Taking a peek at the world's governments leaves me baffled. So many countries are supporting a Palestinian state, with Australia officially joining the chorus of Western governments singing the same out-of-tune song. The march has gained momentum beyond Europe, following Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's announcement, which was then formalized with a presentation at the United Nations General Assembly in September. Although framed as a humanitarian step towards peace for many in the West, it represents a form of moral clarity.
Because we live in reality, we've learned — or should have learned — that symbolic concessions throughout history often solve nothing and can harden divisions instead of healing them.
Australia isn't making this decision in a vacuum. Canberra has kept a careful diplomatic balance between a strong alliance with the United States, support for Israel, and its relationship with Arab and Muslim-majority nations in Southeast Asia.
That balance shifts with this recognition, not just on paper, but in the signal it sent to the rest of the world, where Australia believes peace comes from. Signals in international politics often become more influential than the mechanics of any actual policy.
A Rapidly Expanding List
The recognition by Australia does come with conditions: a demilitarized Gaza, no Hamas involvement, and transparent elections. Although, as the kids like to say, "This ain't Hamas' first rodeo." The way the Palestinian Authority has governed is such that it renders Australia's digital paper proclamation as obsolete as an old video game. The last time the Palestinian Authority held a presidential election was in 2005.
Legislative elections have been planned but postponed several times because of concerns about political instability. Hamas has held control of Gaza since 2007, operating as a separate and hostile political entity, attacking Israel with rockets and engaging in open warfare.
Somehow, this behavior hasn't stopped the momentum that has been pushing Western capitals. France, the UK, and Canada are already lining up for similar announcements. Smaller nations have also jumped into the conversation: Malta, San Marino, and New Zealand have all indicated plans to follow suit. What's driving this momentum? Each announcement creates political cover for the next nation, giving its leaders a chance to frame their decisions as part of a growing international consensus, rather than what they actually are: Unilateral departures from prior policy.
In the past 18 months alone, Ireland, Norway, Spain, and Slovenia have formalized their recognition. Fourteen years ago, Iceland broke the seal, and almost 150 UN member states followed suit.
This isn't some rogue wave that has appeared out of nowhere; it's the realization of decades of gradual recognition, first from the Global South, then Eastern Europe, and now from the core of the Western alliance system.
This begs the question: Is this cascade guided by a sober understanding of the region's realities, or a kind of idealism that collapses when encountering those realities face-to-face?
The Elephant in the Room
Despite the lofty talk of Palestinian self-determination, there remains a stubborn fact: In modern history, no Arab nation has offered Palestinians a homeland within its borders. In 1950, Jordan eventually granted citizenship to many Palestinians after annexing the West Bank. Later, after the chaos of Black September, Jordan expelled the PLO in 1970.
Lebanon restricted Palestinians to refugee camps for decades without paths to full citizenship. Egypt, which controlled Gaza from 1948 to 1967, never pursued integration for Gaza's people into Egypt proper.
The Gulf states didn't do better. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar had the land, wealth, and logistical capacity to resettle the Palestinian populations, but their support is always financial, not territorial.
The Arab League could simply make a collective gesture of acceptance, but has decided not to do so. This refusal isn't just political; it's a deliberate preservation of the Palestinian issue as a permanent pressure point against Israel, ensuring the conflict remains unresolved, keeping the victimhood narrative alive to be used in regional power politics.
It's this history that makes Western recognition ring hollow: Ignoring the fact that the very nations, geographically and culturally closest to the Palestinians, have refused to provide solutions, entitling some Western countries to think they're coming to the rescue.
History’s Warning Signs
There has never been a lasting peace born out of symbolic concessions.
The 1947 UN Partition Plan envisioned two states, one Jewish, the other Arab, but it was rejected outright by the Arab world, which chose war instead. Their rejection wasn't just about borders; it was Israel's right to exist.
At all.
Israel's survival and growth weren't earned by diplomatic recognition, but from battlefield victories in 1948, 1967, and 1973, reinforcing the reality that words alone are worthless.
Consider Europe after World War II. The peace was a result of decisive outcomes; Germany and Japan weren't offered conditional recognition as 'states' while still led by the governments that started the war. It was only after their unconditional surrender that those countries were rebuilt from a complete restructuring of their political and economic systems.
If you want to see what happens when the world grants a form of legitimacy to a political situation before a conflict is completely resolved, look to the Korean War. The shooting stopped in 1953, but the significant issues, ideology, governance, and reunification, were kicked down the road. Instead of pushing for a peace deal or at least a lasting political framework, the world simply shrugged, accepted the peace division, and moved on. Over time, that conflict, frozen in place, became a permanent reality.
The police action in Korea is directly relevant to the Palestinian recognition debate because so many Western countries are doing the same things. Those countries move to officially recognize a Palestinian state, although the key issues: Unified leadership, renunciation of terrorism, functioning government institution, and real security guarantees for Israel, remain unresolved.
When recognizing statehood without addressing those issues, there's an absolute risk of cementing a divided, unstable reality, just as in the case of Korea.
In both the Korean and Palestinian situations, the rush to formalize any political arrangement creates the appearance of progress, while simultaneously locking in the same divisions and hostilities, making it harder to achieve peace.
The Cost of Symbolism
Australia's decision has drawn condemnation from the Israeli government, which sees it as a prize undeserved: Palestinian leaders have neither unified their people nor renounced Hamas' terrorism.
Israel isn't acting paranoid; their reaction is a reflection of its experience from the past several decades. In each previous peace negotiation, Israel made concessions without receiving ironclad guarantees, which were met with further Hamas demands.
Then another demand.
And another.
And so on.
In Canberra, if the opposition wins the next election, they've promised to reverse course. Yet, history repeats itself, because nobody is happy; pro-Palestinian activists say it doesn't go far enough, while pro-Israeli voices see it as another betrayal of a friend.
This highlights the danger of symbolic politics: attempting to appease everyone, yet ultimately leaving no one truly satisfied.
Final Thoughts
Resolution without recognition is a hollow act; a note left on the door of a burning house that promises help, but sends no water. The West proves once again that sentiment still moves people, leading to proclamations from good countries such as Australia, yet missing substance in a rush to proclaim statehood for Palestinians.
History marks such moments harshly, from missed opportunities after World War I to the half-measures that failed to deter aggression in the 1930s.
The lessons remain: Symbols don't stop the march of events, and good intentions are no substitute for decisive action.
Become a PJ Media VIP
If you value bold, unapologetic reporting and analysis that challenges the narratives pushed by the corporate media, now is the time to join PJ Media VIP. Our members get exclusive deep dives, unfiltered commentary, and the kind of content Big Tech can’t throttle. Join us today and be part of the fight.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member