Recognition by even a handful of G7 and EU states would constitute a diplomatic earthquake long overdue.
Yet as momentum gathers behind our right to self-determination, Washington has chosen a different path. It has barred President Mahmoud Abbas and dozens of Palestinian officials from attending the UN and—according to multiple reports—imposed sweeping restrictions that suspend visa approvals for nearly all Palestinian passport holders.
From a Palestinian perspective, this is not mere procedure; it is an attempt to silence an entire people at the very moment the world is finally prepared to listen.
A legal obligation, not a favour
The United States is not doing anyone a favour by allowing UN delegates to enter New York. As host state to UN headquarters, it signed the binding 1947 Headquarters Agreement, obligating it to admit representatives “irrespective of the relations existing” between their governments and the US, and to issue visas “as promptly as possible.” That is the condition under which the UN was established in New York. US law and practice even created a special, geographically restricted C-2 visa, limited to a 25-mile radius around Columbus Circle, to make this obligation workable.
When Washington denies visas to the Palestinian delegation—including the president of the Palestinian Authority—it is not merely taking a political stance. It is undercutting a treaty commitment central to the UN’s independence. The UN’s own spokesperson has said the organisation is following up with the State Department “in line with the Headquarters Agreement.”
We have been here before: in 1988, when Yasser Arafat was denied a visa, the General Assembly moved its meeting to Geneva so that Palestine could be heard. If host-country obligations are ignored again, the UN should consider a similar remedy.
A political exclusion disguised as procedure
The US administration insists these moves are about security and “holding the PA and PLO accountable.” But the pattern is hard to miss. First, a targeted ban on Palestinian officials ahead of UNGA; then, reporting of a near-blanket suspension of visas for Palestinian passport holders—students, patients, businesspeople—via an internal State Department cable.
This is less about neutral vetting than about transforming a political exclusion into what appears to be an administrative measure. If the true aim is to keep Palestinian leaders out of UN week, turning it into a near-universal ban is a convenient way to avoid direct violation of the Host Country Agreement. It does not render the action any more lawful, nor does it make it any less discriminatory.
The timing is also telling. These restrictions come just as key US allies signal their readiness to recognise Palestine in September. France has declared its position openly. The UK and Canada have issued parallel statements. Belgium has moved in the same direction. To exclude Palestinian voices precisely at this moment is to manipulate the optics of statehood—turning what should be a dialogue among equals into a conversation where only one side is present. Even the French president has urged Washington to reconsider so that Palestinians may attend.
What the ban means for ordinary Palestinians
For Palestinians, the human stakes are stark. A student accepted to a US university, a cancer patient referred to an American hospital, and a parent hoping to visit their children—all are now told that their passports render them ineligible.
Reports indicate the suspension covers nearly all non-immigrant categories and even sweeps in official travel. This is collective punishment by paperwork. It closes a country’s doors not because of who a person is or what they have done, but because of the passport they hold.
The larger context: recognition and responsibility
Recognition of the State of Palestine by Western powers is not a prize for good behaviour; it is an acknowledgement of a right embedded in UN resolutions and in the lived reality of a people. Recognition does not eliminate the need for negotiations; instead, it establishes the parity required for them to be meaningful.
For decades, the prevailing approach rewarded unilateral Israeli actions and punished Palestinian appeals to international law. The result has been neither peace nor justice. Recognition reverses that equation, creating the conditions for genuine negotiations between two peoples whose political dignity is equal and non-negotiable.
What should happen now
First, the US should immediately reverse its visa denials for Palestinian officials and lift the sweeping suspension on Palestinian passport holders. If Washington refuses, the UN must act to safeguard its neutrality and credibility—up to and including relocating sessions so that Palestinians can participate, as it did in 1988.
Second, allies moving towards recognition must not waver. They should proceed, coordinate their positions, and make clear that recognition is the first step towards reviving a two-state process grounded in international law. That process must address settlement expansion, annexation threats, and the need for Palestinian elections and institutional renewal.
Finally, Palestinians must rise to this moment. Recognition by major powers is not an endpoint but an opening. It requires governance that reflects the diversity and aspirations of our people, as well as the strategic use of new diplomatic space to secure freedom, equality, and safety for all, from the river to the sea.
Silencing Palestinians at the UN will not erase the legitimacy of our case. It will only underscore why recognition matters: because our rights should never depend on the whims of a single capital. If the UN is truly a parliament of nations, then Palestine deserves a voice there—and a seat. Occupation must end without further delay.
The author is a Professor of Diplomatic and International Law and a former Head of the Regional Office of UNOCHA for the MENA region
Short link: