At the United Nations General Assembly scheduled for September 2025, Australia, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada plan to formally recognize Palestine as a state—a move they announced this past July. Of the four, France is the only one that appears to have committed to taking this step unconditionally. Australia, the UK and Canada, on the other hand, have announced only a possible, conditional recognition. Some have heralded these moves as important steps toward revising the moribund two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, particularly given the fact that France and the UK are permanent members of the UN Security Council. Others, however,  have decried these announcements as ‘too little, too late’.

In defending its decision, the French government described it as “a call to all the peoples and countries of the world. Add your contribution to the edifice of peace. Join in the irreversible momentum that we have started…”. 

At this critical juncture, it is important to remember that a majority of the world’s peoples and countries—more than 145 states—have already made this call. In fact, history shows us that post-colonial leaders and nations were among the earliest and most steadfast voices in support of a just and durable solution to this seemingly ceaseless tragedy. In this context, France’s acknowledgment that depriving a people of their right to self-determination “inevitably leads to resentment, violence and war” is welcome, albeit somewhat belated. Remembering the historical context of this moment helps us understand the links between the Palestinian quest for self-determination and a long history of anti-colonial and anti-racism struggles.  

In a 2024 article published in The Cairo Review, I discussed India as an early voice of reason on the Israel-Palestine issue. In June 1947, even before India had itself ceased to be a British colony, Jawaharlal Nehru, who then became the country’s first prime minister, wrote a letter to Albert Einstein where he condemned the actions and policies of Nazi Germany, repudiated fascism, and expressed “the deepest sympathy for the great sufferings of the Jewish people”. At the same time, Nehru highlighted the sufferings of Palestinians, and warned that attempting to subjugate them would “not lead to a settlement, but rather to the continuation of the conflict”.  His warnings went unheeded by the powerful Western countries of the time. 

As more countries gained independence from European colonial rule, they, too, viewed a just resolution to the Palestinian question as being a central imperative of a more equitable, post-colonial world order. The 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, where delegations of 29 countries of Asia and Africa met, included in its final communique the following statement: 

“In view of the existing tension in the Middle East, caused by the situation in Palestine and of the danger of that tension to world peace, the Asian-African Conference declared its support of the rights of the Arab people of Palestine and called for the implementation of the United Nations Resolutions on Palestine and the achievement of the peaceful settlement of the Palestine question.”

The Bandung Conference laid the foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which regularly issued statements in support of Palestine in global forums. The Organization for African Unity (OAU), which became the African Union or AU in 1999, also frequently spoke up for Palestine and often drew comparisons between the oppressive policies of the South African and Israeli regimes. (Both Israel and the United States long supported South Africa’s apartheid regime—a point that did not escape the notice of Global South countries). 

After Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), declared Palestine as an independent state in 1988, a number of countries in Asia and Africa recognized Palestine as a state, as did Cuba and Nicaragua. In 2011, several Latin American countries, including Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and Ecuador, also extended this recognition. Sweden became the first Western European country to recognize Palestine as a state in 2014, followed by a handful of others, including Slovenia, Spain, Ireland, and Norway, in recent years. 

The Crime of Apartheid

Since 1994, South Africa has emerged as a particularly steadfast supporter of  Palestine and a critic of Israel’s oppressive policies. South Africa’s anti-apartheid activists have long seen intersections between the oppression they faced at the hands of the white majority government and the struggles of European Jews against fascism and racial bigotry; they have also drawn attention to the parallels between Israel and the racist South African regime that they fought against. Consequently, one of the first acts of the post-apartheid South African government was the recognition of Palestine in 1995. In 2002, Archbishop Desmond Tutu published an article titled Apartheid in the Holy Land. In it, he described the similarities between South Africa’s apartheid regime and Israel’s policies. Speaking at the 2014 Presbyterian General Assembly Biennial Meeting,  Archbishop Tutu reiterated his views, delivered with the same moral clarity that had made him a global voice of hope:

“The sustainability of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people has always been dependent on its ability to deliver justice to the Palestinians. I know firsthand that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation. The parallels to my own beloved South Africa are painfully stark indeed…. The stubbornness of Israel’s leaders in wanting to hold onto and settling [settle] land that is not theirs can only lead to tragedy for both peoples. For the sake of them both as God’s cherished, the strong witness of the two overtures is the only peaceful route left in the cause of justice and ultimate reconciliation. My prayers today are with…the peoples of the Holy Land in Israel and Palestine.” 

In 2006, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a book based on his extensive travels in and knowledge of the region. He argued that apartheid is an “accurate description of the forced separation within the West Bank of Israelis from Palestinians and the total domination and oppression of Palestinians by the dominant Israeli military”. He hoped that the book would generate more awareness and debate about the situation in Israel and Palestine. Today, following the early warnings of Archbishop Tutu and President Carter, numerous voices in the international human rights community have brought attention to Israel’s practice of apartheid—a recognition brought about by South Africa’s historical experience. 

The Apartheid Convention, adopted by the UNGA in 1973, specifically established apartheid as a crime in the eyes of the international community. Subsequently, the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) affirmed apartheid as a crime against humanity.  In an exhaustive 2021 report, Human Rights Watch provided evidence to show that Palestinians have been “dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity”; and that, in some cases, “these deprivations are so severe that they amount to the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution”. Importantly, the report does not compare Israel to South Africa under apartheid. Rather, it outlines Israeli actions that cross the threshold of apartheid, as it is defined in international law. Similar conclusions were reached by Amnesty International in its 2022 report, which runs over 200 pages long,  as well as by the Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem. United Nations officials, including former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, have also backed up these allegations in their reports and statements. 

An Inflection Point: What Comes Next?

Today, we are at yet another inflection point. To the crime of apartheid must now be added the crime of genocide. South Africa remains the first country to have called attention to Israel’s commission of both of these crimes against humanity. Other Global South countries have also long supported Palestine, but have been unable to change the ground realities in the region. Amid the ongoing atrocities in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel, we might ask: what is new about France, the UK, Australia, and Canada now contemplating recognition of Palestinian state. What tangible difference could it make?

On the one hand, these gestures, while symbolic, show that the Israeli state’s actions, decisions, and words are no longer acceptable to the global community—even among its historical allies. This loss of international legitimacy should give the government of Israel pause. Yet, at the same time, it is the Global South that has long demonstrated that it is possible to extend solidarity to the Palestinian people while also respecting the historical forces that have shaped Israel into a state that has the same rights and responsibilities as others.

The following words of Nelson Mandela, spoken in 1997, remain as true today as they did then.

“The temptation in our situation is to speak in muffled tones about an issue such as the right of the people of Palestine to a state of their own…Yet we would be less than human if we did so….the pursuit of human fraternity and equality – irrespective of race or religion – should stand at the centre of our peaceful endeavours. The choice is not between freedom and justice, on the one hand, and their opposite, on the other. Peace and prosperity; tranquillity and security are only possible if these are enjoyed by all without discrimination….we know too well that [South Africa’s] freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians; without the resolution of conflicts in East Timor, the Sudan and other parts of the world… security for any nation is not abstract; neither is it exclusive. It depends on the security of others; it depends on mutual respect and trust. ..Thus, in extending our hands across the miles to the people of Palestine, we do so in the full knowledge that we are part of a humanity that is at one…”

It is difficult to predict what will unfold at the UNGA meetings next month. It is possible—though not inevitable—that Australia, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada will formally recognize Palestine. This may not substantively change Palestine’s current UN status as an observer state; recognition of an independent and sovereign Palestine would automatically imply full member status at the UN. The United States, with its veto power in the Security Council, will not agree to recognizing Palestinian statehood. It remains unclear how these moves by Western countries will stop Israel’s ongoing assaults on Palestine, or ensure the safe return of Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. 

What is certain, however, is that a majority of UN members at this year’s UNGA will express their opposition to Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinian people, as they have repeatedly done in previous sessions. 

It is unlikely, however, that the Israeli government will be swayed by these demands, at least for now. At the same time, it is not tenable for Israel to continue to remain obstinate in the face of growing global approbation of its actions, including among its closest friends. Just as sustained international pressure on South Africa’s government helped end the apartheid regime there, so too must global public opinion continue to apply pressure on principal actors involved in the Israel-Palestine quagmire. This includes calling out the governments of both the U.S. and Israel, as well as demanding accountability from Hamas and other regional actors. 

As we witness multiple atrocities unfold daily, many among us see few reasons for hope that Israel and Palestine can, in fact, co-exist in the manner envisaged by Archbishop Tutu. Yet, a solution that offers justice, equity, and accountability remains, as always, the only viable solution. This knowledge is not new, but perhaps the will to convert that knowledge into reality has yet to be found. Heading the wisdom and moral clarity of leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, and others can provide a path forward– for all of us who live in this global comity of nations and peoples.