Ziyad Motala: The West’s hollow recognition of Palestine

On 21 September 2025, Britain, Canada, and Australia announced their recognition of a Palestinian state. The announcement was trumpeted as historic, a long-delayed acknowledgment of the obvious. Yet the prose of their declarations betrayed a nervousness that renders the act more symbolic than substantive. It is one thing to proclaim principle, another to embrace its consequences.

Britain, ever the master of diplomatic equivocation, declared recognition on the basis of the 1967 borders. For a fleeting moment, clarity appeared. Then, almost reflexively, the clarity dissolved into the fog of “subject to negotiations.” This caveat transforms recognition into a parody of itself. By handing Israel an implicit veto over the very existence of Palestinian sovereignty, Britain manages to appear bold while, in fact, being timid. Its words ring with the hollow authority of international law only to collapse into ambiguity. In this double-speak, Britain reveals that it wants the virtue of moral leadership without the burden of political courage.

Canada’s recognition was more restrained, a careful calibration designed to protect its reputation abroad without meaningfully altering its conduct. Ottawa insisted that recognition was part of a coordinated international effort to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution. In that phrasing lies the subtle retreat. Recognition was not presented as an acknowledgment of an inherent right, but as a gesture to keep alive a diplomatic framework that has long since collapsed. The final status of Jerusalem, the question of refugees, the sprawl of settlements — all of these Canada deferred with studied vagueness. For decades, Canada wrapped itself in the mantle of Israel’s most dependable apologist among Western nations. To move from that to recognition of Palestine is progress of a sort, but progress drained of seriousness when it comes with no hint of sanction, pressure, or consequence.

Australia dressed its recognition in the rhetoric of pragmatism. Canberra declared that it was recognising the “legitimate and long held aspirations of the people of Palestine to a state of their own.” The act was presented as part of a coordinated international effort to build momentum for a two-state solution, beginning with a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of the hostages taken in October 2023. Australia stressed that its recognition reflected a longstanding commitment to the two-state solution as the only path to enduring peace and security. Yet the statement was striking for its vagueness. It avoided any reference to borders, settlements, or the right of return. By limiting itself to generalities, Canberra made recognition less a concrete assertion of sovereignty than a diplomatic posture designed to align with allies while incurring little cost.

Recognition of Palestine was less an act of courage than an act of appeasement.

What was common across all three declarations was the now-standard condemnation of Hamas attacks — obligatory denunciations of terrorism delivered with solemn gravity. Yet there was a conspicuous silence on accountability for Israel and its leaders, several of whom stand indicted for war crimes and genocide before international tribunals. To demand Palestinian reform while excusing Israeli impunity is to invert justice itself. The imbalance reveals the recognitions as less about principle than about protecting diplomatic comfort zones.

There was another motive as well. In all three countries, discontent among voters had grown, fuelled by anger at Israel’s unrestrained assault on Gaza and by frustration with governments that appeared inert in the face of civilian suffering. Recognition of Palestine was less an act of courage than an act of appeasement. London, Ottawa, and Canberra offered a gesture not to Palestinians but to their own electorates, eager to demonstrate that they had heard the cries of outrage while still ensuring that nothing substantial would change.

Taken together, the three announcements are less a breakthrough than a tableau of Western timidity. They reflect the growing discomfort of Washington’s allies with the perpetual limbo in which Palestinians have been kept. They acknowledge the erosion of the American monopoly over Middle Eastern diplomacy. But they stop well short of confronting the reality that Israel has no intention of permitting a viable Palestinian state. In failing to grapple with that fact, these recognitions amount to little more than gestures in a play whose script has not changed.

Symbolism matters, but it is not enough. For Palestinians on the ground, the barriers remain, the settlements expand, the blockade endures. The daily humiliations of occupation do not yield to press releases. Recognition is valuable only to the extent it translates into action. To date, Britain, Canada, and Australia have offered no indication that their words will be backed by policy — no embargo on settlement goods, no restrictions on arms sales, and no willingness to support international accountability. Without such measures, recognition is little more than the recitation of moral clichés.

Britain’s duplicity is the most conspicuous. To speak of 1967 borders and then to retreat into the swamp of negotiation is to extinguish the very clarity one has summoned. Canada’s cautious phrasing and Australia’s deliberate vagueness differ in style but not in effect. All three governments seek the virtue of being seen on the side of justice while avoiding the costs of actually delivering it.

What these announcements ultimately reveal is the West’s peculiar genius for congratulating itself while doing nothing. Britain, Canada, and Australia now proclaim that they stand with Palestine. Yet they hasten to assure Israel that nothing will change. Palestine is recognised, but only as an abstraction. Sovereignty is affirmed, but only on condition that the occupier approves. Justice is praised, but only in a vocabulary designed to ensure its indefinite postponement.

READ: Martin Jay: Trump’s attack on satire is no laughing matter

The consequence is an exercise in moral preening. London, Ottawa, and Canberra wish to appear as statesmen while remaining hostages to Washington and deferential to Tel Aviv. They bask in the glow of principle while refusing the burden of practice. The occupation grinds on, settlements metastasise, Gaza remains strangled, and the Palestinians are handed yet another certificate of recognition that does not recognise them in fact. These announcements are not milestones on the road to justice but markers of Western timidity, proof that the art of modern diplomacy is to say much, do little, and hope history will confuse the two.

 

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Maghrebi.org. Ziyad Motala is a Professor of law at Howard University School of Law and the Director of the Comparative and International Law Program at the University of Western Cape since 1995. 

If you wish to pitch an opinion piece please send your article to grace.sharp@maghrebi.org