The Israeli–Palestinian conflict represents one of the longest and most complex disputes in modern international relations, intertwining historical grievances, religious narratives, and geopolitical rivalries. This paper traces the trajectory of Palestine’s struggle for recognition as a sovereign state, from the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the most recent developments within the United Nations. Despite meeting the formal legal criteria for statehood under the 1933 Montevideo Convention, Palestine remains trapped in the tension between international law, which supports its right to self-determination, and realpolitik, driven by the strategic interests of major powers allied with Israel. While three-quarters of UN member states recognize Palestine as a state, the absence of Security Council unanimity and internal Palestinian fragmentation hinder full international legitimacy. The Palestinian case epitomizes the collision between principles of international law and the pragmatic calculations of global diplomacy.

The attack carried out by the forces of the Islamic Resistance Movement, commonly known as Hamas, reignited a conflict that had never truly ended. The roots of the conflict go back a century, when British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour issued in 1917 an official document of British government policy, commonly known as the Balfour Declaration. The declaration aimed to create a new “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Why was Palestine chosen? Beyond the religious reasons, which will be analyzed later, the choice dates back to 1917, when the region was entrusted to British authorities under a thirty-year mandate established by the League of Nations (not the United Nations, which would only be founded in 1945), at the end of the First World War. The Declaration envisioned the peaceful coexistence of two peoples, safeguarding the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities. However, Palestinians perceived this decision as an act of colonialism against them.

The religious justification is found in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), where the land of Canaan is described as the “Promised Land” given by God to Abraham and his descendants. The concept of the “Promised Land” is also present in Christianity, though understood as the Kingdom of God, transcendent rather than tied to the physical land. In Islam, the covenant between God and Abraham is recognized, but the meaning of the Promised Land is contested: some accept its sharing, while others interpret it as referring to different territories. The Palestinian territory has been inhabited and contested by many civilizations: the Canaanites and Philistines in 1200 BCE; then the Jews under King Solomon around 900 BCE. Later came the Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and, from the 7th century CE, the Arabs, who remained for about 600 years. Finally, the Ottoman Empire governed the area for 400 years, maintaining a rare climate of religious tolerance.

Today, Palestine is discussed not only for the ongoing conflict but also for international recognition as a state. In modern terms, a state is defined as a political and legal organization of a community stably settled on a territory and subject to the authority of a central sovereign power, with people, territory, and sovereignty as its key elements. Currently, Palestine is recognized by 147 UN member states out of 193. However, countries such as Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada still do not officially recognize it. In contrast, the Holy See has formally recognized Palestine. In 1939, at the London Conference, Arab representatives called for Palestine to be declared a “sovereign Arab state,” open also to Jews, provided they remained a minority. However, they rejected the model of a binational state. After the Holocaust, the West, in an attempt to somehow “compensate” for the crimes committed against the Jewish people, pushed further for the creation of a Jewish state. In 1947, the UN approved Resolution 181, known as the Partition Plan, which proposed dividing Palestine into two states: a Jewish one (55% of the territory) including Tel Aviv and Haifa, and an Arab one (45%) including Gaza and the West Bank. Jerusalem would remain under international control. The Arabs rejected the resolution as unjust. Tensions followed, leading to the Arab–Israeli War of 1948, when five Arab states (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) attacked Israel. The war ended with the Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic), which saw more than 700,000 Palestinians displaced and Israel expanding its borders beyond what had been established by the UN.

In 1949, the UN approved Resolution 194, which guaranteed the right of return for Arab refugees, the protection and free access to holy sites, free access to Jerusalem, and UN control over the city with subsequent demilitarization of the area. However, this right remained only on paper, increasing Palestinian resentment and sense of injustice. In 1967, during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Sinai, and the Golan Heights. The situation worsened further. In 1987, the First Intifada broke out: a popular uprising against the occupation, marked by civil disobedience, protests, clashes, and strikes. For the first time, international public opinion began to view the Palestinian cause as a struggle for civil rights and self-determination.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), created in 1964 under the Arab League, became the main Palestinian political actor. Under Yasser Arafat’s leadership from 1969, it transformed into an armed resistance organization. Its objective was to regain the territories lost in 1967. In 1974, the PLO was recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status at the UN. It gained broad international support, and thanks to approval first from the Soviet bloc, it was admitted as an observer member at the UN in 1974.

In 1988, the PLO proclaimed the birth of the State of Palestine and even recognized Israel. On December 15, 1988, the UN General Assembly acknowledged this proclamation and replaced the term “PLO” with “Palestine” in official documents. In July 1998, a new General Assembly resolution granted Palestine additional rights and prerogatives beyond those of an observer, such as the right to submit draft resolutions on the Palestinian question. Later that year, a note from the UN Secretary-General clarified the limits and characteristics of Palestine’s participation in UN activities, still without the right to vote. In 1993, through the Oslo Accords, there was mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO. The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was established, with administrative powers in Gaza and the West Bank. However, internal fragmentation and Hamas’ control of Gaza since 2007 weakened unified governance.

Why, despite the fact that most UN members recognize Palestine as a state, can it still not be fully considered as such? The 1933 Montevideo Convention is one of the key instruments for recognizing statehood, requiring four elements:

Palestine arguably meets these four criteria, though with difficulty. Its greatest weakness lies in the uncertainty over its territory, corresponding to the 1967 borders, which are partly under Israeli occupation and military control. Governance is also divided between the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas, which has controlled Gaza since 2007. Israel, the United States, and their allies argue that, despite Palestine roughly fulfilling the four requirements, recognition should come only through a peace negotiation. Recognition, therefore, must not only rely on legal criteria but also result from a complex process largely dependent on the international community. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict clearly illustrates the tension between realpolitik and the principles of international law. Although Palestine satisfies the legal criteria of the Montevideo Convention to be considered a state, its recognition is blocked by geopolitical interests and Israel’s strategic alliances. While international law, as codified in UN resolutions and treaties, supports the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and to the 1967 borders, realpolitik often prevails, blocking durable solutions. This discrepancy between law and politics prevents a just and peaceful resolution of the conflict.

The UN sets additional criteria for state recognition through Article 4 of the UN Charter, which establishes that the Organization is open to all “peace-loving states” that accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to fulfill them.

The four steps for full UN membership are:

The Uniting for Peace resolution, adopted on November 3, 1950, establishes that if the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for maintaining peace due to lack of unanimity among permanent members, the General Assembly can intervene. In such cases, it may issue recommendations for collective measures, including the use of armed force, to restore international peace. This instrument was first used by the United States during the Korean War, when the USSR blocked Security Council action through its veto. It was later invoked multiple times by Western states, though opposed by socialist countries. A General Assembly resolution recognizing the independence of the State of Palestine, if approved by two-thirds of members, could acquire an almost binding value, citing the precedent of Uniting for Peace. This would allow the Assembly to take meaningful decisions even without unanimity in the Security Council. However, given the difficulty of obtaining favorable votes in the Security Council, the Palestinian National Authority has considered another option: promoting a General Assembly resolution to obtain the status of permanent non-member observer state.

Currently, Palestinian representatives participate in UN activities as the expression of the PLO, recognized as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The new status requested—similar to that of the Holy See—would not require Security Council approval, but only a General Assembly resolution adopted by a two-thirds majority. Such recognition, although formal and not yet full, would bring significant consequences, including the possibility for Palestine to bring cases before international courts, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. However, this possibility would not be automatic: it would still depend on the decisions of the courts, which would assess each case individually.