The Recognition of Palestine: Symbolic Diplomacy and Global Risks – Insights by José Rodrigo Bonilla Perdigón

This presentation summarizes the article “The Recognition of Palestine: Symbolic Diplomacy, Historical Precedents, and the Risks of Prolonged Conflict” written by José Rodrigo Bonilla Perdigón. The analysis addresses the recent recognition of Palestine by several countries in 2025, exploring its diplomatic, historical, and international security implications.

The author examines how these acts of recognition, while politically symbolic, may generate institutional fragility, prolong the conflict, and legitimize dynamics of violence if not accompanied by structural measures. Through international relations frameworks and historical precedents, José Rodrigo Bonilla Perdigón offers a critical reflection on the balance between symbolic diplomacy and the real construction of peace.

1. The Recognition of Palestine: Symbolic
Diplomacy, Historical Precedents, and the Risks
of Prolonged Conflict
By José Rodrigo Bonilla Perdigón
Abstract
The September 2025 wave of recognitions of Palestine by the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, France, Malta, and Mexico constitutes one of the most significant diplomatic shifts in
the Israeli–Palestinian conflict since the Oslo Accords. While framed as a moral and political
imperative, these recognitions raise serious questions about the relationship between symbolic
diplomacy and the realities of statehood. This paper argues that premature recognition of
Palestine risks prolonging instability, legitimizing violence, and entrenching the conflict rather
than resolving it. Drawing on historical precedents, international relations theory, and the
domestic politics of recognizing states, the essay situates the recognitions within broader
debates on sovereignty, legitimacy, and peacebuilding.
Introduction
The recognition of Palestine has long been among the most contentious issues in global
diplomacy. In September 2025, the governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia
announced in a coordinated declaration their formal recognition of Palestine as a sovereign
state (The Guardian). Days later, France and Malta joined the initiative at the United Nations
General Assembly, followed unexpectedly by Mexico, which sought to present itself as a
defender of human rights on the international stage.
For supporters, these recognitions represent a long overdue act of justice, affirming the
Palestinian right to self-determination and signaling renewed commitment to a two-state
solution. For critics, however, the timing and conditions of recognition risk exacerbating
tensions, emboldening militant actors, and undermining Israel’s security. Israel itself has
responded with near-unanimous rejection, calling the recognitions a provocation that
delegitimizes its position and jeopardizes negotiations (Le Monde).
This essay explores the implications of these recognitions through three lenses: historical
precedent, theoretical frameworks in international relations, and the political motivations of the
states involved. The central argument is that recognition, when detached from structural reforms
and enforceable security guarantees, risks transforming Palestine into a “phantom state”—
acknowledged internationally but incapable of functioning as a sovereign polity.
⸻

2. Historical Background
Oslo and the Promise of Two States
The 1993 Oslo Accords were hailed as a breakthrough, providing for limited Palestinian self-
government and outlining a pathway toward eventual sovereignty. The agreements established
the Palestinian Authority (PA) and envisioned a staged process of negotiation culminating in
permanent status talks. Yet the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995,
the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000, and mutual violations of the accords eroded trust
and derailed the process.
Subsequent initiatives—Camp David 2000, the Annapolis Conference of 2007, and U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts in 2014—failed to resolve the central issues: borders,
refugees, security, and the status of Jerusalem. Each attempt collapsed amid deep divisions,
mutual mistrust, and periodic escalations of violence.
Previous Waves of Recognition
Palestinian statehood has been recognized before, albeit symbolically. In 1988, following the
Palestinian Declaration of Independence, more than 70 countries recognized Palestine,
primarily from the Global South. This recognition, however, had little material impact, as Israel
maintained control over borders, resources, and much of the territory.
In 2012, the United Nations General Assembly granted Palestine “non-member observer state”
status. While heralded as a diplomatic victory, the upgrade provided limited practical benefits.
Palestine gained access to certain UN bodies and the International Criminal Court, but
remained without effective sovereignty.
These precedents demonstrate a recurring pattern: recognition has often functioned as a
symbolic affirmation of rights rather than as a substantive transformation of political realities.
Lessons from Statehood Recognition
International law typically views recognition as declarative, not constitutive: it affirms a state’s
existence but does not create it. For recognition to align with legal principles, the recognized
entity must demonstrate effective control over its territory, population, and government. The
danger of premature recognition is the emergence of what Robert Jackson terms “quasi-
states”—entities that enjoy legal status but lack the material capacity of sovereignty (Jackson
21).
⸻
The 2025 Wave of Recognitions

3. United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia
The coordinated announcement by the UK, Canada, and Australia reflects the convergence of
progressive diplomatic agendas. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described recognition as a
“moral reset,” suggesting it could re-energize the two-state solution (The Guardian). Canadian
and Australian leaders echoed this language, framing recognition as a contribution to
international law and human rights.
Yet critics contend these governments have prioritized symbolism over substance. None has
outlined clear mechanisms for advancing negotiations, securing Palestinian governance, or
restraining militant actors. In this sense, the recognition risks being performative—an act of
moral signaling without material impact.
France and Malta
French President Emmanuel Macron announced recognition at the UN General Assembly,
presenting it as a bold step to revive peace efforts (Associated Press, France Recognizes).
France’s position reflects both domestic and international pressures: Macron has faced
mounting criticism for his foreign policy and sought to project leadership in global diplomacy.
Malta’s recognition, though less influential, aligned with broader European Union debates over
Palestine.
Mexico: Symbolic Diplomacy and Domestic Contradictions
Perhaps the most surprising recognition came from Mexico. Despite its ongoing struggles with
cartel violence, corruption, and institutional fragility, Mexico sought to present itself as a moral
leader in global diplomacy. The recognition illustrates the phenomenon of symbolic diplomacy,
where states engage in high-profile international gestures to bolster legitimacy while neglecting
pressing domestic challenges.
Mexico’s recognition, though consistent with its history of supporting Palestinian rights,
highlights the disjunction between foreign policy symbolism and domestic governance capacity.
Scholars may one day view this as an example of performative diplomacy disconnected from
state strength.
⸻
Theoretical Perspectives
Premature Recognition
From the perspective of international relations, premature recognition poses serious risks.
Granting statehood status in the absence of unified governance or effective sovereignty can

4. inflame conflicts rather than resolve them. Recognition under such conditions may encourage
militant actors to continue armed struggle, believing it yields political dividends (Jerusalem
Post).
Quasi-States and the Mirage of Sovereignty
Robert Jackson’s theory of “quasi-states” is particularly relevant. These entities enjoy
international recognition but lack the institutional and coercive capacity to function as states
(Jackson 29). Palestine risks fitting this description: divided between Hamas in Gaza and the
Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, it lacks territorial unity and effective governance.
Recognition may therefore produce sovereignty in name only, while perpetuating dependence
on external actors.
International Society and the Balance of Order
Hedley Bull’s concept of international society emphasizes that recognition should reinforce order
rather than undermine it. Recognition of Palestine amid ongoing war risks destabilizing the
international system by creating competing claims of legitimacy. Without enforceable
frameworks, recognition may erode the norms of order that the international system depends
upon (Bull 13).
⸻
Policy Implications
Risks of Escalation and Retaliation
Israel’s rejection of recognition, described as “near-unanimous” by Le Monde, signals that the
decision is unlikely to moderate its policies. Instead, it may accelerate annexations in the West
Bank, intensify military actions in Gaza, and strengthen domestic hardliners. Far from fostering
dialogue, recognition risks provoking escalation.
Prospects for Negotiation
Recognition theoretically strengthens the Palestinian negotiating position. Yet without
accompanying pressure on Israel or incentives for compromise, recognition alone may harden
both sides. Palestinians may perceive recognition as validation of their claims, while Israel may
view it as hostile, reducing the space for negotiation.
Institution-Building in Palestine
Perhaps the greatest challenge is institution-building. Recognition should ideally be coupled with
international assistance to strengthen Palestinian governance, demilitarize factions, and ensure

5. security. Without such measures, recognition may simply raise expectations without delivering
results, fostering frustration and instability.
⸻
Conclusion
The September 2025 recognitions of Palestine mark a significant diplomatic milestone. Yet they
raise profound questions about the relationship between symbolism and substance in
international relations. While recognition affirms the moral right of Palestinians to self-
determination, it does not resolve the structural challenges of sovereignty: territorial
fragmentation, institutional weakness, and security dilemmas.
Absent concrete measures—international guarantees, demilitarization, reconstruction, and
political reform—recognition risks entrenching the conflict rather than resolving it. It may one
day be remembered not as the dawn of peace, but as an example of performative diplomacy: a
gesture applauded in international forums but catastrophic on the ground.
Palestine deserves statehood, but statehood must be real, not symbolic. The international
community must ensure that recognition is accompanied by substantive measures, or else risk
prolonging one of the most intractable conflicts of the modern era.
Works Cited
Al Jazeera. “Gaza and Palestine Were Dominant Themes at UN. Will It Make a Difference?” Al
Jazeera, 29 Sept. 2025, www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/29/gaza-and-palestine-were-
dominant-themes-at-un-will-it-make-a-difference.
Anadolu Agency. “Australian Prime Minister Stands by Recognition of Palestinian Statehood.”
Anadolu Agency, 22 Sept. 2025, www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/australian-prime-minister-
stands-by-recognition-of-palestinian-statehood/3701803.
Associated Press. “France Recognizes Palestinian Statehood at UN Meeting to Revive Peace
Efforts.” AP News, 22 Sept. 2025, apnews.com/article/88f3a87f7d79df02311f09b3e45560e9.
Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Columbia UP, 1977.
Jackson, Robert H. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World.
Cambridge UP, 1990.
Jerusalem Post. “Opinion: Recognition of Palestinian State Sends Dangerous Message.” The
Jerusalem Post, 2025, www.jpost.com/opinion/article-868744.

6. Le Monde. “Israel’s Near-Unanimous Rejection of the Recognition of Palestine.” Le Monde, 22
Sept. 2025, www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/09/22/israel-s-near-unanimous-
rejection-of-the-recognition-of-palestine_6745624_4.html.
The Guardian. “UK, Canada and Australia Announce Formal Recognition of Palestine.” The
Guardian, 21 Sept. 2025, www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/21/uk-canada-and-australia-
announce-formal-recognition-of-palestine-with-wave-of-israel-allies-to-follow.