Which Country is in Favor of Palestine: A Deep Dive into International Support

When I first started researching the complex geopolitical landscape surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one question that persistently surfaced, both in conversations and in online forums, was: "Which country is in favor of Palestine?" It’s a seemingly straightforward question, but as I delved deeper, I realized the answer is far from simple, involving a nuanced spectrum of support, varying degrees of diplomatic engagement, and shifting alliances. It’s not just about identifying a single nation, but understanding the intricate web of relationships and motivations that shape international opinion and action.

In essence, **many countries express support for Palestine, primarily through diplomatic recognition, humanitarian aid, and advocating for a two-state solution that includes an independent Palestinian state.** However, the depth and nature of this support can differ significantly. Some nations consistently champion the Palestinian cause on the global stage, while others offer more conditional or limited forms of backing. It's crucial to understand that "in favor of Palestine" doesn't always mean an outright endorsement of every Palestinian position, but rather a recognition of Palestinian rights, aspirations for self-determination, and the need for a just and lasting peace. My own journey through this topic has taught me that clarity often requires dissecting the various facets of international relations, rather than looking for a monolithic answer.

The Nuance of "In Favor": Beyond Simple Allegiance

The idea of a country being "in favor of Palestine" can be interpreted in several ways. For some, it means acknowledging the legitimacy of Palestinian claims to statehood and sovereignty. For others, it involves providing tangible support, whether through financial aid, political backing in international forums, or even military assistance in historical contexts. It's also important to distinguish between official government policy and the sentiments of a nation's populace. While governments may have complex diplomatic considerations, citizens might express strong solidarity with the Palestinian people through protests, advocacy groups, and cultural exchanges.

From my perspective, the most meaningful form of being "in favor" involves a consistent and principled stance that prioritizes international law, human rights, and the pursuit of a peaceful resolution that respects the dignity and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. This often translates into advocating for an end to occupation, the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, and ensuring the safety and security of all people in the region. It's about fostering an environment where genuine dialogue and reconciliation can take root.

Key Nations and Their Stances on Palestine

When we look at the global landscape, several countries and blocs consistently demonstrate a pro-Palestinian stance, albeit with varying diplomatic approaches. It’s not a monolithic bloc, but rather a collection of nations that, for historical, ideological, or strategic reasons, align themselves with the Palestinian cause.

The Arab and Muslim World: A Historical and Religious Connection

Historically and geographically, the Arab and Muslim world has been a primary bastion of support for Palestine. This support is rooted in shared cultural heritage, religious significance, and a collective identity that often views the Palestinian struggle as intrinsically linked to broader Arab and Islamic solidarity.

Arab League Member States: Virtually all member states of the Arab League officially recognize Palestine and advocate for its statehood. This includes countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and others. Their support is often expressed through strong political rhetoric, funding for Palestinian institutions, and diplomatic efforts within the United Nations and other international bodies. For instance, Egypt and Jordan, as immediate neighbors, play a crucial role in regional stability and have historically been involved in mediation efforts. Saudi Arabia, a leading voice in the Arab world, has consistently supported the Palestinian cause and has often linked normalization with Israel to progress on the Palestinian issue.
Iran: Iran’s support for Palestine is often characterized by its strong ideological stance and its role as a regional power. It provides significant financial and political backing to Palestinian groups, particularly Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which has, at times, drawn international scrutiny due to the classification of these groups as terrorist organizations by some Western nations. Iran’s position is deeply intertwined with its broader anti-Israel policy.
Turkey: Turkey has emerged as a prominent voice in advocating for Palestinian rights. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has been increasingly vocal in its criticism of Israeli policies and has provided substantial humanitarian and developmental aid to Palestinians. Turkey also maintains diplomatic ties with Israel, creating a complex dynamic where it supports Palestinian aspirations while engaging with Israel.
Malaysia and Indonesia: As the world's two most populous Muslim-majority nations, Malaysia and Indonesia have consistently expressed strong support for Palestine. Both countries do not have diplomatic relations with Israel and are firm advocates for a two-state solution. Their support is largely expressed through diplomatic channels, humanitarian aid, and public advocacy.

This support from the Arab and Muslim world is multifaceted. It stems from a sense of shared destiny, religious reverence for Jerusalem (Al-Quds), and a historical opposition to what many perceive as the dispossession of Palestinians. My experience observing these nations' political discourse reveals a deep emotional and cultural connection to the Palestinian cause, often resonating strongly with their respective populations.

European Nations: A Mixed Landscape of Support

The position of European countries is more varied, reflecting diverse historical experiences, political considerations, and varying levels of engagement with the Middle East. While many European Union member states support the concept of a Palestinian state, their approach can be more cautious and often emphasizes the need for a negotiated settlement.

Nordic Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland): These nations have generally been more vocal in their support for Palestinian rights and international law concerning the conflict. Sweden, notably, was the first EU member state to officially recognize the State of Palestine in 2014, a move that was met with both praise and criticism. They often prioritize humanitarian aid and advocate for adherence to international resolutions.
Ireland: Ireland has a long-standing tradition of supporting international solidarity movements and has been a consistent advocate for Palestinian rights within the EU. Their government has also expressed strong support for a two-state solution and has provided humanitarian assistance.
France and Germany: While both France and Germany are strong proponents of a two-state solution and engage in diplomatic efforts, their approach tends to be more balanced, often emphasizing security concerns for both Israelis and Palestinians. They are significant providers of humanitarian and developmental aid to Palestine and participate actively in EU foreign policy initiatives concerning the region.
The United Kingdom: The UK's position has evolved over time. While officially supporting a two-state solution, its recognition of Palestine has been more reserved. However, there is significant public and parliamentary support for Palestinian rights, and the UK remains a major donor of aid.

It’s worth noting that within Europe, there is often a divide between official government stances and public opinion. Many European citizens and civil society organizations are deeply concerned about the situation in Palestine and actively campaign for greater recognition and support.

Latin America: A Growing Solidarity Movement

In recent decades, a significant number of Latin American countries have moved to recognize Palestine, reflecting a broader trend of assertiveness in their foreign policies and a solidarity with developing nations. This shift has been influenced by historical ties, shared experiences of colonialism, and a desire to challenge established global power dynamics.

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay: Many of these countries have officially recognized the State of Palestine, often based on the 1967 borders. This wave of recognition began in the late 2000s and early 2010s, signaling a strong alignment with Palestinian aspirations for statehood. Their support is primarily diplomatic, emphasizing the principles of self-determination and international law.

This regional trend highlights a growing awareness and empathy towards the Palestinian cause, often framed within a narrative of liberation and anti-imperialism.

Africa: Historical Ties and Emerging Support

Many African nations have historically supported the Palestinian cause, often stemming from their own struggles against colonialism and a shared commitment to self-determination and anti-apartheid principles. The Palestine question has often been viewed through the lens of racial justice and liberation.

South Africa: South Africa has been a particularly strong advocate for Palestinian rights, drawing parallels between the Palestinian struggle and its own history of apartheid. Its government and civil society are highly engaged in advocating for Palestinian liberation and justice.
Algeria, Nigeria, Kenya, and others: A significant number of African nations have officially recognized Palestine and support its bid for statehood. Their support is often expressed through votes in international forums and contributions to humanitarian efforts.

The African Union generally adopts a stance that supports the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. This support is built on a foundation of shared historical experiences and a commitment to decolonization.

Asia: Diverse Positions and Growing Engagement

The continent of Asia presents a diverse range of opinions and levels of engagement regarding Palestine. While some nations have strong historical ties and offer significant support, others are more focused on their own regional dynamics.

China and Russia: Both China and Russia have historically supported the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and have been strong advocates for a two-state solution within the UN Security Council. They often criticize Israeli policies and advocate for adherence to international law. Their support is largely diplomatic, though they also provide some humanitarian assistance.
India: India's policy towards Palestine has evolved significantly over the years. While historically it was a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause and one of the first non-Arab nations to recognize the PLO, its relationship with Israel has deepened considerably in recent years. India officially supports a "two-state solution" and condemns terrorism, but its public and official discourse has become more nuanced, seeking to balance its relationships with both Israel and Palestine.

The overarching sentiment across many Asian nations, particularly those with strong ties to the Global South, often aligns with the principles of self-determination and opposition to occupation.

Understanding the Drivers of Support

Why do certain countries consistently align themselves with the Palestinian cause? The reasons are varied and often interconnected, encompassing:

International Law and Human Rights: Many nations base their support on the principles of international law, particularly UN resolutions that call for an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state. They view the ongoing occupation and settlement activities as violations of international humanitarian law and human rights.
Historical Solidarity: For many countries in the Global South, the Palestinian struggle is seen as a continuation of their own historical fights against colonialism, imperialism, and racial discrimination. This shared experience fosters a deep sense of solidarity.
Religious and Cultural Ties: For Muslim-majority countries, the significance of Jerusalem (Al-Quds) as a holy city and the historical narratives surrounding it play a crucial role in shaping their stance.
Geopolitical Interests: In some instances, support for Palestine can be part of broader geopolitical strategies, such as challenging perceived Western influence in the Middle East or strengthening alliances within specific blocs.
Public Opinion and Civil Society: In many democratic nations, strong public sentiment and active civil society organizations advocating for Palestinian rights can significantly influence government policy.

From my observation, the most impactful support often comes from nations that consistently uphold these principles, regardless of shifting political winds. It’s about commitment to a vision of justice and peace for all.

The United States and its Role: A Complex Position

The United States’ position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unique and often a focal point of international discussion. While the U.S. officially supports a two-state solution and provides significant humanitarian aid to Palestinians, its unwavering strategic alliance with Israel and its substantial military and financial aid to Israel significantly shape its approach. This has led to a perception among many that the U.S. is not, in its practical policy, "in favor of Palestine" in the same way that many other nations are. However, the U.S. does engage in diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a resolution and consistently reiterates its support for Palestinian aspirations for statehood, albeit within parameters often defined by Israeli security concerns.

A Detailed Look at U.S. Policy:

Official Recognition: The U.S. does not officially recognize a Palestinian state but supports the eventual establishment of an independent, viable, and sovereign Palestinian state.
Aid and Assistance: The U.S. is a major provider of humanitarian and economic assistance to the Palestinian people, channeled through various UN agencies and NGOs. However, this aid has at times been subject to political considerations and reductions.
Diplomatic Engagement: The U.S. has historically played a central role in mediating peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, though the success of these efforts has been limited. It advocates for a negotiated settlement that addresses core issues such as borders, security, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.
Security Relationship with Israel: The strong security and military alliance between the U.S. and Israel often influences U.S. policy. This alliance leads to significant military aid to Israel and a policy of ensuring Israel's qualitative military edge in the region.
Critique of Israeli Policies: At times, U.S. administrations have publicly criticized certain Israeli policies, such as settlement expansion, and have supported UN resolutions that are critical of Israel. However, these criticisms are often tempered by the overall strategic partnership.

My personal take on the U.S. position is that it’s a constant balancing act. While American administrations express support for Palestinian aspirations, the deep-rooted strategic alliance with Israel often dictates the ultimate practical outcomes of U.S. policy. It’s a duality that frustrates many advocates for Palestinian rights and leads to questions about the extent of true U.S. favor for Palestine.

International Bodies and Palestine: The Role of the UN

International organizations, particularly the United Nations, play a crucial role in addressing the Palestinian issue. While not a country, the collective stance of UN member states, expressed through resolutions and agency work, reflects global opinion.

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA): The UNGA has overwhelmingly passed resolutions supporting the Palestinian cause, recognizing the right to self-determination, and calling for an end to the occupation. In 2012, Palestine was granted non-member observer state status at the UNGA, a significant diplomatic victory.
United Nations Security Council (UNSC): The UNSC's ability to take decisive action is often hampered by the veto power of its permanent members, particularly the United States, which has frequently blocked resolutions critical of Israel. However, the UNSC continues to be a forum for discussing the conflict and has passed resolutions on specific aspects, such as settlements and humanitarian access.
UN Agencies: Numerous UN agencies, such as the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the UN Human Rights Council, and others, provide essential services and advocate for the rights of Palestinians.

The consistent support for Palestine in the UNGA demonstrates a broad international consensus on the need for a just resolution, even if the UNSC's effectiveness is limited by political realities.

The Complexity of Support: Aid vs. Recognition

It is vital to differentiate between types of support. Many countries, while not offering full diplomatic recognition or taking a strong public stance, provide substantial humanitarian and developmental aid to Palestine. This aid is crucial for alleviating suffering, supporting Palestinian institutions, and contributing to economic development. However, humanitarian aid alone does not equate to political endorsement or advocacy for statehood.

Conversely, countries that offer political and diplomatic support, recognizing Palestine as a state and advocating for its rights in international forums, are demonstrably more "in favor" of Palestinian self-determination. My own analysis suggests that a comprehensive approach involves both robust humanitarian aid and strong political advocacy to achieve lasting peace and justice.

Navigating the Shifting Sands of Diplomacy

The international landscape is dynamic, and positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can evolve due to regional developments, changes in government, and shifting global priorities. Countries that were once staunch supporters might temper their rhetoric due to new strategic partnerships, while others might find renewed impetus to champion the Palestinian cause.

For example, the Abraham Accords, which saw several Arab nations normalize relations with Israel, have altered the regional diplomatic calculus. While these accords did not negate the broader Arab and Muslim world's support for Palestine, they did introduce new complexities and necessitated adjustments in diplomatic strategies for those seeking to advocate for Palestinian rights within this new paradigm.

Frequently Asked Questions About International Support for Palestine

How do international bodies like the UN define their support for Palestine?

International bodies, particularly the United Nations, define their support for Palestine through a framework of international law and the pursuit of a just and lasting peace. This manifests in several key ways:

Recognition of Statehood: The UN General Assembly, in 2012, overwhelmingly voted to grant Palestine non-member observer state status, a significant diplomatic recognition of its aspirations for statehood. This status allows Palestine to participate in UN debates and access international courts.
Commitment to International Law: UN resolutions consistently reaffirm the applicability of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, to the occupied Palestinian territories. This includes condemning actions like settlement expansion and the blockade of Gaza, which are seen as violations of international humanitarian law.
Advocacy for a Two-State Solution: The UN, through its various organs and resolutions, consistently advocates for a two-state solution, envisioning an independent, sovereign, and viable Palestinian state living in peace and security alongside Israel. This is seen as the most widely accepted framework for resolving the conflict.
Provision of Humanitarian and Development Aid: UN agencies like UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) play a critical role in providing essential services, including education, healthcare, and emergency relief, to Palestinian refugees across the region. Other UN programs focus on economic development and capacity building within Palestine.
Monitoring and Reporting: Various UN entities monitor and report on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, bringing international attention to violations and advocating for accountability.

It's important to note that while the UNGA frequently passes resolutions supportive of Palestine, the UN Security Council's actions can be more constrained due to the veto power of its permanent members, notably the United States, which has often blocked resolutions critical of Israel. Nevertheless, the collective voice of the international community, as expressed through the UN, remains a significant pillar of support for Palestinian aspirations.

Why do some countries offer humanitarian aid to Palestine but refrain from formal political recognition?

The decision for a country to offer humanitarian aid to Palestine without extending formal political recognition is a complex one, often driven by a confluence of pragmatic, political, and diplomatic considerations. It allows nations to demonstrate solidarity and alleviate suffering without making a full commitment that could have significant geopolitical ramifications. Here’s a breakdown of the reasons:

Humanitarian Imperative: Many nations feel a moral obligation to assist populations in distress, regardless of the political complexities of their situation. The humanitarian crisis in Palestine, exacerbated by conflict, occupation, and economic hardship, often triggers a response based purely on humanitarian principles. Providing aid allows countries to respond to immediate needs like food, shelter, and medical care.
Maintaining Diplomatic Balance: Some countries seek to maintain a balanced foreign policy, particularly when they have strategic relationships with both Israel and Palestine, or with key players involved in the conflict. Formal recognition of Palestine could strain relations with Israel or its allies. Offering aid, on the other hand, is often perceived as less provocative and a way to engage constructively without alienating important partners.
Avoiding Entanglement in Direct Conflict: Formal recognition often implies a deeper political commitment, which can include advocacy on the international stage, support in international forums, and potentially even security guarantees. Some countries may prefer to avoid such direct political entanglement, especially if they lack the capacity or the strategic interest to actively mediate or defend Palestinian statehood.
Focus on "Soft Power" and Influence: Providing aid can be a tool of "soft power," allowing countries to build goodwill and exert influence in the region without resorting to more assertive political actions. It can also be a way to promote their own values and humanitarian credentials on the global stage.
Internal Political Considerations: Domestic political landscapes within a country can also play a role. A government might face pressure to show compassion and provide aid, while strong lobbying efforts or public opinion might caution against actions that could be seen as confrontational towards Israel or its allies.
Gradual Approach to Recognition: For some nations, offering aid is a first step in a longer process that may eventually lead to formal recognition. It allows them to build familiarity with Palestinian governance and society before making a definitive political commitment.

In essence, humanitarian aid offers a way for countries to act on their values and contribute to alleviating suffering, while simultaneously navigating the delicate political landscape of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, preserving their diplomatic flexibility and avoiding commitments they may not be prepared or able to fulfill.

What are the main arguments made by countries that support Palestine's right to self-determination?

Countries that champion Palestine's right to self-determination typically anchor their arguments in fundamental principles of international law, human rights, and historical precedent. These arguments are deeply rooted and consistently articulated in diplomatic forums and public statements. The core tenets include:

The Principle of Self-Determination: This is perhaps the most central argument. Drawing from Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, supporters argue that all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. For decades, the Palestinian people have been denied this right due to the ongoing Israeli occupation. Supporters assert that denying self-determination to Palestinians is a violation of a fundamental principle of contemporary international law.
Adherence to UN Resolutions: A vast number of United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions have affirmed the Palestinian right to self-determination and called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Key resolutions, such as UNGA Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan) and UNSC Resolution 242 (calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories), are frequently cited as establishing the international legal basis for a Palestinian state. Countries supporting Palestine argue that Israel's continued occupation and expansion of settlements contravene these established international mandates.
Jus Cogens Norms: Proponents often refer to jus cogens, or peremptory norms of general international law, from which no derogation is ever permitted. They argue that the right to self-determination, particularly in the context of decolonization and the prohibition of acquiring territory by force (as established in UNSC Resolution 242), has achieved the status of jus cogens. Therefore, any actions that violate these principles, such as prolonged occupation and denial of statehood, are illegal under international law.
Human Rights Violations: Supporters point to consistent reports from reputable human rights organizations and UN bodies detailing human rights violations against Palestinians resulting from the occupation. These include restrictions on freedom of movement, arbitrary detention, excessive use of force, displacement, and the denial of basic economic and social rights. These violations are seen as direct consequences of the denial of self-determination and the ongoing occupation.
The Principle of Equality: The argument is often made that if other nations have achieved self-determination and established sovereign states, then Palestinians, as a distinct people with a demonstrable national identity, should not be denied the same right. This is framed as a matter of fundamental equality and justice.
Historical Context and Nakba: The historical narrative of the establishment of Israel in 1948, referred to by Palestinians as the Nakba (catastrophe), involves the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Supporters argue that the ongoing occupation and denial of statehood perpetuate the injustices of the Nakba and prevent the full realization of Palestinian national aspirations.

These arguments are not merely rhetorical; they form the bedrock of diplomatic policy for many nations and are used to justify their support for Palestinian statehood and their criticisms of Israeli policies. They represent a commitment to universal principles of justice and the rule of law in international relations.

How has the international perception of "support for Palestine" evolved over time?

The international perception of "support for Palestine" has undergone significant evolution since the mid-20th century, influenced by geopolitical shifts, changing legal interpretations, and the changing realities on the ground. Initially, the Palestinian cause was largely framed within the broader context of Arab nationalism and decolonization movements. As the conflict intensified and international institutions like the United Nations became more involved, the discourse broadened and deepened.

Early Post-WWII Era: Decolonization and Arab Solidarity: In the immediate aftermath of World War II and the establishment of Israel in 1948, many newly independent nations, particularly in Asia and Africa, viewed the Palestinian issue through the lens of anti-colonialism and solidarity with Arab brethren. Support was often ideological and rooted in a shared opposition to perceived Western dominance and Zionist expansionism. The PLO, established in 1964, gained significant recognition from these nations as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
The 1967 War and the Rise of International Law: The Six-Day War in 1967, which resulted in Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, marked a turning point. This led to a greater focus on international law and UN resolutions, particularly UNSC Resolution 242, which called for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict. Support for Palestine began to be framed more explicitly in terms of upholding international law and the right to self-determination.
The Oslo Accords Era (1990s): Optimism and Pragmatism: The Oslo Accords in the 1990s brought a period of cautious optimism. Many countries supported the peace process and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, viewing it as a step towards a two-state solution. Support became more pragmatic, focusing on building Palestinian institutions and fostering economic development, while still advocating for the ultimate goal of statehood. However, the stalled progress of the peace process and continued settlement expansion began to erode this optimism.
Post-Oslo and the "War on Terror" Era: Complexities and Divergences: The eruption of the Second Intifada, followed by the global "War on Terror," introduced new complexities. Some Western nations became more focused on security concerns related to groups like Hamas, leading to designations as terrorist organizations and, in some cases, reductions in aid or diplomatic engagement. This period saw a divergence in approaches, with some nations prioritizing security narratives while others continued to emphasize human rights and international law.
The 21st Century: Renewed Diplomatic Push and Shifting Alliances: In the 21st century, there has been a renewed push for Palestinian statehood in international forums, culminating in Palestine’s observer state status at the UN in 2012. Simultaneously, the Abraham Accords and shifting regional alliances have introduced new dynamics. While many countries maintain their support for Palestinian aspirations, the way this support is expressed and the diplomatic tools employed have continued to adapt to the evolving geopolitical landscape. Public opinion in many Western countries has also become more critical of Israeli policies, leading to increased advocacy from civil society.

Overall, the evolution reflects a journey from ideological solidarity to a more legally and politically grounded approach, grappling with the realities of occupation, security concerns, and the ever-changing dynamics of international diplomacy. The core principle of supporting Palestinian self-determination has remained, but the methods and the intensity of that support have varied greatly over time and across different regions.

Conclusion: A Global Chorus for Justice

In conclusion, while no single country can definitively encapsulate all support for Palestine, a significant and diverse coalition of nations across the globe stands in favor of Palestinian aspirations for self-determination, statehood, and a just resolution to the conflict. This support is driven by a complex interplay of historical ties, shared values, international law, and geopolitical considerations. From the Arab and Muslim world’s deep-seated solidarity to the principled advocacy of some European nations, the growing recognition in Latin America, and the historical empathy of African states, the chorus of international voices supporting Palestine is varied yet resonant.

Understanding "which country is in favor of Palestine" requires looking beyond simple alliances and appreciating the nuanced expressions of support, whether through diplomatic recognition, humanitarian aid, or the consistent advocacy for international law and human rights. My journey through this complex topic has underscored that true solidarity lies in the consistent application of principles that uphold justice, dignity, and the right of all peoples to live in peace and security.

The ongoing struggle for Palestinian rights is a testament to the enduring power of international solidarity. As long as the principles of justice and self-determination remain central to global discourse, nations will continue to express their support for Palestine, advocating for a future where Palestinians can exercise their fundamental rights and live in freedom and dignity.

Which Country is in Favor of Palestine: A Deep Dive into International Support