A dangerous stalemate

Germany will not support recognition of a Palestinian state, while other Western governments are portraying themselves as having reached a state of enlightenment for planning to recognise a Palestinian state.

“We do not currently consider the conditions for state recognition to be met in any way, and as such, we remain divided on this issue,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated. “The events of the last few days and hours have not changed our stance.”

Western governments meanwhile are linking their recognition of a Palestinian state to the defunct two-state compromise. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused his counterpart Anthony Albanese of betraying Israel. But what has Albanese really betrayed, and other Western governments for that matter, if symbolic recognition carries no political weight in terms of statehood.

Between refusing to recognise a Palestinian state and symbolic embellishment, the stalemate looms greater than ever. Within that stalemate, Israel is proceeding with its military occupation of Gaza through genocide, killing Palestinians, evacuating the population, causing famine and appropriating even more Palestinian territory.

Has the German government considered under what circumstances should a Palestinian state be recognised? And have other Western government considered the futility of symbolic recognition? Can all countries – whether in favour of symbolic recognition or not – admit that implementing the 1947 Partition Plan erased all possibility for a Palestinian state to emerge?

Palestinians are being killed, their land is being stolen. Away from the obvious international law violations, the UN has devised an elaborate, albeit threadbare narrative of purportedly doing all it can to preserve Palestinian rights when it trampled on them decades ago. The UN prioritises Israel’s security narrative over the Palestinian people’s legitimate anticolonial resistance. Which is not surprising, given that the same echelons in government control the international arena under the auspices of human rights. It is UN member states that determine gambling with recognition and non-recognition, knowing that the discussion itself diverts attention away from Israel’s ongoing genocide and colonial expansion in Gaza and the entirety of Palestine.

While Merz says the conditions are not right, Australia says it received assurances from the Palestinian Authority that Hamas will not be allowed to govern. Yet for the entire spectrum of symbolic recognition, the two-state compromise remains a theme around which support is rallied. Support for the sham it consists of, not for the Palestinian people.

All the countries that have symbolically recognised a Palestinian state, those that plan to do so, and those that refuse, are witnesses to decades of colonisation. They are also witnesses to the two-state paradigm’s role in enabling Israel’s colonial expansion. So, while Merz can indeed be vilified for refusing to recognise a Palestinian state, why are the other countries lauded as doing something good instead of exposing their role in manufacturing political failure for the Palestinian people. There is nothing noble about symbolic recognition at any time, least of all now when Israel’s genocide in Gaza is still being supported by Western powers.

The two-state paradigm is as dangerous as symbolic recognition. Can the international community focus on decolonisation instead?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250828-a-dangerous-stalemate/