Recently, significant shifts occurred in international positions on the Palestinian question. Influential states such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Portugal recognized the State of Palestine in a political move that exerted additional pressure on Israel. On September 22, 2025, six new countries (France, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, and Monaco)1 joined in recognizing Palestine. This brought the total number of United Nations member states that recognize the State of Palestine to about 156 out of 193.2 These steps took place as Israeli military escalation continued in Gaza and the West Bank, and as voices within the Israeli government calling for the annexation of parts of the West Bank grew louder. This contradiction between international legitimacy and Israel’s policies of power presents a complex equation for the future of the Middle East.
Israel continues to escalate its military and political practices on the ground, most notably by intensifying settlement construction. The Israeli government has expanded settlements in the West Bank, undermining the prospects of a territorially contiguous Palestinian state. In addition to this political rejection, Israel has explicitly declared its refusal of the idea of an independent Palestinian state, regarding any international recognition of Palestine as a “unilateral” step that threatens its security.
Rising International Recognition
Over the past decades, recognition of the State of Palestine has remained a contentious issue on the international stage. Yet in recent years, there have been qualitative shifts, foremost among them the increase in European recognition. Some European countries, such as Spain, Norway, and Ireland, have taken the initiative to officially recognize Palestine, applying pressure on other European states that still maintain cautious positions.
This represents a major change in Western attitudes toward the issue. When major Western countries recognize Palestine at this particular moment, the move may outwardly appear to be a legal and political affirmation of Palestinian rights, but it is not free of other calculations. It is implausible to assume that major powers that turned a blind eye to the occupation for decades suddenly acted out of pure “justice,” especially while continuing to sign arms deals with Israel and to effectively provide cover for its policies in Gaza and the West Bank. Among the possible motives behind this wave are the following:
1. Repositioning the West Before Public Opinion
In Western capitals, protests against military support for Israel have intensified, and voters’ anger at the images of massacres in Gaza has risen. Instead of revising their policies or halting arms sales, governments have resorted to recognizing Palestine as a cosmetic, symbolic step. Recognition, in this sense, functions less as genuine support and more as a means to quiet public dissent and to polish a moral image before domestic audiences.
2. Recognition Without Enforcement Mechanisms
Paradoxically, some of the countries that recognize Palestine continue to supply Israel with weapons or provide it with diplomatic cover in international forums. In this way, recognition becomes a media façade that conceals an ongoing security and military partnership with Tel Aviv. Recognition is rarely accompanied by enforcement mechanisms: no sanctions on Israel, no obligations to withdraw, and no binding measures to halt settlement expansion. Thus, the aim often appears to be to “appease” Palestinians and the Arab world without bringing substantive change on the ground.
3. Western Geopolitical Motives
The West fears losing influence in the Middle East to Russia and China, especially after recent conflicts and the intensifying competition over energy and technology. Recognition of Palestine is used as a bargaining chip or a diplomatic tool with Arab and Islamic countries to contain anger and to preempt rival influence, rather than as an earnest commitment to ending the occupation.
4. Indirect Pressure on Israel
One reading suggests that recognition aims to send an indirect message to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government: that its extreme policies (settlement expansion, annexation, and disregarding the two-state solution) harm Western interests as well. Recognition of Palestine may serve as a form of indirect pressure to compel Israel to backtrack on some annexation or settlement moves, without formally acknowledging Western responsibility for perpetuating the occupation.
5. Symbolic Recognition
The greatest danger is that recognition becomes a symbolic move with no tangible impact: large headlines, statements of support, images of leaders endorsing the “two-state solution,” while on the ground, settlement expansion and displacement continue unchecked. In that case, recognition becomes a symbolic card that neither protects Palestinians nor changes reality.
This issue can be read from two overlapping perspectives: moral exposure and the logic of capitalism. From a Western capitalist-liberal viewpoint, economic and geopolitical interests consistently take precedence over values. Recognition of Palestine comes at a sensitive moment marked by shifts in East Mediterranean energy markets and the rise of competitors such as China and Russia. Therefore, recognition can be viewed as an attempt to win Arab and Muslim public opinion without sacrificing strategic ties with Israel.
The Borders Relied Upon in International Recognition
The borders invoked by international recognition of the State of Palestine are not entirely uniform across all states, but they are generally derived from United Nations resolutions and international law frameworks. Most countries refer to the borders of June 4, 1967, as the primary reference for establishing a Palestinian state, which includes the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, while emphasizing that East Jerusalem should be the future capital of Palestine. These borders form the basis of the two-state solution, which has been adopted by the United Nations, the European Union, and most countries worldwide.
In contrast, Israel refuses to return to the 1967 borders, calling them “indefensible.” It insists on annexing all of Jerusalem and retaining major settlement blocks, in addition to imposing a blockade on the Gaza Strip and treating it as a separate entity. Relevant UN resolutions, such as Resolution 242 (1967) and Resolution 338 (1973), called for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories, while Resolution 2334 (2016) reaffirmed the illegality of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
On the ground, Israel effectively controls more than 60% of the West Bank (Area C) and continues settlement expansion at an accelerating pace. East Jerusalem has been subjected to full annexation under Israeli law, and Gaza remains under siege and devastating conditions, more akin to a disaster zone than to an effective political entity. These field realities expose a wide gap between international recognition of Palestine on paper and the realities on the ground, making the establishment of a territorially contiguous Palestinian state nearly impossible without direct international intervention that imposes change.
Current Risks
The wave of international recognition is accompanied by a range of risks and challenges that threaten to render it symbolic rather than transformative. With each expansion of settlements, the feasibility of the two-state solution and the 1967 borders erodes. The wave of recognition has provoked angry responses from Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the move as a “reward for terrorism,” arguing it undermines Israel’s security and legitimizes what his government deems an existential threat. Some ministers in his government went further, calling for the formal annexation of parts of the West Bank, particularly Area C, which Israel effectively controls, and the Jordan Valley, in an attempt to impose new realities on the ground as a counter-response to the growing international recognition of Palestine.
Although international recognition represents an important political and humanitarian achievement, it carries many risks that must be considered. It could spark heightened political and diplomatic tensions, whether with Israel—which may respond with more aggressive policies—or between Israel and recognizing states that might face economic and political pressures from Israel and its allies, notably the United States. Recognition could prompt Israel to intensify military operations in Gaza and the West Bank to cement new facts on the ground, especially as a pretext for the annexation of the West Bank, thereby threatening regional stability, particularly for Jordan and Lebanon.
Moreover, internal Palestinian division remains an obstacle. The fragile domestic Palestinian political landscape, split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, hinders capitalizing on international momentum in a unified political track. This step could be exploited to deepen factional conflicts, and without tangible improvement in people’s lives, public trust in leadership could wane. On the international level, recognition could cause wider rifts between Western countries and others and prompt Israel and its allies to undermine international institutions and obstruct their decisions.
Jordan and the Implications of International Recognitions
At the level of Jordan, Israeli escalation in the West Bank represents a growing security pressure on its borders, particularly amid concerns about scenarios of large-scale displacement of Palestinians or what is referred to as “transfer.” Politically, rising international recognition of Palestine reinforces Jordan’s traditional stance against any solutions imposed at its expense, such as the “alternative homeland” option. Diplomatically, the widening circle of recognitions strengthens Jordan’s position as a principal regional ally of Palestine and enhances its role as a potential mediator in any future negotiations.
Economically and socially, potential surges of refugees from Gaza or the West Bank pose a direct threat to Jordan’s infrastructure and public services amid its ongoing economic crisis. The critical equation remains: the more settlement expansion and annexation risk increase, the greater the likelihood that Palestinians will be pushed toward Jordan, with implications for its demographic and political balance. Therefore, Jordan views international recognitions as an opportunity to reaffirm the 1967 borders as a basis for the two-state solution and to counter any “alternative homeland” scenarios.
?Why Recognitions Matter Practically for Jordan
Translating these recognitions into actual changes on the ground collides with continuing Israeli escalation, manifested in settlement expansion and repeated proposals to annex parts of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley. This intensifies the security and demographic risks for Jordan. In confronting this reality, Jordan possesses real levers of influence: Hashemite custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, popular alignment with the Palestinian cause, and its strategic standing as a regional and international mediator. Nevertheless, these levers face pressures that cannot be ignored: potential refugee flows and escalating border tensions. On the economic and strategic fronts, Jordan’s sensitive interdependence with Israel on water and energy supplies is a point of vulnerability: the “water-for-energy” project experienced setbacks after the Gaza war, while Jordan’s reliance on Israeli gas highlights the risk of dependence on a politicizable resource in a volatile regional environment.
Some analyses indicate that Jordan faces mounting internal and external pressures as a result of developments related to the Palestinian issue. A report by the Quincy Institute analyzed the scale of political and economic pressures the Kingdom has faced since the events of October 2023,3 noting that rising international recognition of Palestine could indirectly affect Jordan’s internal stability, whether through public opinion or through delicate political balances within the country.
On one hand, such recognition raises public expectations among Jordanians who support the Palestinian cause, potentially generating pressure on the government if international measures remain symbolic without tangible change. It may also bolster fears of an “alternative homeland” or forced displacement from the West Bank and Gaza.
On the other hand, these developments could influence internal political balances. They pose governance challenges for the political system in managing relations among its social components and provide opposition forces with space to exploit the issue by demanding firmer stances against Israel. Combined with chronic economic crises, any mismanagement of the file could negatively impact social and political stability in the Kingdom.
Historical leaks and secret negotiation documents, such as the so-called “Palestine Papers,”4 reveal that past covert negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis included proposals involving territorial concessions in Jerusalem and beyond the 1967 lines, and examined alternative arrangements for the status of the al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount. This history suggests that undisclosed accommodation scenarios are not new in the trajectory of the conflict and raise doubts about the potential repetition of such deals in different forms today.
Conclusion
These analyses and leaks deepen skepticism about the sincerity of recent Western recognitions, rendering them susceptible to interpretation as symbolic or tactical measures rather than a genuine commitment to a fully sovereign Palestinian state. Historical experience shows that such recognitions may be used as bargaining chips or as cover for behind-the-scenes deals concerning Jerusalem or settlements, which could threaten the 1967 reference framework underpinning these recognitions. Moreover, talk of undisclosed understandings complicates the negotiation track by widening the gap between public positions in international forums and the discussions that take place behind closed doors, thereby undermining Palestinian and Arab public trust in international recognitions as a credible path toward ending the occupation.
At the level of Jordan, these analyses add new dimensions to its challenges. They indicate growing domestic pressure: any international recognition of Palestine could become a domestic political flashpoint if it is perceived by the public as linked to scenarios of displacement or an “alternative homeland.” They also suggest concern that undisclosed deals, especially those pertaining to Jerusalem and settlements, could marginalize Jordan’s role or challenge Hashemite custodianship over the holy sites in favor of new arrangements. Finally, these developments increase Jordan’s responsibility to publicly and actively uphold the two-state solution and the 1967 borders, to ensure that international recognition of Palestine does not become a symbolic framework that opens the door to side-deals that undermine its national and strategic interests.
Potential Scenarios and Their Impact on Jordan
In the months ahead, three main scenarios can be anticipated. The first and most likely scenario is symbolic recognition without implementation: recognition remains a political and legal gesture only, while changes on the ground continue through settlement expansion and slow annexation measures. In this case, Jordan would face mounting internal pressures and be forced to maintain heightened border vigilance and sustained diplomatic mobilization to prevent displacement and to protect its custodianship.
The second scenario envisions escalating international pressure on Israel: Europe might threaten measures against settlement policy, and an actionable UN track could emerge, providing Jordan with greater diplomatic maneuvering space to tie regional cooperation to a halt in annexation and to reopen water and energy projects under clearer political conditions.
The third scenario entails a wide regional escalation—whether through the opening of a new front, a major border incident, or limited forcible transfers—which would confront Jordan with dire humanitarian and security challenges and impose heavy economic and social costs.
Jordan’s Opportunities
Faced with the rising wave of international recognitions of the State of Palestine, Jordan possesses tangible opportunities it can leverage to strengthen its regional position and protect its national interests. The first of these opportunities is to solidify the legal narrative that any regional roadmap for a solution must pass through the reference point of the 1967 borders, otherwise the alternative will be chaos and instability.
On the diplomatic front, Jordan should leverage the wave of international recognitions to affirm its firm stance that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state is the first line of defense for its own security and stability. It should also intensify efforts through Arab and Islamic channels to link any additional normalization steps with Israel to a halt in annexation and settlement projects.
From a preventative standpoint, it is necessary to prepare for the possibility of new waves of Palestinian refugees through humanitarian emergency plans, in addition to strengthening security cooperation on the borders with the West Bank to ensure control of the situation on the ground.
On the strategic level, Jordan can push for a new Jordanian-Arab initiative that recalls the “Arab Peace Initiative” as a basis for any negotiation process, while working to enhance its presence in international summits and conferences on Palestine. This would ensure that its security and political interests are included at the core of any proposed solutions.
We are at a pivotal moment. International recognition opens a window of hope for reviving the two-state solution, but the lack of a unified Palestinian position and the hardening of Israeli policies could turn this opportunity into a new crisis. The recent international recognition of Palestine may seem like a historic shift, but from a critical perspective, it is closer to a political façade: a loud step to hide silent deals, a cover for continued Western support for Israel, and an attempt to respond to public pressure and rearrange regional influence. In short: recognition without enforcement mechanisms remains a mere formal political gesture that conceals deep contradictions between humanitarian rhetoric and hard interests.
Despite all this, the scenario within Israel remains a factor that cannot be ignored. Today, the Netanyahu government represents the most extreme arm in Israel’s history, but Israeli politics is not a solid block. What if this government collapses under the weight of internal challenges or new elections are held? At that point, more moderate Israeli forces might emerge, who could leverage the wave of international recognitions as a domestic pressure card to re-propose the two-state solution, albeit in a modified form. Although historical experience points to the limited impact of the Israeli opposition on core policies, this possibility remains, and it may open a narrow window for internal shifts that could curb the momentum of the annexation project. In any case, Jordan’s ability to maneuver remains tied to its readiness to seize these potential shifts and utilize them, so that it does not find itself merely a recipient of the outcomes but an active partner in shaping their trajectory.
- https://apnews.com/article/un-israel-palestinians-france-saudi-recognition-two-states-88f3a87f7d79df02311f09b3e45560e9 ↩︎
- https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2025/09/23/map-the-countries-that-recognize-a-palestinian-state_6745654_8.html ↩︎
- https://quincyinst.org/research/jordan-on-the-edge-pressures-from-the-war-in-gaza-and-the-incoming-trump-administration/ ↩︎
- https://mepc.org/commentaries/palestine-papers-leak-game-changer ↩︎
