By Anushka Asthana

Copyright channel4

Over the past two days a handful of countries have recognised Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly. Given that 137 nations had previously done the same, it might suggest that this was simply an incremental move, but in fact it was much more significant than that.

The first important shift lies in which countries have added their names to the list – in particular France (which has been a driving force in all of this) and the UK. After all, President Macron and PM Starmer lead two out of just five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the only countries with a full veto over membership.

Their change of position, which brings them into line with two other members – China and Russia (on this issue alone, of course) – means that the US is now the only so-called P5 member failing to recognise a Palestinian state.

The second is that this move comes at a time in which Donald Trump seems able to secure little short of sycophancy from world leaders, and especially those in Europe. And so yesterday at the UN stood out for setting a very different tone.

UNGA brings the world’s media to America, to the institution’s grand headquarters in New York, where delegates and journalists pour through security checks. Media tables are lined up inside a huge, and somewhat sweaty tent, where you can listen to raw speeches through one ear and the translation through the other.

The sight of President Macron leading a huge session on Palestinian statehood was stark, because it represented a major show of dissent with the US, which claims this move will only reward terrorists and worsen the conflict.

Of course, Macron and others were keen to try to balance their arguments and make clear that they do not see this as a reward for Hamas. Before speaking, he met the father of an Israeli hostage, and began his speech by calling for their release. He argued that this was as much about Israeli as Palestinian security, as he warned about the damage of this endless war and humanitarian crisis.

Starmer, meanwhile, chose to air his views via a single recorded statement (also stressing that there could be no role for Hamas) and not travel to UNGA. This is not unheard of for a British PM, but having travelled to this conference with a number of them before, it feels quite unusual.

No. 10 says this is about diary pressures, as the conference comes between a state visit, Labour conference and more international travel to follow. But I can’t help but wonder if they also want to avoid anything that feels too confrontational with Donald Trump, who will put forward his views today.

It is not that Starmer has been unprepared to take questions on the issue; he set out his disagreement with Trump at the state visit’s press conference at Chequers. But that felt like a sanitised event, as if Starmer and Trump had almost come to a gentleman’s agreement to not really go there on Palestine, and the formal recognition only came afterwards.

But still, the significance of this moment should not be downplayed, in what feels like a major shift, driven by international shock at the scenes in Gaza. As one expert, Ian O. Lesser from the German Marshall Fund, put it: “The accelerating trend toward recognition reflects frustration with the war in Gaza and a desire to support an eventual two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. But it also reflects domestic political pressures, above all in France.

“The obvious transatlantic divide on the issue will only reinforce the negative drift of European public attitudes toward the United States.”

“The obvious transatlantic divide on the issue will only reinforce the negative drift of European public attitudes toward the United States.”
– Ian O. Lesser

Meanwhile, US allies will strike a much more emollient tone on issues around Ukraine and Iran, he says.

But there is also another point of tension that Lesser and others point to at UNGA this week, and that is America’s scepticism about the institution more broadly.

Trump is unlikely to withdraw entirely – but he has started a review of his country’s role in international organisations, has withdrawn from a number of UN groupings, and could go further in distancing the US from bodies like the UN Development Programme.

Trump’s supporters argue that the relevance of organisations like the UN has long been in decline. His critics think he is simply weakening America’s hand to the advantage of its foes like China. They point to the UN’s effective response to countless humanitarian crises.

But can it be effective on Gaza? Sure the symbolism of this week is important, but given the situation on the ground and PM Netanyahu’s angry response (with the US claiming Israel could be pushed into further counter-action from this move) it feels like the practical significance is limited. After all – what does it mean to open diplomatic channels to the Palestinian authority, when Hamas continues to hold so many hostages, and Israel continues an assault that is costing tens of thousands of lives?