Spain, Norway and Ireland officially recognised a Palestinian state on Tuesday, fulfilling a long-held Palestinian aspiration. Israel has expressed deep discontent with the move, calling it “a reward for Hamas”. As the humanitarian crisis worsens and the civilian death toll continues to swell in Gaza, experts hope the move could give new impetus to peace talks.
In a coordinated move last week, Spain, Ireland and Norway announced they would formally recognise the state of Palestine. On Tuesday, they fulfilled their promise.
Described as a “historic decision” by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez in a televised address, the three nations hope their initiative will encourage other European countries to do the same.
But the continent is divided on the issue. Of the 27 member states that make up the European Union, only 10 have recognised a Palestinian state: Cyprus, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and now Ireland and Spain.
Malta and Slovenia have indicated they will follow suit while France and Germany have said now is not the time to do so.
Sweden was the first Western country to officially recognise the state of Palestine in October 2014, a move its foreign minister at the time, Margot Wallström, said was “an important step that confirms the Palestinians’ rights to self-determination”.
Norway, which is not an EU member state, has played a major role in brokering peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, most notably hosting the secret talks that led to the Oslo Accords – the widely celebrated 1993 peace agreement between the two parties that ultimately went unfulfilled.
Now out of the 193 UN member states, more than 140 have officially recognised a Palestinian state. Many recognitions date back to 1988, when the Palestinian National Council unilaterally declared its statehood and issued a declaration of independence.
FRANCE 24 spoke with international criminal investigator Céline Bardet and Johann Soufi, an expert in international law and former head of UNRWA’s legal office in Gaza, about the impact recognising the state of Palestine will have.
Why does recognising Palestine as a state matter?
Céline Bardet: First of all, it puts Palestine on an equal footing with all the other states. And that is essential, both legally and on the ground.
Palestine has been a non-member observer state of the United Nations since 2012 and is already recognised by many member states. But this move could give it more bargaining power, particularly on an international level.
It also gives a population an identity, even if Palestinians are perfectly aware of their own identity. Still, it is not legal or at least not legally recognised.
What I find most important is the symbolism that lies behind the decision, especially for the Palestinian people.
Johann Soufi: A state is something that precedes recognition. Recognising something just means recognising its existence. Statehood does not depend on recognition.
A Palestinian state already exists. That is why 143 UN member states recognised it as a sovereign state [in a vote on granting full UN membership] but it is also why Palestine is part of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and considered a state by UNESCO.
But Palestine faces a unique problem. It is still not a full member of the UN. I think this is extremely important because in reality, [being a member] gives you the right to vote and also gives you political influence. It is a form of power.
For a state to be fully admitted to the UN General Assembly, the UN Charter requires two-thirds of the member states to vote in favour – which is already the case, since there was a recent resolution in which 143 states voted positively.
It also requires the UN Security Council to green light the decision through a unanimous vote. And that is what is holding things up. The US vetoed the vote.
As long as the US vetoes the decision, Palestine will not be a full member of the UN.
Why do you think Spain, Norway and Ireland made this move now?
Bardet: The recognition of a state is an act of international public law. But it is also a political act.
When we look at the scale of the conflict [between Israel and Palestine] over the last few months and what has happened, particularly yesterday in Rafah, we understand that these decisions – especially when taken by European countries – play an important role in pushing for discussions or solutions.
A solution will only come with two states [Israel and Palestine]. The move legitimises Palestine in its stance, in its existence and gives it more power in pushing negotiators to reach a ceasefire deal. But there is also the question of whether this move could have the opposite effect…
Soufi: Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told the BBC on Monday that for him, the decision was about rights. [He said that] Palestinians have had a state since 1948 and have the right to self-determination and [the right to protection under] international law. So it is first and foremost a matter of justice.
From a more political point of view, it is also the only way to bring hope to the peace process. When talking about a two-state solution as the only credible alternative to war, well, there needs to be two states. If we do not recognise one of the two states, there cannot be a two-state solution.
What are the broader implications of recognising Palestinian statehood?
Soufi: It is all very well to recognise a state, even legally. But being a state also means controlling one’s borders, controlling a territory, the entry and exit of goods and people, the ability to gain access to the land.
In reality, Palestine is not a state because it does not have control over its territory. It has been occupied [by Israel] since 1967. And so in a very pragmatic way, what will truly make Palestine a state is if it can exercise all the rights a state has over its territory and population.
When I speak of controlling one’s territory, it also implies demarcating borders. And that is a chicken-and-egg problem. There are those who say we must first agree on what borders constitute Palestine and only then can we recognise its existence. This is a way of eternally postponing official recognition and any move towards a true Palestinian state.
It is important to know where a state begins and ends, but that should not be a determining factor in whether or not the state of Palestine should be recognised.
Recognising Palestinian statehood means recognising its people, their right to self-determination and their right to live safely on their territory.
Bardet: [Recognising Palestine] also determines who makes up its population.
I think it is important, too, to think about the reconstruction of Palestine [when the war ends]. Who will represent Palestine? What does this mean in terms of governance?
For Palestinians, recognition will not change their lives overnight. It is not a magical swish of a wand. But if it helps find a solution to the conflict, that will definitely change people’s lives.
