> In the context of the US, is recognizing a government different from recognizing a country?
In the context of anyone, it depends on what changed. The Iranian Revolution changed Iran's government but not borders or existence. Kosovo, on the other hand, created both a new government and a new state.
> the important distinction here is that the PRC is the claimant to the ROC, so they have a straightforward and very strong motivation to thwart their recognition at all costs, as to avoid delegitimizing their own claims on it. The US, on the other hand, is a complete third party to either Israel or Palestine
Direct versus indirect. Go back to the Cold War (or perhaps more accurately, decolonisation) and the USSR and U.S. were doing this by proxy, too. (And everyone was doing it, almost out of necessity, during the world wars.)
My point is this sort of posturing is deeply precedented when geopolitical maps change because the loser has nothing to lose and something to gain from holding off recognition of whatever just changed. (Even if that gain is just not having to deal with it right now.)
If you want a more-direct example, it would be Pakistan supporting Beijing over its claims over Arunachal Pradesh. Pakistan does this because India is its enemy and China its ally. In the Middle East, Iran is America's enemy and Israel its ally. What the people in Arunachal Pradesh or Palestine think about the matter sort of gets swept under the rug. (Or Beijing giving lip service or North Korea and Iran arms to support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, if you want to rule out the size influence factor.)
In the context of anyone, it depends on what changed. The Iranian Revolution changed Iran's government but not borders or existence. Kosovo, on the other hand, created both a new government and a new state.
> the important distinction here is that the PRC is the claimant to the ROC, so they have a straightforward and very strong motivation to thwart their recognition at all costs, as to avoid delegitimizing their own claims on it. The US, on the other hand, is a complete third party to either Israel or Palestine
Direct versus indirect. Go back to the Cold War (or perhaps more accurately, decolonisation) and the USSR and U.S. were doing this by proxy, too. (And everyone was doing it, almost out of necessity, during the world wars.)
My point is this sort of posturing is deeply precedented when geopolitical maps change because the loser has nothing to lose and something to gain from holding off recognition of whatever just changed. (Even if that gain is just not having to deal with it right now.)
If you want a more-direct example, it would be Pakistan supporting Beijing over its claims over Arunachal Pradesh. Pakistan does this because India is its enemy and China its ally. In the Middle East, Iran is America's enemy and Israel its ally. What the people in Arunachal Pradesh or Palestine think about the matter sort of gets swept under the rug. (Or Beijing giving lip service or North Korea and Iran arms to support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, if you want to rule out the size influence factor.)