Deviation from US stance still reinforces Western-centrism
In late September, Canada joined a host of European and North American nations in announcing their decision to recognise Palestine as a sovereign nation. In an effort led by French President Emmanuel Macron, these countries reiterated their support for a two-state solution and underlined the need to take action “in the face of the growing horror in the Middle East.” Recent reports by the United Nations have confirmed that Gaza is being intentionally starved, that aid is being barred from entering, and that Israel’s actions in the region constitute a genocide against Palestinians. It is within this context that powerful G7 countries have, for the first time, joined the majority of the world in recognising Palestine as a state.
This recognition comes with caveats, and statements by several of these Western nations outline the conditions under which they are willing to tolerate Palestinians’ right to sovereignty. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s statement requires the Palestinian Authority (PA) to “demilitarise the Palestinian state” if one takes shape. Under international law, states have a right to self defence, a right that Israeli politicians have repeatedly cited to justify actions in Gaza. A truly sovereign Palestinian nation-state would need to grant this right to Palestinians as well. Predicating their support on Palestinians’ willingness to forgo this basic right is a clear reminder that these nations are Israel’s allies, and that the move towards recognition serves their own political aims. Many of these countries have experienced domestic and international condemnation for their complicity with Israel. According to a recent BBC article, Western nations may have been left with no choice but to distance themselves from Israel’s actions, in order to preserve their image as champions of human rights.
Moreover, this move needs to be considered within the context of Donald Trump’s tariffs and his comments about annexing Canada (among other places), and the consequent increase in patriotic sentiment within the country. The decision to pursue recognition is a clear “split between Washington and its European allies,” as well as Canada. This deviation may be more politically viable now than in previous years because demonstrating autonomy from the US is favourable in the current political climate. An article published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy in July 2025 argued that recognizing a Palestinian state was a good opportunity for Canada to “assert its sovereignty” and prove to “the world we stand apart from Trump’s America.” Since this move was “part of a coordinated international effort,” it carried relatively fewer risks while enabling nations to demonstrate that they are not subservient to the US.
Under these circumstances, sanctioning the establishment of a disarmed Palestinian state, with the additional requirement of banning the resistance from participating in elections, appears to be a fairly safe course of action. The move is significant enough to boost the participating nations’ images without necessitating practical action. Additionally, recognition by these countries, no matter how symbolically significant, does not change the official status of Palestine at the United Nations, where it continues to be considered a non-member observer state.
A change in UN status is something the Palestinian Authority has pursued for years, an objective that has been aggressively thwarted by Israel and the US. America’s permanent security council seat and accompanying veto power effectively ensures that the US position on the matter is the officially accepted one. An analysis by the Middle East Monitor contends that recognition from former great powers and American allies awards a higher degree of external legitimacy to Palestinians, placing them on more equal footing with Israel as the Western world begins perceiving Palestinians as sovereign. This could provide diplomatic leverage; it should be noted that Trump’s ongoing peace talks with Hamas, which are believed to have sidelined several of Netanyahu’s demands, picked up following the wave of recognition. Increased legitimacy may also encourage “more concrete actions” by world leaders, according to Amjad Iraqi, a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group NGO. This may eventually put enough pressure on the US to extend recognition as well, paving the way for official statehood at the UN.
However, even if Palestine’s UN status were to change, it is questionable whether this would protect Palestinians against the violence and dispossession they have experienced for decades. Statehood would give Palestine more legitimacy and agency within multilateral institutions, and there would be an increased expectation for Israel to comply with international law. Regardless of this, however, Israel would continue to enjoy the political and financial backing of the US and its allies.
Further, establishing a state under the conditions that Canada and other Western nations have put forth would likely mandate the disempowerment of the Palestinian armed resistance, whose existence and actions provide Palestinians with a level of political leverage that a recognised but demilitarised state may not. This state would also be governed by the Palestinian Authority, which is internationally palatable but domestically unpopular. Despite providing “direct commitments to Canada and the international community on much-needed reforms,” the PA is considered by many Palestinians to be “corrupt, autocratic and ineffective.” The weakness of the PA has been linked to Netanyahu’s own efforts over the years to bolster Hamas as a rival to the PA, to prevent the establishment of a strong, centralised authority in Palestine. Thus, even if Palestine did become an official UN member state, it would be set up for failure, as its leadership and institutions would be weak, divided, and underdeveloped, and its armed resistance would be disempowered. It would not have the tools or positionality to navigate the European colonial statist international order. Simultaneously, the existence of a Palestinian state, framed as a ‘conclusion’ to the current crisis, would serve to reinforce the normativity of the state-centric system, a system that actively sidelines other forms of sovereignty, as it has done so to Palestinians attempting to exercise their right to self-determination through resistance movements for decades.
While recognition of Palestine’s statehood confers some symbolic benefits to Palestinians, it does not necessarily address the colonial dispossession that is at the root of the ongoing crisis. In fact, it reinforces the very colonial systems that have enabled Palestinians’ oppression for decades. It also appears to be the only viable political strategy for Western leaders, who are under pressure to act and have few choices as the humanitarian crisis worsens in Gaza. While a divergence from the US view may indicate an increase in potential future support for Palestine from Canada and European countries, it also underscores the enormous powers of the US, whose dominance over the international system and almost unconditional support for Israel will likely continue to dictate the trajectory of this crisis.