State of Palestine: What Does Recognition 148 Add?

The world has been preoccupied in recent months with a series of reports indicating that the French government intends to recognize the State of Palestine during the "two-state solution" conference, which was scheduled to take place under the auspices of the United Nations last June, in partnership with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In the latest developments, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that his country will officially recognize Palestine in September 2025, coinciding with the convening of the United Nations General Assembly.

As anticipated, and as has been reiterated before, this announcement was met with a mixture of welcome and condemnation, in a scene that has become extremely familiar.

The issue of recognizing the Palestinian state has become largely trivialized, shifting from a means of struggle to a mere formal end in itself. It remains unclear what this recognition actually signifies on the ground.

So, what can recognition number 148 add after 147 previous recognitions failed to change the existing colonial reality on the ground?

Some may see that the recognition by "weighty" countries like France could encourage other nations to follow suit, but the fundamental question remains: what is the value of this recognition if it is not accompanied by tangible measures to dismantle the colonial and settlement structures that dominate the lives of the Palestinian people?

The irony is that the United States – the primary sponsor of the so-called political process – considers unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state as an "unconstructive" act and a "barrier to peace," while continuing its unconditional military, financial, and political support for Israel, even amid documented acts of genocide in Gaza.

This blatant contradiction reveals not only the limitations of recognition as a political tool but also exposes the hypocrisy of the international system, which is content with hollow diplomatic resolutions marketed as fateful solutions to the Palestinian issue, while leaving colonial structures intact.

Since the declaration of the Palestinian state in Algeria in 1988, the vast majority of countries around the world have recognized it, yet this recognition has largely remained symbolic and has not translated into practical steps ensuring the fundamental rights of Palestinians, whether inside Palestine or in the diaspora.
On the contrary, the colonial project has exacerbated over the decades, and the number of settlers has increased alongside the number of recognitions.

None of these recognitions has contributed to providing protection for Palestinians, while the international community has continued to reward the occupying state by granting it trade agreements, visa exemptions, and ongoing protection from any international accountability.

The Irish recognition case starkly exemplifies this disconnection between symbolic support for Palestinians and actual material support for the occupation.

Despite Ireland announcing recognition of the State of Palestine following the ongoing genocide in Gaza, Shannon Airport remains a crucial logistical hub for transporting U.S. weapons to the Middle East, particularly to the occupying state.

Since the operation on October 7, more than 100 flights of this kind have been documented. Given that the United States is the main financier and supplier of the Zionist war machine, the continued use of this airport makes Ireland an indirect partner in enabling Israel to continue its massacres against Palestinians.

At the same time, the Irish parliament approved the "Occupied Territories Bill" which criminalizes trade with Israeli settlements, yet this law has remained frozen for years and has not come into effect to this day.

Had it been activated, or had Irish airspace been banned for arms shipments heading to Israel, the impact would have been far greater than a symbolic recognition of a state without sovereignty or clear borders.

There are many similar cases affirming that many countries that settle for symbolic gestures towards Palestine possess effective leverage that could make a tangible difference, if there were genuine political will, especially in light of the widespread public support for such measures that contribute to deterring Israel.

However, it seems that this symbolism is often used as a tactic to evade taking real stances and avoiding confrontation with the United States, turning "recognition" into an empty moral cover that conceals incompetence or complicity.

Yet, Palestinians are expected to express gratitude for these symbolic gestures and to repeatedly trust an international system that is supposed to be based on the rule of law; a system that has proven beyond a doubt to be a mirage.

Even the countries that promote it in their rhetoric do not truly believe in it, as when the hour of testing arrived, France did not hesitate to concoct excuses to obstruct the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against Benjamin Netanyahu.

What value does such recognition hold that does not undermine the existing system but instead grants it a veneer of false legitimacy and drains the solidarity of its actual substance?

Despite the bleak scenario, some signs of hope emerge through the rising global grassroots movement.

People are now rejecting Zionist colonialism more loudly and boldly, not only in the Global South but even in the heart of the Global North.

This is manifested in unions refusing to handle ships loaded with weapons to Israel, in acts of sabotage targeting complicit arms companies, and in the expansion of civil disobedience.

If these movements lead to reducing the number of bullets fired at Palestinians – even by one bullet – they would be more impactful and effective than a political recognition in a futile process that has been outpaced by realities.

We know, of course, that the path drawn for us was designed precisely not to lead to any form of liberation, and the catastrophic consequences of this path are now manifested in the ongoing genocide in Gaza, gradual annexation in the West Bank, and unprecedented mayhem across the region.

We cannot continue to criticize our reality while simultaneously celebrating attempts to revive the policies that led us to this collapse.

We no longer have the luxury of wasting another thirty years on futile negotiation theatrics that will lead to liberation, not even to symbolic independence, because Israel simply does not accept – and will not accept – any sovereign Arab presence in this region.

Yet, even symbolic recognitions are attacked and described as "premature" and "ineffectual".

In this colonial context, even the notion of limited sovereignty – when recorded on paper – becomes unacceptable, because Zionist colonialism can only be appeased by annihilation.