Perspective: East Jerusalem Is Where Western Powers’ Recognition of Palestine Matters Most

While it is easy to dismiss the importance of a wave of new countries1 recognizing the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly this week, in East Jerusalem, these changes have real and immediate impact. It is in East Jerusalem where Israel’s threats to annex the Palestinian land it occupied in 1967 have already come to fruition; recognizing a Palestinian state on those lands has clear consequences in the law.

The recognitions, led by France, are part of the New York Declaration, a statement made by a high-level preparatory conference dedicated to the question of Palestine held in July 2025. The declaration commits to “tangible, timebound, and irreversible steps for the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine and the implementation of the Two-State solution” and supports a temporary international “stabilization mission” if mandated by the UN Security Council.2 It also addresses illegal settlement in East Jerusalem and upholds the Status Quo arrangements for Jerusalem’s religious sites:

The session was co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, and its concluding statement was signed by Canada, Spain, Italy, the European Union, and other attending countries.

Yes, it would have been even more powerful if the UK’s Secretary of State Yvette Cooper had mentioned the 1967 borders or East Jerusalem in her statement to the General Assembly. French President Emmanuel Macron said, “The time has come to deliver justice to the Palestinian people and thereby recognize a State of Palestine, a brother and neighbor, in Gaza and the West Bank, by way of Jerusalem.”

However, international law is clear. To recognize Palestinian statehood within the existing framework not only rejects Israel’s unilateral annexation of the area but also affirms the application of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, to all occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. This is a position stated repeatedly in UN resolutions, but never truly enforced. Most of these states now offering recognition previously took the position that Palestinian statehood depended on Israeli–Palestinian negotiations.

The UK’s travel advisory website now includes Palestine and separates the Old City of Jerusalem as a different entity (although not yet an “administrative center” like Tel Aviv).4 The UK Consulate, located in East Jerusalem, says that it serves the state of Palestine.

Over 80 percent of UN member states, along with four-fifths of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, now support the principle that Israel’s actions in Jerusalem violating the 1967 status quo are null and void. Israeli settlements throughout East Jerusalem, the seizure of archaeological treasures in occupied territory, the takeover of the Rockefeller Museum, the demolition of the Moroccan Quarter, and many other forced transformations since 1967 are all illegal under international law.

Furthermore, the systematic insertion of Israeli citizens into occupied areas, often through coercive policies, violates the protections enshrined in the Fourth Geneva Convention as reiterated by the International Criminal Court in July 2024. The Hague-based court held “that to seek to acquire sovereignty over an occupied territory, as Israel has done by adopting domestic laws, policies and practices in respect of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, is contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in international relations and its corollary principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force.”5

Between 1967 and 2023, Israel revoked the permanent-residency status of at least 14,929 Palestinians in East Jerusalem, according to the Israeli Interior Ministry, as reported by Israeli human rights organization HaMoked—Center for the Defense of the Individual.6 While authorities often justified these revocations by saying that residents have failed to prove they maintain a “center of life” in the city, more recently Palestinians are being stripped of their Jerusalem residency rights to punish them or their families for alleged attacks, political activism, or merely “breach of loyalty” (see Precarious Status). These discriminatory practices amount to forcible transfers, which constitute a serious breach of international law.

Following its 1967 military occupation, Israel unilaterally annexed approximately 72 square kilometers of territory, including East Jerusalem and 28 surrounding West Bank villages or portions thereof, leaving 66,000 Palestinians within a newly expanded municipality.7 Israel also illegally imposed its civil law and administration in East Jerusalem, whereas military law governs the rest of the occupied West Bank.

No other country recognizes Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, which remains occupied territory under international law.

Thousands of Israeli Jewish citizens have been transferred to East Jerusalem, while most neighborhood zoning plans submitted by Palestinians are rejected, leaving residents to build without permits and exposing them to home demolitions (see Palestinians in East Jerusalem Facing Record Levels of Displacement, Study Reveals). Since January 2012, at least 617 structures, among them many homes, have been demolished for lack of permits, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.8

Historic properties, among them a hospital built in Sheikh Jarrah by the Jordanian government pre-1967, were seized; the hospital became an Israeli police headquarters.

Among the most egregious violations of the Geneva Conventions are the physical and administrative changes that Israel has undertaken in Jerusalem. The Moroccan Quarter was demolished overnight on June 28, 1967 (see The Destruction of Jerusalem’s Moroccan Quarter: From Centuries-Old Maghrebi Community to Western Wall Prayer Plaza), and the al-Buraq Wall—an Islamic Waqf property under the custodianship of the Jordanian monarchy—was seized. Israel’s ongoing attempts to control access and management of the al-Aqsa Mosque directly challenge the legal and historical status quo. In a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, King Abdullah II of Jordan highlighted this threat, warning that hostile rhetoric targeting Jerusalem’s holy sites could ignite a “tinderbox” with global consequences.9

Israel’s imposition of civilian rule in East Jerusalem, while retaining the British Emergency Laws of 1945, has further eroded Palestinian political rights.10 Palestinian institutions have been shut down (see Institutional Capacity), and Christian leaders face harassment, including legally dubious taxation11 and attacks on priests and holy sites. 

The international recognition of Palestine by major powers—including France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada—has reinforced the illegality of Israel’s actions in East Jerusalem. UN resolutions have consistently declared Israeli measures in Jerusalem null and void, but these recent recognitions provide political weight and credibility to these positions. East Jerusalem remains part of the occupied Palestinian Territories (oPT), not Israel, regardless of Knesset legislation. Access to holy sites must be safeguarded for all faiths, and provocations undermining the rights of Palestinians in the city must cease.