In a dramatic turn of events at the 80th United Nations General Assembly in New York, the international debate over Palestinian statehood has reached a fever pitch, with Western nations increasingly divided on the issue. While countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Portugal, and France have recently joined the majority of UN members in formally recognizing Palestine as a state, New Zealand has broken ranks, announcing it will withhold recognition for now. The move has sparked controversy both at home and abroad, highlighting the complex web of politics, diplomacy, and security concerns that surround the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On September 21, 2025, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Canada’s official recognition of Palestinian statehood, joining a wave of Western allies who have made similar declarations in the lead-up to the UN General Assembly. According to CBC News, Carney stated that the recognition was prompted by what he described as the Israeli government’s “avowed policy” of preventing a Palestinian state from ever being established. The move was quickly welcomed by both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas officials, with the latter linking the announcement to the aftermath of the deadly October 7, 2023, attacks against Israel.
France followed suit on September 22, becoming the latest major European power to recognize the State of Palestine. Britain and Australia had already signaled their intentions, and Portugal joined the chorus, bringing the total number of UN member states recognizing Palestine to 147 out of 193. As Romain Le Boeuf, a professor in international law at the University of Aix-Marseille, explained to CBC News, “the number of UN members who don’t recognize Palestinian statehood continues to dwindle, and become a smaller minority.”
But not everyone is celebrating. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been vocal in his condemnation of these recognitions, calling them “empty declarations” and arguing that they reward terrorism. “It will not happen. A Palestinian state will not be established west of the Jordan River,” Netanyahu insisted, as reported by CBC News. Echoing these sentiments, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon labeled the recognitions as “empty declarations,” while Israeli President Isaac Herzog warned that such moves could be “adversely interpreted by Hamas.”
The United States has also taken a strong stance against the wave of recognitions. On September 25, US Congressional Republican leaders, including Elise Stefanik and Senator Rick Scott, sent a letter to the UK, France, Canada, Australia, and other allies, urging them to oppose efforts at the UN General Assembly to legitimize a Palestinian state. “This is a reckless policy that undermines prospects for peace,” Stefanik and Scott wrote, warning that it “sets the dangerous precedent that violence, not diplomacy, is the most expedient means for terrorist groups like Hamas to achieve their political aims.” House Speaker Mike Johnson added that it was “baffling and deeply troubling to reward Hamas with statehood before they have returned every hostage.”
Former US President Donald Trump also voiced his disagreement with the recognitions during a joint press conference with the UK Prime Minister at Chequers, though he stopped short of repeating previous comments that such moves would reward Hamas. The US remains one of the few major powers not to recognize Palestinian statehood, a position that continues to shape the dynamics at the United Nations, where US opposition ensures that Palestine will not attain full membership and instead retains observer status.
Against this backdrop, New Zealand’s announcement on September 26, 2025, that it would not recognize a Palestinian state for now came as a surprise to many. Foreign Minister Winston Peters, speaking at the UN General Assembly, explained the decision by citing the ongoing war, the continued governance of Gaza by Hamas, and a lack of clarity on the next steps. “With a war raging, Hamas remaining the de facto government of Gaza, and no clarity on next steps, too many questions remain about the future State of Palestine for it to be prudent for New Zealand to announce recognition at this time,” Peters said, according to Bloomberg and BloombergQuint.
However, Peters also emphasized that New Zealand’s position is not a permanent rejection. “It is a matter of when, not if we recognize the State of Palestine,” he clarified. The country will continue to support a two-state solution and Palestinian self-determination, but, as Peters put it, “what we are looking for now are real actions towards the full viability and legitimacy of the State of Palestine, rather than rhetoric in that direction.”
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon reinforced this stance in Auckland on September 27, stating, “New Zealand is neither pro-Palestine nor pro-Israel. We want to see two states, Israel and Palestine, living in peace and security, and that will only happen through negotiation, dialog, diplomacy and leadership.”
New Zealand’s decision has not gone unchallenged domestically. The main opposition Labour Party criticized the government’s refusal to recognize Palestine as “an embarrassment” that “puts our country on the wrong side of history.” The debate has exposed a rift in New Zealand’s foreign policy, with some arguing that the country is abandoning its traditional partners at a critical juncture.
Meanwhile, the practical significance of recognizing Palestinian statehood remains a matter of debate among international experts. Catherine Frost, a political science professor at McMaster University, told CBC News that “recognizing statehood is subjective, meaning a state is born when another state recognizes it as such.” She explained that there is no universally accepted legal standard for recognition, and political calculations often play a decisive role. George Kyris, an associate professor of international relations at the University of Birmingham, agreed, noting, “Recognition has never been purely legal. It has been very political.”
From a legal perspective, the 1933 Montevideo Convention outlines four criteria for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Palestine meets some of these criteria, such as having a permanent population, but its borders are disputed and governance is fragmented between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, with much of the territory under Israeli occupation. Yet, as Frost pointed out, disputed borders have not prevented other new states, such as South Sudan, from being recognized and admitted to the UN.
Experts like Daniel Kurtzer, a former US ambassador to Egypt and Israel, caution that recognition may be largely symbolic. “Diplomatically, almost nothing will change as a result of increased international support for Palestinian statehood. The Palestinians will enjoy enhanced standing in some international forums, such as the International Criminal Court, but that will not materially change their experience,” Kurtzer wrote in The Atlantic. Still, recognition does open the door for countries to establish embassies, sign treaties, and potentially revise their bilateral relations with Israel, as noted by Ardi Imseis, a law professor at Queen’s University.
As the UN General Assembly convenes, the world watches closely to see how these divergent policies will play out. With the situation in Gaza deteriorating—no ceasefire in sight, famine declared in Gaza City, and Israeli military operations expanding—the stakes could hardly be higher. Whether the latest recognitions represent a turning point or just another chapter in a decades-old conflict remains to be seen. What is clear is that the global conversation about Palestinian statehood has entered a new and uncertain phase.
