---

France, Malta and Canada along with Luxembourg and several other European partners announced during July 2025 that they would move toward the recognition of the State of Palestine. France confirmed its decision for September, Malta and Canada expressed readiness provided conditions are met, and Luxembourg declared that it considered recognition unavoidable. These announcements, coming in the middle of an extraordinary three-day United Nations conference in New York from 28 to 30 July, were remarkable because they showed that the idea of Palestinian statehood is no longer confined to rhetorical solidarity but is entering the sphere of practical diplomatic commitments. For decades, recognition had been debated but delayed. The fact that multiple Western governments, often aligned with Washington, publicly committed to recognition marked a visible shift in the international consensus.

The background of the conference is as urgent as it is tragic. By July 2025, the Gaza war had entered a devastating stage, with civilian deaths mounting beyond sixty thousand and essential infrastructure collapsing. Hospitals were without fuel, children were malnourished, and famine warnings came from humanitarian agencies. The broader regional context was equally dangerous, with Israel’s confrontation with Iran threatening to open new fronts. This created a severe need for a multilateral mechanism that could offer more than short-lived ceasefires. France and Saudi Arabia, supported by Egypt and Jordan, stepped forward to convene this high-level meeting under the authority of the UN General Assembly. Their aim was to provide a political horizon that connected the immediate crisis in Gaza with the long-deferred two-state solution.

The United States and Israel chose not to attend. Washington described the timing as premature and argued that the event risked undermining efforts to secure hostage releases. Israel dismissed it outright, claiming that the conference ignored Israeli security concerns and rewarded violence. Their absence was significant because it highlighted both the limitations of the initiative and the growing impatience of much of the international community with the lack of progress.

Despite this, the conference produced a set of significant outcomes. The New York Declaration was adopted as a detailed roadmap. It called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages, and the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces. It laid out plans for the Palestinian Authority to take over governance of Gaza under a transitional arrangement, supported by an international stabilization mission under UN mandate. The declaration also included commitments to establish a reconstruction fund, to revise the outdated Paris Protocol that governs economic relations, and to release withheld Palestinian tax revenues. Importantly, it contained explicit provisions against illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank and opened the possibility of restrictive measures against those undermining peace.

The recognition announcements were the most visible diplomatic development, but they were accompanied by the creation of a nineteen-member oversight committee co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia to follow up on the implementation. Delegates also agreed that the September 2025 UN General Assembly high-level week would serve as the next milestone for securing recognition pledges and for reviewing progress on the roadmap.

The responses from Middle Eastern and Western countries during the conference underscored how the global narrative is diverging from that of Washington and Jerusalem. Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister emphasized that Palestinian statehood must be guaranteed within a clear timeframe if regional stability is to be achieved. Egypt and Jordan both pressed for a unified Palestinian Authority presence in Gaza and the West Bank, warning that indefinite Israeli military control would only perpetuate instability. Qatar, while condemning the indiscriminate Israeli attacks in Gaza, joined Egypt and Saudi Arabia in calling for Hamas to disarm and exit Gaza to allow for a transition to legitimate governance. These positions showed that Arab states are simultaneously rejecting Israeli aggression and demanding that Hamas relinquish its armed dominance.

In Europe, France played the most active role, with its foreign minister presenting the recognition pledge as both a moral necessity and a pragmatic tool to break the deadlock. Malta, Luxembourg and Spain voiced similar positions, arguing that recognition is not a reward for violence but an essential step to preserve the two-state framework. Canada’s statement was more cautious, linking recognition to conditions on governance reform, but it nevertheless marked a notable departure from its traditionally reserved position.

Together, these stances reflect a shift where governments are increasingly willing to challenge the monopoly of Washington in defining the boundaries of the debate. By recognizing Palestine, they are not endorsing Hamas but rather affirming the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate governing partner and insisting on reforms that will allow it to take responsibility in Gaza. The language from these states showed a careful balance: condemning Hamas’s violence and rejecting its control of Gaza, while equally condemning Israel’s disproportionate military operations and settlement expansions.

The implications of this diplomatic shift are significant. For the first time in years, there is a multilateral framework that integrates humanitarian relief, governance reform, security arrangements, economic measures, and political recognition into one package. The recognition pledges, even if not universal, challenge the perception that Palestinian statehood can be deferred indefinitely. The involvement of Saudi Arabia signals that normalization with Israel is unlikely to proceed without concrete steps on Palestinian sovereignty. The participation of European states demonstrates that divisions within the West are widening, with some governments breaking ranks with Washington’s caution.

The conference also revealed the enduring difficulty of implementation. Without Israel’s cooperation, the roadmap cannot be fully realized. Without U.S. engagement, international pressure lacks enforcement power. Yet the fact that over one hundred fifty delegations gathered and that multiple Western and Arab states issued recognition pledges indicates that the international community is increasingly unwilling to accept the status quo.

The United Nations conference on Palestine was both a humanitarian response and a political signal. It addressed the severe need created by the devastation in Gaza, it challenged the narrative that Palestinian statehood is impossible, and it brought together a coalition of states ready to invest diplomatic capital in the two-state solution. Whether these steps will translate into concrete change remains uncertain, but the recognition of Palestine by France, Malta, Canada, Luxembourg and others marks a turning point in how the world is willing to act when Washington and Tel Avivstand aside.

Roman Uddin is a Research Associate and Youth Outreach Program Coordinator at Centre for Governance Studies (CGS)

Disclaimer: Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy