By Imran Khan
On the 2nd November 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued what would become one of the most consequential statements in Middle Eastern history: the Balfour Declaration. In just 67 words, Balfour expressed his and Britain’s support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, without clarifying what this meant for the non-Jewish communities already living there.
Over a century later, in July 2025, a new set of declarations emerged—this time from Western leaders including Emmanuel Macron, Mark Carney, and Keir Starmer. The “Western Declaration” is expressing conditional support for the recognition of a Palestinian state on 1st September. While Balfour’s words ultimately translated into the creation of the state of Israel, it’s very unlikely this will be the case with a Palestinian state, despite such declarations.
One of the most pressing questions surrounding these announcements is what exactly is being recognised. None of the leaders have outlined what form this Palestinian state would take, or on what territory it would be established. Would this state include Gaza, much of which has been devastated by war and remains under blockade? Would it include the West Bank, a territory now fragmented by decades of Israeli settlements, military zones, and checkpoints?
At its narrowest, just 25 miles separate Gaza from the West Bank. Yet Palestinians cannot move freely between the two areas, and the land in between is controlled by Israel. Without geographical continuity or freedom of movement, is a viable state even possible?
Moreover, no mention has been made of whether recognising Palestine implies any shift in the recognition or diplomatic relations with Israel. Nor has there been clarity on the legal and political mechanisms required for Palestinian self-determination—issues that include border demarcation, governance, security arrangements, and economic viability.
Israeli settlers with help from the Israeli state occupy 90% of the West Bank and Israeli politicians have passed parliamentary resolutions, they will never give up the West Bank or recognise any Palestinian state. This is why the fundamental problem remains the ongoing expansion of Zionist settlements, which has systematically eroded Palestinian territory and made the establishment of a viable Palestinian state increasingly impossible. Since 1948, when the state of Israel was founded amidst the Nakba—an event marked by the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians—there has been a consistent and deliberate effort to expand Israeli control over land historically inhabited by Palestinians. This expansion has taken many forms: military occupation, settlement construction, land confiscation, home demolitions and restrictive policies that limit Palestinian movement.
This is why the fundamental problem remains the ongoing expansion of Zionist settlements, which has systematically eroded Palestinian territory and made the establishment of a viable Palestinian state increasingly impossible
This strategy has effectively fragmented Palestinian communities and territories, making it difficult, if not impossible, for Palestinians to exercise any sovereignty. The West Bank and Gaza Strip, which hold the majority of the Palestinian population, are now separated not just by geography but by Israeli checkpoints, settlements, and a security barrier that further isolates Palestinians from one another.
Many observers question whether these Western declarations are consistent with previous actions. Over the years, states now proposing to recognise Palestine have also provided military, diplomatic, and financial support to Israel—some of it during the current genocide. This raises serious doubts whether the recognition is driven by genuine commitment or political expediency. How can meaningful statehood emerge when key international actors continue to support policies that contribute to the ongoing fragmentation of Palestinian land and society?
The narrative promoted by many Western governments has often framed the conflict through a narrow security lens that prioritises Israel’s interests and marginalises Palestinian claims. This has led to a diplomatic stalemate, where discussions of statehood, borders, and refugees remain unresolved, while facts on the ground continue to shift in Israel’s favour. Since 1948, when the state of Israel was established and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced during the Nakba, Israeli control over territory historically inhabited by Palestinians has steadily expanded. This expansion has taken many forms: settlement construction, military occupation, land expropriation, and policies that restrict Palestinian movement and development.
As a result, Palestinian areas have become increasingly disconnected—socially, geographically, and politically—undermining the possibility of unified, sovereign governance. The West Bank is now dotted with hundreds of Israeli settlements and outposts, often protected by Israeli military presence. Some Israeli political factions have declared their intention never to relinquish control over this territory.
Palestinian struggles for land, recognition, and sovereignty share troubling parallels with the historical experiences of other indigenous and colonised populations—whether Black South Africans under apartheid, Aboriginal Australians, or Native Americans
Meanwhile, Gaza remains under blockade, facing repeated cycles of conflict and destruction. The prospect of unifying these two regions into a functioning Palestinian state raises difficult, unresolved questions—logistical, political, and legal.
Recognising a state is not merely a rhetorical gesture—it carries complex legal implications. As such, these Western declarations must be assessed not just on the basis of intent, but on the mechanisms and commitments that accompany them.
So far, no such mechanisms have been made public. Without a clear path to implementation, the risk is that these announcements will remain symbolic rather than substantive, satisfying short-term political or diplomatic aims without altering the structural dynamics on the ground.
Palestinian struggles for land, recognition, and sovereignty share troubling parallels with the historical experiences of other indigenous and colonised populations—whether Black South Africans under apartheid, Aboriginal Australians, or Native Americans. In each case, systemic displacement, marginalisation, and efforts to erase identity have occurred under the control of a dominant power.
Some of these movements achieved political breakthroughs, such as the end of apartheid in South Africa, but even then, legacies of inequality and dispossession have persisted. Aboriginal Australians continue to fight for recognition, land rights, and justice amid ongoing social and political challenges. The Indigenous Native Americans, despite treaties and promises, have faced persistent marginalisation and loss of sovereignty.
If Western governments are serious about recognising Palestine, they will need to answer fundamental questions: Where will this state be located? What borders will it have? Will Palestinians govern it freely? Will the structural conditions that have undermined Palestinian sovereignty be dismantled—or simply acknowledged and left intact?
As the world watches this new round of declarations unfold, the key issue remains unresolved: will these statements lead to lasting change, or are they destined—like many before them—to echo as rhetorical milestones in a conflict defined by unmet promises?
