Will recognition by UK, Canada and Australia advance peace or remain symbolic for Palestine?

On 21 September 2025, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia simultaneously announced that they are formally recognising the State of Palestine. For decades, these countries have stood among Israel's closest allies, maintaining that Palestinian statehood can only follow a negotiated settlement. 

Their coordinated decision to recognise Palestine marked a clear break with a long-held stance. This places them alongside at least 147 of the 193 United Nations' (UN) members who already recognise Palestine. 

When the Palestine Liberation Organisation declared independence in 1988, nearly a hundred countries, mostly in Asia, Africa and Latin America, along with super power China and Russia granted their recognition. Since then, the number has steadily grown. Yet the facts on the ground have barely shifted, with barely no benefit for the residents.  

Palestinians still live under occupation, facing genocide, famine and lacking other basic human rights. Recognition has given Palestine legitimacy in international forums but has not delivered sovereignty or control over its own territory.

The difference this time lies in who is recognising. The UK carries historical baggage as the former mandatory power in Palestine, its Balfour Declaration of 1917 having played a central role in shaping the Israel-Palestine conflict. Canada and Australia, both traditionally aligned with the United States, rarely deviate from Washington's Middle East policy. 

The oft-repeated argument that recognition prejudges a final settlement has little credibility when talks themselves show no sign of resuming. For Palestinians, recognition is less about bypassing negotiations than about ensuring that their claim to statehood does not disappear while the genocide against them drags on indefinitely.

Their decision to act together, after saying earlier this year that Canada would recognise Palestine on 30 July and Australia on 11 August, shows that the war in Gaza and the stalled peace process have made waiting for any further period impossible. The coordinated timing, chosen to coincide with the UN General Assembly, adds weight to the symbolism.

Still, symbolism is what this recognition largely is. The new status will allow Palestinian representatives in these countries to upgrade their diplomatic missions and may strengthen their case in legal forums such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

It also signals to other Western governments that continued hesitation is increasingly difficult to justify. But it does not lift checkpoints, allow freedom of movement, or stop airstrikes overnight. The gap between diplomatic statements and daily Palestinian reality remains wide.

While 147 of the 193 UN member states have recognised the State of Palestine, several influential nations continue to withhold recognition. These include the US, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and a few others, such as Singapore.

Their hesitation is symbolic as well because many are economic powers and close allies of Washington, and their stance continues to block Palestine's path to full UN membership, which requires approval at the Security Council where the US has repeatedly exercised its veto.

If France recognises Palestine next, it only leaves the US—in the last of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—who is yet to extend recognition. Its continued refusal carries significant weight, as Washington's veto power in the Security Council blocks Palestine from achieving full UN membership. This makes the US the final major holdout, underscoring both the symbolic importance of recent recognitions by the UK, Canada, and Australia, and the practical limitations they face in advancing Palestinian sovereignty.

On the other side, Israel dismissed the move outright, warning that it rewards "Hamas' terrorism" and undermines negotiations. However, the negotiations have been frozen for more than a decade. Moreover, Israel's strike in Doha on September 9 targeted Hamas negotiators amid ceasefire talks, underscoring its reluctance to halt the war and pursue peace. 

The oft-repeated argument that recognition prejudges a final settlement has little credibility when talks themselves show no sign of resuming. For Palestinians, recognition is less about bypassing negotiations than about ensuring that their claim to statehood does not disappear while the genocide against them drags on indefinitely.

For Palestinians themselves, this moment offers both hope and frustration. It reinforces their legitimacy internationally but also highlights their internal weaknesses. The Palestinian authority in the West Bank suffers from a crisis of legitimacy, while Hamas has gradually lost its control of Gaza. No elections have been held since 2006, leaving questions about political representation unresolved. Some of the new recognisers have tied their decision to expectations of reform within Palestinian institutions showing that recognition also carries conditions.

The impact of the UK, Canada and Australia's move depends on what follows. If recognition of Palestine remains merely symbolic and serves to polish the image of Western leaders globally, Palestinians may once again receive empty promises that bring little real change. 

But if it leads to stronger pressure on Israel to halt settlement construction, support for Palestinian governance reform, and commitments of reconstruction in Gaza, then it could become more than just a diplomatic move. 

As Britain's Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said, granting Palestine statehood "does not create a state overnight" but is meant as a step towards reviving a credible peace process. That acknowledgment captures the central paradox of recognition: it is symbolically powerful yet materially limited. 

It cannot stop the war in Gaza or dismantle checkpoints in the West Bank, but it reshapes the diplomatic conversation and signals that even Israel's closest allies now view Palestinian sovereignty as part of any viable path to peace.