrorism” or bypass the two-state solution framework.

A Wave of Recognition

On October 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking hostages, followed by Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has caused over 40,000 Palestinian deaths (per UN estimates).

.

In May 2024, Spain, Ireland, and Norway formally recognised the state, citing the need to preserve the two-state solution amid stalled talks and settlement growth. Slovenia and Armenia followed in June and July 2024, respectively, bringing the total countries to 145.

In July 2025, France announced its intent to recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly, conditional on steps like PA elections and Hamas disarmament.

On September 21, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Portugal made historic announcements, marking the first G7 economies to do so. Among the major powers, the US, Germany, Italy, and Japan continue to hold back recognition.

Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand and Liechtenstein may follow, pushing the total past 150

Why now?

The timing reflects a confluence of geopolitical pressures, domestic politics, and humanitarian outrage, rather than a single trigger.

Escalating Gaza Crisis and Israeli Policies: The war’s toll—famine risks, mass displacement, and over 700 new West Bank settlements in 2024 alone—has eroded Western patience. Israel’s plans for the E1 settlement corridor, which would bisect the West Bank and isolate East Jerusalem, are seen as a de facto annexation, “erasing” prospects for a contiguous Palestinian state. Leaders like UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer framed recognition as a bulwark against this, keeping the two-state solution alive

Political Leadership Changes and Public Pressure: New governments in the UK (Labour under Starmer, elected 2024) and Canada (Liberal under Mark Carney) have prioritised multilateralism and human rights, diverging from predecessors’ staunch pro-Israel stances. In Australia, Anthony Albanese’s administration cited “legitimate Palestinian aspirations.” Protests, especially in Europe and Canada, and shifting voter bases have amplified calls for action. This contrasts with US domestic politics, where recognition remains taboo.

Diplomatic Coordination and Regional Dynamics: The moves align with a French-led initiative, endorsed by Arab states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, for PA reforms and a UN-mandated force in Gaza to replace Hamas.

Symbolic Leverage for Peace: Recognition is largely diplomatic– upgrading missions to embassies – rather than territorial, aimed at bolstering PA legitimacy over Hamas and pressuring Israel without direct confrontation

Implications and Challenges

This Western pivot signals a fraying Western consensus on Israel, potentially isolating it diplomatically. Over 75% of UN members now recognise Palestine.

The changed stance puts focus back on the two-state solution. By affirming the 1967 borders, these states challenge Israeli occupation, and also marginalise Hamas

Israel views this as “performative”” and rewarding terrorism, with Netanyahu rejecting talks and boycotting the UN event. The US dismissed it as sidestepping diplomacy.

Critics warn of escalation. They fear Israel could annex West Bank areas in retaliation.

Conclusion

This shift is a culmination of decades of frustration with occupation and failed talks. It substantiates claims that the status quo favours one side, but its practical implications are limited by Israeli intransigence and US veto.

Yet, there is optimism. According to The New York Times, although the declarations of Palestinian statehood may appear symbolic, “small steps” like recognition “make a contribution” to the goal of establishing two states.

.

.

.

.

.