What does this mean? Are there any meaningful implications or are we just stating the obvious? In a world where Palestine has been occupied for over 50 years, and for some reason it isn’t legally called annexation, do these designations mean anything?
Will they have formula diplomatic relations? Will Palestinians finally be able to get valid passports?
Notice that they haven’t actually stated for what is the territory of Palestine, even indirectly by saying it is what was defined in past accords.
Now Israel is possibly an invader on the territory of the sovereign nation of Palestine - only possibly because it depends on what is considered the territory of the nation of Palestine, which this doesn’t at all define directly of indirectly - this has created with a massive hole to allow claiming that Israel isn’t in fact invading Palestine or at least that it’s not clear, because Israel can just say that were they are is not the territory of Palestine whilst Palestinians say it is, and legally it hasn’t been clarified who is right.
Now, ask yourself: are these people so incredibly incompetent in the field of diplomacy and international law that they didn’t spot this, or is it a case that they designed this “recognition” to be exactly as it is - of the existence of a state without defining its territory, thus with massive holes - on purpose?
Even if Israel was deemed to be “invading Palestine”, as far as I know in International Law, “invading a sovereign nation” isn’t actual as bad an act as “committing Genocide” and Israel has already been deemed as commiting a Genocide by a number of entities, including the UN and is currently breaking the ICCs order to stop certain activities (though I believe the court hasn’t yet rulled on their actions amounting to a Genocide or not, but they had issue orders for Israel to stop certain activities).
Now, if Israel isn’t being made by the nations that have now “recognized the state of Palestine” to suffer consequences (for example, sanctions) for the greater crime of “commiting Genocide”, how likely it is that these very same nations that refuse to punish Israel for that will now punish Israel for the lesser crime of “invasion of a foreign nation”
Again: remember, this is if they actually recognize Israel’s actions as an invasion, and without an accepted definition of what exactly is the territory of the nation of Palestine, they can claim that there is no invasion or (more likely, IMHO) that “it’s not clear”.
To me this just looks like performative smoke & mirrors from politicians who support Israel whilst the public opinion on their nations is heavilly against Israel and their actions, hence why it makes sense that a nation like Britain which is currently doing surveillance flights over Gaza and giving the data to Israel, as well as arresting old ladies as Terrorism Supporters for demonstrating against the Genocide, woud be part of this - it’s de facto an action which doesn’t hurt Israel whilst being spinned to the British Public Opinion - that demands that “something must be done about Israel” (there was already a demonstration with 500,000 people about it) - as “something is being done”.
I don’t want to miss-state what is in the article, but it is a move in part to distance ourselves from the US position, and to help embolden other nations to also do so. With sufficient international backing (Australia is too small to be able to swing things by itself), recognition of a legitimate Palestinian government would include things such as embassies, passports, trade deals etc.
Unfortunately, although our brains have become desensitised over the past decade by over-the-top political bullshit - this is how things used to be handled in a more civilised time.
I think it’s one of those things which technically enables some stuff (embassies or some shit? The reframing of Israel as literally invading another country, rather than committing sins against ppl whose homeland exists but doesn’t exist?) but probably won’t have much on an impact and is more designed to say ‘hehm. Ackshually it is not totally super cool what you guys are doing’. But then we probably continue to sell them components and widgets that ultimately get used in war machines because dude have you seen the way predominantly-English-speaking nations act towards those that aren’t? But like I think it as at least something, and will likely have implications of technical legality that make some enablement of Israel more difficult or even impossible as the new setting takes hold. Maybe.
Of course by that time…
But let’s hold onto some tiny modicum of hope, because what else is there. Even a teaspoon of water in the desert is better than mouth of sand.
What does this mean? Are there any meaningful implications or are we just stating the obvious? In a world where Palestine has been occupied for over 50 years, and for some reason it isn’t legally called annexation, do these designations mean anything?
Will they have formula diplomatic relations? Will Palestinians finally be able to get valid passports?
Very little.
Notice that they haven’t actually stated for what is the territory of Palestine, even indirectly by saying it is what was defined in past accords.
Now Israel is possibly an invader on the territory of the sovereign nation of Palestine - only possibly because it depends on what is considered the territory of the nation of Palestine, which this doesn’t at all define directly of indirectly - this has created with a massive hole to allow claiming that Israel isn’t in fact invading Palestine or at least that it’s not clear, because Israel can just say that were they are is not the territory of Palestine whilst Palestinians say it is, and legally it hasn’t been clarified who is right.
Now, ask yourself: are these people so incredibly incompetent in the field of diplomacy and international law that they didn’t spot this, or is it a case that they designed this “recognition” to be exactly as it is - of the existence of a state without defining its territory, thus with massive holes - on purpose?
Even if Israel was deemed to be “invading Palestine”, as far as I know in International Law, “invading a sovereign nation” isn’t actual as bad an act as “committing Genocide” and Israel has already been deemed as commiting a Genocide by a number of entities, including the UN and is currently breaking the ICCs order to stop certain activities (though I believe the court hasn’t yet rulled on their actions amounting to a Genocide or not, but they had issue orders for Israel to stop certain activities).
Now, if Israel isn’t being made by the nations that have now “recognized the state of Palestine” to suffer consequences (for example, sanctions) for the greater crime of “commiting Genocide”, how likely it is that these very same nations that refuse to punish Israel for that will now punish Israel for the lesser crime of “invasion of a foreign nation”
Again: remember, this is if they actually recognize Israel’s actions as an invasion, and without an accepted definition of what exactly is the territory of the nation of Palestine, they can claim that there is no invasion or (more likely, IMHO) that “it’s not clear”.
To me this just looks like performative smoke & mirrors from politicians who support Israel whilst the public opinion on their nations is heavilly against Israel and their actions, hence why it makes sense that a nation like Britain which is currently doing surveillance flights over Gaza and giving the data to Israel, as well as arresting old ladies as Terrorism Supporters for demonstrating against the Genocide, woud be part of this - it’s de facto an action which doesn’t hurt Israel whilst being spinned to the British Public Opinion - that demands that “something must be done about Israel” (there was already a demonstration with 500,000 people about it) - as “something is being done”.
Here is an Australian Broadcasting Company (Aussie ABC, not to be confused with the US/Disney one), explaining what this all means: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-21/australia-recognises-state-of-palestine-two-state-solution/105799276
I don’t want to miss-state what is in the article, but it is a move in part to distance ourselves from the US position, and to help embolden other nations to also do so. With sufficient international backing (Australia is too small to be able to swing things by itself), recognition of a legitimate Palestinian government would include things such as embassies, passports, trade deals etc.
Unfortunately, although our brains have become desensitised over the past decade by over-the-top political bullshit - this is how things used to be handled in a more civilised time.
I think it’s one of those things which technically enables some stuff (embassies or some shit? The reframing of Israel as literally invading another country, rather than committing sins against ppl whose homeland exists but doesn’t exist?) but probably won’t have much on an impact and is more designed to say ‘hehm. Ackshually it is not totally super cool what you guys are doing’. But then we probably continue to sell them components and widgets that ultimately get used in war machines because dude have you seen the way predominantly-English-speaking nations act towards those that aren’t? But like I think it as at least something, and will likely have implications of technical legality that make some enablement of Israel more difficult or even impossible as the new setting takes hold. Maybe.
Of course by that time…
But let’s hold onto some tiny modicum of hope, because what else is there. Even a teaspoon of water in the desert is better than mouth of sand.
they won’t do anything meaninful like put sanctions on israel so it’s mainly performative bullshit.
it’s just meant as a signal to american establishment politicians that they should maybe stop betting on a losing horse
The answer is no for all your questions
“what does this all mean?”
“No”
Ok. 🤣