Online Reporter
Gibson Nyikadzino
Zimpapers Politics Hub
FOR decades, the collective West has presented itself as the global defender of human rights and international law. Its liberal democratic ideology, centred on guarantees and protections of fundamental civil liberties for all people, has, however, come under increasing scrutiny over Palestine, particularly Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
The spectacle of what Gaza has become today appears to have pricked the conscience of Western leaders, who now want to repair their damaged international reputations. However, there are empirical footprints and traces of European complicity in Israel’s military actions in Gaza, where more than 70 000 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, 2023.
Realising that international opinion has shifted considerably, some efforts to salvage their reputations now centre on calls for the recognition of Palestinian statehood.
The emphasis placed by the leaders of Britain, Canada and France on Palestinian statehood at the 81st United Nations General Assembly meeting, therefore, requires interrogation beyond the superficial.
Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state by 157 United Nations member states, representing 81 percent of the membership. Ten European countries recognised Palestine as a state during last year’s UNGA session, including the United Kingdom and France.
Weapons supply, trade
For France, Britain and Canada, Israel is also a market for military weaponry and ammunition, with the three countries contributing to Israeli defence capabilities.
Canada’s 2025 Global Affairs report notes that it exported approximately US$14.7 million in military goods and technology to Israel in 2025. This came against total bilateral trade in goods worth about US$2.1 billion during the same year.
According to Amnesty International, France authorised US$440 million in arms export licences to Israel in 2024, up from US$200 million in 2023.
The French Government has said its military exports to Israel since the outbreak of the Gaza war have been limited to components for “defensive systems designed to protect civilians”, including the Iron Dome.
However, in the case of France, the line between the defensive and offensive use of exported military components remains blurred, since French authorities do not have control over how the components are ultimately used once they are in Israeli hands.
Trade between Britain and Israel was worth US$8.3 billion in 2025.
Britain has also maintained export licences for military weapons, equipment and ammunition to Israel, despite saying it has suspended around 30 military equipment export licences. More than 300 military export licences reportedly remain active, albeit under restrictions.
Since 2015, the UK has licensed at least US$670 million worth of military exports to Israel, including components for the F-35 fighter jets, which have been used in airstrikes across the occupied Palestinian territories.
Symbolic diplomatic recognition
Britain, Canada and France all recognised Palestine as a state last year. However, the recognition of Palestine, like that of any other country, can be examined against the principles contained in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.
The convention identifies four criteria associated with statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
As provided under the Montevideo framework, these four elements form the basis of the declaratory approach to statehood, which holds that a state exists when it meets the established criteria, regardless of whether it has been recognised by other states.
The constitutive approach, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on recognition by other states, arguing that international recognition is an important component in determining whether an entity can operate as a state within the international system.
From this perspective, recognition by Britain, Canada and France can be understood as having significant diplomatic and political symbolism, but recognition alone does not necessarily translate into the practical conditions required to establish and enforce Palestinian statehood on the ground.
Palestinians have endured decades of displacement, occupation and statelessness since the 1948 Nakba, alongside other forms of oppression and subjugation.
Against this historical background, the recognition of Palestine by Western countries can, therefore, be interpreted as a significant diplomatic gesture, while questions remain over whether such recognition will be accompanied by concrete measures capable of changing conditions on the ground.
The move to recognise Palestine is taking place against the backdrop of the devastating humanitarian situation in Gaza, including widespread destruction, displacement and severe food insecurity.
For critics of Western policy, recognition without corresponding action could be viewed as an attempt to address the reputational consequences of policies that have been perceived as insufficiently responsive to the suffering of Palestinians.
Calculated geopolitical game
Europe, particularly since the return of United States President Donald Trump to the White House, has faced a changing security environment.
The “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) approach has influenced how the United States interacts and cooperates with Europe on issues including Russia’s war in Ukraine, Iran and the wider Middle East.
The conflicts in the Middle East and the confrontation between NATO and Russia over Ukraine have also had significant economic implications for Europe, particularly in the energy sector.
Europe’s energy dependence has increasingly shifted towards other suppliers, including the United States, following its decision to phase out Russian gas imports.
It is possible to view the recognition of Palestine by Britain and France within this wider geopolitical and economic environment. Both countries have interests in maintaining relationships with Israel and the United States while simultaneously strengthening their relations with Arab states and Gulf countries, all of which recognise Palestine as a state.
This creates an intricate diplomatic balancing act in which European powers must navigate security, trade, energy and political interests simultaneously.
Britain and France have also demonstrated an interest in protecting commercial shipping routes in the Middle East. At this year’s 81st United Nations General Assembly, French President Emmanuel Macron described the opening of the Strait of Hormuz as a “priority”, while arguing that forcing the strait open through unilateral military action would be unrealistic.
The strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz is difficult to separate from global energy and commercial interests, given its role in the transportation of oil and other energy products.
Britain and France, therefore, have economic interests in ensuring that instability in the Middle East does not threaten access to energy supplies or disrupt international trade routes.
These considerations demonstrate that diplomatic decisions surrounding Palestine cannot be viewed exclusively through the prism of humanitarian concerns. They also intersect with broader geopolitical, economic and strategic calculations.
The United States remains a dominant actor in the Middle East, while European countries have their own overlapping interests involving energy security, trade, commercial shipping and relations with Arab and Gulf states.
In the end, the recognition of Palestine as a state by France, the UK and Canada represents an important diplomatic development. However, its significance will ultimately depend on whether recognition is accompanied by practical measures that contribute to Palestinian self-determination, civilian protection and a durable political settlement.
Recognition can carry considerable symbolic value, but the real test lies in whether diplomatic declarations are translated into concrete policy.
For countries seeking to repair their international credibility, the distinction between symbolism and substantive action will remain critical.
