On November 15, 1988, a profound silence fell over Nuseirat, a refugee camp in the center of the Gaza Strip. Most residents confined themselves to their homes. My family and some neighbors were packed into our small living room. The streets of the Gaza refugee camp, rarely this desolate without an official Israeli military curfew, were empty. The reason for the quiet anticipation was simple: Yasser Arafat was expected to declare the birth of a Palestinian state at the close of the 19th Palestinian National Council (PNC).

The historic moment arrived when Arafat, flanked by the Palestinian leadership’s top brass in Algiers, declared: “The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.”

Immediately, my mom began to ululate, her cries of joy punctuated by tears. My father fought his own tears but ultimately succumbed to weeping as neighbors began chanting “Allahu Akbar”—God is Great—a powerful chorus that echoed across every part of the camp.

Their joy came after a year of the First Intifada, a year of relentless sacrifice. Thousands of youths were killed, wounded, or had their bones deliberately broken by the Israeli army in a brutal attempt to crush the widespread popular revolt. For Palestinians, the Algiers Declaration was the culmination of their collective suffering, their perpetual confinement during military curfews, the mass unemployment, and the indescribable fear of Israel’s military retribution.

That moment of euphoria was short-lived, however. Israeli violence intensified, and the political horizon for Palestine became a series of what Palestinian intellectuals and historians now call ‘symbolic victories’. These gestures, while celebrated, rarely translated into any tangible change in the lives of ordinary Palestinians.

The idea of a Palestinian state is ancient, rooted in Palestine’s long history as an administrative entity under various empires for millennia. However, the concept of a Palestinian nation-state is relatively new, emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, much like most nations today.

Betraying its supposed mandate in Palestine from the League of Nations in the 1920s, Britain violently suppressed Palestinian national aspirations. Instead, it focused exclusively on creating a state for European Jewish settlers. The 1917 Balfour Declaration pledged a “national home for the Jewish people”, while callously reducing the indigenous Palestinian Arab, Muslim, and Christian population to “non-Jewish communities”.

This event and those that followed defined the modern Palestinian struggle. A Palestinian state became the ultimate defense against Zionist settler colonialism, a project sustained by Britain and later the United States and other Western powers. This historical context explains the deep emotional reaction to the Algiers Declaration—a declaration meant to counter Balfour. The tears shed were not for a mere political entity with defined borders. They were for an escape from the systemic erasure of a people, an erasure perpetrated by Israel and its Western allies.

The Algiers Declaration, however, created a separate historical track, disconnected from the popular struggle of the Palestinians. After the Oslo Accords, even Western powers began to champion the idea of a Palestinian state. But their motive wasn’t a response to erasure; it was a political tool. The state became a ‘carrot’ dangled before the Palestinian leadership to secure their cooperation in the so-called “peace process”. This process came with a predictable script of ‘moderation’, painful but necessary compromises, and a commitment to cracking down on Palestinian resistance. The message was clear: prove you are a worthy peace partner.

On the ground, the situation continued to deteriorate, unfolding in a separate political dimension untouched by these symbolic victories.

In 2011, Palestine became a full member of the UN culture agency, UNESCO, an act that provoked U.S. fury and led to it cutting funds to the organization. In 2012, the UN General Assembly voted to upgrade Palestine’s status to a non-member observer state. Each time such an event occurred, the Palestinian leadership attempted to use it to renew its legitimacy among ordinary Palestinians. These people were caught between the Palestinian Authority’s symbolic victories and upbeat rhetoric on the one hand, and the harsh reality of Israel’s ever-expanding settler colonialism and military occupation on the other.

When Sweden became the first Western European country to recognize Palestine in 2014, the symbolism was immense. By then, 134 countries had already recognized Palestine, but Sweden’s move was different. It suggested that the West, which had birthed Israel and funded its existence and war crimes, might be changing course. The Swedish position was largely understood as a betrayal of the century-old understanding that the West must blindly follow the diktats of the Zionist movement.

Yet, little action followed. That is, until May 2024, when Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Slovenia added their voices to the European recognition of Palestine. These recognitions came seven months into the Israeli genocide in Gaza. They were correctly understood as part of a burgeoning global solidarity with the Palestinian people and a direct response to Israel’s attempt to quash Palestinian political aspirations and its openly championed plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.

The positions of these four countries can be seen as a genuine effort to challenge Israel’s discourse of erasure. They have been some of Israel’s fiercest critics. While Irish-Palestinian solidarity is rooted in a shared history of colonial oppression, Norway has been particularly outspoken against Israeli war crimes and military occupation for years, even before the current genocide.

Though Spain has been more supportive of Palestinians than, for example, Germany or Britain, its position during the war has become exponentially stronger, far exceeding any expected threshold of solidarity from a Western European country. For example, Spanish President Pedro Sánchez was among the first European leaders to publicly condemn Israel’s genocide in Gaza, stating in November 2023, “The indiscriminate killing of civilians, including thousands of children, is completely unacceptable”. His government has also taken concrete actions, such as suspending arms sales to Israel and supporting the International Criminal Court’s investigation into war crimes, a stance reiterated by Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares.

These positions must be distinguished from the later stances of France, Britain, and Germany. Last June, France announced its intention to recognize the state of Palestine, only to postpone the recognition, possibly to coordinate with other countries, including Britain.

Britain, for its part, declared its intention to recognize Palestine in September 2025, a position echoed by other European nations. Italy, always cautious and aligned with Washington, hesitated. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stated: “I am very much in favor of the state of Palestine, but I am not in favor of recognizing it prior to establishing it.”

UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced in New York that the UK intends to recognize Palestine. However, the statement clarified that this recognition would not proceed if Israel agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza and commits to bilateral negotiations for a two-state solution. Essentially, the UK’s recognition of Palestine is conditional on Israel’s actions.

Other conditions were openly stated or implied: certain Palestinian groups, like Hamas, must have no role in politics, and any future state must be demilitarized.

While all these recognitions can be classified as symbolic victories, the entire effort cannot be dismissed as futile. Several general points must be made:

First, the recognitions by Ireland and Spain must be analyzed differently from the potential ones by Britain and France. The former are motivated in part by genuine solidarity with Palestinians. The latter, arguably, are desperate attempts to salvage liberal Zionism and the entire Western political framework in the Middle East from the political extremism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ilk.

Second, it is crucial to remember that 144 countries already recognize the state of Palestine. Most of these nations are from the Global South. Their solidarity and support for Palestinian rights to self-determination are not insignificant or inconsequential compared to the West’s.

Third, a clear distinction must be made between how Palestinians see Palestine and how Western powers use the concept. For Palestinians, a homeland is the ultimate defense against settler colonialism and erasure. For the West, recognition has historically served as a leverage used to manipulate the Palestinian leadership into adhering to its agenda in the Middle East.

Fourth, recognizing Palestine, while a welcome symbolic acknowledgment of Palestinian rights, must not overshadow the struggle for a just conclusion to the Israeli occupation and apartheid. It must not distract from the urgent need to end Israel’s genocide in Gaza and hold Israeli war criminals accountable.

Fifth, the recognition of the Palestinian nation was acquired at a very high price: the collective sacrifices of Palestinians, especially in Gaza, and the global solidarity such sacrifices have inspired. Neither France nor Britain, nor even Spain, would have dared to defy U.S. policy with free recognition of Palestine if not for the global solidarity born from the powerful steadfastness and resistance of the Palestinian people.

While the two tracks—symbolic victory and everyday struggle—persist, the future may finally merge them. For this to happen, two critical issues must be addressed. In Palestine, a national unity based on inclusion and Palestinian priorities must replace the ongoing attempts to exclude large segments of society and consolidate power in the hands of unelected, corrupt elites. Internationally, these recognitions should not be presented as a favor to Palestinians, conditioned on their good behavior. Instead, they must be understood as a right rooted in international law and historical truth. For this to materialize, these recognitions must be followed by accountability and genuine pressure to force Israel to adhere to international law.

Ultimately, the recognition of Palestine should not be framed as a ‘solution’ but as an acknowledgment of the Palestinian people’s rights and aspirations. These recognitions must not be used to manipulate the Palestinian leadership into more concessions or to distract from the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Gaza is not holding its collective breath for British and French recognition. A people enduring famine and genocide will not shed tears of joy over these symbolic gestures. However, one must acknowledge, even hesitantly, that if these recognitions are a victory, it is a victory for the Palestinian people themselves. Their unwavering sumoud—steadfastness—has proven far more consequential than the stifling politics of the Oslo Accords and the empty negotiations of the Palestinian Authority.