Global leaders gathered in New York City for the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, marking a significant moment in international politics. Just before this assembly, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, and Luxembourg joined the majority of the world’s nations in recognizing Palestine as a state. This recognition is framed as a step toward peace, with French President Emmanuel Macron emphasizing the urgency of seizing the moment for peace, while U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer highlighted the need to keep the possibility of peace alive amid escalating violence in the Middle East.
However, a critical contradiction arises when examining the actions of these nations. Despite their public support for Palestinian statehood, they continue to supply military support to Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded defiantly to the recognition of Palestinian statehood, asserting that there will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. This statement underscores the ongoing tensions and the complexities surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Recent findings from a U.N. human rights commission concluded that Israel has committed acts of genocide in Gaza, with the commission’s chair, Navi Pillay, urging the international community to take action to halt these violations. Pillay pointed out that the lack of action from nations providing arms to Israel amounts to complicity in these human rights abuses. This raises important questions about the effectiveness of symbolic gestures in the absence of concrete actions to address the ongoing violence.
Currently, 157 of the 193 U.N. member states recognize Palestine as a state. Yet, countries like the U.K., France, Canada, Luxembourg, and Australia continue to export arms to Israel. In September 2024, the U.K. government enacted a partial arms embargo, halting some weapon exports due to concerns over human rights violations. However, this embargo only affected a fraction of the total arms exports, and reports indicate that the U.K. has continued to supply significant military equipment to Israel.
A report led by the Palestinian Youth Movement and other organizations revealed that the U.K. government has shipped thousands of military items to Israel over the past year, despite claims of limiting arms sales. Similarly, Canada announced a halt to export licenses for weapons to Israel, yet loopholes allowed for continued sales of military goods worth millions. France, despite public statements about ceasing arms sales, has been reported to continue supplying military equipment to Israel.
In contrast, some European nations have taken more decisive actions. Belgium has moved to impose a total arms embargo on military goods to Israel, while Spain has enacted a comprehensive ban on the transfer of weapons and military equipment to Israel, including a prohibition on imports from Israeli settlements. Norway has also divested parts of its sovereign fund from companies linked to the Israeli military.
The United States remains the largest exporter of weapons to Israel, and its government has criticized calls for Palestinian statehood, framing them as a reward for Hamas. This unwavering support complicates the international community’s efforts to achieve a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Nancy Okail, President and CEO of the Center for International Policy, expressed that the recognition of Palestinian statehood is largely symbolic unless accompanied by a halt in arms transfers. She highlighted the “accountability gap” where nations uphold human rights laws in theory but fail to act in practice. Amnesty International has called for a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, emphasizing the need for concrete actions to address the ongoing violence and human rights violations.
The ongoing protests and global demonstrations against the violence in Gaza are beginning to influence international perspectives. Okail noted that these movements are impacting how countries perceive their image on the global stage, suggesting that public sentiment is shifting. As nations navigate the complexities of this issue, the challenge remains to align their actions with their stated commitments to peace and human rights.