The International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES)[1] based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly conducts analyses of events spanning the Middle East, the Balkans, and global affairs. IFIMES examines recent developments surrounding the international recognition of the State of Palestine. From the extensive analysis “International recognition of Palestine: Political marketing or genuine change?”, we publish the most interesting excerpts.
For decades, the Middle East, particularly the question of Palestine, has remained one of the most complex and sensitive issues in international affairs. Recognition of Palestine as an independent and sovereign state has become increasingly symbolic, rather than a concrete step towards achieving genuine statehood and independence for the Palestinian people. While some countries—such as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco—have pursued pragmatic and constructive policies aimed at promoting stability and cooperation with Israel and the internationally recognised institutions of the Palestinian Authority, others—such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and certain segments of the European Union—have often contributed to further complicating an already entangled situation.
By supporting militant groups such as Hamas, Iran has fuelled extremism and contributed to regional destabilisation, thereby undermining long-term peace efforts and diminishing the prospects for a lasting settlement. In contrast, some European countries, including Germany, Croatia, and Italy, maintain a complex and often contradictory stance on the Palestinian issue. In Germany, the enduring weight of historical guilt over the Holocaust continues to shape political decisions, frequently limiting its capacity to pursue a balanced Middle East policy. Croatia remains deeply influenced by its historical legacy, particularly the existence and role of the fascist Independent State of Croatia (NDH) during 1941–1945, which further clouds its position. Italy, marked by its fascist history and shaped by present-day right-wing governments, exhibits significant ambivalence and inconsistency in its foreign policy on this matter. France, on the other hand, is navigating mounting internal ethno-religious tensions, particularly between its Arab-Muslim and Jewish communities. It also carries the burden of a colonial past in the Middle East, including in Syria and Lebanon. These factors have made its political stance on Israel and Palestine frequently inconsistent and reactive. At the same time, the rise of populist movements, most notably Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary, and the growing influence of right-wing and populist forces in Poland and the Czech Republic continue to erode the European Union’s ability to present a coherent and unified position on the issue.
Recognition as political marketing
The recognition of Palestine as a state is often used more as a token move for political or publicity purposes than as a meaningful step with tangible impact on the ground or within international institutions. The Palestinian issue continues to serve as a vehicle for political manipulation, while the sovereignty and capacities of the Palestinian authorities remain seriously limited.
Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, the largest Arab state, stand out as key actors in the Middle East, particularly with regard to the Palestinian question. In contrast to other countries in the region, such as Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, as well as those that often instrumentalise the suffering of the Palestinian people for their own agendas, these three countries occupy crucial positions in regional politics.
As a key Muslim country and member of NATO, Turkey plays an active role in diplomatic initiatives and efforts to keep the Palestinian cause in the international spotlight, while carefully balancing competing interests within the region’s complex political landscape. On the other hand, the United Arab Emirates, through its realpolitik approach and diplomatic engagement, provides concrete assistance to the Palestinian people, thereby building a reputation as a credible regional partner.
Notably, these states maintain diplomatic relations with both Tel Aviv and the Palestinian Authority, reflecting a pragmatic stance aimed at reconciling regional priorities with international expectations. This dual approach enables them to act as intermediaries in the sensitive and multifaceted relations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership.
Turkey, the UAE, and Egypt act as key regional players who, each in their own way, shape the dynamics surrounding the Palestinian question. Turkey exercises influence through diplomacy and regional outreach, the UAE through political support and growing bilateral ties, and Egypt, drawing on its historic role and strategic location, plays a central part in peace efforts and regional security affairs. Many other countries, however, use the Palestinian cause as a tool of political marketing, either to pacify or rally their domestic audiences. In contrast, these three countries base their role on pragmatic and strategic interests. Their involvement highlights the complexity of the situation, which is often reduced to a geopolitical bargaining chip, with the suffering of the Palestinian people exploited in pursuit of broader strategic agendas.
Major peace initiatives
- The Madrid Conference in 1991 marked the first direct contacts between Israel and Arab states, including Palestinian representatives, but concluded without tangible results.[2]
- The Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 led to mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and established the Palestinian Authority. Political changes followed, yet violence persisted.[3]
- The Wye River Memorandum in 1998, brokered by the United States, brought together Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (during his first term). The agreement was never fully implemented.
- The Camp David Summit in 2000, held in the aftermath of the Wye negotiations, collapsed due to disagreements over Jerusalem, the return of refugees, and final borders. The talks’ failure triggered the outbreak of the Second Intifada.
- The Taba Talks in 2001 came closest to reaching a compromise but were cut short by a change of government in Israel.
- The Arab Peace Initiative, launched by the Arab League in 2002, proposed full normalisation of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories.
- The Roadmap for Peace, introduced in 2003 by the Quartet (the UN, the United States, the EU, and Russia), was never fully implemented.
- The Annapolis Conference in 2007 was a U.S. initiative aimed at revitalising the peace process, but internal Palestinian divisions (Fatah–Hamas conflict) and the subsequent 2008 Israeli military operation undermined its impact.
- The Paris Peace Conference in 2017, initiated by the EU and France, attempted to offer a new framework for negotiations. Israel declined to participate.
- The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, led to the normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco—without the involvement of the Palestinians.[4]
- The recent 2025 conference in New York, organised by the United Nations, Saudi Arabia, and France, represented yet another attempt to revive the peace efforts. However, diverging interests among major actors continue to hinder genuine progress. Rather than reflecting a true commitment to resolving the conflict, the conference largely served as a political performance, while violence and suffering persist on the ground—demonstrating once again how symbolism and rhetoric often outweigh concrete action for peace.[5]
Netanyahu and Lapid: Competing visions for Israel’s future role in the Middle East
The contrasting approaches of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Yair Lapid, a member of the Israeli Knesset, clearly reflect differing visions of Israel’s development and its role in the region. Netanyahu, leader of the Likud party, promotes right-wing and nationalist positions, frequently advocating strict security measures and expressing scepticism towards peace initiatives. His government has been mired in controversy, including allegations of corruption and mounting international calls for accountability—factors that have further complicated the political landscape and undermined Israel’s global standing.
On the other hand, Yair Lapid, as the leader of the opposition in the Knesset, embodies a centrist outlook committed to stability, democratic values, and regional cooperation. He has indicated his readiness to form a coalition with the right-wing Likud party—but without Netanyahu—highlighting his determination to overcome entrenched political divisions and inject fresh momentum into Israeli politics. Lapid is a vocal critic of extremist and religious parties, which he believes destabilise the country, erode civil rights, and tarnish Israel’s international reputation. His vision focuses on strengthening internal cohesion and democracy, as well as active involvement in regional peace processes. Lapid maintains that a lasting resolution to the Palestinian question can only be achieved through sincere talks and diplomatic dialogue between both sides. He also supports expanding the Abraham Accords to include other Arab states, believing that further normalisation of relations with the Arab world would help promote regional stability and progress.
Such an approach would improve Israel’s international relations, strengthen its alliances, and support efforts toward peace and prosperity in the region.
This contrasting vision of Netanyahu and Lapid represents a key challenge for Israel’s future, shaping both its domestic politics and its role within the evolving geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
International involvement: Saudi Arabia, France, and the United Nations as organizers of the New York conference on 15 May 2025
Saudi Arabia and France, together with the United Nations, spent considerable time planning and coordinating the conference with the aim of launching a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The intention was to bring key stakeholders to the table in an effort to pave the way for negotiations and make tangible progress in resolving one of the world’s most enduring conflicts. However, the complexity of the issue and the conflicting interests of the participants significantly diminished the impact of the initiative.
Saudi Arabia, as an important Muslim country, sought to use the conference to reaffirm its role as a mediator in the Palestinian question. However, its policy has lacked consistency. Domestic challenges and regional tensions have reduced its capacity to shape a meaningful peace process. The kingdom continues to balance support for Palestinian rights with the need to maintain close ties with Western allies and with states that have already normalised relations with Israel.
As a prominent EU actor, France has sought to maintain its role as a peace broker through diplomatic efforts, advocating for solutions grounded in international law, particularly the two-state model. However, internal disagreements within the EU and the complexities of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have curtailed its influence.
The United Nations, although formally the main global arbiter of peace and security, failed to provide decisive support for the conference. Its involvement was largely ceremonial, while deep divisions within the UN Security Council and ongoing political deadlock continue to obstruct effective action.
The conference held on 15 May 2025 at the United Nations headquarters in New York was conceived as an opportunity to break the frozen status quo and open a path toward de-escalation of hostilities. The organisers – Saudi Arabia, France, and the UN – stressed the importance of joint action and compromise.
The event aimed to draw international attention to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite not directly addressing the issue. This focus proved not only ineffective but ultimately counterproductive. The excessive emphasis on humanitarian consequences overshadowed the core political issues, while meaningful steps toward a lasting solution were entirely sidelined.
Instead of the anticipated breakthrough, the conference quickly turned into yet another public relations exercise. The conclusions adopted were mostly declarative and lacked binding force, further weakened by the United States’ refusal to support any pressure on Israel. Without the backing of the United States, Israel’s key ally, agreements and initiatives of this kind are widely perceived as one-sided and are unlikely to yield substantive outcomes. Ultimately, the conference failed to deliver tangible progress. The conflict continued, and the suffering of the Palestinian people persists. This episode starkly illustrates how international peace processes are often constrained by political calculations, rhetoric, and divergent interests, while the true willingness and capacity for a lasting solution remain elusive.
The Palestinians deserve to have their own state
The Palestinian issue remains an open wound in the Middle East that demands a sincere and responsible approach from all parties involved. Recognition of Palestine without actual statehood continues to be largely symbolic and performative, lacking real weight or impact on the ground. While geopolitical interests and political manipulation often prevail, it is essential that the international community support tangible and concrete steps toward stability, justice, and lasting peace.
Reviving the role of the Middle East Quartet—established in 2002 and comprising the EU, Russia, the United States, and the United Nations—is vital to restoring coordinated diplomatic efforts and reinforcing the pursuit of a sustainable outcome.
Looking ahead, the international community must move beyond superficial gestures and concentrate on substantive changes that will strengthen Palestinian institutions and lay the foundations for functional statehood. Any credible and viable solution must involve all relevant actors, including Iran, along with major powers such as Russia and China.
Global powers such as the United States, the EU, Russia, and China must align their policies and support negotiations based on equality, without imposing unilateral conditions that risk deepening existing divides. In addition to political and diplomatic initiatives, educational programmes and efforts to strengthen mutual trust within both Israeli and Palestinian societies should have a meaningful place in peacebuilding process, as they form, the groundwork for durable coexistence.
Above all, it will take courage on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians to recognise their shared interests and overcome long-standing rifts that have fractured life in the region for decades. Only through a sincere commitment to compromise, responsibility, and dialogue can the cycle of violence and suffering be brought to an end.
The peace both peoples deserve can only be achieved through true courage to accept the necessary compromises and embrace a shared life in harmony—following the example of France and Germany, once adversaries in multiple wars (1870–1945), now key pillars of the European Union. Such an approach would bring lasting stability not only to the Middle East but also to the broader international order, opening the door to a more secure and prosperous future for all.
In the meantime, it is vital to ensure unimpeded access to humanitarian aid for Palestinians and to secure a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. These steps are pivotal in creating the foundations for any serious political initiative.
The Palestinian people have the right to live in a state of their own, in peace and with dignity, alongside Israel. Only mutual recognition and responsible dialogue can pave the way to lasting peace.
