On 21 September 2025, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia officially recognized the independent state of Palestine—an action that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described as “a step in the hope of peace between Palestinians and Israelis.” With this decision, the number of countries that have recognized Palestine has risen to more than 150, although the United States and some European governments still refrain from doing so.

This development recalls a century of external decisions that altered the destiny of nations: from the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which promised a national home for the Jewish people without clearly defining borders for Israelis and Palestinians, to the 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement that divided Kurdistan among four countries. These arrangements sowed distrust and long-lasting conflicts in the region, laying the ground for ongoing disputes.

A large part of the Kurdish community feels sympathy for the Palestinians—a people who for decades have been turned into a political instrument among regional powers. At the same time, Kurds see the fate of Israelis as close to their own; a people who, after the Holocaust, sought security but still live under the shadow of religious fundamentalism. From this perspective, the recognition of Palestine will only have real meaning if it is accompanied by guarantees of Israel’s security and commitments not to threaten its existence. Only then can this step represent justice for the Palestinians and also the promise of lasting security for Israelis.

Israelis’ concerns about threats to their existence cannot be ignored. The Jewish people have repeatedly experienced discrimination, exile, and massacres throughout history—from the genocide of the Holocaust in Europe to the massacre of 7 October 2023 carried out by Hamas. These experiences explain the special sensitivity of Israelis regarding security and the right to life.

Had the borders between Israel and Palestine been clearly and fairly defined from the very beginning, and had Kurdistan gained independence instead of being divided, perhaps today the region would not be facing terrorism and religious fundamentalism. The key question now is whether recognition of Palestine can open a new path towards a different Middle East—a region where nations rely on economic cooperation and shared security instead of war.

Europeans still live under the heavy burden of past mistakes—including abandoning the project of independence for oppressed nations. If the borders of Israel and Palestine had been determined in due time, if Israel had not been turned into a target for political Islam, and if Kurdistan had not been divided, the face of today’s Middle East might not have been so turbulent. In such circumstances, Israelis could have enjoyed lasting security, and Palestinians would not have become victims of oppressive states such as Iran, Qatar, and Turkey. Perhaps today we would be witnessing a Middle East built upon regional cooperation and economic union—where all nations, including both Palestine and Israel, could become economic and security partners.

The recent decision of the three Western countries may be a new opportunity. Yet this opportunity will only lead to real change if the international community goes beyond symbolic statements and commits to the practical guarantee of the right to self-determination, security, and the existence of nations.