by Saritha Irugalbandara
On 21 September, 108 years since the United Kingdom (UK) issued the Balfour Declaration in support of establishing a Jewish ‘homeland’ within Palestine, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the UK officially recognises the State of Palestine. The announcement came ahead of the 88th session of the United Nations General Assembly and was preceded by the New York Declaration to bring an end to the ‘the terrifying human toll’ of the Israel-Palestine ‘conflict’.
Support for this turn rests on a few long-term probabilities. Key members of the Western bloc endorsing a Palestinian state could be the long overdue gateway to full diplomatic status within the international order. It may also be the collective display of firm soft power to catalyse an end to Israel’s brutality. In a perfect world it would allow for an economically and territorially sovereign Palestinian state free of Israeli blockade. In a just world it could mean prosecution of Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials at the International Criminal Court, whom a UN Commission of Inquiry found to have operated with genocidal intent since 7 October 2023.
But what is the positionality of historic statements in the current political moment?
Politics of Statehood
Under international convention, the four core qualifications for statehood include a permanent population, defined borders, a government, and capacity for relations with other states. Existence is independent of its recognition by other states: recognition is a symbolic political gesture that a state accepts ‘the personality of the other’. It is unconditional and irrevocable.
At present almost all of Palestine’s borders are controlled by Israel, an act considered illegal since 1967. The ‘long-term strategic vision’ of Zionism is rapidly escalating with the Knesset greenlighting plans to expand Jewish settlements and roadways in the West Bank, bisecting it and cutting off Palestinian access to East Jerusalem. Calls for the ‘conquer’ of Gaza, removal of its inhabitants, and dismantling of the Palestinian National Authority (PA) have intensified in the last year. The PA, recognised as the sole political representative of Palestine, has been under scrutiny for decades over their lack of capacity and allegations of furthering Western interests. Practicality dictates that full-fledged political functioning of a state requires diplomatic recognition within the current international system. Palestine’s continued exclusion from decision-making at the United Nations over its own territory, people, and politics is endorsed by Israel’s veto-by-proxy at every opportunity. Even amidst a mass walkout, Netanyahu was clear at the General Assembly: Israel would not allow a Palestinian state to exist.
It is hard to ignore that statehood, by and large, remains a political reality instead of a legal one.
A Tale of Two States
Recognition of statehood by the Western bloc is tied to the goal of ‘protecting the viability of the two-state solution’. Further conditions include demilitarisation, excluding Hamas from future governing structures, and elections. Pledges are made to support and enhance capacities of the PA to enact these reforms.
Central to the two-state ultimatum is the notion that Palestinians should live side by side with Israel per the 1967 Green Line. It is the means to ‘lasting peace’ which presumes a symmetrical relationship between the power and influence of Zionist nationalism that hinges on a manifest destiny of a Greater Israel, and claims for Palestinian right to self-determination and return held by a people affected by decades of hyper-militarism, occupation, and dispossession. The absence of open conflict is viewed as central to what many in the West now view as what is to come after the war in Gaza. The comfort of imagining an after must come easier with political blinders on.
Annexation plans underway to isolate East Jerusalem would nullify the viability of a Palestinian state. The denial of aid and manufactured famine in Gaza occurs against a backdrop of many of these countries’ continued allyship with Israel. Many continue to sell arms to Israel. An unregulated AI and surveillance tech industry thrives as occupation forces field test precision missiles on Gaza’s civilian population. Calls for a ceasefire ring hollow after months of manufacturing consent for genocide and criminalising anti-war dissent. Washington’s recent 20-point response proposes a US-led military presence in Gaza as a ‘long-term internal security solution’. The proposed International Security Force (ISF) would establish ‘control and stability’ over areas the Israel would withdraw from according to standards mutually agreed by the ISF, Israel, the US, and other allies. Notably absent are a Palestinian representatives from such a process.
A return to the Green Line without demilitarisation of the borders – particularly on the Israeli end – is a glass Trojan horse. To continue to dictate how a historically dispossessed people may ensure conditions for their own survival is indicative of a collective psyche that must be taken at face value Europe’s strained relationship with the Trump administration does not mean they would refuse to share the bounties of expanded military presence and political influence in the region.
Bait-and-Switch of Self-Determination
At the General Assembly PA President Mahmoud Abbas guaranteed the party’s readiness to assume full responsibility for governance and security in Gaza after the war. He welcomed the support of France, Saudi Arabia, UK and hoped for the Trump administration’s blessing to deliver on elections and new governance structures. All of these countries have invoked Palestinians’ inalienable right to self-determination and have set forth conditions for the PA to be ‘reformed’ under their collective oversight and leadership. The Trumpian proposal also includes an international body to ‘supervise’ Gaza’s administration, consisting of a former head of state involved in the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003. A key responsibility assumed by this ‘Board of Peace’ is to handle the funding for Gaza’s redevelopment and create governance structures ‘conducive to attracting investment’ until the PA completes its reform.
Hamas’ exclusion from future governance was echoed by Abbas, too, to ensure a ‘one state, one law’ framework. Hamas, proscribed as a terror group, is the de facto governing body of Gaza following a landslide victory in the last legislative elections held almost 20 years ago. Cynicism over the group’s suitability to govern is due to their early mandate to destroy the state of Israe. This stance has largely shifted and in the years before 2023 the group even mused on the possibility of two-states.
It is unlikely that a future government for Palestine, even in the best of cases, would include Hamas in its current form. Their popularity within Gaza and amongst Palestinians has waxed and waned over the years due to their attacks on Israel endangering Gaza’s civilians and their intimidation and torture of critics. Gaza is exhausted and there is growing support for Hamas to disarm and disband if it means an end to the bombing.
During his speech Abbas insisted that Hamas’ actions on October 7 do not represent the Palestinian people nor their struggle for freedom and independence. The PA has not held a political presence in Gaza since 2007 and decries armed resistance as the means to liberation in exchange for a seat at the table for a ‘political solution’. It faces a decades-long crisis of legitimacy owing to allegations of embezzling public funds and Abbas’ autocratic leadership. Under Abbas’ nose Israel expanded its occupation of the West Bank and is closer to achieving the Zionist vision of ‘Greater Israel’ than ever before. The PA’s collusion with Israeli military intelligence furthers public disaffection. Many consider them a self-serving group of political elites disconnected from the national struggle, backed by Western governments’ enrichment to normalise the annexation of Palestine. 87% of Palestinians in both territories believe the PA is corrupt. 78% want Abbas to resign. Over 60% consider the PA a hindrance and liability to life free of Israeli occupation and violence.
Excluding Hamas does not erase how they are shaped by Palestinian claims for self-determination. Abbas nor the West can revise the complex history of Palestinian armed resistance movements mobilising against occupation and colonial violence, the right to which is well-established in international law. In its latest statement responding to Trump’s proposal, Hamas agrees to release all hostages and to relinquish administration of Gaza to an independent, technocratic interim body based on Palestinian national consensus. Drawing from ‘national responsibility’ and ‘wide ranging consultations’, the group is also clear on the ‘authentic rights of the Palestinian people’: no foreign governorship of Gaza, no disarmament until complete Israeli withdrawal, and for conditions pertaining to these to be based on relevant international laws and resolutions and decided by a comprehensive Palestinian national framework.
Statehood recognition is an empty gesture until global political leadership commits to read history forwards instead of backwards. At its core, the two-state ultimatum and promises of self-determination are a colonial legacy on life support, kept alive through the West’s generous military, financial, and tactical support to build and sustain a militaristic frontier in the Middle East. It harks back to the Sykes-Picot vision for retaining power over former colonies, ethnostates defined by political majorities, effectively obfuscating the broader complexities of identity, belonging, and equal recognition within a land that is of major religious and cultural significance to a multitude of communities. It is an unholy matrimony of colonial modus operandi – of quite literally mapping out plans for retaining political, economic, and military superiority over former territories – with 21st century’s hypermilitaristic frontier building.
A Palestine free of violence, occupation, and interference remains a generational political truth echoed across the globe. The Global Sumud Flotilla is the latest such embodiment of this collective truth and belief as activists from over 44 countries attempted to break the naval blockade to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. Despite being repeatedly intercepted and intimidated by Israel, the Flotilla has only grown in numbers and popularity. And as long as the Jordan river runs free and the Red Sea crashes on Gaza’s shores, no amount of public posturing will condition Palestine’s right to exist in the greater public imagination.
Saritha Irugalbandara is a queer feminist researcher from Sri Lanka. Their research and advocacy focuses mainly on gender, technology, expression, and accountability through an intersectional feminist lens. Her advocacy and organising has also focused on freedom of expression, civic participation and bodily autonomy of politically marginalised people, and building community-centric justice and accountability systems in the global south.
Factum is an Asia-Pacific-focused think tank on International Relations, Tech Cooperation, and Strategic Communications accessible via www.factum.lk.
The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the organization’s.
