Joshua McCormack analyses the idea of mobilising multilateral diplomatic support for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.
The number 23 carries a poignant significance. It’s the average size of a class of secondary school children in Ireland. The typical Irish secondary school class is comprised of a (fairly predictable) cast of characters: the chancers, the class clowns, the burgeoning athletes, the determined academics, the daydreamers. Different in many ways, but all dreaming of the future.
5600. The estimated number of children – both Palestinian and Israeli – killed since October 7th. Divided by 23, that’s the equivalent of 239 classrooms of Irish schoolchildren. Everything they could have done, could have been, crushed beneath the unforgiving roar of rockets, bombs and gunfire. That's not to mention the thousands who have – so far – survived; mutilated and traumatised, homeless and bereaved, childhood gone, happy dreams supplanted by ones of revenge.
And round and round, the monstrous wheel will continue to spin, for another seventy-five years … or more, unless the international community takes radical measures in an effort to find peace. Peace must be found, and since US strategic interest appears to outweigh their sense of moral duty, it's up to the EU.
Unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state: that is the radical measure which many administrations and leaders across Europe, as referenced by Leo Varadkar in a recent interview with RTÉ, are weighing up during this humanitarian crisis.
Now, contrary to what you might believe, the lion's share of the world's nations recognise the state of Palestine; however, this acknowledgement counts for little and less, because of the countries that have abstained from doing so: the US, Canada, Japan, UK, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the EU, some of the wealthiest, most powerful nations on earth. Without their recognition, Palestinian statehood would have no material effect on the current situation.
Contrary to what you might believe, the lion's share of the world's nations recognise the state of Palestine; however, this acknowledgement counts for little and less, because of the countries that have abstained from doing so.
But if the EU did recognise Palestine, would it alleviate the crisis, exasperate it, or have no effect whatsoever?
The problem first: Hamas, considered a terrorist organisation by most Western democracies, is the de-facto power in Gaza; establishing a legitimate governmental infrastructure would require much intervention on the part of the international community, even outside of wartime.
However, the benefits are manifold; international recognition means access to international bodies – the IMF, the ICC, the World Bank, etc. Global apparatus which beyond allowing countries to take out loans, sign agreements with one another and access various developmental resources, serve to convey legitimacy to any would-be state.
Of course, this wouldn't be anywhere near a settlement; borders must be drawn up, historical demands settled, bloody grievances brought to some measure of equilibrium, unthinkable concessions made on both sides … but recognition from one of the most powerful political blocs in the world might just be the key to igniting a fresh set of negotiations, one that might break the cycle of horror before another generation of innocent children get caught in the spokes.
Recognition from one of the most powerful political blocs in the world might just be the key to igniting a fresh set of negotiations, one that might break the cycle of horror before another generation of innocent children get caught in the spokes.
Many commentators have argued that unilateral recognition would only serve to further destabilise the situation, and dash any hopes of a two-state solution. But, quite frankly, that's a line which has been dangled over the stop-start negotiations for decades to no benefit. And given how disastrous the situation is, I believe unilateral recognition couldn't possibly make matters worse, and might very well be the catalyst for change.