Courage

In recent weeks, on the occasion of the session of the UN General Assembly, momentum has regained strength toward the recognition of Palestine as a subject of international law. Numerous States have in fact announced their decision to recognize the State of Palestine, adding to the many dozens that had done so in previous decades. Many are States belonging to what, despite everything, continues to be called the “West.” I will limit myself to citing a few: France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Liechtenstein, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, which join Ireland, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Cyprus, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Finland. Germany and Italy are, for now, standing firm in denying recognition, together with the Netherlands, Greece, Austria, Denmark, and the Baltic States. The Holy See recognized Palestine (the right to self-determination and the “two peoples, two States” solution) with the 2015 comprehensive agreement.

During this period, the debate over the political scope and legal meaning of recognition has flared up again. When a governmental organization is formed that effectively and independently exercises its power over a community settled in a territory, it automatically becomes an international subject. That is, it is not necessary for this entity to be recognized by other States. Recognition is a unilateral, political act. It does not in itself produce legal consequences. It reveals the will of the recognizing State to maintain relations with the recognized State. It essentially translates into the establishment of diplomatic relations and the conclusion of treaties. Between the “recognizing” States and the “recognized” State, that is, a more or less intense network of relations comes into being.

As regards Palestine, the fundamental issue, emphasized by governments that still refuse recognition, concerns the possession of these requirements. Does Palestine display the character of independence? Or is it merely a form of simple autonomy? Is the exercise of governmental power truly characterized by effectiveness (the existence of a genuine governmental authority, certain borders)? When one speaks of “Palestine,” whom is one referring to? The Palestinian National Authority, Hamas? What is its legal status in the international community and, in particular, at the United Nations?

Despite all the doubts surrounding these questions, the General Assembly of the UN in 2012 granted Palestine the status of “non-member State” with “observer” functions. This is a qualification that is in some respects curious, as it affirms statehood while denying membership in the organization. A recent resolution of May 2024 set out the conditions for a possible future recognition.

Palestine has been admitted as a member State of UNESCO, and is a “State Party” to the Rome Statute, and recognizes the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

In recent weeks we have witnessed strong pushes toward recognition, with important States deciding to grant it. This is a strong political signal, which does not have merely symbolic value, as those with an interest in downplaying its significance claim. Israel, moreover, considers it a hostile act, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly spoken openly in favor of denying a concrete prospect for the birth of a Palestinian State.

The tragedy unfolding in Gaza, with the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity – not justifiable as a legitimate response to the horrors perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and by the desire to free the hostages – and with the growing suspicion (supported by important and authoritative reports by international bodies) that a genocide is taking place; the terrible violations of international humanitarian law; the increasingly frequent statements by members of the Israeli government expressing the intention to proceed with settlement and colonization policies with a view to an outright annexation of the West Bank; the disturbing statements by some Israeli ministers about the future of Gaza and the Palestinians, have contributed to generating momentum.

Recognition seeks to send a signal to governments: courage—the Palestinian people must be an interlocutor and a protagonist in initiatives aimed at fully realizing its right to self-determination. Observer status is no longer enough. The observer is not a full-fledged subject; they must stand by and wait for others to decide on their behalf.

The individual recognitions by now more than 150 States (out of 193 UN members) are therefore an important step, and indicate the will to raise Palestine’s profile in the international community and enable it to reach the long-awaited realization of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Full admission to the UN encounters a formidable obstacle. The Charter provides that the admission of a new member State takes place by “decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” Council decisions are adopted by a majority of nine members out of fifteen, and among the nine there must be the “concurring vote” of all five permanent members. Of these, four recognize Palestine, while the United States is firmly opposed and would exercise its veto.

History poses several crucial challenges to States. Governments bear the responsibility of rising to these challenges and providing responses commensurate with them.

NP November ’25
Edoardo Greppi