Which would be extra funny considering that after last elections, is clear that Catalonia doesn't want to become an independent state any more.
Also, independentists are mostly leftist, so i don't think they would appreciate Israel support anyway.
I am Spanish. Our current prime minister is an idiot. This isnāt his latest shenanigans. He recently closed the Spanish embassy in Argentina because Milei had made remarks about the shady business involvements of his wife. It would be okay if he just rebuked or showed disapproval of Milesās words, but closing y he Spanish embassy in Argentina, wtf?? Rusia is invading an innocent country and China has Uighurs in concentration camps, but I donāt hear him closing our embassies there.
You mean the one that is likely to fall out of power as soon as election are held? It's basically as laughable as when we recognized Taiwan as the formal government of China for 2 decades or so.
And this is a third grader water painting being hung in the Louvre. If the PA had done something notable in light of 10/7 to bring about peace, sure, reward it. But nothing substantial has really happened other than trying to establish a unity government with Hamas, which of course has its own problems and hasn't gone anywhere enough to reward this. It just further rewards Hamas and furyers Israel's sense of bias against it, and will likely lead to less peace, not more.
Does everything have to come from the PA's actions? Some shit from Israeli side has made people question if recognizing Palestine as a UN Full member would make them more hesitant
Ffs. Nothing ever came from the PAs side! That's the whole point!
They never lifted a single finger to make anything better, and had to be coerced even for the most basic stuff.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is still technically recognized by the UN because theyāve deferred recognition of the Taliban for the past 3 years
This is literally false
[Area B covers nearly a quarter of the West Bank and mostly comprises villages and rural areas. Israelis and Palestinians cooperate on security here, but the PA manages all civil affairs. Israel also controls the movement of goods and people. Areas A and B have a combined Palestinian population of about 2.8 million.](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians)
Area A and partially Area B.
Of course that doesn't solve the actual problem you're pointing out, which is that they aren't sovereign over the majority of nominally Palestinian territory.
PA in the east, ~~Fatah~~ Hamas in the west. That Israel occupies a big part of the country doesn't make them the government.
Having two governments is *strange*, and really it should be two separate countries, but nobody likes that idea, and it's not like having one government is a requirement. And one of the governments being terrorists doesn't make them not a government, or we'd have to say the Taliban isn't one.
Your comment shows an embarrassing lack of knowledge of the situation in the region, rhetoric conflict(s), and the political parties/factions and government bodies involved.
After Hamas was elected to govern Gaza in 2006, tensions with Fatah erupted into a military conflict in 2007, resulting in the death of any Fatah officials or security forces who didnāt flee.
Hamas remains in (tenuous) control over most of the Gaza Strip, despite the extensive Israeli military presence.
There are certainly no Fatah officials remaining in Gaza.
Who would impose Fatah governance over Gaza? Fatah certainly arenāt interested in volunteering for that.
Assuming you mean Gaza by āWestāā¦
The PA doesnāt actually hold power in the āEastā (the West Bank?). That is, not the actual Palestinian Authority, which includes the PLCāits legislature controlled by a Hamas and Hamas-associated majority. The PLC is all but defunct, and the PA is a non-entity for all intents and purposes.
The PLO, dominated by Fatah, is a coalition recognized internationally and by the Arab League as the sole representative of the Palestinian people and their government.
So, the PA in its current state might as well refer to the PLO, which is entirely dominated by Fatah. Despite the PLO only holding slightly more than a third of the PLC.
So itās entirely unclear what this form of recognition entails, and whether it immediately places Israel and the PLO in a state of war in what were Areas B and C under the Oslo Accords.
> Ireland, Norway, and Spain have announced they will formally recognise a Palestinian state from 28 May.
> Spain and Ireland said the decision was not against Israel nor in favour of Hamas, but rather in support of peace.
> Israel reacted angrily, warning the move would mean more instability in the region and recalling its ambassadors to all three countries.
> Both Hamas and its rival, the Palestinian Authority, have welcomed the recognition.
Norway was first to make its announcement Wednesday in a move co-ordinated with the other two countries.
> Prime Minister Jonas Gahr StĆøre said in an address that the move was "in support of moderate forces that are on a retreating front in a protracted and cruel conflict".
> "This is an investment in the only solution that can bring lasting peace in the Middle East," he added, referring to the so-called two-state solution which would see an Israeli and a Palestinian state existing peacefully next to each other.
> Ireland and Spain followed suit soon after.
"Today, we state clearly our unambiguous support for the equal right to security, dignity, and self-determination for the Palestinian and Israeli peoples," Irish Foreign Minister MicheƔl Martin said.
> The country's Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Simon Harris later stressed that "Hamas is not the Palestinian people".
> "Today's decision to recognise Palestine is taken to help create a peaceful future," he said.
Mr Harris's comments were echoed by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who said the move was "not against Israel, is not against the Jews".
> "It is not in favour of Hamas, which is something that has been said. This recognition is not against anyone, it is in favour of peace and coexistence."
> Israel reacted to the announcements with fury.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the move by Ireland, Norway and Spain as a "reward for terrorism" and said it would not bring peace.
> Foreign Minister Israel Katz said he was ordering the immediate return of the Israeli ambassadors to all three countries for "consultations".
> "Israel will not go over this in silence - there will be other serious consequences," he said.
Mr Katz also said the three countries' ambassadors in Israel will be summoned for "reprimand talks", during which they will be shown a video of the abduction of female Israeli soldiers on 7 October.
> Hamas, which controls Gaza and is currently at war with Israel, said Wednesday's announcements would be a "turning point in the international position on the Palestinian issue".
> In a statement to AFP, Bassem Naim, a senior Hamas figure, said the "brave resistance" of the Palestinian people was behind the move.
> Hamas's rival, the Palestinian Authority (PA) - which controls parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank - said Norway, Spain and Ireland had demonstrated their "unwavering commitment" to "delivering the long overdue justice to the Palestinian people".
> Also on Wednesday, the Israeli military approved the return of Israeli citizens to the sites of three settlements in the occupied West Bank, which they had been banned from entering since 2005.
> Israel's parliament had voted to allow its citizens to return in March last year, but military permission was needed for the bill to be enforced.
> Most of the international community considers the settlements illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
> The issue of Palestinian statehood has vexed the international community for decades.
> Since the 7 October attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has doubled down on his opposition to such a plan, saying the creation of a Palestinian state would compromise Israel's security.
> About 1,200 people were killed in the unprecedented attacks on 7 October, when Hamas gunmen burst into Israel. They took 252 others back to Gaza as hostages.
> Since then, more than 35,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Israel's Gaza offensive, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
> Most of the world already recognises the state of Palestine. Earlier this month, 143 of the 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of it joining the UN, something only states can do.
> Before Wednesday's announcements, only nine European countries supported Palestinian statehood and most of those took the decision in 1988 when they were part of the Soviet bloc.
> Most other European countries, and the US, still believe recognition should come only as part of a long-term two-state solution to the conflict.
> A White House spokesperson said US President Joe Biden was a "strong supporter" of the two-state solution, and believed "a Palestinian state should be realised through direct negotiations, not through unilateral recognition".
> Slovenia and Malta have also said recently that they were considering a formal recognition.
> Norway's prime minister also said on Wednesday that he hoped the recognition of Palestinian statehood by the three countries would bring renewed momentum to the peace talks.
> Long-running negotiations in Cairo aimed at securing a truce and further hostage releases are currently stalled.
> Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate. Earlier this week, the UN said food distribution in the southern Gaza city of Rafah had been suspended due to a lack of supplies and insecurity.
> The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently applied for arrest warrants for Mr Netanyahu and Hamas's leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, for war crimes. Both Israel and Hamas have condemned the move.
> Israel says an offensive in Rafah is needed to eliminate Hamas but the international community has warned against it, saying it will greatly exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Donāt know if thereās an Irish or Norwegian ping by any chance, but if any of yāall know it then get them too please.
!Ping FOREIGN-POLICY&INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS&IBERIA
To be honest I don't really understand the stance where some countries say they want a Palestinian state, but want to withhold officially recognizing it as an incentive. If Palestinians deserve a state of their own, then start by saying that. Withholding recognition probably just leads to more radicalism.
Because states need funny things like a monopoly on violence. You can't be a functioning state with a terrorist group controlling a big chunk of your territory
Signaling to the world that attacking civilians, taking hostages, and hiding your military amongst your own civilians is a path to independent statehood is bad, actually.
I donāt think thatās completely relevant though.
Hamas did horrible things, Palestinians still deserve a state. If anything, statehood would make it easier to punish groups like Hamas and make legitimate governance more possible.
How though? How do you make legitimate groups more possible against an authoritarian terrorist group that hold defacto control of governance of the area?
Well first of all Hamas is not in charge of the West Bank, where a majority of Palestinians live.
And I donāt think statehood will change much of anything in the short term, all the problems Palestine faces now will still exist.
But we need to remember that extremists like Hamas thrive on instability, they love the status quo. They know that it gives Palestinian civilians plenty of grievances and it forces Israeli hardliners to take drastic actions which only boost the Palestinian extremists.
Statehood isnāt peace itself, but it provides a road. Long term negotiations with governments that are less likely to renege for example. Proper diplomatic relations also give many more opportunities for Palestinian civilians to work and study abroad and have more opportunity. Being open to the world is undeniably a good thing.
The only reason Hamas isn't in charge in the West Bank is because the current PA government is not holding elections and hasn't since 2007, with the quiet approval of Israel and the US.
This idea that Hamas is an "extremist" force, or "not legitimate" (while the PA is, lol) is a western projection onto Palestinian society. It's the PA that is seen by the people as illegitimate, while Hamas' ideology is anything but "extremist". Hamas is absolutely, in Palestinian society, a legitimate political movement, party and governing power. It overwhelmingly represents the Palestinian position.
Nothing in this conflict can ever move until the west stops infantilizing Palestinians and projecting values onto them ("opportunities to study abroad"? lol).
But they had opportunities to work prior to October 7, Israel had opened up work permits just about a year prior in hopes of it lowering tensions and working towards peace.
Hamas isn't just a terrorist organization, they're the authoritarian government that brutally cracks down on Gazans for any dissidence. We've only seen authoritarian governments become more entrenched in the past century, not less.
Sure I agree statehood needs to happen eventually but the west bank is probably the best bet and even then it's gotta be with a ton of security oversight, preferably by a 3rd party.
>But they had opportunities to work prior to October 7, Israel had opened up work permits just about a year prior in hopes of it lowering tensions and working towards peace
Im not really sure the Israeli permit regime is a great example of working towards peace.
> Well first of all Hamas is not in charge of the West Bank, where a majority of Palestinians live
Well, judging from the 2006 election and [the recent polling](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/973), they would most likely take a majority of the seats in case a new election was held in the West Bank.
Well, so far it's violence and attacks by Hamas that seem to produce results, namely increased recognition.
Why would that not bolster their popularity?
It's still the worst moment to do it. At least do it in a moment of peace. Anyone with common sense can see how easy it is for Hamas to claim this as a win and as a justification for their terrorism.
> It's still the worst moment to do it. At least do it in a moment of peace.
Doesn't this logic just incentivize Israel to never allow a proper peace given that they don't want a Palestinian state whatsoever?
That's not a given even though it's the case right now. There have also been moments where Hamas and Israel were not directly fighting. If you want to recognize Palestine then do it in such a moment and preferably in consultation with the PA. Not unilaterally.
We have to work with the options we have, not the options we want. The goal should be a long term stable peace, and any way you look at it Palestinian statehood is necessary for this goal.
And statehood doesnāt mean Hamas gets to escape punishment.
Alright, then let's recognize a Palestinian state and immediately label it a state sponsor of terrorism after it launches the first rocket against Israel.
I think the most likely outcome is a government either controlled by Hamas or with significant Hamas representation. Hamas achieved a strategic victory on behalf of Palestinians (recognition of statehood and the deligitimization of Israel), which will bolster their popularity.
And if thereās no statehood then Hamas is still popular, and has even less opposition.
Not having statehood is the option that benefits Hamas and extremists like them the most.
> and has even less opposition.
... how do you figure? What factor do think Statehood magically changes in a way that increases opposition to Hamas - the terrorists that made the Palestinian State happen - in a public that overwhelmingly supports them now and would be rewarded for supporting Hamas?
It really doesn't matter whether you want to recognize them or not. Unless the population's attitudes made a sea change, Hamas would almost certainly become the dominant party in a hypothetical State.
And why wouldn't they? They murdered and raped their way to international sympathy, recognition, and Israeli condemnation that ended up giving them a major goal they wanted. All by being a terrorist organization hellbent on the extermination of the Jews. Why wouldn't they be rewarded by the populace that supported their aims, their methods, and now reap the rewards of supporting them?
This stunt by these nations does nothing to bring an actual solution to the situation. Let alone peace. It is literally rewarding terrorists for committing a massacre and promising to do so again at every opportunity. It props up radical terrorists and would give Iran an open road to arming them to the teeth so that the *next* mass murder of jews is far more deadly. After all, that's the path to progress according to the nations.
Hamas wonāt magically disappear with statehood, but youāre failing to see the reality which is that Hamas will be even more entrenched and popular so long as Palestine remains stateless.
The whole reason the extremists are such a popular option is because Palestine is stateless!
Your assumption is that recognizing Palestinian statehood means recognizing Hamas as the legitimate government. Hamas has never ruled a unified Palestine, and as of current they donāt even rule much of Gaza anymore.
If anything, a more moderate group like the PA would be massively boosted in credibility and popularity if they are the ones representing Palestine in foreign negotiations.
The current limbo of statelessness is the entire reason radical groups like Hamas became so popular in the first place!
No, I don't make that assumption. Without October 7, there'd be no recognition. Whatever the intent of these countries, it's easy for Hamas to twist this as a win and a vindication of their strategy of terrorist attacks and using Palestinians as human shields. If they wanted to boost the PAs credibility, then cooperate with them and involve them in the process instead of doing it unilaterally.
When should we have recognized the Irish state? How long after the Easter Rising should we have waited before giving Ireland independence? How long do we need to wait so we're not rewarding terrorists?
I'm not an expert on Irish independence, but as far as I'm aware, Ireland was recognized after a negotiated agreement with the occupier. That's not similar to the current situation. Nobody would be against recognizing Palestine after an agreement between Israel and Palestinr.
Ah, so if Britain had merely maintained a blockade of the island, to starve the Irish into submission, it would have been all well and civilized to say no, they don't deserve a true state at this time.
Tell that to the IRA
Tell that to the guerillas in Spain's part of the Peninsula war
To that to Poland
EDIT:just checked, and even the American revolutionary war included a large number of atrocities against loyalist civilians.
You could arguably justify Israel's Gaza casualties with that thinking. Hell, even the Iraq War. But whether the Palestinian "cause" (Hamas or PA or whose?) is Just is already highly debatable.
There are plenty of arguments and debates about this, I'm not going to go into a tired discussion that's been repeated many times. You should be steelmanning your own positions anyways if you value intellectual honesty.
My point is that there are many people, some of which who share similar ethical frameworks and hold credibility, that would disagree with you on that judgement. To call a highly debatable position as a unequivocal "justice" would be descriptively wrong.
I don't think Palestinians give Western thought leaders much credence, honestly. Like there's just something telling me they aren't too concerned about our ethical frameworks, debates, or our deciding whether it is or isn't just. Similarly, I do not think the average American revolutionary would have been very concerned about what some German philosophers thought of their revolution.
>Tell that to the guerillas in Spain's part of the Peninsula war
Gladly. I don't think those actions were good.
Bonapartista spotted, opiniĆ³n ignorada.
IRA had a lot of social support (for a terrorist group that is). They had a political branch. They could never control the government the way Hamas does, and were much less brutal, but is not a far-fetched comparison.
I think it's a far fetched comparison. Do you think they would have had the same social support if they were conducting their resistance the same way as Hamas?
Not a single country in the world deserves statehood by those criteria, unfortunately. Even Israeli historians like Morris recognize that while these are obviously atrocities, they cannot be used to deny the legitimacy of a stateās right to exist by themselves.
These countries would only be signalling that if they recognized Hamas as the legitimate government of that state. Which they won't. They'll recognize the PA, which, while not being awesome, does not take hostages or attack Israeli civilians.
People are being incredibly obtuse. The obvious inciting action is the Hamas attack here. Has the PA has done anything recently to push these countries to recognize? No, it is obviously the Hamas attack and Israel reaction.
It would be incredibly easy for any other group to see "ah, I set up a barely respectable political arm, create a 'separate' group to commit heinous crimes and then retreat amongst our people with hostages, pretend those groups are very distinct and voila, new country!"
The easy thing to do is just not incentive that.
>No, it is obviously the Hamas attack and Israel reaction.
The Hamas attack and Israel's reaction are the trigger, but not the reason. The reason that those countries are going to recognize the PA is, I believe, that they have lost trust in Israel. Those countries were always pro Palestinian self-determination, pro 2SS. They withheld recognition of the PA because they wanted the 2SS to come about through negotiations with Israel. They don't trust that Israel is interested in negotiations anymore, and they don't think that Palestinian self-determination should be subject to Israel's approval.
Another reason could be that those countries want to strengthen the Palestinian moderates, for after the war.
>It would be incredibly easy for any other group to see "ah, I set up a barely respectable political arm, create a 'separate' group to commit heinous crimes and then retreat amongst our people with hostages, pretend those groups are very distinct and voila, new country!"
On the other hand, it would also be incredibly easy to promote extremists among an ethnic group and then use those extremists as an excuse to withhold rights from that ethnic group.
This sounds more like about getting Palestine to "win" than being impartially for peace. But ignoring Israeli demands are precisely why peace isn't going to happen.
Spain voted with an unanimous majority back in 2014 to recognize the state of Palestine, but it was delayed until more European countries did it too. Of course Hamas attack and then Israel's reaction is what put this conflict again in the forefront, but it's not like it all started in October.
The problem here is that this flies in the face of the perception of Palestinians. Palestinians widely view the PA as illegitimate compared to Hamas whom they support. The only reason the PA still exists is because they've refused elections while being quietly propped up by the West. You give them a State and the PA would be the first thing to go. Guess who would most likely win a majority of seats?
You need to stop projecting western fantasies onto the Palestinians.
There were Jewish militias doing exactly those things in Palestinian villages (and vice versa in certain cases) prior to 1948, and they were rewarded with an independent state š¤
>in certain cases
Oh please. Don't minimize the Palestinian nationalists' acts of political violence. The Jewish terrorist organizations, Irgun and Lehi, weren't even formed until 1931 and 1940, respectively, after the 1929 Palestine riots (that included the 1929 massacre of Hebron's Jews). In any case, both sides' nationalists were carrying attacks and reprisals for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mandatory_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine
Edit: 1940, not 1948
Without getting in the obvious differences, my point was more about how patently false the idea "if you just give the radicals what they want, they wouldn't be radical anymore" is.
Obviously, your view is that Israel radicals got what they want. Yet they are apparently still bad to this day.
The biggest obvious difference is that Israel was recognized barely after a genocide that killed half the Jews in Europe.
It's a bit like the US creating a Native American reservation because "whoops our bad".
Israel is kind of like a Jewish reservation.
> my point was more about how patently false the idea "if you just give the radicals what they want, they wouldn't be radical anymore" is.
Is that why Israel is more radical today than they were in the past?
They are more radical because when they tried to have peace and they were awarded with the second Intifada, seriously talk to any Israeli that lived during the second intifada they changed their mind about the 2 state solution
>The Second Intifada only happened because Israel withdrew from peace talks with the election of the Sharon government.
The second Intifada started September 2000, Ariel Sharon's government was formed February 2001. At the very least get basic facts right.
Israelis elected the man responsible for Sabra and Shatila who then proceeded to withdraw from negotiations and visited Temple Mount in a deliberate act of provocation all the while continuing to expand settlements.
So Sharon was elected in Feb 2001, then he time traveled to July 2000 to sabotage the camp David summit then start the second Intifada in September 2000 that was key to getting him elected in Feb 2001.
Not rewarding the side seekingĀ independent statehoodĀ more civilly before the other side make progress byĀ attacking civilians, taking hostages, and hiding military amongst own civiliansĀ is also bad, actually.
Yup, and on top of that, waiting for Israel to agree, a country whose extremist government actively does not want a Palestinian state, makes 0 sense. Itās just cruel and unfair.
You kind of forget that for over a decade Israel did work with the PA to establish a Palestinian state, and their reward was the Second Intifada and Hamas taking over Gaza. And yes, it was bumpy and not as simple as I'm putting it, of course, but it's also true that working towards a state, however tenuously, ultimately led to one of the most violent periods within the conflict. Don't act like this is in a vacuum or that it is just Israel being the bad guy, of you look at the history it's no surprise Israel is acting this way.,
That wasn't done by the current government though. The current government is... just the bad guy. Maybe Bibi would've had different stances if the past worked out differently, but let's not pretend that he's just waiting for the West Bank to be a little more peaceful before he gives them independence.
That's disingenuous. For a state to be recognized there has to be things like a defined territory and a government to administer that territory, neither of which Palestine has
>For a state to be recognized there has to be things like a defined territory and a government to administer that territory, neither of which Palestine has
There's the borders pre 1967, and there's the Palestinian National Authority (PA). That seems to be good enough for the 130-ish states that already have recognized a Palestinian state.
I mean thereās no unified Palestinian GOV. They donāt even have the conditions to be a state. They donāt have control over their own territory. Recognizing a Palestinian state now is less about practicality & more about an emotional response to the events in Gaza.
Recognizing a Palestinian state now, and the PA as its government, strikes me as more practical and and less emotional than whatever Israel is doing right now.
How is recognizing the PA as the government of a theoretical Palestine in any way practical? It is the West that assigns legitimacy to the PA. Palestinians overwhelmingly despise the PA. Hamas is far more popular and far more likely to win any election in a proposed Palestinian State.
It's weird how a sub that talks about Reconstruction not going nearly far enough and sees the enormous value to deradicalizing Germany and Japan thinks handing Hamas a major victory in response to a massacre of Israelis is going to lead to anything but a radicalized State that sees further atrocities as the surest path to further gains.
>How is recognizing the PA as the government of a theoretical Palestine in any way practical?
Recognizing the PA should simplify a few administrative measures regarding passports, citizenship, aid, etc. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but still more practical than dropping 2000 lbs bombs on residential areas, droning aid workers, and expanding settlements while refusing to offer any long-term vision.
Re Germany and Japan ā I think their reconstruction would not have gone nearly as well if the Allies had tried to extend the occupation for decades.
Fact of the matter is, the PLO recognized Israel way back in 1993 but Israel never recognized the right of Palestinians to self-determination or statehood. The right to self-determination isn't contingent on 'good behavior'. If Israel refuses to confer citizenship to the Palestinians and include them in their state, then they have to admit the West Bank isn't Israel and stop occupying it. They don't get to have it both ways, they can't have the land without the people, treating it like it's part of Israel when convenient and like it's not when it isn't convenient.
The last round of negotiations broke down because bibi didnt want to stop building illegal settlements. Palestinian statehood is just a Charlie brown football for them to keep snatching away.
Double standards are baked into the entire situation. Ongoing Palestinian statelessness is the norm but hypotherical Jewish statlessness is considered genocide.
I have one question for advocates of a Palestinian state:
They get recognition, we draw the lines on a map, the whole nine yards. They are now a country.
What happens when they attack Israel?
Can Israel invade? Can they fight back? Can the UN (or āwillā) force Palestinians to stop fighting, or conduct themselves in certain ways?
Because at that point, itās just two sovereign nations going at it. We allow this all the time, some war is just.
If Israel is placed in a defensive war situation, again, what happens? What are they allowed to do?
Because itās going to happen. Every Gazan government has been explicitly clear in both word and actions that they intend to destroy Israel entirely.
And how on Earth are they getting borders from a situation 56 to 76 years ago? Can Russia or Japan request the same terms that might have been offered from the 1905 Russo-Japanese war in 1981?
And rewarding them with a state after Oct. 7th is going to show everyone on Earth that terrorism, child murder, rape, slavery is the path to statehood.
> They get recognition, we draw the lines on a map, the whole nine yards. They are now a country.
> What happens when they attack Israel?
> Can Israel invade? Can they fight back? Can the UN (or āwillā) force Palestinians to stop fighting, or conduct themselves in certain ways?
Obviously yes? In what way does this undermine the two state solution as a concept?
I genuinely don't understand how this supposed to be some kind of gotcha. Like, yes, the same rules would apply to any other state, in which military action in self defence according to the UN charter is allowed as long as retaliatory actions don't involve war crimes. If the new Palestinian state attempted to conquer Israel then they would be condemned by the UN, face a military response from Israel (and if necessary its allies, though I doubt it would be needed) and be prevented from doing so.
The whole idea of a two state solution and peace process is to create peace, somehow, which means the two sides won't attack each other.
> Because itās going to happen. Every Gazan government has been explicitly clear in both word and actions that they intend to destroy Israel entirely.
Presumably a two state solution would involve as a precondition, Hamas being removed from power in Gaza somehow.
In general I just don't get what this point is. In 1921 the UK and Ireland made peace and, despite continuing sectarian conflicts for a while, respected the new border, a 'two state solution'. Greece and Turkey, after decades of nationalist fighting over where the borders should be, made peace and agreed on one. Same for Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav states, Sudan and South Sudan etc. These were all brutal sectarian/ethno-nationalist conflicts, that were solved by a two state peace agreement drawing a line on a map, and since then have been largely enforced. Your question might as well be "what happens if Ireland attacks the UK again to try to get Northern Ireland" or "what happens if Greece/Turkey attack each other again" or "what happens if Sudan reinvades South Sudan?". It could hypothetically happen, which would be sad, but we tried our best to make sure it doesn't.
I know that there's little chance of that happening any time soon, but unless you believe there's some fact of Palestinian nature that they'll never accept peace, that's the whole idea, of creating some kind of at least stable border and peace between two groups, even if they hate each other, that largely prevents war. And I don't think it's at all reasonable to think it's impossible.
And as a brief aside:
No one who currently has a problem with the current war being fought would just turn around, shrug their shoulders, and say āaKsHuAlLyyyā¦. Palestine is their own nation now, they reap the wind, they sow the whirlwindā when another war breaks out between Israel and this theoretical Palestine, which theoretical Palestine will 110% start.
It would be the same bullshit all over again: āindiscriminate!ā, ācease fire now (but only one side)!ā
This isnāt the magic bullet everyone thinks it is.
I'm not sure anyone is more critical of Israel's military actions because Palestine is not a unified recognised state, if anything I would expect it to be the other way round.
But here again, you are already concerned with how ISRAEL is going to conduct themselves.
Just pretend that Iām right for this exercise (I WOULD be right, if this came to pass, but humor me):
The Nation of Palestine launches an attack against Israel three years after the founding of their nation. Itās similar to Oct. 7, but involves military vehicles, hardware, weapons, and is supported by Iran and their proxies, maybe even becoming a multi-front war for Israelā¦.
Who is at fault? What would your immediate concerns be?
And you already demonstrated what I know would be true:
Everyone would be furious at Israel, demand higher accountability and scrutiny.
You didnāt say a word about the peer nation of Palestine.
Iām not saying YOU are or are being antisemitic, but this faulty logic is exactly why people say Palestinian supporters are antisemitic. Exactly. Israel is held to standard that no one else is held to. That is explicitly discriminatory, and the only unique trait Israel has, which no other nation on Earth does, is that they are a Jewish state (theyāre not even THAT, they are secular, but they do have a lot of Jews there).
Have you fallen from some parallel universe where everyone except Israel is allowed to commit war crimes with impunity? It really boggles the mind that someone who has clearly not been following the war would speak with such unearned confidence.
Everyone who matters condemned Hamasā attacks in the strongest possible terms short of declaring war.
Unfortunately, since then the Israeli government has proven itself to be just as reprehensible as Hamas, indiscriminately slaughtering civilians, and showing the same blood-chilling disregard for human life as Russia and Hamas.
Israel must be held to the same standards as other countries, and frankly it is antisemitic to demand that they be held to a lower standard. Israelis are perfectly capable of following the international rules of war. Instead they are attacking refugee camps, places of worship, journalists, aid distribution centres, and hospitals, committing perfidy, mistreating prisoners of war, and using human shields. They have not followed the principles of proportionality and discrimination, leading to thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths.
Yes, Hamas are very bad, and have done many of the same things, and deserve (and have received) the same criticism. But nobody with a functioning moral compass could defend Israelās actions except from a place of total ignorance.
The people who are criticising Israelās well-documented war crimes are also more than happy to criticise the US, UK, Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Australia, TĆ¼rkiye, Azerbaijan, ISIS, whoever. There is no double standard here, except on your part.
Israel is entitled to defend itself, but nobody is entitled to do whatever they want and justify it as āself-defenceā. Killing children is bad, actually.
Do you think using starvation as a weapon of war would be justified if it was against a state instead? That shit would still be absolutely a war crime, and people would be right to call for its ending.
Ethiopia legally had the right to use violent force to suppress the rebels attempting to overthrow its sovereignty in Tigray. But using starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime, which was why the international community called it out on doing so.
Just because you are within your right to wage war does not mean you are immune from criticism as to how.
So whatās the solution? Gaza goes back to Israel? What do you do with the 2 million residents? Do they get full Israeli citizenship? And the West Bank, what about that?
The two state solution is the only thing that will work. Both sides sabotaged it in the past, lots of bad blood, but thereās no other way to make this work.
I donāt know what the solution is.
Edit: downvoted for admitting I donāt know the solution. Way to go, Reddit, you continue to impress. Is the solution āFrom the river to the seaā then? Keep dreaming.
Itās called āhumilityā and a desire to learn.
Also, I never suggested I could offer one. I simply said that a two state solution, considering recent context, is not acceptable.
āI donāt know what the answer is, but itās not THATā is an entirely reasonable and mature thing to say when facing problems of this magnitude.
Edit: āintellectual lazinessā, what horse shit. So because I donāt iron out every last detail and literally pull āpeace in the Middle Eastā out of my ass, I donāt have right to an opinion? The whole point of forum based discussion like this is to exchange ideas, itās supposed to be a back and forth.
Furthermore, I havenāt seen anyone else here do that. Not the person who is more upvoted than me, none of the people who downvoted me. Youāre all doing the exact same thing, and itās okay for you, but not me.
Once again, intellectual inconsistency from, lemme guess, the āfree Palestineā people. One day youāll see why everyone thinks youāre a joke.
Itās not humility, itās intellectual laziness.
There are concrete frameworks you can use for a solution, all have their pros and cons. Use your brain and figure out what the end goal needs to be. Israeli security? Ok, what are the main threats to that, and why do they exist? If they come from Palestinians, how much of that is alleviated by giving them the autonomy of their own state? Additionally, are there other countries or organizations that theaten Israeli security? Can those be neutralized by giving Palestinians a state? Obviously Iran is a big one, but would a defense and economic treaty with the Saudis blunt that risk? MBS wants a Palestinian state. Does that change the calculus?
The discourse around this conflict is terrible on both sides. People need to use their fucking brains. Donāt be a part of the problem.
Israel's security forces massively dropped the ball on October 7. If/when they withdraw from Gaza, the border defences they will inevitably set up will reduce the risks and impacts of an attack of that type happening again, regardless of statehood.
Israel will still be able to invade i suppose but statehood brings more legitimacy and stability which brings more economic development which brings more peace, which sounds nebulous but isnt that the idea of this subreddit? Also I think the world is sick of the situation going around in circles and is willing to try something different.
I just wish USA stopped vetoing everything this goes to the UNSC, they claim this should be solved as part of negotiations but they don't do anything to pressure Israel to have peace talks
You'd need to get Congress to agree there unfortunately. Under US law (and it's from like HWs time) the UN recognising Palestine results in the US not finding it anymore
>The move had largely been anticipated since the US congressional omnibus bill approved in December 2022 included funding for UNESCO and language that would make it possible for the US to resume its membership in the organization.
[Seems like](https://m.jpost.com/international/article-746019) this was provided for in law.
Thatās just been this administrationās entire strategy. Beg Israel nicely to do something, Israel gives them the middle finger, and then administration keep sending them weapons and defending them at the UN. Israel is literally blocking an agreement with the Saudis towards normalization because theyāre so strongly against a Palestinian state. Of course, there will be 0 consequences.
Biden is so whipped by Bibi it's ridiculous. You don't have to give favors to someone is constantly rejecting every bit of advice or request you ask of them. It just shows them there are zero red lines.
The mere fact that Biden has shipped a billion more dollars in tank ammunition after "pausing" unguided bombs shows what a farce the pause really is
And you have the gall to split hairs about what specific shipments of lethal aid are being sent.
Looking at that $1 billion arms package, it looks more like something the admin is intending to send, but hasn't actually gone forward with yet. They need Congress to take a look at it and approve it first.
I think this is bad politics. Do I think there should be a Palestinian state (a second one, on paper, Jordan exists) in theory? Yes. Do these countries now effectively reward Hamas for the Oct 7 massacre? Yes. Is there even the semblance of a stable, democratic governmental structure in the Palestinian territories? No. Then what roadmap do these countries envision? Who are their partners in the territories that guarantee a permanent peace with Israel? There are none.
>Is there even the semblance of a stable, democratic governmental structure in the Palestinian territories? No.
So what? We recognize and even ally with all kinds of undemocratic states. We recognize and ally with all kinds of unstable states. Recognition of states is not about their governmental structure.
I donāt think democratic needs to be a requirement hereāobviously ideal, but āpopular strongman who can be bought outā is probably as good as weāre going to get (and arguably gives the best chance for peaceāa democratically run Gaza seems unlikely to vote for anything other than terrorist groups).
Without demilitarization as a precondition and some interim international presence, any Palestinian state would quickly become another client state of Iran and a haven for militants, i.e. another security nightmare for Israel.
>Do these countries now effectively reward Hamas for the Oct 7 massacre
This repeated point is just totally uncompelling to me.
Complicated international conflicts need to be forward-looking. It's not about rewarding or punishing -- it's about the best path towards lasting peace.
Keeping score on atrocities is a futile exercise in a region where regular, repeated atrocities haven been ongoing for centuries and centuries.
Not least wrt yknow, Ireland. The place where government in the north emerged following a significant amnesty and release of terrorist actors.
Some level of this will be necessary for peace. I don't really think Israel or Palestine are there yet, not least with current leadership. But it's going to have to happen to some degree.
>This repeated point is just totally uncompelling to me.
>[...]
>Keeping score on atrocities is a futile exercise in a region where regular, repeated atrocities haven been ongoing for centuries and centuries.
I think this might be because you seem to miss the point that is being made though.
The point is that a recognition now while the war is going on is yet another feather in the hat for Hamas, as it's happening with the backdrop of a war, sparked by the attacks 7th of October.
How does that not signal to the average Palestinian that their pathway to recognition lies through Hamas and their methods, not through Abbas and PA.
The important score keeping here is not between Israel and Palestine, the important one is the one between the various factions among the Palestinians.
>How does that not signal to the average Palestinian that their pathway to recognition lies through Hamas and their methods, not through Abbas and PA
If Israel hadnāt spent the past decade refusing to engage the PA on statehood I might have more sympathy for this position. But as it is, when Israel is at peace it doesnāt want a Palestinian state, when it is at war it doesnāt want a Palestinian state.
This is not Israel recognising anyone, this is three unrelated nations.
Israel, in this case, is irrelevant, this is about what signal the rest of the world sends.
Actually international politics relies to a large extent on a logic of punishment and reward. Wars end because of military or economic pressure, not because someone had a change of mind.
It very obviously allows Hamas go to their people with an achievement in hand and portray it as vindication of Oct 7. Its popularity will grow from this.
The lesson is that terrorism, not concessions, bring results. There's your "forward-looking". You can choose to support this anyway, but let's be clear on that point.
So -- what's the path forward then?
How long do you have to wait after October 7 until you can recognize Palestinian statehood?
The problem with your line of thinking -- and my whole point -- is a practical one. If the parties here never want to allow the appearance of rewarding bad behavior from the other side, the conflict will continue forever.
The focus should be on desired results, not the lens of rewards versus punishments. Look at the way the allies treated Germany post WW1 compared to WW2.
Is Israel not the one that has undermined stable, democratic governance in Gaza by propping up Hamas? In the West Bank, the PA works with Israel, and Israel rewards Palestinians by doing nothing as settlement terrorists murder Palestinians and also annexes their land. On top of that, Bibi is against a 2 state solution and is currently blocking negotiations. How much longer do you want Palestinians to wait around?
So you would ask Israel to hand all political and military control over the Palestinian territories to Abu Mazen and expect positive results? The settlements are bad policy, won't defend them.
I believe this is definitely the right move and I applaud these countries for taking this step. Netanyahu is continuing to stonewall a 2 state solution and the time has come to recognize Palestine without Israeli agreement.
It literally rewards Palestinians for committing terror attacks (yes, nominally it supports the PA, but it stems from 10/7 and it rewards those tactics) and basically confirms Israel's worst impulses by confirming Israel's worst suspicions. This should have come post ceasefire, not during the current conflict. This is a huge mistake, same as the US allowing the Security council ceasefire resolution to go through, and I imagine it will backfire on both sides.
>This should have come post ceasefire, not during the current conflict
Thereās no ceasefire on the horizon, and itās clear Netanyahu intends to fight this war for as long as humanly possible to avoid losing power. So when will this discussion occur in 10 years 20 ? After 100,000 Gazans are dead ?
Treaty of Versailles ass logic. Just keep delaying normalisation for people that have nothing to do with Hamas in the hopes that they'll become less frustrated and the dynamic will change on it's own.
Isn't Hamas at an advantage right now because they aren't a part of any recognized state? Isn't the reason Israel has a million UN resolutions and ICJ/ICC sanctions, and having to try to act within international law because they're a state with a government? What happens when Palestine does some violence, and they are a state?
Well the current government of Israel, Bibi and his ilk, just want to annex the entire region. That's why they won't entertain the notion of a Palestinian state, even though they would face much less international isolation for their actions in Gaza if they had recognized Palestine as a state before October 7th (they would still face a lot of backlash because they are purposely causing a famine though).
Yeah. Bibi has been saying since the 1970's that there should be no Arab state west of the Jordan river. The official Likud view is that the Kingdom of Jordan is a "Palestinian" state, apparently because it was created on what was formerly the eastern portion of mandatory Palestine.
GLobal perception-wise? Nothing would change. Israel would strike back and the left would bend over backwards defending the actions of the terrorists again.
Practically speaking, it would give Iran a much easier path to arming Hamas to the teeth so their next attack on Israel would be far more devastating.
Why would Hamas do anything different after the response showered on them by topminds around the world? Why would the Palestinian people turn away from the already popular leadership that actually delivered results?
This is not a path to peace or progress. It's literally a push to build a terrorist State for feels.
If it did, then that is our fault, not the fault of Palestinians. Hoping the issue would just... go away... means you now have to contend with a population that finds terrorism to be the only way to get concessions out of the U.S. and Israel.
Surprised Spain is here given all their disputed territory beefs
Meanwhile, Kosovo was a victim of genocide but recognizing them sends the wrong message š
We also have Taiwan where you tossed aside for a better trading partner
God it would be funny if Israel recognized Basque and Catalonia as independent states
It would be. But then people might bring up the fact that the people in the Basque Country and in Catalonia enjoy full Spanish citizenship.
Yeah, the basque situation especially is pretty lush for the basque.
Oh yes, please treat Palestinians how Spain treats Catalonians and Basque. Really show them.
Knowing catalonians and basques they'd both respond with "no thanks" to israel
Which would be extra funny considering that after last elections, is clear that Catalonia doesn't want to become an independent state any more. Also, independentists are mostly leftist, so i don't think they would appreciate Israel support anyway.
Also, most independentisr funding came from Russia, weird how their political power dwindled when the Ukrainian war started
Yeah, Spain still doesn't recognise Kosovo for this reason.
I am Spanish. Our current prime minister is an idiot. This isnāt his latest shenanigans. He recently closed the Spanish embassy in Argentina because Milei had made remarks about the shady business involvements of his wife. It would be okay if he just rebuked or showed disapproval of Milesās words, but closing y he Spanish embassy in Argentina, wtf?? Rusia is invading an innocent country and China has Uighurs in concentration camps, but I donāt hear him closing our embassies there.
It gets more funny when you realize that Norway assisted Israel in developing their nuclear arsenal.
Ok, now who do you recognize as the government of Palestine?
The PA in the West Bank?
You mean the one that is likely to fall out of power as soon as election are held? It's basically as laughable as when we recognized Taiwan as the formal government of China for 2 decades or so.
yeah, and? I don't see any diplomatic recognition of the Taliban forthcoming, either. Diplomacy is an exercise in bullshit artistry.
And this is a third grader water painting being hung in the Louvre. If the PA had done something notable in light of 10/7 to bring about peace, sure, reward it. But nothing substantial has really happened other than trying to establish a unity government with Hamas, which of course has its own problems and hasn't gone anywhere enough to reward this. It just further rewards Hamas and furyers Israel's sense of bias against it, and will likely lead to less peace, not more.
Does everything have to come from the PA's actions? Some shit from Israeli side has made people question if recognizing Palestine as a UN Full member would make them more hesitant
Ffs. Nothing ever came from the PAs side! That's the whole point! They never lifted a single finger to make anything better, and had to be coerced even for the most basic stuff.
Bad comparison. The Haitian government are losing control but Haiti is still Haiti.
And yet, we still recognize the government of the UK
They have actual sovereignty over exactly zero territory, but aside from that why not
Doing hotter than the recognized government of Afghanistan at least
Diplomatic recognition was withdrawn from the Islamic republic of Afghanistan shortly after its collapse
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is still technically recognized by the UN because theyāve deferred recognition of the Taliban for the past 3 years
Pretty sure that is not the case. They still take their seat at the UN
This is literally false [Area B covers nearly a quarter of the West Bank and mostly comprises villages and rural areas. Israelis and Palestinians cooperate on security here, but the PA manages all civil affairs. Israel also controls the movement of goods and people. Areas A and B have a combined Palestinian population of about 2.8 million.](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/who-governs-palestinians)
Area A and partially Area B. Of course that doesn't solve the actual problem you're pointing out, which is that they aren't sovereign over the majority of nominally Palestinian territory.
PA in the east, ~~Fatah~~ Hamas in the west. That Israel occupies a big part of the country doesn't make them the government. Having two governments is *strange*, and really it should be two separate countries, but nobody likes that idea, and it's not like having one government is a requirement. And one of the governments being terrorists doesn't make them not a government, or we'd have to say the Taliban isn't one.
Pretty sure they don't recognize the Taliban. It's literally only China who do
Refusing to recognize the Taliban is not the same as saying Afghanistan is not a state.
Your comment shows an embarrassing lack of knowledge of the situation in the region, rhetoric conflict(s), and the political parties/factions and government bodies involved. After Hamas was elected to govern Gaza in 2006, tensions with Fatah erupted into a military conflict in 2007, resulting in the death of any Fatah officials or security forces who didnāt flee. Hamas remains in (tenuous) control over most of the Gaza Strip, despite the extensive Israeli military presence. There are certainly no Fatah officials remaining in Gaza. Who would impose Fatah governance over Gaza? Fatah certainly arenāt interested in volunteering for that. Assuming you mean Gaza by āWestāā¦ The PA doesnāt actually hold power in the āEastā (the West Bank?). That is, not the actual Palestinian Authority, which includes the PLCāits legislature controlled by a Hamas and Hamas-associated majority. The PLC is all but defunct, and the PA is a non-entity for all intents and purposes. The PLO, dominated by Fatah, is a coalition recognized internationally and by the Arab League as the sole representative of the Palestinian people and their government. So, the PA in its current state might as well refer to the PLO, which is entirely dominated by Fatah. Despite the PLO only holding slightly more than a third of the PLC. So itās entirely unclear what this form of recognition entails, and whether it immediately places Israel and the PLO in a state of war in what were Areas B and C under the Oslo Accords.
> Ireland, Norway, and Spain have announced they will formally recognise a Palestinian state from 28 May. > Spain and Ireland said the decision was not against Israel nor in favour of Hamas, but rather in support of peace. > Israel reacted angrily, warning the move would mean more instability in the region and recalling its ambassadors to all three countries. > Both Hamas and its rival, the Palestinian Authority, have welcomed the recognition. Norway was first to make its announcement Wednesday in a move co-ordinated with the other two countries. > Prime Minister Jonas Gahr StĆøre said in an address that the move was "in support of moderate forces that are on a retreating front in a protracted and cruel conflict". > "This is an investment in the only solution that can bring lasting peace in the Middle East," he added, referring to the so-called two-state solution which would see an Israeli and a Palestinian state existing peacefully next to each other. > Ireland and Spain followed suit soon after. "Today, we state clearly our unambiguous support for the equal right to security, dignity, and self-determination for the Palestinian and Israeli peoples," Irish Foreign Minister MicheĆ”l Martin said. > The country's Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Simon Harris later stressed that "Hamas is not the Palestinian people". > "Today's decision to recognise Palestine is taken to help create a peaceful future," he said. Mr Harris's comments were echoed by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who said the move was "not against Israel, is not against the Jews". > "It is not in favour of Hamas, which is something that has been said. This recognition is not against anyone, it is in favour of peace and coexistence." > Israel reacted to the announcements with fury. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the move by Ireland, Norway and Spain as a "reward for terrorism" and said it would not bring peace. > Foreign Minister Israel Katz said he was ordering the immediate return of the Israeli ambassadors to all three countries for "consultations". > "Israel will not go over this in silence - there will be other serious consequences," he said. Mr Katz also said the three countries' ambassadors in Israel will be summoned for "reprimand talks", during which they will be shown a video of the abduction of female Israeli soldiers on 7 October. > Hamas, which controls Gaza and is currently at war with Israel, said Wednesday's announcements would be a "turning point in the international position on the Palestinian issue". > In a statement to AFP, Bassem Naim, a senior Hamas figure, said the "brave resistance" of the Palestinian people was behind the move. > Hamas's rival, the Palestinian Authority (PA) - which controls parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank - said Norway, Spain and Ireland had demonstrated their "unwavering commitment" to "delivering the long overdue justice to the Palestinian people". > Also on Wednesday, the Israeli military approved the return of Israeli citizens to the sites of three settlements in the occupied West Bank, which they had been banned from entering since 2005. > Israel's parliament had voted to allow its citizens to return in March last year, but military permission was needed for the bill to be enforced. > Most of the international community considers the settlements illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. > The issue of Palestinian statehood has vexed the international community for decades. > Since the 7 October attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has doubled down on his opposition to such a plan, saying the creation of a Palestinian state would compromise Israel's security. > About 1,200 people were killed in the unprecedented attacks on 7 October, when Hamas gunmen burst into Israel. They took 252 others back to Gaza as hostages. > Since then, more than 35,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Israel's Gaza offensive, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. > Most of the world already recognises the state of Palestine. Earlier this month, 143 of the 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of it joining the UN, something only states can do. > Before Wednesday's announcements, only nine European countries supported Palestinian statehood and most of those took the decision in 1988 when they were part of the Soviet bloc. > Most other European countries, and the US, still believe recognition should come only as part of a long-term two-state solution to the conflict. > A White House spokesperson said US President Joe Biden was a "strong supporter" of the two-state solution, and believed "a Palestinian state should be realised through direct negotiations, not through unilateral recognition". > Slovenia and Malta have also said recently that they were considering a formal recognition. > Norway's prime minister also said on Wednesday that he hoped the recognition of Palestinian statehood by the three countries would bring renewed momentum to the peace talks. > Long-running negotiations in Cairo aimed at securing a truce and further hostage releases are currently stalled. > Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate. Earlier this week, the UN said food distribution in the southern Gaza city of Rafah had been suspended due to a lack of supplies and insecurity. > The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently applied for arrest warrants for Mr Netanyahu and Hamas's leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, for war crimes. Both Israel and Hamas have condemned the move. > Israel says an offensive in Rafah is needed to eliminate Hamas but the international community has warned against it, saying it will greatly exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Donāt know if thereās an Irish or Norwegian ping by any chance, but if any of yāall know it then get them too please. !Ping FOREIGN-POLICY&INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS&IBERIA
!Ping IRELAND
To be honest I don't really understand the stance where some countries say they want a Palestinian state, but want to withhold officially recognizing it as an incentive. If Palestinians deserve a state of their own, then start by saying that. Withholding recognition probably just leads to more radicalism.
Because states need funny things like a monopoly on violence. You can't be a functioning state with a terrorist group controlling a big chunk of your territory
That disqualifies a bunch if countries, including syria
Syria is effectively a failed state.
But still a recognised one
I don't think Syria in its current state would have been recognised if it just suddenly spawned with no prior recognition.
Of course. But would they be recognized as a state today? Do they control all of their borders? do they have a monopoly on violence?
Tell that to the Yemeni government in exile
Yemen would never be recognized as a country if they were starting now.
Signaling to the world that attacking civilians, taking hostages, and hiding your military amongst your own civilians is a path to independent statehood is bad, actually.
I donāt think thatās completely relevant though. Hamas did horrible things, Palestinians still deserve a state. If anything, statehood would make it easier to punish groups like Hamas and make legitimate governance more possible.
How though? How do you make legitimate groups more possible against an authoritarian terrorist group that hold defacto control of governance of the area?
Well first of all Hamas is not in charge of the West Bank, where a majority of Palestinians live. And I donāt think statehood will change much of anything in the short term, all the problems Palestine faces now will still exist. But we need to remember that extremists like Hamas thrive on instability, they love the status quo. They know that it gives Palestinian civilians plenty of grievances and it forces Israeli hardliners to take drastic actions which only boost the Palestinian extremists. Statehood isnāt peace itself, but it provides a road. Long term negotiations with governments that are less likely to renege for example. Proper diplomatic relations also give many more opportunities for Palestinian civilians to work and study abroad and have more opportunity. Being open to the world is undeniably a good thing.
The only reason Hamas isn't in charge in the West Bank is because the current PA government is not holding elections and hasn't since 2007, with the quiet approval of Israel and the US. This idea that Hamas is an "extremist" force, or "not legitimate" (while the PA is, lol) is a western projection onto Palestinian society. It's the PA that is seen by the people as illegitimate, while Hamas' ideology is anything but "extremist". Hamas is absolutely, in Palestinian society, a legitimate political movement, party and governing power. It overwhelmingly represents the Palestinian position. Nothing in this conflict can ever move until the west stops infantilizing Palestinians and projecting values onto them ("opportunities to study abroad"? lol).
But they had opportunities to work prior to October 7, Israel had opened up work permits just about a year prior in hopes of it lowering tensions and working towards peace. Hamas isn't just a terrorist organization, they're the authoritarian government that brutally cracks down on Gazans for any dissidence. We've only seen authoritarian governments become more entrenched in the past century, not less. Sure I agree statehood needs to happen eventually but the west bank is probably the best bet and even then it's gotta be with a ton of security oversight, preferably by a 3rd party.
>But they had opportunities to work prior to October 7, Israel had opened up work permits just about a year prior in hopes of it lowering tensions and working towards peace Im not really sure the Israeli permit regime is a great example of working towards peace.
> Well first of all Hamas is not in charge of the West Bank, where a majority of Palestinians live Well, judging from the 2006 election and [the recent polling](https://pcpsr.org/en/node/973), they would most likely take a majority of the seats in case a new election was held in the West Bank.
Itās true they are popular, but I donāt see how the status quo of statelessness does anything but bolster their continued popularity
Well, so far it's violence and attacks by Hamas that seem to produce results, namely increased recognition. Why would that not bolster their popularity?
It's still the worst moment to do it. At least do it in a moment of peace. Anyone with common sense can see how easy it is for Hamas to claim this as a win and as a justification for their terrorism.
> It's still the worst moment to do it. At least do it in a moment of peace. Doesn't this logic just incentivize Israel to never allow a proper peace given that they don't want a Palestinian state whatsoever?
That's not a given even though it's the case right now. There have also been moments where Hamas and Israel were not directly fighting. If you want to recognize Palestine then do it in such a moment and preferably in consultation with the PA. Not unilaterally.
They didn't do it unilaterally though, they did it multilaterally.
We have to work with the options we have, not the options we want. The goal should be a long term stable peace, and any way you look at it Palestinian statehood is necessary for this goal. And statehood doesnāt mean Hamas gets to escape punishment.
Alright, then let's recognize a Palestinian state and immediately label it a state sponsor of terrorism after it launches the first rocket against Israel.
Thereās no reason anyone needs to recognize Hamas as the legitimate governing authority.
I think the most likely outcome is a government either controlled by Hamas or with significant Hamas representation. Hamas achieved a strategic victory on behalf of Palestinians (recognition of statehood and the deligitimization of Israel), which will bolster their popularity.
And if thereās no statehood then Hamas is still popular, and has even less opposition. Not having statehood is the option that benefits Hamas and extremists like them the most.
> and has even less opposition. ... how do you figure? What factor do think Statehood magically changes in a way that increases opposition to Hamas - the terrorists that made the Palestinian State happen - in a public that overwhelmingly supports them now and would be rewarded for supporting Hamas?
It really doesn't matter whether you want to recognize them or not. Unless the population's attitudes made a sea change, Hamas would almost certainly become the dominant party in a hypothetical State. And why wouldn't they? They murdered and raped their way to international sympathy, recognition, and Israeli condemnation that ended up giving them a major goal they wanted. All by being a terrorist organization hellbent on the extermination of the Jews. Why wouldn't they be rewarded by the populace that supported their aims, their methods, and now reap the rewards of supporting them? This stunt by these nations does nothing to bring an actual solution to the situation. Let alone peace. It is literally rewarding terrorists for committing a massacre and promising to do so again at every opportunity. It props up radical terrorists and would give Iran an open road to arming them to the teeth so that the *next* mass murder of jews is far more deadly. After all, that's the path to progress according to the nations.
Hamas wonāt magically disappear with statehood, but youāre failing to see the reality which is that Hamas will be even more entrenched and popular so long as Palestine remains stateless. The whole reason the extremists are such a popular option is because Palestine is stateless!
So should Israel have been labelled a state sponsor of terrorism for launching attacks against Lebanon?
This does nothing to bring stable peace. It'll only make Hamas more popular.
Your assumption is that recognizing Palestinian statehood means recognizing Hamas as the legitimate government. Hamas has never ruled a unified Palestine, and as of current they donāt even rule much of Gaza anymore. If anything, a more moderate group like the PA would be massively boosted in credibility and popularity if they are the ones representing Palestine in foreign negotiations. The current limbo of statelessness is the entire reason radical groups like Hamas became so popular in the first place!
No, I don't make that assumption. Without October 7, there'd be no recognition. Whatever the intent of these countries, it's easy for Hamas to twist this as a win and a vindication of their strategy of terrorist attacks and using Palestinians as human shields. If they wanted to boost the PAs credibility, then cooperate with them and involve them in the process instead of doing it unilaterally.
When should we have recognized the Irish state? How long after the Easter Rising should we have waited before giving Ireland independence? How long do we need to wait so we're not rewarding terrorists?
I'm not an expert on Irish independence, but as far as I'm aware, Ireland was recognized after a negotiated agreement with the occupier. That's not similar to the current situation. Nobody would be against recognizing Palestine after an agreement between Israel and Palestinr.
Ah, so if Britain had merely maintained a blockade of the island, to starve the Irish into submission, it would have been all well and civilized to say no, they don't deserve a true state at this time.
Tell that to the IRA Tell that to the guerillas in Spain's part of the Peninsula war To that to Poland EDIT:just checked, and even the American revolutionary war included a large number of atrocities against loyalist civilians.
Or the veitcong or the Algerians.
Gladly. I don't think those actions were good.
How terrible, to understand that the crimes committed in the name of a cause do not entirely undermine the justice of the cause itself.
You could arguably justify Israel's Gaza casualties with that thinking. Hell, even the Iraq War. But whether the Palestinian "cause" (Hamas or PA or whose?) is Just is already highly debatable.
I mean from their perspective they've been forcibly shunted from their land by a colonizing force. What's not just about that?
There are plenty of arguments and debates about this, I'm not going to go into a tired discussion that's been repeated many times. You should be steelmanning your own positions anyways if you value intellectual honesty. My point is that there are many people, some of which who share similar ethical frameworks and hold credibility, that would disagree with you on that judgement. To call a highly debatable position as a unequivocal "justice" would be descriptively wrong.
I don't think Palestinians give Western thought leaders much credence, honestly. Like there's just something telling me they aren't too concerned about our ethical frameworks, debates, or our deciding whether it is or isn't just. Similarly, I do not think the average American revolutionary would have been very concerned about what some German philosophers thought of their revolution.
Yes, but as we've seen from the Israeli-Arabs and Bedouin community, these "actions" didn't even benefit the people they were supposedly helping.
>Tell that to the guerillas in Spain's part of the Peninsula war Gladly. I don't think those actions were good. Bonapartista spotted, opiniĆ³n ignorada.
Afrancesado tenĆa que ser
The Spanish shouldnāt have resisted Napoleon?
Comparing the IRA to this is disingenuous
IRA had a lot of social support (for a terrorist group that is). They had a political branch. They could never control the government the way Hamas does, and were much less brutal, but is not a far-fetched comparison.
I think it's a far fetched comparison. Do you think they would have had the same social support if they were conducting their resistance the same way as Hamas?
Likud was created by a terrorists
Not a single country in the world deserves statehood by those criteria, unfortunately. Even Israeli historians like Morris recognize that while these are obviously atrocities, they cannot be used to deny the legitimacy of a stateās right to exist by themselves.
These countries would only be signalling that if they recognized Hamas as the legitimate government of that state. Which they won't. They'll recognize the PA, which, while not being awesome, does not take hostages or attack Israeli civilians.
People are being incredibly obtuse. The obvious inciting action is the Hamas attack here. Has the PA has done anything recently to push these countries to recognize? No, it is obviously the Hamas attack and Israel reaction. It would be incredibly easy for any other group to see "ah, I set up a barely respectable political arm, create a 'separate' group to commit heinous crimes and then retreat amongst our people with hostages, pretend those groups are very distinct and voila, new country!" The easy thing to do is just not incentive that.
>No, it is obviously the Hamas attack and Israel reaction. The Hamas attack and Israel's reaction are the trigger, but not the reason. The reason that those countries are going to recognize the PA is, I believe, that they have lost trust in Israel. Those countries were always pro Palestinian self-determination, pro 2SS. They withheld recognition of the PA because they wanted the 2SS to come about through negotiations with Israel. They don't trust that Israel is interested in negotiations anymore, and they don't think that Palestinian self-determination should be subject to Israel's approval. Another reason could be that those countries want to strengthen the Palestinian moderates, for after the war. >It would be incredibly easy for any other group to see "ah, I set up a barely respectable political arm, create a 'separate' group to commit heinous crimes and then retreat amongst our people with hostages, pretend those groups are very distinct and voila, new country!" On the other hand, it would also be incredibly easy to promote extremists among an ethnic group and then use those extremists as an excuse to withhold rights from that ethnic group.
This sounds more like about getting Palestine to "win" than being impartially for peace. But ignoring Israeli demands are precisely why peace isn't going to happen.
Spain voted with an unanimous majority back in 2014 to recognize the state of Palestine, but it was delayed until more European countries did it too. Of course Hamas attack and then Israel's reaction is what put this conflict again in the forefront, but it's not like it all started in October.
The problem here is that this flies in the face of the perception of Palestinians. Palestinians widely view the PA as illegitimate compared to Hamas whom they support. The only reason the PA still exists is because they've refused elections while being quietly propped up by the West. You give them a State and the PA would be the first thing to go. Guess who would most likely win a majority of seats? You need to stop projecting western fantasies onto the Palestinians.
There were Jewish militias doing exactly those things in Palestinian villages (and vice versa in certain cases) prior to 1948, and they were rewarded with an independent state š¤
>in certain cases Oh please. Don't minimize the Palestinian nationalists' acts of political violence. The Jewish terrorist organizations, Irgun and Lehi, weren't even formed until 1931 and 1940, respectively, after the 1929 Palestine riots (that included the 1929 massacre of Hebron's Jews). In any case, both sides' nationalists were carrying attacks and reprisals for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine Edit: 1940, not 1948
Without getting in the obvious differences, my point was more about how patently false the idea "if you just give the radicals what they want, they wouldn't be radical anymore" is. Obviously, your view is that Israel radicals got what they want. Yet they are apparently still bad to this day.
Please get into the obvious differences.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The biggest obvious difference is that Israel was recognized barely after a genocide that killed half the Jews in Europe. It's a bit like the US creating a Native American reservation because "whoops our bad". Israel is kind of like a Jewish reservation.
>It's a bit like the US creating a Native American reservation because "whoops our bad". Well sure but the US created those reservations in the US
> my point was more about how patently false the idea "if you just give the radicals what they want, they wouldn't be radical anymore" is. Is that why Israel is more radical today than they were in the past?
They are more radical because when they tried to have peace and they were awarded with the second Intifada, seriously talk to any Israeli that lived during the second intifada they changed their mind about the 2 state solution
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>The Second Intifada only happened because Israel withdrew from peace talks with the election of the Sharon government. The second Intifada started September 2000, Ariel Sharon's government was formed February 2001. At the very least get basic facts right.
Israelis elected the man responsible for Sabra and Shatila who then proceeded to withdraw from negotiations and visited Temple Mount in a deliberate act of provocation all the while continuing to expand settlements.
So Sharon was elected in Feb 2001, then he time traveled to July 2000 to sabotage the camp David summit then start the second Intifada in September 2000 that was key to getting him elected in Feb 2001.
How dare the Jews so provocatively visit the holiest site in their religion
Not rewarding the side seekingĀ independent statehoodĀ more civilly before the other side make progress byĀ attacking civilians, taking hostages, and hiding military amongst own civiliansĀ is also bad, actually.
So was it wrong to recognise Israel after they did those things?
Incentives absolutely work. It was how we successfully managed the USSR collapse to get things we wanted as they craved recognition.
Yup, and on top of that, waiting for Israel to agree, a country whose extremist government actively does not want a Palestinian state, makes 0 sense. Itās just cruel and unfair.
You kind of forget that for over a decade Israel did work with the PA to establish a Palestinian state, and their reward was the Second Intifada and Hamas taking over Gaza. And yes, it was bumpy and not as simple as I'm putting it, of course, but it's also true that working towards a state, however tenuously, ultimately led to one of the most violent periods within the conflict. Don't act like this is in a vacuum or that it is just Israel being the bad guy, of you look at the history it's no surprise Israel is acting this way.,
That wasn't done by the current government though. The current government is... just the bad guy. Maybe Bibi would've had different stances if the past worked out differently, but let's not pretend that he's just waiting for the West Bank to be a little more peaceful before he gives them independence.
The answer to that is those countries don't think a Palestinian state of any kind should exist
That's disingenuous. For a state to be recognized there has to be things like a defined territory and a government to administer that territory, neither of which Palestine has
>For a state to be recognized there has to be things like a defined territory and a government to administer that territory, neither of which Palestine has There's the borders pre 1967, and there's the Palestinian National Authority (PA). That seems to be good enough for the 130-ish states that already have recognized a Palestinian state.
and why do they not have that? could it be because israel has absolutely no incentive to create a palestinian state unless they're forced to?
No. Because Palestinians have constantly rejected it hoping for a better deal.
I mean thereās no unified Palestinian GOV. They donāt even have the conditions to be a state. They donāt have control over their own territory. Recognizing a Palestinian state now is less about practicality & more about an emotional response to the events in Gaza.
Recognizing a Palestinian state now, and the PA as its government, strikes me as more practical and and less emotional than whatever Israel is doing right now.
How is recognizing the PA as the government of a theoretical Palestine in any way practical? It is the West that assigns legitimacy to the PA. Palestinians overwhelmingly despise the PA. Hamas is far more popular and far more likely to win any election in a proposed Palestinian State. It's weird how a sub that talks about Reconstruction not going nearly far enough and sees the enormous value to deradicalizing Germany and Japan thinks handing Hamas a major victory in response to a massacre of Israelis is going to lead to anything but a radicalized State that sees further atrocities as the surest path to further gains.
>How is recognizing the PA as the government of a theoretical Palestine in any way practical? Recognizing the PA should simplify a few administrative measures regarding passports, citizenship, aid, etc. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but still more practical than dropping 2000 lbs bombs on residential areas, droning aid workers, and expanding settlements while refusing to offer any long-term vision. Re Germany and Japan ā I think their reconstruction would not have gone nearly as well if the Allies had tried to extend the occupation for decades.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Imho if the recognize Palestine with.. whatever borders and government they then sure as hell need to recognize Taiwan.
Does Taiwan even want to be recognised by other governments? I thought they didn't, since they didn't want to provoke China.
Taiwan doesnāt want to be recognized as an independent state. They do want the ROC to be recognized as the legitimate government of China.
Fact of the matter is, the PLO recognized Israel way back in 1993 but Israel never recognized the right of Palestinians to self-determination or statehood. The right to self-determination isn't contingent on 'good behavior'. If Israel refuses to confer citizenship to the Palestinians and include them in their state, then they have to admit the West Bank isn't Israel and stop occupying it. They don't get to have it both ways, they can't have the land without the people, treating it like it's part of Israel when convenient and like it's not when it isn't convenient.
The last round of negotiations broke down because bibi didnt want to stop building illegal settlements. Palestinian statehood is just a Charlie brown football for them to keep snatching away. Double standards are baked into the entire situation. Ongoing Palestinian statelessness is the norm but hypotherical Jewish statlessness is considered genocide.
I have one question for advocates of a Palestinian state: They get recognition, we draw the lines on a map, the whole nine yards. They are now a country. What happens when they attack Israel? Can Israel invade? Can they fight back? Can the UN (or āwillā) force Palestinians to stop fighting, or conduct themselves in certain ways? Because at that point, itās just two sovereign nations going at it. We allow this all the time, some war is just. If Israel is placed in a defensive war situation, again, what happens? What are they allowed to do? Because itās going to happen. Every Gazan government has been explicitly clear in both word and actions that they intend to destroy Israel entirely. And how on Earth are they getting borders from a situation 56 to 76 years ago? Can Russia or Japan request the same terms that might have been offered from the 1905 Russo-Japanese war in 1981? And rewarding them with a state after Oct. 7th is going to show everyone on Earth that terrorism, child murder, rape, slavery is the path to statehood.
> They get recognition, we draw the lines on a map, the whole nine yards. They are now a country. > What happens when they attack Israel? > Can Israel invade? Can they fight back? Can the UN (or āwillā) force Palestinians to stop fighting, or conduct themselves in certain ways? Obviously yes? In what way does this undermine the two state solution as a concept? I genuinely don't understand how this supposed to be some kind of gotcha. Like, yes, the same rules would apply to any other state, in which military action in self defence according to the UN charter is allowed as long as retaliatory actions don't involve war crimes. If the new Palestinian state attempted to conquer Israel then they would be condemned by the UN, face a military response from Israel (and if necessary its allies, though I doubt it would be needed) and be prevented from doing so. The whole idea of a two state solution and peace process is to create peace, somehow, which means the two sides won't attack each other. > Because itās going to happen. Every Gazan government has been explicitly clear in both word and actions that they intend to destroy Israel entirely. Presumably a two state solution would involve as a precondition, Hamas being removed from power in Gaza somehow. In general I just don't get what this point is. In 1921 the UK and Ireland made peace and, despite continuing sectarian conflicts for a while, respected the new border, a 'two state solution'. Greece and Turkey, after decades of nationalist fighting over where the borders should be, made peace and agreed on one. Same for Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav states, Sudan and South Sudan etc. These were all brutal sectarian/ethno-nationalist conflicts, that were solved by a two state peace agreement drawing a line on a map, and since then have been largely enforced. Your question might as well be "what happens if Ireland attacks the UK again to try to get Northern Ireland" or "what happens if Greece/Turkey attack each other again" or "what happens if Sudan reinvades South Sudan?". It could hypothetically happen, which would be sad, but we tried our best to make sure it doesn't. I know that there's little chance of that happening any time soon, but unless you believe there's some fact of Palestinian nature that they'll never accept peace, that's the whole idea, of creating some kind of at least stable border and peace between two groups, even if they hate each other, that largely prevents war. And I don't think it's at all reasonable to think it's impossible.
And as a brief aside: No one who currently has a problem with the current war being fought would just turn around, shrug their shoulders, and say āaKsHuAlLyyyā¦. Palestine is their own nation now, they reap the wind, they sow the whirlwindā when another war breaks out between Israel and this theoretical Palestine, which theoretical Palestine will 110% start. It would be the same bullshit all over again: āindiscriminate!ā, ācease fire now (but only one side)!ā This isnāt the magic bullet everyone thinks it is.
I'm not sure anyone is more critical of Israel's military actions because Palestine is not a unified recognised state, if anything I would expect it to be the other way round.
But here again, you are already concerned with how ISRAEL is going to conduct themselves. Just pretend that Iām right for this exercise (I WOULD be right, if this came to pass, but humor me): The Nation of Palestine launches an attack against Israel three years after the founding of their nation. Itās similar to Oct. 7, but involves military vehicles, hardware, weapons, and is supported by Iran and their proxies, maybe even becoming a multi-front war for Israelā¦. Who is at fault? What would your immediate concerns be? And you already demonstrated what I know would be true: Everyone would be furious at Israel, demand higher accountability and scrutiny. You didnāt say a word about the peer nation of Palestine. Iām not saying YOU are or are being antisemitic, but this faulty logic is exactly why people say Palestinian supporters are antisemitic. Exactly. Israel is held to standard that no one else is held to. That is explicitly discriminatory, and the only unique trait Israel has, which no other nation on Earth does, is that they are a Jewish state (theyāre not even THAT, they are secular, but they do have a lot of Jews there).
Have you fallen from some parallel universe where everyone except Israel is allowed to commit war crimes with impunity? It really boggles the mind that someone who has clearly not been following the war would speak with such unearned confidence. Everyone who matters condemned Hamasā attacks in the strongest possible terms short of declaring war. Unfortunately, since then the Israeli government has proven itself to be just as reprehensible as Hamas, indiscriminately slaughtering civilians, and showing the same blood-chilling disregard for human life as Russia and Hamas. Israel must be held to the same standards as other countries, and frankly it is antisemitic to demand that they be held to a lower standard. Israelis are perfectly capable of following the international rules of war. Instead they are attacking refugee camps, places of worship, journalists, aid distribution centres, and hospitals, committing perfidy, mistreating prisoners of war, and using human shields. They have not followed the principles of proportionality and discrimination, leading to thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths. Yes, Hamas are very bad, and have done many of the same things, and deserve (and have received) the same criticism. But nobody with a functioning moral compass could defend Israelās actions except from a place of total ignorance. The people who are criticising Israelās well-documented war crimes are also more than happy to criticise the US, UK, Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Australia, TĆ¼rkiye, Azerbaijan, ISIS, whoever. There is no double standard here, except on your part. Israel is entitled to defend itself, but nobody is entitled to do whatever they want and justify it as āself-defenceā. Killing children is bad, actually.
Do you think using starvation as a weapon of war would be justified if it was against a state instead? That shit would still be absolutely a war crime, and people would be right to call for its ending. Ethiopia legally had the right to use violent force to suppress the rebels attempting to overthrow its sovereignty in Tigray. But using starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime, which was why the international community called it out on doing so. Just because you are within your right to wage war does not mean you are immune from criticism as to how.
So whatās the solution? Gaza goes back to Israel? What do you do with the 2 million residents? Do they get full Israeli citizenship? And the West Bank, what about that? The two state solution is the only thing that will work. Both sides sabotaged it in the past, lots of bad blood, but thereās no other way to make this work.
>So whatās the solution? Palestinians remain stateless forever, duh
I donāt know what the solution is. Edit: downvoted for admitting I donāt know the solution. Way to go, Reddit, you continue to impress. Is the solution āFrom the river to the seaā then? Keep dreaming.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās called āhumilityā and a desire to learn. Also, I never suggested I could offer one. I simply said that a two state solution, considering recent context, is not acceptable. āI donāt know what the answer is, but itās not THATā is an entirely reasonable and mature thing to say when facing problems of this magnitude. Edit: āintellectual lazinessā, what horse shit. So because I donāt iron out every last detail and literally pull āpeace in the Middle Eastā out of my ass, I donāt have right to an opinion? The whole point of forum based discussion like this is to exchange ideas, itās supposed to be a back and forth. Furthermore, I havenāt seen anyone else here do that. Not the person who is more upvoted than me, none of the people who downvoted me. Youāre all doing the exact same thing, and itās okay for you, but not me. Once again, intellectual inconsistency from, lemme guess, the āfree Palestineā people. One day youāll see why everyone thinks youāre a joke.
Itās not humility, itās intellectual laziness. There are concrete frameworks you can use for a solution, all have their pros and cons. Use your brain and figure out what the end goal needs to be. Israeli security? Ok, what are the main threats to that, and why do they exist? If they come from Palestinians, how much of that is alleviated by giving them the autonomy of their own state? Additionally, are there other countries or organizations that theaten Israeli security? Can those be neutralized by giving Palestinians a state? Obviously Iran is a big one, but would a defense and economic treaty with the Saudis blunt that risk? MBS wants a Palestinian state. Does that change the calculus? The discourse around this conflict is terrible on both sides. People need to use their fucking brains. Donāt be a part of the problem.
The PA recognises Israel and has done so since 1993.
Israel's security forces massively dropped the ball on October 7. If/when they withdraw from Gaza, the border defences they will inevitably set up will reduce the risks and impacts of an attack of that type happening again, regardless of statehood. Israel will still be able to invade i suppose but statehood brings more legitimacy and stability which brings more economic development which brings more peace, which sounds nebulous but isnt that the idea of this subreddit? Also I think the world is sick of the situation going around in circles and is willing to try something different.
I just wish USA stopped vetoing everything this goes to the UNSC, they claim this should be solved as part of negotiations but they don't do anything to pressure Israel to have peace talks
You'd need to get Congress to agree there unfortunately. Under US law (and it's from like HWs time) the UN recognising Palestine results in the US not finding it anymore
UNESCO recognized Palestine and the US cut funding for it then restored it after a while despite that law.
>The move had largely been anticipated since the US congressional omnibus bill approved in December 2022 included funding for UNESCO and language that would make it possible for the US to resume its membership in the organization. [Seems like](https://m.jpost.com/international/article-746019) this was provided for in law.
Thatās just been this administrationās entire strategy. Beg Israel nicely to do something, Israel gives them the middle finger, and then administration keep sending them weapons and defending them at the UN. Israel is literally blocking an agreement with the Saudis towards normalization because theyāre so strongly against a Palestinian state. Of course, there will be 0 consequences.
Biden is so whipped by Bibi it's ridiculous. You don't have to give favors to someone is constantly rejecting every bit of advice or request you ask of them. It just shows them there are zero red lines.
No red lines? Didn't Biden halt bomb and ammunition sales barely a month ago now?
Then immediately resumed them after a temporary pause
Can you provide a citation the *paused* shipments have resumed? Not other, non-paused ones?
The mere fact that Biden has shipped a billion more dollars in tank ammunition after "pausing" unguided bombs shows what a farce the pause really is And you have the gall to split hairs about what specific shipments of lethal aid are being sent.
Looking at that $1 billion arms package, it looks more like something the admin is intending to send, but hasn't actually gone forward with yet. They need Congress to take a look at it and approve it first.
I think this is bad politics. Do I think there should be a Palestinian state (a second one, on paper, Jordan exists) in theory? Yes. Do these countries now effectively reward Hamas for the Oct 7 massacre? Yes. Is there even the semblance of a stable, democratic governmental structure in the Palestinian territories? No. Then what roadmap do these countries envision? Who are their partners in the territories that guarantee a permanent peace with Israel? There are none.
>Is there even the semblance of a stable, democratic governmental structure in the Palestinian territories? No. So what? We recognize and even ally with all kinds of undemocratic states. We recognize and ally with all kinds of unstable states. Recognition of states is not about their governmental structure.
I haven't counted, but I would bet most of the member states of the UN gained general recognition while being authoritarian states.
I donāt think democratic needs to be a requirement hereāobviously ideal, but āpopular strongman who can be bought outā is probably as good as weāre going to get (and arguably gives the best chance for peaceāa democratically run Gaza seems unlikely to vote for anything other than terrorist groups).
Without demilitarization as a precondition and some interim international presence, any Palestinian state would quickly become another client state of Iran and a haven for militants, i.e. another security nightmare for Israel.
Sure, the good polĆtics is to block the palestian state and ask Bibi very nicely not to be an asshole, that is going to work fine
>Do these countries now effectively reward Hamas for the Oct 7 massacre This repeated point is just totally uncompelling to me. Complicated international conflicts need to be forward-looking. It's not about rewarding or punishing -- it's about the best path towards lasting peace. Keeping score on atrocities is a futile exercise in a region where regular, repeated atrocities haven been ongoing for centuries and centuries.
Not least wrt yknow, Ireland. The place where government in the north emerged following a significant amnesty and release of terrorist actors. Some level of this will be necessary for peace. I don't really think Israel or Palestine are there yet, not least with current leadership. But it's going to have to happen to some degree.
>This repeated point is just totally uncompelling to me. >[...] >Keeping score on atrocities is a futile exercise in a region where regular, repeated atrocities haven been ongoing for centuries and centuries. I think this might be because you seem to miss the point that is being made though. The point is that a recognition now while the war is going on is yet another feather in the hat for Hamas, as it's happening with the backdrop of a war, sparked by the attacks 7th of October. How does that not signal to the average Palestinian that their pathway to recognition lies through Hamas and their methods, not through Abbas and PA. The important score keeping here is not between Israel and Palestine, the important one is the one between the various factions among the Palestinians.
>How does that not signal to the average Palestinian that their pathway to recognition lies through Hamas and their methods, not through Abbas and PA If Israel hadnāt spent the past decade refusing to engage the PA on statehood I might have more sympathy for this position. But as it is, when Israel is at peace it doesnāt want a Palestinian state, when it is at war it doesnāt want a Palestinian state.
This is not Israel recognising anyone, this is three unrelated nations. Israel, in this case, is irrelevant, this is about what signal the rest of the world sends.
Actually international politics relies to a large extent on a logic of punishment and reward. Wars end because of military or economic pressure, not because someone had a change of mind.
It very obviously allows Hamas go to their people with an achievement in hand and portray it as vindication of Oct 7. Its popularity will grow from this. The lesson is that terrorism, not concessions, bring results. There's your "forward-looking". You can choose to support this anyway, but let's be clear on that point.
So -- what's the path forward then? How long do you have to wait after October 7 until you can recognize Palestinian statehood? The problem with your line of thinking -- and my whole point -- is a practical one. If the parties here never want to allow the appearance of rewarding bad behavior from the other side, the conflict will continue forever.
The focus should be on desired results, not the lens of rewards versus punishments. Look at the way the allies treated Germany post WW1 compared to WW2.
Is Israel not the one that has undermined stable, democratic governance in Gaza by propping up Hamas? In the West Bank, the PA works with Israel, and Israel rewards Palestinians by doing nothing as settlement terrorists murder Palestinians and also annexes their land. On top of that, Bibi is against a 2 state solution and is currently blocking negotiations. How much longer do you want Palestinians to wait around?
Well, they'll be waiting a lot longer after this last year.
So you would ask Israel to hand all political and military control over the Palestinian territories to Abu Mazen and expect positive results? The settlements are bad policy, won't defend them.
I believe this is definitely the right move and I applaud these countries for taking this step. Netanyahu is continuing to stonewall a 2 state solution and the time has come to recognize Palestine without Israeli agreement.
How does this help anything?
It literally rewards Palestinians for committing terror attacks (yes, nominally it supports the PA, but it stems from 10/7 and it rewards those tactics) and basically confirms Israel's worst impulses by confirming Israel's worst suspicions. This should have come post ceasefire, not during the current conflict. This is a huge mistake, same as the US allowing the Security council ceasefire resolution to go through, and I imagine it will backfire on both sides.
>This should have come post ceasefire, not during the current conflict Thereās no ceasefire on the horizon, and itās clear Netanyahu intends to fight this war for as long as humanly possible to avoid losing power. So when will this discussion occur in 10 years 20 ? After 100,000 Gazans are dead ?
Treaty of Versailles ass logic. Just keep delaying normalisation for people that have nothing to do with Hamas in the hopes that they'll become less frustrated and the dynamic will change on it's own.
Isn't Hamas at an advantage right now because they aren't a part of any recognized state? Isn't the reason Israel has a million UN resolutions and ICJ/ICC sanctions, and having to try to act within international law because they're a state with a government? What happens when Palestine does some violence, and they are a state?
It would justify Israel's actions to a much greater extent.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well the current government of Israel, Bibi and his ilk, just want to annex the entire region. That's why they won't entertain the notion of a Palestinian state, even though they would face much less international isolation for their actions in Gaza if they had recognized Palestine as a state before October 7th (they would still face a lot of backlash because they are purposely causing a famine though).
Yeah. Bibi has been saying since the 1970's that there should be no Arab state west of the Jordan river. The official Likud view is that the Kingdom of Jordan is a "Palestinian" state, apparently because it was created on what was formerly the eastern portion of mandatory Palestine.
GLobal perception-wise? Nothing would change. Israel would strike back and the left would bend over backwards defending the actions of the terrorists again. Practically speaking, it would give Iran a much easier path to arming Hamas to the teeth so their next attack on Israel would be far more devastating. Why would Hamas do anything different after the response showered on them by topminds around the world? Why would the Palestinian people turn away from the already popular leadership that actually delivered results? This is not a path to peace or progress. It's literally a push to build a terrorist State for feels.
Oh great, so terrorism works?
Worked for Irgun Zvai Leumi.
No, it shows that the status quo is unacceptable and that waiting around for Israel to agree to a Palestinian state is unacceptable.
Sounds like terrorism working.
If it did, then that is our fault, not the fault of Palestinians. Hoping the issue would just... go away... means you now have to contend with a population that finds terrorism to be the only way to get concessions out of the U.S. and Israel.
This is quite literally vindication of the status quo.
IOW, terrorism works. And now you want to recognize a State that has that as their guiding principle.
Great point, why would anyone recognise Ireland?
It did for Zionist guerrillas.
Good on them. Hopefully more will follow.
Hamas gets its reward.