Commenting on Palestine means taking into account a complex history and inserting yourself in a polarised debate - but mostly, it feels futile in the face of the destruction. With the keeping of hostages, the ongoing displacement and the perpetration of a genocide, we are witnessing deliberate violence against civilians that is always unacceptable and unjustifiable. As a democracy organisation, our mandate is not to judge the individual criminal responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. Our responsibility lies in observing and assessing democracy trends and infrastructure, and in condemning actions that deliberately dismantle the democratic failsafes put in place to prevent such crimes from happening in the first place. We are extremely concerned about how our current democratic systems, both in the region but also at the global level, are failing us in ensuring the safety and dignity of all peoples. 

But first of all, what does state recognition entail? State recognition is a powerful act in diplomacy. It can open the door to equality among nations — or keep entire peoples locked out. Some see it as a simple acknowledgement of political reality, others as the very condition for sovereign existence and prerequisite for democratic transition. Either way, recognition is never neutral. It has been used to include, to exclude and to shape the fate of states themselves. For aspirant states, such as Palestine, the absence of recognition is not just a technicality: it is a barrier to justice and democratic representation for its people, as well as to participation in the international community. Four in five members of the UN Security Council now recognise the state of Palestine, with only the US continuing to block its access to full voting rights at the UN.

The current wave of recognitions comes with some pre-conditions for democracy inside Palestine as well: proposing a reformed and democratically elected Palestinian Authority and the full disarmament and disbanding of the Hamas terrorist organisation, which is responsible for the October 7, 2023 attack and massacre, killing and kidnapping thousands of civilians. It comes as a renewed commitment to a two-state solution, recognising Palestinians’ right to self-determination in territories that the International Court of justice has ruled to be illegally occupied by Israel.

​​Recognition of Palestine however, should also be seen through a broader and more fluid understanding of democracy. Democratic sovereignty does not exist only at the level of states; it emerges in interlinked and overlapping spheres — from the individual’s own democratic convictions, to neighbourhoods and civic networks, to municipalities, regions, nation states, transnational entities such as the European Union, and ultimately the whole of humankind. This picture becomes even richer if we acknowledge that the so-called two-state solution in the Israeli–Palestinian context can and must also be interpreted as two nations in one dense region — effectively a patchwork of overlapping claims. These two nations would need to live under a rules-based relationship — in effect, a kind of dual democracy — an enormously demanding undertaking. Striving for true self-determination therefore means democratic governance and equal rights at all these levels. The establishment of states without internal democracy risks serving only ruling elites, not peoples. Conversely, recognising Palestine while also supporting democratic reforms within Palestinian institutions reflects precisely this multi-level approach: it opens the door to equal representation internationally while fostering genuine democratic accountability and minority protection internally. Only if democratic principles are strengthened at every layer — local, national and global — can recognition translate into real self-determination and sustainable peace for all people living in Israel and Palestine.

Secondly, why does the confirmation of genocide matter? The context for current debates on recognition is stark. There can be no ambiguity about what is unfolding in Gaza. A commission of inquiry mandated by the UN Human Rights Council has concluded that four of the five acts defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention have been committed against the people of Gaza. Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has reached the same conclusion. Under International Human Rights Law, the Geneva Convention and the more recent Responsibility to Protect, all states are obliged to protect and fulfil the human rights and freedoms of all people living in their territory, equally without discrimination and all states are bound by the duty to prevent and punish genocide. States have negotiated and ratified these treaties through long democratic processes, that we cannot simply abandon when it suits us. If we no longer abide by these integral tenets of both international law and international humanitarian law, we are all at risk. 

In a larger way, the current war and the paralysis that has prevented the international community from taking meaningful action to stop the bloodshed has once again shown the limitations of a state-based global governance. Our current system is based on  representation of member states, who negotiate to come to resolutions to global challenges. But only 45% of UN member states at the moment are democracies, meaning that the 75% of the global population that live in non-democratic member states are not represented at the global level. Especially when talking about crimes against humanity and genocide, which are crimes perpetrated by states against civilians, this is a fundamental flaw. In the UN Security Council, each of the five permanent members has a veto, but only three of them are democracies. This has largely prevented the UN from taking action on an issue that is at its very foundation, not just in Gaza, but also in Sudan, Ethiopia and other places. 

But beyond the UN, it is the responsibility of all transnational entities with the mission to maintain a peaceful global order to intervene on the atrocities that are being committed. 

Thirdly, why is speaking up against the actions of the Israeli government a democracy issue? If we remain silent, we fail not only the victims in Gaza but also the many citizens, opposition leaders and civil society actors in Israel who have denounced this war and continue to protest in their hundreds of thousands against the government’s course. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s increasingly militarised vision for Israel, and his rhetoric such as the recent “Sparta” speech, are being sharply questioned within his own society, military officials and even his own government, but those voices are disregarded. With the widespread use of detention without a trial, torture, attacks on transparency and the judiciary, Israel’s democracy has been in steep decline in the past years.

Israelis have the right to live in peace and free of fear. There can be no question that the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 were an atrocious act of terrorism, for which there can be no justification. Yet these crimes cannot excuse the indiscriminate violence and collective punishment inflicted on the people of Gaza by the Israeli government and army. 

When we speak of the Hamas–Israel war, it must be clear that we cannot equate the full state infrastructure and military power of Israel with the besieged and fragmented territories of Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority, established by the Oslo Accords to pave the way for the consolidation and recognition of a Palestinian state, claims to represent the Palestinian people, whilst de facto operating under control of the Israeli government and only in parts of the Palestine territory. It is through genuine Palestinian statehood with real democratic infrastructure that the conditions of security, prosperity and sovereignty can be created for Palestinians, which in turn is the only foundation for Israelis to live in lasting peace.

Fourth, what have international reactions told us about the state of democracy in the world today? We are deeply concerned about the silencing of voices beyond Israel. Across Europe and the United States, protesters have been criminalised simply for speaking out. Sanctions against UN officials and the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court undermine the very multilateral institutions created in the aftermath of the Holocaust to ensure that “Never Again” was not an empty promise. Protection of freedom of expression and citizens’ voices, locally and internationally, is crucial to protect the democratic values that the UN has at its core.

Lastly, how is peace a democracy issue? Since October 2023 more than 1,000 Israeli and over 65,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed, a quarter of them children. Famine has been confirmed, basic survival is denied, and Gaza’s health and food systems have collapsed. Thousands of Israelis remain displaced at the Lebanese border. Worldwide, incident reports of violent antisemitism have risen as a result of the war. We are witnessing continuous human rights violations that make democratic peacebuilding more necessary than ever. The road to peace will be long, even if a ceasefire can be reached. A durable peace must offer innocent civilians dignity, security and a chance to rebuild. Permanent displacement cannot be part of this settlement. Reconstruction and justice must be pursued with determination and those who wish to help rebuild Palestinian society must be given space to do so. A substantive process of truth and reconciliation is the only path that can deliver the reconstruction of society on democratic foundations, both for Palestinians and Israelis.

As we consider the grave atrocities occurring in Israel and Palestine, we must strive towards a hopeful future characterised by democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. It is crucial to recognise that, as a global society, we need to adapt and evolve our concepts swiftly and with greater flexibility. This runs counter to the prevailing tendency to cling to a 19th-century notion of the nation as a unitary, culturally homogeneous people living within fixed borders, defended by an ever-ready army and ultimately aspiring to nuclear power status. The European Union offers a glimmer of hope as a community of once-frustrated great powers that have, at least partly, moved beyond the old nation state paradigm and chosen cooperation instead. Yet it was precisely in Europe that a part of its population — the Jewish people — was murdered by the millions. Today, the promise of “Never Again” is sought from the powerful national state which asserts absolute dominance vis-à-vis the Palestinians.

A genuinely democratic peace will require both Israelis and Palestinians to move beyond the rigid nation-state model, to embrace a rules-based coexistence and to strengthen democratic principles at every layer of their societies. Only then can the recognition of Palestine, combined with internal democratic reforms, become a bridge from atrocity to a shared and sustainable future. The commitment expressed by countries now moving towards recognition is therefore a vital signal: that international law and democratic principles must remain the compass guiding us forward.