Other nations are recognising Palestine because they’ve abandoned the fiction of Israeli goodwill. Singapore, meanwhile, invokes “unity” as a reason to wait—while evidence mounts that Israel is sabotaging ceasefires and committing genocide.
Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has said that Singapore must “jealously guard” unity as it navigates the Gaza war and the question of recognising a Palestinian state. But unity around what?
A careful reading of his ministerial statement and clarifications suggests the ask is not unity around law or consistency, but unity around restraint—holding the line while we wait for a “when” that looks increasingly like a Big IF.
Meanwhile, more governments—including close economic and security partners of Singapore—are recognising Palestine now, precisely because they have given up on the current Israeli leadership acting with any meaningful good will.
In recent weeks we’ve had two separate, serious bodies of evidence: (1) a UN inquiry finding genocide in Gaza and famine conditions documented by multilateral agencies; and (2) admissions and leaks from US and Israeli insiders showing Israeli leaders repeatedly tanked ceasefire deals.
If this is the “objective reality,” then asking Singaporeans to rally around ambiguity isn’t unity—it’s evasion.
Vivian’s “unity” is framed as prudence. In practice, it’s a call to mute ourselves.
The minister’s logic rests on three poles—national cohesion, security, and international law. But when the rubber meets the road, “unity” is invoked to justify doing less than our own stated principles would normally demand.
- International law: A week ago, the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza and called for compliance with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) orders. That sits atop earlier binding ICJ provisional measures instructing Israel to prevent genocidal acts and enable aid. For a small state that says law is its shield, these aren’t footnotes—they’re sirens.
- Humanitarian facts: The UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) said on 29 July 2025 that the worst-case famine scenario is “currently playing out” in Gaza. The WHO reported a sharp spike in malnutrition deaths in July, including dozens of children. These are not advocacy talking points; they’re multilateral assessments.
Yet in Parliament, “unity” becomes a reason to wait—to avoid sharper measures or recognition “until conditions are right.” Conditions that, by the government’s own account, Israel is steadily obliterating.
That kind of unity doesn’t bind Singaporeans together around principle; it binds them into silence.
Other countries are recognising Palestine now—because they’ve abandoned the fiction that Israel is bargaining in good faith
Britain, Canada, Australia, and Portugal have just recognised a Palestinian state—joined by several European partners—before final-status negotiations, and expressly to keep the two-state horizon alive in the face of Israeli policy that seeks to bury it.
Whatever you think of their timing, their logic is candid: recognition is a lever to preserve an outcome Israel’s current leadership is trying to preclude.
This isn’t about “taking sides” with Hamas. These governments have stressed that recognition is not a reward to militants but a signal that sovereignty cannot be endlessly subordinated to a belligerent occupying power’s political timetable.
In plain terms: if Israel won’t stop closing the door, others are choosing to prop the door open.
The new evidence: it wasn’t just “talks are hard.” Israel sabotaged deals
Two strands of public reporting now point the same way.
First, former US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told Israel’s Channel 13 that, during the Biden era, Israel repeatedly torpedoed ceasefire efforts—introducing last-minute conditions, undermining US leverage with public statements, and forcing Washington to keep quiet lest Hamas exploit US–Israel splits.
In one example, US officials withheld the details of a White House proposal from Netanyahu until hours before the President spoke, because “we spent the last few months seeing the government of Israel, at times, try and sabotage an approach to get to a ceasefire.”
Miller says bluntly that Israeli recalcitrance killed deals. (He gave these remarks after leaving office; while in office he defended the line that Hamas was the main spoiler.)
Second, Israel’s Channel 13 leaked secret protocols from high-level meetings showing Netanyahu personally blocked pathways to a comprehensive hostage release—despite senior security officials pushing to proceed with “phase two” of the Egypt- and Qatar-brokered deal, arguing Israel could resume military operations later.
The leaks depict a Prime Minister who preferred continuing the war to securing the captives’ return while Hamas remained in power. The reporting has been echoed by multiple outlets and sparked fresh outrage from hostage families.
These two bodies of evidence—one from a former US official, one from Israeli media and minutes—square with what hostage families have been shouting for months: military pressure kills hostages, and the only route to release is a comprehensive deal.
If this is the actual record, then the minister’s suggestion that we must hold our tongue for the sake of unity and prudence is not realism—it’s denial.
What “unity” should mean in a small state
If you take Singapore’s small-state doctrine seriously, “unity” cannot mean “don’t rock the boat when a powerful friend is in the wrong.” It must mean unity around equal rules, applied consistently:
- When the UN’s human rights machinery says genocide is occurring, and the ICJ orders a state to prevent it, a small state that lives by law must respond. That’s what many Singaporeans mean by unity: an agreement that our values don’t change when it’s uncomfortable.
- When multilateral agencies say famine is “playing out,” unity should mean we don’t look away, and we don’t launder indefinite postponement as prudence.
We’ve seen this movie before. In 2022, Singapore imposed unilateral financial measures against Russia for invading Ukraine—explicitly on principle, to defend the UN Charter’s red lines even if our measures wouldn’t “move the needle” alone.
That was the right call. But you can’t claim sanctions are mostly expressive and then refuse to express the same principle when the violator is a partner.
Consistency is unity. (And if the government has concrete strategic or economic reasons it won’t escalate, it should say so plainly, and own the trade-off.)
Why recognition now is coherent (and why Vivian’s “Big IF” keeps the goalpost moving)
Vivian’s formula for recognising Palestine—a unified, effective government that renounces terrorism and accepts Israel—is, in practice, a moving goalpost.
Gaza’s devastation and West Bank fragmentation make “effective governance” a mirage without political oxygen, borders, or reconstruction funds.
According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, more than 65,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023, with many victims still under rubble or unreached by rescue teams. Entire neighborhoods lie in ruins, and humanitarian agencies warn of famine.
At the same time, Israel’s leadership has openly discussed phased annexation of Gaza, pressing Palestinians into displacement zones in the south, while settlement expansion in the West Bank continues. These policies extinguish any realistic prospect of Palestinian sovereignty emerging under occupation.
If recognition is held hostage to preconditions the occupying power will never allow, then recognition becomes a deferred veto—not an eventual promise.
By contrast, states opting to recognise Palestine now are trying to change incentives and preserve the two-state horizon that settlement expansion, annexation talk, and war are systematically closing off.
You may disagree with their timing, but the logic is internally consistent: if Israel is busy bolting shut the door, the international community must act to jam it open.
“But unity might fray” is not an argument against principle
The minister worries that sharper language and action could divide Singaporeans.
But nothing weakens unity faster than the sense that the rules change depending on who breaks them. Singaporeans—Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist; Chinese, Malay, Indian, “others”—are capable of disagreeing passionately while recognising that law and consistency must bind us.
They don’t need to be protected from their conscience; they need to see their country mean what it says.
If the government believes deeper measures (or recognition) would endanger Singapore’s security, make the case with specifics. Don’t hide behind a word like “unity” to smother debate. Singaporeans have stood behind tough calls before—precisely because leaders levelled with them.
What a coherent Singapore position could look like—tomorrow
If Singapore wants to align its policy with its principles without performative rhetoric, here’s a credible package:
- Name the crimes with the UN’s language. Acknowledge the UN Commission’s genocide finding and the ICJ’s orders, while stating Singapore will track the ICJ merits phase. This is not “taking sides”; it’s taking law seriously.
- Escalate beyond micro-sanctions. The new sanctions on extremist settler leaders are welcome but late and narrow. Announce a tiered framework akin to our Russia measures: targeted financial restrictions on entities enabling illegal settlements or systematic aid obstructions; export guidance; and procurement due-diligence advisories for state-linked bodies touching Israeli defence and surveillance sectors implicated in violations. Signal that escalation tracks specific legal triggers (settlement approvals like E1; third-country strikes; obstruction of aid corridors).
- Move recognition from reward to lever. State that Singapore will recognise Palestine within this parliamentary term unless Israel takes verifiable steps to preserve a two-state outcome (freezing settlement expansion including E1, binding commitments on borders, and a time-bound political roadmap). That flips the asymmetry: it puts the onus where it belongs—on the party with overwhelming power to enable conditions.
- Backstop with humanitarian scale-up. Pair recognition (or a recognition timetable) with a surge in medical scholarships, reconstruction engineering partnerships, and civil-service training for Palestinian institutions—because effective governance won’t appear by magic. It must be built.
Unity, if it means anything at all
The record is uncomfortable, and it is one the government avoids saying out loud. A UN Commission has concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and the ICJ has already issued binding orders to prevent it and allow aid.
Famine is unfolding, with children among the dead. Meanwhile, both a former US State Department spokesperson and leaked Israeli protocols show that Israel itself has repeatedly sabotaged ceasefire and hostage deals, preferring to prolong the war.
Families of the hostages—the very people with the greatest stake in ending the conflict—have been pleading for a comprehensive deal, warning that “military pressure kills hostages.”
And a growing number of Western governments, from the UK to Canada, Australia, Portugal and beyond, are recognising Palestine precisely because they no longer believe Israel will ever permit a two-state horizon.
You can call this “politics.” But you cannot call it a landscape that justifies waiting, word-smithing, or dressing up an indefinite Big IF as a reassuring “when.”
If Singapore truly values unity, let it be unity around the law, not silence. Unity around a truthful accounting, not spin. And unity around the courage to act consistently with our own small-state doctrine: that international law is our shield, and it must be held above partnership when partnership breaks the law.
The post “Unity” around what—Silence? Or Genocide? appeared first on The Online Citizen.
