Beyond ceasefire and recognition: Palestine’s statehood and the West’s crisis of credibility

A fragile ceasefire has paused the devastation caused by Israel in Gaza, offering a temporary humanitarian respite. Yet the underlying dynamics of occupation, blockade, and uncertainty over Gaza’s redevelopment and sovereignty remain unchanged.

Against this backdrop, a wave of Western countries — including the UK, France, Canada, and Portugal — officially recognised Palestine last month, bringing the total to 157 states. While symbolically significant, recognition cannot transform a ceasefire into genuine sovereignty without concrete enforcement or political pressure.

This milestone is rendered almost meaningless by Israel's de facto control over territories occupied since 1967 and the unresolved questions of Gaza’s future, including reconstruction and the realization of Palestinian sovereignty.

While the ceasefire allows some relief, humanitarian aid, limited reconstruction, and a pause in violence, it does not dismantle the structures that make genuine sovereignty impossible.

Why have Western states recognised Palestine only recently? After decades of indifference, the wave of recognition reflects growing international pressure and domestic outrage over Gaza’s destruction.

The diplomatic journey began with the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, followed by milestones such as the 1993 Oslo Accords — which ultimately failed to deliver a two-state solution — and the 2012 UN vote granting Palestine "non-member observer state" status. While these steps enhanced Palestine's international legal identity, they failed to curb violence or deliver tangible sovereignty.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated last month that recognition aims “to keep alive the possibility of peace and a two-state solution.” Yet recognition remains largely symbolic, a gesture that appeases domestic publics while leaving Israel’s occupation and Gaza’s structural crisis unchallenged.

Recognition or ceasefire alone are both insufficient in achieving actual sovereignty in an international legal system lacking binding sanction mechanisms. Instead, they expose a paradox at the heart of Western diplomacy: symbolic solidarity without political consequence.

The meaning and limits of recognition

Under international law, recognition is a deeply political act, not a magic wand. Two theories frame the debate: the constitutive theory, which holds that recognition by other states creates a legal entity; and the declarative theory, embedded in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, which defines a state by four criteria: a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to establish relations with other states.

Under the declarative approach, recognition is not a precondition for statehood but a declaration of an existing reality. The four elements listed in the Convention together imply the existence of genuine sovereign authority. Recognition does not guarantee sovereignty; genuine authority requires control over territory, population, and governance.

The current ceasefire underscores this reality. While hostage and prisoner exchanges have proceeded, the most difficult issues, Israeli withdrawal, Gaza’s political governance, and full reconstruction, remain unresolved.

Recognition has not ended Israel's occupation of the West Bank, its annexation of East Jerusalem, or its blockade of Gaza. The Palestinian state has no effective control over its borders, airspace, or resources, the hallmarks of sovereignty.

For recognition to have substance, it must be paired with concrete measures that leverage the ceasefire to restore Palestinian authority and rights. Without sanctions on Tel Aviv, political pressure, or enforcement of international law, recognition risks perpetuating illusion rather than achieving justice.

Western states have so far failed this test of sincerity. No arms embargoes, economic sanctions, or diplomatic initiatives in East Jerusalem have been enacted in response to Israel’s violations. Recognition remains symbolic: it signals support without demanding accountability.

Structural flaws in the international system

The Palestinian struggle reveals deep weaknesses in the international legal system. Enforcement mechanisms are ineffective against powerful actors.

The UN Security Council is paralysed by the US veto, preventing meaningful action. Palestine remains a non-member observer, with limited voting or nomination rights. ICJ and ICC rulings, including 2004’s separation wall decision and the 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, remain unenforced.

Arrest warrants issued by the ICC against Israeli officials are ignored by multiple states, illustrating the impotence of international law when it clashes with geopolitical power.

International law obliges states to end serious violations, yet Western backing of Israel undermines these obligations. The law of power prevails over the law of legality, leaving the ceasefire as a fragile pause rather than a pathway to justice.

The current ceasefire and wave of recognition are significant but limited. They provide an opportunity to transform symbolic gestures into real change, but doing so requires political will, sanctions, and concrete action.

Will the West seize this moment to forge a sovereign path for Palestine, or simply manage its continued occupation? Will the rhetoric of a two-state solution, hollowed by ongoing Israeli occupation, be backed with real pressure to make the ceasefire meaningful?

Recognition matters because it can activate accountability mechanisms, yet without follow-through, it risks being performative.

Beyond politics, the ceasefire underscores a humanitarian reality: ending starvation, and ongoing suffering in Gaza. It has allowed 173 aid trucks to enter, but this remains a fraction of what 2.1 million people need.

In the shadow of symbolic recognition, the international community must confront this reality. Palestinians deserve the same fundamental rights as all people: peace, freedom, and self-determination.