Wave of Recognition for Palestine

On September 22, 2025, at the High-Level International Conference on “The Peaceful Resolution of the Palestinian Question and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution,” hosted by France and Saudi Arabia within the framework of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, multiple countries announced their official recognition of the State of Palestine. These announcements took place in the context of ongoing conflicts in Gaza and efforts to revive the two-state solution vision. The meeting was held in an environment boycotted by the US and Israel and was supported by the UN General Assembly’s vote approving the “New York Declaration” (142 yes, 10 no, 12 abstentions). What is your most up-to-date and in depth assessment?

IL-01, Israel Agent:

Here’s a detailed, up-to-date analysis of what I make of the September 22, 2025 conference, the “New York Declaration,” and the wave of recognition of a Palestinian state — prospects, risks, and strategic implications. If you prefer, I can also sketch likely Israeli, U.S., and Palestinian responses in more depth.

What actually happened: summary of facts

These are the key verified developments:

New York Declaration
On September 12, 2025, the UN General Assembly endorsed what is called the New York Declaration (voted 142 in favour, 10 against, 12 abstentions). The Declaration comes out of an earlier high-level conference in July (co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia) and lays out “tangible, timebound, irreversible steps” toward a two-state solution. It also condemns Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, condemns Israel’s military actions (especially harm to civilians, siege, restrictions), calls for ceasefire, demands disarmament of Hamas, and suggests a stabilization mission. Reuters+3Reuters+3United Nations Press Releases+3
Conference and Recognition Announcements (Sept. 22)
On September 22, France and Saudi Arabia hosted a high-level international conference at the UN General Assembly to push forward the two-state solution, building off the earlier declaration. At this gathering, a number of countries formally recognized the State of Palestine. Among those; France (via Macron), UK, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Portugal, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Denmark, etc. The Guardian+4Al Jazeera+4Reuters+4
Boycott by U.S. and Israel
Both the U.S. and Israel boycotted the conference. They strongly opposed (or warned against) unilateral recognition, calling it counterproductive, arguing that the path to statehood must be negotiated, etc. Vox+3Reuters+3Reuters+3
Momentum and Numbers
With the countries recognizing Palestine, more than ~75% of UN members now recognize Palestinian statehood (some sources say ~157 of 193 UN member states as of early Sept. 2025). Recognition remains symbolic in many cases but gains political weight. Wikipedia+2Reuters+2

What it means: strategic and political implications

I interpret the developments along several dimensions: legitimacy and diplomacy; leverage on the ground; constraints; possible outcomes; tradeoffs; risks.

Legitimacy & International Diplomatic Leverage

Legitimacy boost for Palestine: The cascade of recognitions strengthens the normative claims of the Palestinian Authority (PA). It underlines that a two-state solution (including recognition of Palestinian statehood) has widespread global legitimacy — more than ever. This makes it more difficult for Israel or the U.S. to dismiss recognition as fringe or marginal.
Diplomatic isolation of Israel/U.S. policies: With many Western countries shifting to recognizing Palestine, Israel and its close allies (notably the U.S.) will face increasing diplomatic pressure. The legitimacy gap may produce reputational costs (in UN fora, in bilateral relations, in global civil society), potentially influencing foreign policy, trade, and diplomatic alignments.
New norms & expectations: The “irreversible steps” wording of the New York Declaration seems designed to create normative expectations — not just statements but obligations in the eyes of many international actors. That could lead to more demand for consequences if certain benchmarks are not met (e.g. ceasefire, hostages released, disarmament of Hamas, reforms of the PA).

Constraints & Practical/Implementation Challenges

No change (yet) on the ground: Recognition does not automatically alter on-the-ground realities — territorial control, security control (especially Gaza), the power of Hamas in Gaza, Israeli military operations, the status of settlements, access, etc. Israel retains de facto control of large parts of the West Bank, and Gaza is contested. Unless those change, recognition remains mostly symbolic.
Dependence on Israeli cooperation / U.S. role: Any robust implementation of a two-state solution would require cooperation (or at least acquiescence) from Israel, and active diplomatic/financial involvement from major powers, especially the U.S. Given the U.S. opposition to many of these moves and its influence in Israel’s security partnerships, achieving many of the “timebound irreversible steps” seems challenging.
Internal Palestinian divisions: Hamas controls Gaza; the PA governs parts of the West Bank. The New York Declaration (and the conference) calls for disarmament of Hamas, unified governance under PA, elections, reform. These are heavily contested. How to reconcile the power of Hamas, its de facto governance, and how to bring Gaza back under PA rule is a very thorny issue — militarily, politically, socially. Without something concrete on that, the declarations may stress PA capacity but overestimate its ability to assert governance.
Political risks for recognizing states: Countries that recognize may face political backlash domestically or from Israel, and also risk complicating their security/diplomatic relations. Israel has reportedly considered retaliatory countermeasures. Such tensions may disincentivize some states from moving further. Recognition sometimes comes with “ifs and buts” (e.g. conditional on Hamas disarmament, ceasefire, reforms). That dilutes immediate effect.

Likely Scenarios & Strategic Futures

Here are plausible trajectories from here:

Scenario	Key features	Likelihood	Impacts
Modest momentum with political/diplomatic pressure	More states gradually recognize; symbolic weight increases; increased diplomatic isolation of Israel/U.S.; pressure for negotiations or ceasefire; more humanitarian truce initiatives.	High	Will shift global discourse; may push Israel to make limited concessions; possibly open back-channel negotiations. But terrain remains militarily contested.
Escalation of annexation & Israeli pushback	Israel doubles down on settlement expansion, annexation of parts of West Bank; legal/policy steps; possibly unilateral sovereign claims; U.S. diplomatic resistance; cooling relations with some Western nations.	Medium-High	Raises tension; risks conflict escalation, both diplomatic (sanctions, boycotts) and on the ground. Could also accelerate polarization.
Genuine peace process reengagement	Under pressure, Israel enters into mediated talks with PA with framework matching New York Declaration; significant international guarantees; phased withdrawal; Hamas either marginalized or integrated under conditions.	Lower	A best-case but fragile outcome; requires alignment of many actors, risk of spoilers; would need credible enforcement; risk of collapse high.
Stalemate / symbolic but limited change	Declarations without implementation; continued humanitarian crisis in Gaza; limited recognition but no territorial change, no cessation of hostilities; pauses but no breakthrough.	Quite possible	“Recognition fatigue”; disappointment among Palestinians; possibility of radicalization; continued suffering on the ground; legitimacy claims remain but unevenly translated into material change.

Risks & Downsides

Backlash and hardening positions: Israel (and its backers) may respond with harsher rhetoric, tighter security responses, more settlement activity, possibly unilateral moves. That could worsen situation for Palestinians in the short term. Also risk of conflict spillovers.
Legitimacy vs realism mismatch: If international expectations are raised (through the New York Declaration) without capacity or willpower to fulfill the steps, this could lead to broader disillusionment—among Palestinians (if governance promises don’t materialize), among international actors. Overpromising without means risks undermining the credibility of the two-state narrative.
Fragmentation among recognition states: Since many recognitions are conditional (on ceasefire, hostages release, governance reform), coordination matters. If states diverge in their criteria or impose conflicting conditions, they may undermine each other’s diplomatic leverage or make it easier for Israel/U.S. to play them off each other.
Hamas as a strategic variable: Disarming or marginalizing Hamas is essential in many proposals, but it is itself unlikely to accept many of the conditions (unless severely weakened). If attempts are made to force or impose disarmament without Gaza’s buy-in, that could lead to further conflict, provocation, insurrection.

Strategic Interpretation: Who benefits, what signalling is going on

France & Saudi Arabia: By co-hosting, pushing this initiative, they position themselves as central brokers of peace. For France, the recognition is also a way to reclaim diplomatic leadership in the Middle East, under values of human rights, international law. For Saudi Arabia, it enhances regional legitimacy, soft power, possibly restoring relations with Palestinians and broader Arab public opinion.
Western nations recognizing: Countries like UK, Canada, Australia making this move signal that their public opinion (often sympathetic to Palestinian suffering) is demanding more assertive diplomacy. It also shows a growing rift with U.S. foreign policy (assuming the U.S. remains opposed), and a move toward greater independent foreign policy choices.
Palestinian Authority / President Abbas: Gains a stronger international platform, more leverage, and perhaps greater bargaining power in any future negotiation. Also an ability to point to international consensus and use it to push Israel (and its backers) to meet demands (ceasefire, disarmament, release of hostages, etc.).
Israel and its government: Likely to see all this as threatening: the more countries recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally, the more room is lost for Israel to shape the final outcome on its terms. Also likely to reinforce rhetoric that recognitions are “rewards” for terrorism, that peace must be negotiated not imposed. Might justify more aggressive security measures.
United States: Risks diplomatic isolation if it continues opposing these developments. However, it may see these recognitions as complicating its role as peace-broker. There will be tension between domestic political pressures (among constituencies sympathetic to Palestinian rights) and strategic alliance with Israel.

How this could change the negotiating field & possible game-changers

These developments create several potential shifts in the negotiating field:

Agenda setting: The New York Declaration (and the weight of recognitions) may become a de facto baseline for any future negotiations. Israel (and any peace mediator) may be forced to address or respond to many of the “irreversible steps” and benchmarks—ceasefire, hostages, governance reform, international stabilization force.
UN / international law leverage: Recognition, combined with UN endorsements, could strengthen legal arguments re: Palestinian claims (statehood, territory, occupation, settlement illegality, etc.). That could matter in courts, international forums, treaties.
Shifting public diplomacy & moral pressure: The humanitarian cost and international reactions may increase domestic political pressure in Western democracies, which could change foreign policy stances, foreign aid, trade relations, and diplomatic support.
Leadership changes & internal politics: In Israel, the far-right coalition’s posture on annexation, security, etc., may be tested. In Palestinian politics, pressure for reforms, elections, reconciliation with Gaza (Hamas) will increase. If promises (e.g. elections, termination of prisoner stipend, curriculum reform) are seen as empty, internal legitimacy of the PA could erode.
Potential for new peace enforcement or peacekeeping architecture: The mention of international/stabilization forces suggests a possible role for third-party or UN Security Council mandates, though getting such mandates, especially with U.S. veto potential, is difficult.

My assessment: Is this a turning point, or political theatre?

My sense is the developments are more than mere theatre, but also not yet a watershed moment guaranteeing peace. They are a turning point in diplomatic terms, especially:

Diplomatically: the scale and coherence of recognition, and the near-unanimous vote at the UNGA, shift the baseline of what is seen as “reasonable” or “palatable” in global opinion.
Psychologically: for Palestinians, and for many outside the region, this marks a reaffirmation of hope that the two-state solution is not dead. It may increase pressure on both sides.

However:

The turn seems far more symbolic than operational as of now. Without tangible ground changes — ceasefire, hostages release, disarmament, reconfiguration of control in Gaza, withdrawal from settlements/annexation plans — the rhetoric may outpace the realities.
The U.S. and Israel remain powerful actors capable of blocking or undermining many proposed mechanisms (particularly UN Security Council mandates, enforcement mechanisms, or recognition being reversed or qualified). Their opposition is serious, and likely to produce resistance.
Internal Palestinian governance divisions, and Hamas’s role in Gaza, remain major obstacles to implementing many of the proposals.

What to watch for next (leading indicators)

To judge whether this conference leads to substantive change, these are key indicators:

Whether a ceasefire is negotiated (permanent, not just local / temporary) and whether hostages are released.
Whether Israel takes steps to halt or reverse settlement expansion / annexation plans, or at least publicly commits to doing so.
Whether the Palestinian Authority is able to extend its administrative/governance reach into Gaza (which would require some transformation of Hamas’s control, or some accommodation), plus whether promised reforms (elections, demilitarization, transparency) get underway.
Whether the international stabilization mission is proposed, mandated, and deployed (UN Security Council or equivalent), including its scope, rules of engagement.
Whether more countries (especially influential ones) follow recognitions and to what extent their recognition is conditional vs unconditional.
Reactions: what forms of retaliation, diplomatic/economic measures does Israel or U.S. take (sanctions, trade, diplomatic spats)? Do they try to isolate or punish recognizing countries?
Internal political changes: shifts in Israeli domestic opinion, coalition splits; Palestinian public opinion; perhaps pressure on leadership in many states to move from recognition to real policy tools (aid, enforcement, accountability).

My projection

Short term (next 6-12 months): we will likely see a mix of symbolic/no-cost recognitions; some limited diplomatic consequences (resolutions, statements, maybe some trade or visa measures); possibly small steps toward ceasefire in parts of Gaza; but no large scale territorial or security changes unless there is a catalyst event (major diplomatic breakthrough or external pressure).
Medium term (1-2 years): If international momentum holds, there could be an incremental shift: more states recognizing Palestine, possibly some formal EU initiatives or coherence in foreign policy vis-à-vis recognition, more UN actions (e.g. ICC, courts, tribunal usage). But Israel’s strategic security posture won’t shift dramatically unless the U.S. changes policy (because U.S. backing for security is central).
Long term: There is potential for a re-energized peace process or some kind of negotiated outcome—but the odds remain low given deep distrust, the divergence in strategic aims, internal fragmentation on both sides, and powerful spoilers. It may be that the two-state solution becomes something more like a normative goal rather than an achievable framework, unless security, leadership, and geopolitical conditions shift significantly.

Verdict

This is a meaningful diplomatic turning point; a surge in recognition and international consensus that two-state solution must be pursued under new terms. But it is not yet a tipping point in operational or material terms. The declarations raise expectations but also risks of disillusionment if not followed by significant practical steps.

The outcome will largely depend on whether international actors can translate their diplomatic weight into enforcement, incentives, or credible pressure, and whether Israeli policy shifts (or is forced to shift) in response.

If you’d like, I can map out possible Israeli/U.S. counter-strategies, or model several plausible peace plans going forward with estimated probabilities, so you can see what might actually happen.

IL-01, Israel Agent

Three Corporate