The Decibel - Why more Western nations are recognizing Palestinian statehood

Episode Date: August 14, 2025

In late July, French President Emmanuel Macron said France would recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September. The U.K. then said it, too, would recognize a Palestinian state if Israel did not agree to a ceasefire. Canada and then Australia soon committed to recognizing Palestine.Dr. Mira Sucharov is a professor of political science at Carleton University in Ottawa. Much of her work focuses on Israeli-Palestinian relations. Today, she joins us to talk about why we’re seeing this change in policy after 22 months of war in Gaza, what this shift means for people on the ground, and what solution she sees could realistically bring peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

In late July, French President Emmanuel Macron said France would recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. UK Prime Minister Kirstarmer later followed suit, with conditions. I can confirm the UK will recognize the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September, unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, and commit to a long-term sustainable peace reviving the prospect of a two-state solution. Canada also said it would recognize Palestine, and a few weeks later, Australia did the same. This represents a market shift in these policies around Israel and Palestine. For decades, it was hoped that this outcome would be achieved as part

of a peace process built around a negotiated settlement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. Regrettably, this approach is no longer tenable. Meanwhile, last week, Israel announced plans to take over Gaza City. The war in Gaza has been ongoing for 22 months. So why this change in policy from Western governments now? And what's the actual impact of this shift? Dr. Mira Sukharov is a professor of political science at Carleton University in Ottawa.

Much of her work focuses on Israeli-Palestinian relations. Today, she's on the show to talk about how we got to this point. What this shift in perception and policy means tangibly for people on the ground in Gaza and in Israel. And what solution she sees as most realistic in achieving peace and security for the people in those lands. I'm Shannon Proudfoot, guest hosting the Decibel from the Globe and Mail. Dr. Mirosukharov, thanks for joining us today. Pleasure to be here.

So over the last few weeks, we've seen France, the UK, Canada, and then Australia all say that they would recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September. What would that actually look like? What form does that take in a very literal way? Well, it's really a symbolic declaration. It's a symbolic move to underscore the need and the right of Palestinians to have self-determination just as Jewish Israelis do. You know, I don't think many people realize that three quarters of the United Nations members already do recognize Palestine as a state. but what's new here for our audiences is that these are G7 countries that are joining. So that represents a bit of a diplomatic split, but it won't change anything in the short term. That's really interesting.

So as you say, if three quarters of members already do acknowledge, but what's new here is it being G7 nations, how significant is this? How would you put that in context so that we can understand better? Right. Well, I mean, I just use G7 as a shorthand, but really what we need to. to think about is that these are countries that are considered part of the West. However, we think about that. These are countries who have close relations with Israel, who are considered generally allies, friends. They're not, I wouldn't call this a punishment to Israel. This isn't a stick. And which is why

at least one of the countries has said that they will not go through with the recognition of Palestine. if Israel pursues a ceasefire before September, I think that's the wrong approach because that suggests that to recognize Palestine as a state is to punish Israel. And I don't think it's a punishment at all. I think the sooner that Israelis and Palestinians are able to all have freedom, dignity,

security, safety, self-determination in the form of two states or a confederal approach is the kind that I support currently. We can get to that later. The sooner that all Israelis and Palestinians have freedom, security, safety, dignity, the sooner everyone can get back to leading the lives that everyone deserves to lead. When you talk about a country that has used this as a stick and placed conditions on it, which country is that? That's the UK. So the UK has said that they will not recognize Palestine as a state if Israel agrees to a ceasefire by September. I see. So you said this recognition at the UN is largely symbolic, but symbolic doesn't necessarily mean meaningless. And Canada, for one, has never taken this kind of position in the past. How do you think we should be understanding this move in this moment? Yeah, you're absolutely right. That symbolism is important in international relations and especially in diplomacy. So what this move does by Canada agreeing to recognize a state of Palestine, it's really adding fuel to the end.

of Canada's existing foreign policy. So if you look at the Global Affairs website, what hasn't changed over many years is Canada's approach to Israeli-Palestinian relations. And specifically, I'm thinking of Canada's approach to what Palestinians need and deserve and Canada's approach to international law, specifically to adhering to international law. So this means that Canada has always viewed the Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. Canada supports a two-state solution. Canada supports the relevant UN resolutions that talk about the need for all states to live in security. And Canada has said in its official foreign policy stance that it supports a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue. So supporting a move to

recognize the state of Palestine is a way of capturing all these commitments in a single move. at the United Nations in September. The way you've put that there, it almost sounds consistent with the position Canada has long held rather than a departure. Am I reading that right? I would absolutely view it that way.

Now, Israel advocates view it differently. They view it as rewarding the Palestinians for terrorism. They view it as a prize. And I think what's so important to think about now is that freedom is not a prize. freedom is something that everybody deserves. You had said a little earlier that in your view, this should not be used as a stick,

that it should not be viewed as punishing Israel to acknowledge the Palestinian state. I think, and I hope I'm not wrong here, that would be a surprising concept to some people. Can you elaborate a bit on your thinking around that? Well, when we think about how to pressure countries to do the right thing, there's all sorts of carrots and all sorts of sticks,

available. You can have free trade agreements, and on the other hand, you can have sanctions. Recognizing Palestinian as a state is something that should just be, in my view, naturally viewed as the next step in helping bring about what all parties there need and deserve, and that is freedom, safety, security, and the ability to live in peace and equality. Okay, if we're thinking about where we are in this moment and why this is happening now, what would you identify as some of the contributing factors or events over the last few months that have led to a bit of a change and approach in the international community? The increasing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, people dying by starvation every day, Israel

having used starvation as a weapon of war. So by that, I mean Israel enacting a total siege on Gaza, lifting it at times for short periods. There was a time between January and March, when there was a temporary ceasefire, when Israel allowed more aid in, then Israel closed the gates again. And it is a war crime to use starvation as a weapon of war. So you'll hear some Israel advocates say, Israel is the only country that feeds its enemy. Now, this isn't about Israel feeding its enemy. This is about Israel deciding whether to uphold the laws of war. And one of the laws of wars, you cannot block access to food, fuel for generators for hospitals, medicines, and water, as Israel has been doing for most of these last two years. Before the last two years, when the war

began, Israel had a full blockade on Gaza as well. The siege wasn't as tight, but Israel has still, since the mid-2000s, controlled Gaza's airspace, water space, water access, ground access along with Egypt. Egypt and Israel jointly control one border crossing, but Israel controls the rest. Israel controls clean water access, the population registry, the electricity, the electricity grid and of course the sea access. We say water. We mean both drinking water and the ability of Gaza fishers to fish. So there's the blockading of aid or essential supplies. There are the growing concerns that there's a famine situation there. And then we saw over the weekend the killing of a group of journalists in Gaza, one of whom Israel had claimed was a Hamas operative. Now Al Jazeera,

the agency most of them worked for, disputes that claim and says they were journalists. We also saw the Canadian government a couple of days ago, among other entities, condemning their deaths and talking about them very clearly as journalists doing their jobs. So how do you think that's contributed to this moment in time or has fed into these changing perceptions of the situation? It definitely has contributed. And of course, the other thing that's so obvious that I should add is that it's the mounting death toll in total. It's not just by starvation. It's many, many killings of Palestinian civilians were at over 60,000 Palestinians dead in the Gaza Strip since October 7th. And a majority of those are believed to be civilians. We've seen Israel over

the course of the war using 2,000 pound bombs on residential areas. We've seen Israel raised to the ground, full neighborhoods. And these are ways that when you look at the genocide definition in the United Nations, conditions that are created to bring about the death or expulsion of citizens, of civilians, these are all things that add up to a genocidal calculation in the minds of many human rights groups and increasingly more and more genocide scholars. I see. Many of those elements, though, they sound cumulative rather than new. So what do you think it is about this moment that something has reached a critical mass? and we see this international recognition of the idea of a Palestinian state.

I think a big part of it is that famine conditions take some months to see the terrifying results of. And so now people are starting to die of the starvation conditions that had been in place for many months. So that's, I think, a big part of it. When you think about tipping factors, the Palestinian activist, peace activist, who was murdered by a settler just last week, this peace activist captured his own murder on camera as he was filming a settler coming in, shooting wildly with a gun in the Palestinians village.

And this particular Palestinian activist had many friends and admirers throughout Canada and the U.S. and elsewhere, including many Jews who had gone on solidarity visits to his village. So these events, what they end up doing is they end up spotlighting the lives of individuals. We'll be right back.

Now shifting to this idea of a recognition of a Palestinian state, what actual material impact would more countries doing that have for Palestinians? I think it does two things. It gives Palestinians moral support a sense that they're not alone. And that has always been very key for Palestinians who are trying to do their best under the most horrifying and terrifying circumstances. You know, Palestinians have a term in Arabic is the word sumud, which means steadfastness, steadfastness in the face of oppression. And so that's where you get symbols like the watermelon, which were developed in the first intifada as a way to signal the colors of the Palestinian flag when the Palestinian flag was outlaw. the flag, graffiti, using those colors, all that was outlawed by the Israeli government through

its military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza. And so Palestinians developed a watermelon as a workaround symbol to say we are here and we're not going anywhere. So the kind of symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state by countries of the G7 like Canada, France, The U.K. is an important step in signaling moral support and signaling solidarity with Palestinian rights. Now, what does the recognition of a Palestinian state? What signal does that send to Israel from these countries that are making this move? It sends the important signal that the occupation cannot continue forever. And when I see occupation, I should just explain, there's two Palestinian territories that Israel has control over where Palestinians are not. citizens of Israel, and that is Gaza, and as we've seen with the massive killing over the past two years, but before the war, before October 7th, when Hamas attacked so viciously Israeli communities

next to Gaza, before October 7th, Israel still, as I mentioned, had a full blockade on the Gaza Strip, and that's why many Palestine Solidarity folks used to refer to Gaza as an open-air prison, because Palestinians in Gaza could only leave with the permission of Israel, if leaving by air or sea or land, unless it was through the Rafa crossing, which joins Gaza to Egypt, and there, Egypt and Israel jointly controlled that crossing. So I've talked about the conditions in the Gaza Strip. Now we have to think about the West Bank. Palestinians in the West Bank do not have freedom of movement. There are military checkpoints dotting the area from tip to day. tale. Palestinians in the West Bank also suffer from many settler attacks. Palestinians, most importantly,

in the West Bank, do not have Israeli citizenship. And if you don't have Israeli citizenship, but your movements are controlled by the Israeli military, that is a fundamental lack of freedom. Now, when you think about all the Palestinians who are in the West Bank, they do not have freedom because their everyday movements are being controlled by the IDF, even if they live in the major Palestinian cities where the Palestinian Authority has some control over civil matters. But the IDF ultimately has full military control over the whole area. So by recognizing a Palestinian state,

these countries are saying the occupation can't go on forever and Palestinians deserve freedom. When we talk about recognizing a Palestinian state, what could that actually look like on the ground? We've been hearing for 30 years now about efforts toward a two-state solution. What do we know about what people on the ground in Israel and in Gaza and the West Bank actually want and see as a viable solution in that way? So really, there's been three major types of democratic solutions being offered.

I'm not going to talk about the solutions that continue oppression until Kingdom come. The three democratic solutions are a one-state solution, a two-state solution, or a confederate, approach, which is a modified two-state solution. The one-state solution is favored by some Palestine solidarity activists and some Israelis, but very few. And that would mean right now the whole area between the river and the sea, Gaza, Israel proper and the West Bank, would be one state, in other words, one country that would have full rights for all.

And that is one possible option. I don't think the Israelis or Palestinians are going to want to live together in one single entity forevermore, but that is one democratic option. Another is the conventional two-state solution, and that's, I think, what Canada has in mind and many of the European states have in mind or have had in mind over the years. And a conventional two-state solution would see a Palestinian state pop up in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel would end its occupation, and there would be two states. Finally, the approach that I've been favoring in recent years is called a modified two-state solution, also called a confederal approach. And this is an approach favored by groups like a land for all, which is a joint Israeli and Palestinian group in Israel-Palestine working together to bring forth this vision. And this vision is a modified two-state solution.

So this is what it would look like. There would be a Palestinian state in the West Bank of Gaza. there would be a state of Israel in Israel proper. But the difference here from a conventional two-state solution is that there would be freedom of movement and residence across the two states. People could live and work anywhere. Palestinian refugees could return to their lands, could return to their towns like Jaffa, Haifa, but they would return as residents, permanent residents of the state of Israel,

and they would vote for a state of Palestine in the West Bank of Gaza. Similarly, Israeli settlers could stay in their homes in the West Bank, but they would now be living as permanent residents of the state of Palestine, and they would continue to vote for the Knesset for the Israeli parliament in West Jerusalem. How realistic or possible does an idea like that seem at this point? I think it is the most realistic form of the two-state solution, and I think it's more realistic than the one-state solution. Or it's the most realistic democratic option. If you were simply going to ask me to predict what will happen, I would probably at this point be very pessimistic and say that there's going to be continued oppression. But I don't think we have the luxury of pessimism. I think we have to have hope. I think hope is an ethical imperative.

And so that's why I place my hope on a confederal solution. And I'll tell you why I think it's the most realistic of the Democratic solutions. It's the most realistic because it overcomes the two major stumbling blocks that the conventional two-state solution negotiations had always stumbled on. And that was the fate of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the fate of Palestine. Palestinian refugees. Palestinian refugees don't just want to give up their claims to the lands from which they were expelled or pushed out or fled in 1948. Now, the confederal approach does not indicate that or does not suggest that Palestinians refugees who are returning should push out anybody who's currently living in those counts. They would live alongside Israeli Jews.

So there shouldn't be any injustice piled upon injustice. So that's for the Palestinian refugees. As for the settlers, there are many, many Israeli settlers who are very attached to the lands in the West Bank, very attached to these biblical lands. Another way of looking at this is all of Palestine is Israel and all of Israel is Palestine in the minds of many Israelis and many Palestinians. So one way to think about this is that everyone in the world, the West Bank would have to have the same rights.

But Israeli settlers would live as permanent residence, as I mentioned, in the West Bank. So they would still, they would vote for the Knesset. They wouldn't vote for a state of Palestine, but they would have rights as permanent residence. One more little footnote here is that the permanent residence in Israel could participate in local elections. And permanent residents in Palestine could participate in local elections as well. So, Mayor, we've talked about the implications.

of recognizing a Palestinian state and why now seems to be a bit of a tipping point. Can you help us sort of understand or snapshot this moment we're in and where we go from here? The most important thing, the most urgent thing right now is to push the parties to a ceasefire. The differences between Hamas and Israel can be bridged. The most fundamental difference is that Hamas wants a full end to the war. Israel all along has said that it will agree to temporary ceasefires, but it wants the option to continue fighting Hamas. The other big difference is whether Hamas is willing to put down its arms entirely and whether it's willing to fully demilitarize and fully decommission its military wing. I mean, I think that will be a harder sell for Hamas.

Hamas wants the ability to defend itself. Now, October 7th entailed many, many war crimes on the part of Hamas. It's let's remember that. So it's understandable that the Israeli government and Israelis want Hamas to completely disarm. Whether that's reasonable to demand is another story and that will have to happen in negotiations between Israel and Hamas. So the most urgent thing is to push those parties for a ceasefire because too many innocents are being killed. The next step is to push the parties to find some way of living together in the long term, in peace, safety, and security for all. And I've already outlined the formula that I believe in is the most realistic.

And that is this modified two-state solution, a confederal approach. But at this point, I think Canadians need to stand behind any approach. state to state confederal, any approach that gives Palestinians and Israelis the freedom that they all deserve to live lives of safety and security. Dr. Mirosukurov, thank you so much for joining us today. You're welcome. That was Dr. Mira Sukharov, a professor of political science at Carlton University. That's it for today. I'm Shannon Proudfoot. Our producers are Madeline White, Michal Stein and Ali Graham. David Crosby edits the show.

Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Angela Pichenza is our executive editor. Thank you for listening.