Is Western Support for Israel Beginning to Crumble?

Protesters demonstrate outside the Columbia University campus in New York City. October 2024. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 8 2025 – When the high-level meeting of over 150 world leaders takes place at the United Nations, September 22-30, one of the political highlights would be the announcement by at least 10 Western nations to recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation state.

The 10 countries– some already announcing their recognition ahead of the UN meeting — include UK, France, Canada, Australia, Portugal, Malta, Belgium, Spain, Ireland and Norway– proving the longstanding support for Israel is gradually diminishing in the Western world.

According to Cable News Network (CNN), Israel’s Foreign Ministry has “rejected” the European nations’ recent calls for recognition, describing it as a “reward to Hamas” that undermine efforts to reach a ceasefire– while US President Donald Trump has blasted the calls for recognition.

Still, the United States, a relentless supporter of Israel, will exercise its veto in the Security Council against any attempts at recognition of a Palestinian state as “a full-fledged member of the United Nations.”

So far, the State of Palestine has been recognized as a sovereign nation state by 147 of the 193 member states, or just over 76% of all UN members. It has been “a non-member observer state” of the UN General Assembly since November 2012.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was quoted in the New York Times, as saying: “We told all these (European) countries, if you do this recognition stuff, it’s all fake, it’s not even real. If you do it, you are going to create problems. There’s going to be a response.”

The Trump administration, perhaps in a counter move, has revoked US visas to all Palestinian delegates due to address the General Assembly (GA) next week.

As a result, there were moves either to re-locate at least one GA session to Geneva, as it did when PLO leader Yasser Arafat was denied a US visa back in 1974, or for the Palestinian delegates to participate remotely.

Asked for an update, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last week: “We’re in touch with the State Department to try to get some clarification, and obviously (and) hopefully, a reversal of the decision based on their obligations under the [US-UN Headquarters] Agreement.”

Given the US visa restrictions, is there a possibility that the high-level week of the General Assembly be held somewhere outside of US? one of the reporters asked.

“No”, said Dujarric. “I’ve not seen any credible movement on that, but added, “I mean, Member States can decide to hold a meeting wherever they decide to hold it. That would be a decision of the General Assembly. But frankly, I have not seen any serious traction on that”.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), told IPS the important role of European countries in supporting Palestinian independence cannot be overstated.

Their support, he said, must transcend symbolism and focus on the nitty-gritty of what is needed to advance the Palestinians’ cause. The measures to be taken include:

    Providing direct economic support to Palestinian institutions and infrastructure while ensuring accountability.

    Establishing bilateral trade agreements with the Palestinians to boost their economy, independent of Israel.

    Pushing for enhanced observer status and participation of Palestine in international bodies while providing legal forums to pursue international acceptance and rights.

    Upgrading Palestinian consulate representative offices in their capitals to a higher diplomatic level.

    Funding a public diplomacy campaign in their respective capitals to build support for Palestinian statehood.

    Offering training and support for Palestinian internal security forces in coordination with Israel to maintain order and stability, said Dr Ben-Meir, who has taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies

Dr James Jennings, President of Conscience International and a longtime advocate for Palestinian human rights, told IPS the group of European countries that intend to recognize Palestine and demand Palestinian statehood in New York in September will unfortunately not make a dent in the situation on the ground. They are decades late to the party and not in any position to empower the Palestinians to establish their state.

“The sincerity of the plan can also be questioned. The move may be timed to distract attention from the UN General Assembly’s vote and the almost certain failure to gain Security Council recognition. After all, some of these same countries have been arming Israel with the bombs that over the past two years have regularly killed unarmed Palestinian women and children in Gaza,” he pointed out.

Palestine is not yet a nation despite its widespread diplomatic recognition. It must first achieve genuine sovereignty. History shows that true independence must be taken, not given, he said.

“The West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip are occupied territories. At this point Palestine is just an idea, a group of people with a flag, and a limited political and administrative apparatus. The Palestinians’ strong group identity is their major asset, meaning that no matter what happens, the people of Palestine are in their land to stay”, said Dr Jennings, who is also Executive Director of US Academics for Peace.

Palestinian nationhood is supported by a growing number of people in the United States and Western Europe, but the question is how to implement the idea.

The Two-State Solution has been discussed for a long time but is now considered dead by close observers of international politics.

The facts on the ground, with nearly six decades of oppressive military occupation and the high number of Israeli settlers now living inside the 1967 Green Line, make it extremely difficult if not impossible to establish a Palestinian state, said Dr Jennings.

Worldwide recognition of Palestine Is growing. The joint position of European nations may help focus attention on the problem of Palestinian statelessness, but is no substitute for actively challenging Israel’s dominance of the West Bank and Gaza. Its greatest value may be to focus attention on the international community’s lack of collective will to impose a solution.

“So far Israel has refused even to define its own borders. The Knesset, under the Likud, is poised to seize and nationalize all Palestinian territory, meaning that there cannot be two states, but only one: Israel. The US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, endorses that, proclaiming that God gave Palestine to the Jews.”

External pressure on Israel from this group of countries is therefore unlikely to work absent leadership from Israel’s main backer, the United States, declared Dr Jennings.

Elaborating further, Dr Ben-Mier said although such recognition is significant, it remains symbolic unless many critical measures are taken by all the players involved to mitigate the following four reasons behind the failures in advancing the prospect of establishing such a state.

First, Israel has done everything within its reach, especially now with the support of the Trump administration, to prevent that from happening.

Second, the Palestinian Authority has done little to establish a legitimate representative government and a political apparatus responsive to public needs, even though 147 countries have already recognized it.

Third, the Arab states, though publicly supportive, have provided some financial support but have made no concerted effort over the years to bring the idea to fruition.

And four, the countries that have recognized Palestinian statehood have not taken significant measures to ensure its implementation.

“To realistically pave the way to Palestinian statehood, the players involved will have to take momentous measures and remain on course, even though Israel will vehemently resist and lean on the US to use its weight to prevent such an outcome”, declared Dr Ben-Meir.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Do We Need a Pacific Peace Index?

Credit: brutto film / shutterstock.com

By Anna Naupa
Sep 8 2025 –  
Globally, there is a 0.36% deterioration in average levels of peacefulness, as more countries are increasing their levels of militarisation against the backdrop of rising geopolitical tensions, increasing conflict, and rising economic uncertainty.

But this statistic omits most Pacific island countries. In 2025, only three are ranked by the Global Peace Index (GPI): New Zealand in 3rd place, Australia in18th and Papua New Guinea ranking 116th out of 163 nations.

As regional dialogue about an ‘Ocean of Peace’ concept advances, a dedicated Pacific Peace Index—as suggested by Solomon Islands’ Professor Transform Aqorau at the July 2025 Pacific Regional and National Security Conference—might provide additional form to an evolving political dialogue amongst Pacific Islands Forum member states.

But, how is Pacific peace defined? How might our own Pacific measure of peacefulness complement existing efforts to safeguard peace and security in the region?

What is Pacific Peace?

Peace is more than the absence of conflict or violence; it is a global public good that enables people to live full, healthy and prosperous lives without fear.

“Peace must serve the people, not geopolitics, not elites in the region, not distant interests,” Professor Aqorau says, in articulating a vision for Pacific peace. Peace must also tackle broader factors affecting safety and wellbeing across the Pacific, particularly for women and vulnerable populations, says Fiji’s Shamima Ali.

Peace and development are two sides of the same coin. The Pacific 2050 Strategy for a Blue Pacific Continent places peace alongside harmony, security, social inclusion, and prosperity, as a key element for attaining free, healthy, and productive lives for Pacific peoples. Delivering Pacific peace, therefore, entails securing well-being; protecting people, place and environment; advancing development; and securing futures for present and future generations, the latter efforts entailing climate action and protection of sovereignty.

While global indices are variably critiqued for omissions of Pacific Islands data, unilateral development and indicator bias, poorly contextualized methodologies, or the significant resourcing required to produce Pacific datasets, indices can nonetheless usefully inform policy-makers.

What could a Pacific Peace Index measure?

The current starting point for measuring and monitoring peace in the region is found in the form of existing country commitments to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 (the ‘Peace Goal’).

The Pacific Roadmap for Sustainable Development has contextualised eight SDG 16 indicators for regional reporting that address experiences of violence, access to justice, civil registration and legal identity, transparency of public expenditure, and public access to information and views on participation in decision-making processes.

In 2022, a regional monitoring report led by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat found that limited data availability for SDG16 hampered measurement of progress in the Pacific. This is broadly reflective of global trends, where investment is needed in further data generation efforts and statistical capacity to measure SDG 16.

The report also found that the Pacific was regressing on advancing effective institutions, transparency, and accountability.

But are SDG16’s Pacific contextualised indicators sufficient to meet the expectations of the Boe Declaration on Regional Security and the Pacific 2050 Strategy’s Peace and Security pillar? Can this type of reporting serve as a potential proxy ‘Pacific Peace Index’?

While answers to these questions are both technical and political in nature, there are two things to keep in mind:

1) Peace has deep roots in Pacific social and cultural structures

Despite close alignment with regional strategies, the current SDG 16 contextualised indicators do not encapsulate the depth of a Pacific vision for peace.

Pacific Islands Countries’ policy commitments to aspects of peace are well-documented. Each year new initiatives are announced that respond to an expanded concept of security, ranging from traditional security cooperation to tackling gender-based violence, climate mitigation and humanitarian assistance or investing in democratic processes.

But, knowledge gaps remain about the contribution of locally driven peace initiatives to national and regional efforts, and how these contribute to overall Pacific well-being. Addressing these gaps allows for a more comprehensive telling of an aggregated Pacific narrative of peace, which could be factored into a Pacific Peace Index. For example, peace-building dialogues following the Bougainville crisis, Solomon Islands’ ethnic tensions, and series of Fiji coups have highlighted the important contributions of locally-driven approaches, including drawing on traditional dispute resolution.

2) Telling a story of purposeful peace

Yet, Pacific peace is more than a collection of discrete data points and time-bound security-related projects. Peace is an evolving process, it is future-oriented and a proactive, purposeful exercise.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Baron Waqa has stressed that peace must be “anchored in sovereignty, resilience, inclusion and regional solidarity.” Many Pacific scholars agree, arguing that there is no real peace without addressing longstanding issues of colonisation, militarisation, restricted sovereignty and justice, which continue to bear on many Pacific islanders.

To tell a regional story means connecting, for example, Tuvalu’s international statehood recognition, the recent landmark ICJ advisory opinion on climate change, the nuclear legacies in the region, political instability, elections, and well-being measures, to the region’s vision of peace. Combined, we can then begin to grasp all the elements that contribute to a cumulatively peaceful region.

So, where to from here?

Another tool is the Positive Peace Index which measures the ‘attitudes, institutions and structures that sustain and create peaceful societies’. It assesses socio-economic development, justice, good governance and effective institutions, inclusion, resilience and diplomacy. A Pacific Peace Index could adapt this to incorporate Pacific indigenous philosophies of peace and values of social cohesion, well-being and reconciliation that are absent from existing global indices, for example, and track the region’s journey, disaggregated by country.

Multi-country indices demand considerable capacity so a State of Pacific Peace assessment may instead offer a simpler option. This could entail a dedicated section in the existing Pacific Regional Security Outlook report produced by regional organisations. Alternatively, the region’s academic institutions (e.g. via Track 2 mechanisms) could be invited to assist. Investing in peace summits also provides the opportunity for ongoing regional peace dialogue.

The emphasis, however, must be on building, not duplicating, existing regional mechanisms.

The opportunity of a Pacific Peace Index would be in owning and telling a coherent peace narrative that: a) bridges security and development and, b) reflects how the peace interests and dignity of Pacific peoples are being upheld over time.

As political dialogue about a Pacific ‘Ocean of Peace’ evolves, Pacific peoples’ visions of peace must drive any framing and subsequent action. Professor Aqorau offers further wisdom: ” Our peace should not depend on choosing sides, but on asserting our needs, on our terms and on our collective aspirations.”

Related articles:
Peacebuilding: The Missing Peace in COP30 Climate Ambition

Climate Change in Pasifika Relational Itulagi

Anna Naupa is a ni-Vanuatu PhD candidate at the Australian National University.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);