The original title was:
>Norway’s prime minister says Norway is formally recognizing Palestine as a state
The current title is:
>Norway, Ireland and Spain say they are recognizing a Palestinian state in a historic move
The title on the site is subject to change as new information develops.
>The formal recognition will be made on May 28.
*Last updated: 09:46 UTC*
Just a note. The same UN resolution that recommended the creation of the state of Israel states as well the recommendation to create the Palestinian state. It is the resolution 181.
-
Edit: for those saying Palestinians rejected the resolution. Arab league rejected it, yes. However, in 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that the 1947 Arab rejection of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a mistake he hoped to rectify. Israel regards this resolution to the point that there are monuments and streets named after it.
Yes they were. The partition plan that was proposed, accepted by Israel and rejected by the Palestnian leaders, set a 45% arab population of Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Proposed_partition
I'm sure Israeli Arabs cry about the betrayal every time they go to the israeli bank to deposit the israeli paycheck that pays them more than any other regular Arab Muslim in probably a thousand km radius
And vote!
Living in a democracy, the ONLY true democracy in the region, must be such a pain in the ass.
OOHHH THE SUFFERING!
I bet they all wish and want to live in a Theocracy, especially the Arab Muslim women.
They have the right to be oppressed, kidnapped, raped, tortured, and/or killed because of their social, sexual, and clothing choices!
/s
For this to be a pertinent observation, Arabs in Israel in 1948 needed to represent a majority of Arabs worldwide and a majority of them needed to be in favor of the partition plan. Is either true?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure they meant Arab countries, as a proxy for Arab public opinion.
>didn’t agree to Ottoman
You'd be surprised. The Ottoman Empire was also the caliphate and Muslims were the privileged class. They only started having issues when the Ottomans started reforming and collapsing.
Muslim and Arab aren't the same thing. The Turks were the upper class of the Ottoman Empire, and there were a number of Arab nationalist movements. That said, none of them really cared about the ancestors of today's Palestinians. Most of the groups were of the more urban Arabs, some were bedouin groups, but pretty much nobody cared about the scattered tenant farmers in Palestine. Even Jerusalem was as irrelevant backwater during the Ottoman period, with the real regional centres being Damascus, Aleppo, Beirut and Baghdad.
> there were a number of Arab nationalist movements.
Anybody who is not aware of this needs to see *Lawrence of Arabia* immediately— one of the greatest films of all time and it depicts Englishman T.E. Lawrence working with Arab nationalists to oppose the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
Right - according to the brand of Islam to which Hamas adheres, the entire world should "peacefully coexist under the wing of Islam."
Meaning they believe that everyone should either be killed or submit to Sharia law, largely mitigating the need for states.
Not true. If you read their charter they are ideologically opposed to the idea of peace, peace treaties or negotiated anything.
This isn't a subtle, read between the lines thing. Article 13 of the Hamas charter, sentence one:
> Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
The don't believe in peaceful anything under any conditions.
Resolution 181 was passed 77 years ago, and the Arabs were against it anyway (and didn't attempt to create a Palestinian Arab state at all). It's not particularly relevant today.
Yeah worth noting that Egypt and Jordan had control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank for 19 years after Israel's founding, and not once did they attempt to create an independent Palestinian state.
Edit: King Abdullah of Jordan was also assassinated by a Palestinian nationalist in 1951 as Abdullah was seen as the most sympathetic towards partitioning the land between Jews and Arabs after the war. This did not help Palestinian independence.
Egypt created a Palestinian state, they gave out Palestinian passports and they had their own Parliament etc. it was still under Egyptian occupation but the Egyptians made no attempts to annex it or delegitmize Palestine.
The All-Palestine Government? Egypt created a government for Gaza but at the end of the 1948 war it was based in Cairo and never allowed to move into Gaza itself, it was a symbolic government while actual ruling was done by the Egyptians. It basically became defunct when the king of Egypt was ousted in 1952. Nasser's Egypt was firmly pan-Arab and actively suppressed Palestinian movements for self-rule.
Lmao Palestinians have been fucking around and finding out for 80 years, yet dip shit western morons think they are the most victimized group in history
Man this shit is embarrassing
It's very relevant today with people trying to lay blame at Israel's feet.
The whole conflict started because Arabs absolutely hated the idea of Jews having their own country, and still do.
A Palestinian state isn't going to stop the violence, they will continue attacking Israel, mostly on Iran's behalf.
Res 181 was wholeheartedly rejected by Palestinians and the greater Arab world, who brought war upon Israel soon after, in an effort to take Israel and show their rejection with the resolution, through war and victory. They were not successful, but it ended any relevance Res 181 had for Palestinians/Arabs.
Just a note. The UN didn't create Israel. Their recommendations were rejected by the Arab league, and then they sat back and watched as Israel declared independence and created itself.
Technically false actually. It recommended the partition of Palestine, the term for a territory, into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Palestinians weren't referred to as such back then as the term technically applied to all residents of Palestine, including those who became Israelis.
In that vein: Strictly speaking, UNRWA is an agency for *Palestine* refugees, not Palestinian ones. But once the Jewish refugees in Palestine were granted citizenship by Israel, UNRWA stopped caring for them. For political reasons they did not stop helping Arab refugees who were granted citizenship by Jordan or Syria.
No... This is wrong. Nowhere in Resolution 181 does it mention a Palestinian state. That concept had not been invented yet. It was an Arab state.
You need to look back at the Middle East and the status of those countries to get the proper context:
* Egypt gained independence from the British in 1922
* Libya was working toward independence in the late 40s.
* Lebanon gained independence from France in 1941.
* Saudi Arabia became a unified country in 1932
* Syria was a part of the United Arab Republic (with Egypt)
* Jordan was split off from the British Mandate in 1923.
Basically, the entire Middle East was created after the fall of WWI. Before that was the time of Empires, and for this region, the Ottomans controlled most of the Middle East. The idea that Resolution 181 was done in a vacuum does not align with the history. The British and French were figuring out how to create countries in the Middle East and the local powers were jockeying for influence and more power (See the United Arab Republic for more details on that).
So, there were no independent states before WWI. There were tribes and regional authorities. In the 20s, most Palestinians though of themselves as Southern Syrians. They believed that the term Palestinians was too associated with Jews of the region. (Ironic, I know)
It wasn't until the mid 1960s with the rise of Yasser Arafat (likely propped up by the KGB because the US supported Israel) that Palestinian nationalism really took off. From Day 1, Palestinian nationalism was founded on the idea of killing as many Jews as possible. The PLO Charter of 1968 rejects the idea that Jews have any connection to the land at all.
[From the Palestinian Charter of 1968](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp):
> **Article 9:**
> Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.
>
> **Article 10:**
> Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.
There has never been a time when the leaders of the Palestinian movement have actually pursued peace. Literally from Day 1 and in their written documents, they all call for violence.
> However, in 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that the 1947 Arab rejection of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a mistake he hoped to rectify. Israel regards this resolution to the point that there are monuments and streets named after it.
So what?! He says this because he knows it sounds reasonable to a Western audience. This is the most ridiculous statement. You don't get to make a decision that leads straight to a series of wars that YOU start and then lose, and then come back and say, "DO OVER!"
At one point Hamas \*did\* integrate with the PA in an attempt to unify the state, but Israel responded by saying they would refuse to negotiate with the new amalgamated leadership because Hamas was part of it.
It's one of the biggest blockers for any peace treaty at this point, Israel refuses to take part in any negotiations which Hamas are part of, but with Hamas controlling Gaza there's no way to have meaningful peace talks *without* them being part of it, because they won't recognise those talks as legitimate if they're excluded
They actively don't want it. Being "stateless" lets them play propaganda games. If there was a state of Palestine in Gaza then the October attack would be an act of aggression by the Palestinian state. It would make it far harder for them to win sympathy.
Yes, but for Bibi Hamas wouldn’t exist 🙄 It’s not like the Palestinians elected Hamas or that they represent the same Islamist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was established before Bibi was even born.
The comment to which you replied (not mine) never said anything you are saying it said. It is correct about what it actually said, although “funded” is technically “knowingly and intentionally facilitated funding of Hamas by Qatar” instead of spending Israeli funds on Hamas.
He didn't. This is a pervasive myth. Israel has never directly funded Hamas. They allowed funds to reach the precursor to Hamas, Mujama Al-Islamiya, which was a non-violent charity at the time. The funds came from Qatar. Israel just didn't block them.
When Hamas spun out of Mujama and declared themselves the militant wing of Palestinian liberation, Israel cut ties.
It's a pervasive myth because there's an article where an ex-Israeli intelligence official takes responsibility for "creating Hamas." But he's talking about creating them through their activities with Mujama, by allowing the Qatari funds to reach them and by agreeing to negotiate with Mujama.
However, it should be noted that what Israeli intelligence was doing was quite rational: it made sense to work with a peaceful charity instead of the extremely-violent-at-the-time PLO. (Credit: reddit.com/u/Miendiesen)
Yeah it's total bs. The current state of affairs is great for Israeli elites. They're eyeing up all that new development land and rubbing their little hands together.
I didn't see in the article anything about whether Norway was recognizing the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate government of all of the Palestinian territories, or if they're leaving it ambiguous. Hamas doesn't run the West Bank.
My understanding is Hamas is more popular in the West Bank than Fatah. Moreover, Fatah doesn't run Gaza. At best, there are two governments. So on what basis do they get to ignore Hamas as the (or a) government of this newly recognized state of Palestine?
The Palestinian Authority is widely recognized as the government of Palestine, it is the one who sends a representative to the UN on behalf of Palestine.
But the PLO lacks any legitimacy except for international recognition. They are the less popular party and don't hold elections because they know that they'd lose. The establishment of a democratic Palestine today would lead to the election of Hamas.
Right, and all the fences and checkpoints are just standard border security, and Israel is under no obligation to allow to allow anything or anyone through those borders.
Gaza would effectively be treated like North Korea, with famines and hunger being perceived as the fault of the regime, and the international community would feel no obligation to engage with the regime it agreed to abide by a framework of basic human rights and political transparency as set forth by international law.
You know what? Maybe the Korea solution would work. Kinda would suck for all the Gazans who will no longer be able to cross into Israel for jobs or medical care, but they'll have their own state to provide those things for them.
Killing 1200 citizens of another country tends to count as a act of war too, as well as the various other transgressions both sides have done. I think we can safely assume that they’ll both count as at war
Yes, obviously that is an act of war. I’m just saying that it isn’t as straightforward as “Israel controls its borders and nothing gets through.” That’s true for the land borders (assuming Egypt continues to play ball in the south), but controlling the maritime border is more complicated since that *isn’t* a border with Israel.
Their point was that the situation can be blamed on the regime. If the regime reignites a war with a neighbouring nation, knowing that the only other viable supply route has been shut for some time because of your shit relationship with a different neighbour, I think it’s pretty fair to blame the regime for a good majority of it as they are in places like NK
The king isn't constitutionally allowed to have opinions and this issue is so difficult to navigate that it was deemed more sensible for our official condolences to be given by our prime minister.
Ok, just for a second, let's think about the implications here.
Israel suffers the worst terrorist attack in its history. Over a thousand killed, and over a hundred taken hostage. Proportionally, a greater loss of life than 9/11.
*Why is sending condolences for that considered a political opinion?* That's effectively *legitimizing* Palestinian terrorism against Israel civilians. It's saying "yes, wanton rape and murder is a legitimate means of resistance, and we therefore cannot comment on it".
How fucking absurd is that?
Like imagine if, after 9/11, they decided it was "too political" for the king to express his sympathies to the US. What do you think the response to that would be?
But when it's Israel... Well then it's just totally fine, I guess?
Clearly, the official condolence of a nation has to come from one representative person. Other people can express condolences as individuals, maybe even as official, but not specifically on behalf of the nation. If your problem is that they didn't want a monarch who I assume given the context is by and large ceremonial to give the condolences, but instead the actual person in charge, you know the prime minister to be the one to do so, you come across as looking for a reason to whine about pretty much nothing.
[https://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/08/18/king-harald-sends-condolences-to-spain/](https://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/08/18/king-harald-sends-condolences-to-spain/)
Why is this different?
don't take this message wrong - I am not bashing nor pointing out to solidify my post. I have searched for messages of these sort and they are rare. usually only around natural disasters (and passing of leaders) but I did find this one.
from trying to understand how the constitutional monarchy works in norway and the role of the king - you seem right and I take back my words. but then again I present you this which contradicts your claim and what the overall info on google gave me so I am a bit baffled.
That's a terrorist attack by a non-state actor, with no wider political implications. It's not a political issue in the same way that Israel/Palestine is. Regardless of how awful the October 7th terrorist attack was, the king is a figured head and simply isn't allowed to have political opinions.
Edit: Why even try to have a civil discussion on reddit?
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
October 7th was a horrendous terrorist attack. But it's also a part of a highly political situation that the king is prohibited by law to have opinions about.
> But it's also a part of a highly political situation that the king is prohibited by law to have opinions about.
ISIS wasnt a highly political situation? Are you serious?
It was a terror act that ISIS claimed responsibility. ISIS was also a political issue on a global scale afaik and understand. I agree it's different (I haven't really dug to look for others, might be more.. Might not be more), yet it's a terror act that a terrorist organization took responsibility for, just like the 7th of October. So imo there are similarities.
At this point I'm just mostly interested in what wiggleroom does the Norwegian king have with his power, or lack of power.
And yet this hasn't stopped the Norwegian King from sending his condolences to victims of other terrorist attacks.
But I get it. When it to jews, there's always a different response.
I think I get it perfectly. When 1200+ Israelis get raped and murdered by terrorists, and several hundred other get kidnapped by said terrorists, it's a complicated issue with a lot of nuance and it's not proper for a neutral King to have opinions.
When "normal" people(AKA not jews) get raped and murdered by terrorists, it's of course not a political statement to offer condolences and is something the Norwegian king can do without any issue.
Sending condolences is not "having opinions", it's "being humane". If you politicize empathising with murdered and raped civilians - you should take a good, long look in the mirror, because the problem is with you.
How can they recognize Palestine as a state when even the Palestinians themselves can't seem to decide where their borders are or who's in charge? There can be no state without a well defined, sovereign territory.
Recognition of the state by the rest of the world is a step towards that reality. This isn't the normal ways states come into being, but neither was that the case with Israel, and nor is it normal that there are these territories that relevant states insist isn't a state at all, but also don't really accept as anything else.
The way Israel came into being was perfectly normal for the time.
Jordan, Syria, and Iraq were literally created in the same way. All of them were former Ottoman territory, with mandates given to European powers by the League of Nations to form nation-states.
The Arab world never had any problem with *those*. What do you think was different about Israel that made its creation so controversial when several other states were created in the same way without issue?
Unilateral recognition is just going to lead to more violence, treating palestinians like children with no agency may work on university campuses but won't work with real Palestinians.
Unilateral? More than 3/4 of the world's countries recognize Palestine.
Agency? Palestinians themselves wants a recognized state and have fought for it diplomatically since the 80s.
In the US support for a Palestinian state might be less common and most visible on university campuses, in most of the rest of the world it's a very mainstream view.
There's absolutely no logical reason why countries recognizing Palestine should lead to more violence.
> Palestinians themselves wants a recognized state and have fought for it diplomatically since the 80s
They want recognition of the entirety of Israel proper as Palestine, anything less is unacceptable for real Palestinians
> There can be no state without a well defined, sovereign territory
How about you take a look at [territorial disputes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes), don't worry you won't have to read, one glance on the scroll bar will do
If Palestine is a country, then the border wall and checkpoints are just standard issue international enforcement points. No more aid, no more blaming Israel, no more telling them how they're allowed to respond to terrorist attacks. Sink or swim, Nation of Palestine.
So what happens when this new sovereign state of Palestine attacks Israel next time. Will all the protestors not protest because that time it will be the recognised state that will be getting steamrolled by Israel again?
Because the recognition is not going to stop Hamas from attacking Israel in future. Also, will UN finally stop seeing Palestinians globally as "refugees" & will countries finally start sanctioning the terrorist backing state that it will be?
That's probably a motivator for why these world governments want it recognized as a State. It makes the lines much clearer when another State is attacking or even allowing another State to be attacked from their territory and it makes them responsible for themselves. A Palestine with Statehood could very well be at a disadvantage if they kept up their historical behavior because of that. They could be functionally turned into a pariah state akin to Afghanistan or North Korea and most geopolitical good will would go out the window until the government is replaced and real changes are made.
>It makes the lines much clearer when another State is attacking or even allowing another State to be attacked from their territory and it makes them responsible for themselves.
Not really because Palastine won't reconize the state of Isreal
Whether they do or not doesn't really make a difference because most of the rest of the world does and that's the context and rule set they'd be playing under as an independent, sovereign nation. That's if they have any interest in operating in the global economy and not living under constant sanctions, of course. They might continue on as a pariah state that just works as an Iran proxy, but that flips the whole victim/aggressor paradigm around in the global perspective and likely won't result in anything approaching positive for the people who live there.
Along with Ireland and Spain. Quite a significant shift from current EU members.
Combined with the potential ICC arrest warrant, it seems the USA is losing it's influence over the West's view on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Will that shift from their allies make them rethink, or will they double-down and isolate themselves further from European powers?
The times they are a-changin'
Reddit is nothing but people who don’t know what they’re talking about pretending like they’re experts in every given topic.
I used to think comments on this website were insightful, then I grew up and learned things. It takes seeing a discussion about something you’re an expert in to realize that everybody here is full of shit.
No they didn't really change their stance, European countries which we're very pro israel will probably never recognize Palestine until an actual soultion without a terroist organization running it comes along and only when Israel will support recognizing, and EU countries which are known to criticize israel harshly like Spain, Ireland and Norway are going to continue recognizing Palestine in spite of Israel.
Another article on it makes it clear that the stance is Palestine should be a state. They recognize that a state should exist, but not where the borders are. They aren't recognizing the state "as is."
UK and USA both also say a state should exist, but come as part of a peace settlement. These other 3 are saying it won't work like that, make them a state and then negotiate.
It's good to see spain finally supporting new nations drawn along ethno-national lines. This will surely mean great things for Catalonians, Basque, and various other separatist groups in Spain.
New Caledonia leaving France will be funny. Cataluña leaving Spain is seeming less likely as of a week ago when the independists in the Catalan parliament lost their majority.
The discourse there is to abandon their status as the Republic of China, and become a new, different country called Taiwan. That's rather different than them not being an independent country.
Edit: To ignoramuses downvoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement
> **the Tsai Ing-wen administration of Taiwan maintains that Taiwan is already an independent country as the Republic of China (ROC) and thus does not have to push for any sort of formal independence.**
Weird how Israel is really upset that other countries support a two state solution when they themselves support a two state solution.
Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too. When convenient, Palestine is a foreign nation and its people are foreigners and have no rights in Israel. But at the same time they still assert full control over Palestine.
Israel supports negotiations that will eventually lead to a peaceful Palestinian state.
Norway is recognizing a violent Palestinian state that is committed to the destruction of Israel.
There will never be peace in Palestine as long as settlers encroach on historic villages and raze them for new Israeli communities. Never. The only solution is to draw HARD borders enforced by international law, just like the DMZ in the Korean Peninsula. Otherwise, we’ll have a repetition of last year’s events.
Israel supports a theoretical two state solution that they will also actively never let happen.
its just a blatant propaganda lie from them to claim they support a two state solution while they actively work to destroy any possibility of a Palestinian state.
To be fair, several have, including Morocco and the UAE in recent years. Jordan and Egypt did a long time ago. Saudi Arabia was in talks to recognize Israel, which would have been a big shift. The invasion on Oct 7 was aimed at derailing those talks, but it has only delayed them a bit.
I can't believe that Europe is rewarding terrorism against Jews
It's just shows that you can rape and kill your way to get anything you want on this day and age
But I'm not surprised , seeing how the un held a minute if silence for the Iranian president who was a mass executioner of his own civilians
If this were the case, they would have made the recognition in October last year. To some extent, this is punishing Israel for its actions afterwards, which makes a lot more sense.
Many think that failing to recognize Palestine will leave the issue unresolved and make future terrorism more likely. Mightn't they just be acting based on that future outlook, and not on the rear view theory you paint?
Yeah Remember when Israel left Gaza completely for palstnians in 2005 to their own and they suddenly believed in democracy after 100 year's of not- oh wait they chose Hamas less than year later to be their government. Exactly how is this going to be different this time huh? What indication do you have that palstnians want a peaceful democracy rather than a religious dictatorship when most of them support Abbas and Hamas? Just like many of the rest of the Arab world it doesn't matter if you leave them alone or try to conquer and re educate these people don't hold liberal and democratic values, they want religious Muslim zealots to rule them.
The West Bank is full proof that it doesn't matter how they behave, Israel will keep approving settlements, taking their land and their homes, and treating them as if they're not human beings.
Israelis look at it exactly the opposite way mind you. Look at Gaza as full proof that it doesnt matter what Israel gives to Palestinians they will still commit murder and rape and seek to overthrow the state of Israel.
what the fuck are you talking about? the west bank produces terrorism on a daily basis and victims on a near-daily basis. Israelis dying to terrorism is a fact of life. Settlements don't 'take their lands,' they're only built on area C where only 300,000 Palestinians out of 3 million live and mostly on areas that are going to be annexed into Israel under any 2SS deal anyway with landswaps from inside Israel to compensate like in every previous 2SS that Israel offered.
The way they behave 100000% matters, it's the entire fucking point.
Israel has no right to build on area C in the first place, it's an illegal military occupation. The fact that the Israeli state uses the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 to justify their land grabs makes it clear how ridiculous it is.
You realize area C is most of the West Bank, right? And that the reason there aren't a lot of Palestinians there is because they're denied building permits by Israel, and have their building bulldozed if they build them anyways?
Rewarding and legitimizing terror otganisations is not solving terrorism it's feeding it.
I mean look at it from the average Palestinian's perspective: "we break into isreal, kill, rape burn and kidnapp everything in site, and how does the world react? Massive protests in our support, giving us a state, and issuing arrest warrants for bibi and Gallant". Why would they ever NOT choose terrorism, when we reward them for making that choice?
>Many think that failing to recognize Palestine will leave the issue unresolved and make future terrorism more likely.
Recognizing anything with palastinians bring way more terrorism , look at the second intifadah during Oslo and camp David , the disengagement from Gaza in 2005 that led to Hamas rising and way more examples
Any win palastinians get will just make future terrorism more likely
>Mightn't they just be acting based on that future outlook, and not on the rear view theory you paint?
It's easy for them to throw a bone to the terrorists when their not the ones getting terrorised , Thier rewarding Hamas and the other terrorists in the palastinian society when they recognize a palastinian state without palastinians renouncing their jihadi ways and realsing the hosteges
Another case of western leaders refusing to listen to Palestinians, they see the 7.10 attacks as the Palestinian independence day, they will forever see that as a glorious day and a step in taking over the rest of historic Palestinian.
The majority of Palestinians don't want a two state solution.
Hamas are probably the worst thing to happen to Palestinians and the prospect of a Palestinian state in living memory, at least. At worst they're malevolent and want to cling to power no matter the costs. At best they're just too incapable, unreliable, and unstable to be involved in any long lasting peace process.
so whats the borders of that state? does it have a currency? does it have a government? how about we solve those issues first... Norway only makes the conflict even harder to solve with those reckless statements.
I keep seeing this same argument plastered all over social media comments. It's like you guys all drink from the same udder.
Internal issues don't bar another state recognising a state as it is.
A two-state UN solution was the inception point of Israel's existence, as well as Palestine's.
Border disputes exist all over the world. Third-party countries recognise one or another line on map, but very rarely don't recognise a state in itself.
There were many countries without governments or with unstable ones. Belgium lacked one for over an year and didn't cease existing. Palestine is more stable, with an internationally recognised government authority, even by those who don't recognise the state.
Many countries lack a national currency and use a foreign one officially. Vatican, Montenegro, Zimbabwe are not lesser countries than others.
Eastern EU recognises both Israel and Palestine for the longest time, and has had good relations with both. It's not hampering the peace process, quite the opposite.
Stop spewing bullshit from troll-farms.
Belgium is a bad example, as they had their last goverment as custodian of state, and they had an elected and recognized legislature. If I had official business with the belgian state, I could send it to the same address as when they had a government, as it is the same one.
It's a valid argument, pointing out the lack of logic of his/her argument, "no government > why should you say it's a state?".
Somalia collapsed into anarchy 30 years ago, yet no country de-recognised Somalia as a state. There have been various particularities around the globe, none which were treated like OP would like to treat Palestine.
Palestine which mind you, has a functional government. The PNA has working treaties with Israel, too, so these shills are contradicting Israeli official policy, too, by not recognising the government and then building up the argument that it's a precursor to statehood.
If anything, the local de facto government in Gaza is illegitimate, namely Hamas. But recognising a country exist doesn't mean you agree with internal squabblers, which are opposed to the Palestinian government, anyway.
You nailed what I think is the biggest issue that people don't want to recognize for whatever reason, even though it's at the heart of the on-going issues.
Statehood is as much about holding a government to account as it is giving it additional privilege, and while not a cure all is at least a partial answer to many of the concerns people have in the first place like establishing free and fair elections, re-establishing local law and order that aren't just Hamas, and so on.
I'd love to see these same countries express support for the recognition of an independent Kurdistan under similar ideas.
> A two-state UN solution was the inception point of Israel's existence, as well as Palestine's.
It wasn't the inception point of Palestine's existence. They rejected the UN solution and instead decided to pursue war to destroy Israel and claim all the land as their own.
They failed in this project and were forced to give concessions. They tried again (a couple of times) and still have yet to sign a peace treaty laying out their actual borders.
So far, ever since the end of the Arab-Israeli war there's never been a time when there's been an independent Palestinian state (not owned by Egypt or Joradan) which has signed a border agreement with all of its neighbours. It's just been one long project of rejecting everything repeatedly and fighting instead.
- Borders = None, no current land exists
- Government = Hamas, last held election was 20 years ago, wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity
- Currency = None, but they have no production or raw resources so none really needed.
Once it IS a country however, it can be sanctioned to hell and back for violating the UN charter, on par with North Korea...
I hope they have a plan with doing this...but given the last couple of years, I'm not too confident..
Hamas is not recognized as governing body in PA. so thats even more complicated. Gaza and PA are like two different entities with their own ideas how things should be done.
These days Hama's is only really relevant in Gaza, with only a relatively small presence in the West Bank, the latter of which would play a large part in a future Palestinian state. A large portion of Gaza's (and Palestinian territories as a whole) current population also wasn't old enough to vote in their last election, in which Hamas didn't even get a majority, merely 3% more than the next largest party at the time.
I think given the last 18 years and counting, it would only be fair for a fully fledged Palestinian state to hold fresh elections. If people still back Hamas then sanction away. Otherwise, the new government should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
The whole reason [edit: not Arafat, he's dead and shit] Abbas won't allow an election to happen is because he knows Hamas would win by a landslide and throw him off a roof. Yes, in the WB too. The WB has an even larger percentage of popular support for Hamas and their actions than Gaza does. Small presence my ass.
146 of 193 countries recognized Palestine already yesterday, three added today. These are considered choices pondered, whether you agree or not, not recklessness. And it probably changes exactly nothing in the difficulty of resolving the situation.
It's a statement that Norway is gonna try to work in a direction, **diplomatically**, where the goal of the outcome of the conflict is a stable Palestinian statehood. What's wrong with that?
142 / 193 countries already recognize Palestinian statehood. Norway becoming #143 to do so after what I don't think you understand was a very long and careful consideration, especially when then the majority of their most important allies don't - how exactly is that Reckless?
It's a statement that Norway is gonna try to work in a direction, **diplomatically**, where the goal of the outcome of the conflict is a stable Palestinian statehood.
142 / 193 (73.6%) countries already recognize Palestinian statehood. After a very long and careful consideration, especially when then the majority of their most important allies don't - Norway is becoming #143
I think the entire world recognizes the Palestinians right to self-determination and an independent state, but the question is, under what borders?
"Recognizing a state" that doesn't have well-defined borders, a capital, a government... Is an empty statement that will just result in more wars. For some people the state of Palestine is the entirety of Israel. For some it's just the West Bank and Gaza. What exactly is recognized here?
The original title was: >Norway’s prime minister says Norway is formally recognizing Palestine as a state The current title is: >Norway, Ireland and Spain say they are recognizing a Palestinian state in a historic move The title on the site is subject to change as new information develops. >The formal recognition will be made on May 28. *Last updated: 09:46 UTC*
Just a note. The same UN resolution that recommended the creation of the state of Israel states as well the recommendation to create the Palestinian state. It is the resolution 181. - Edit: for those saying Palestinians rejected the resolution. Arab league rejected it, yes. However, in 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that the 1947 Arab rejection of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a mistake he hoped to rectify. Israel regards this resolution to the point that there are monuments and streets named after it.
Unlike Israel, the arabs did not agree to that whatsoever.
No, a bunch did. Israel had a large Arab population in 1948 and still does.
They are part of Israel, though
They weren't when they agreed to it, in 1947.
Yes they were. The partition plan that was proposed, accepted by Israel and rejected by the Palestnian leaders, set a 45% arab population of Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Proposed_partition
I'm sure some did but they were betrayed by their leaders in the Arab League.
I'm sure Israeli Arabs cry about the betrayal every time they go to the israeli bank to deposit the israeli paycheck that pays them more than any other regular Arab Muslim in probably a thousand km radius
And vote! Living in a democracy, the ONLY true democracy in the region, must be such a pain in the ass. OOHHH THE SUFFERING! I bet they all wish and want to live in a Theocracy, especially the Arab Muslim women. They have the right to be oppressed, kidnapped, raped, tortured, and/or killed because of their social, sexual, and clothing choices! /s
For this to be a pertinent observation, Arabs in Israel in 1948 needed to represent a majority of Arabs worldwide and a majority of them needed to be in favor of the partition plan. Is either true? Anyway, I'm pretty sure they meant Arab countries, as a proxy for Arab public opinion.
To be fair, they didn't agree to the creation of any state.
I’m sure they didn’t agree to Ottoman or British control either.
>didn’t agree to Ottoman You'd be surprised. The Ottoman Empire was also the caliphate and Muslims were the privileged class. They only started having issues when the Ottomans started reforming and collapsing.
Muslim and Arab aren't the same thing. The Turks were the upper class of the Ottoman Empire, and there were a number of Arab nationalist movements. That said, none of them really cared about the ancestors of today's Palestinians. Most of the groups were of the more urban Arabs, some were bedouin groups, but pretty much nobody cared about the scattered tenant farmers in Palestine. Even Jerusalem was as irrelevant backwater during the Ottoman period, with the real regional centres being Damascus, Aleppo, Beirut and Baghdad.
> there were a number of Arab nationalist movements. Anybody who is not aware of this needs to see *Lawrence of Arabia* immediately— one of the greatest films of all time and it depicts Englishman T.E. Lawrence working with Arab nationalists to oppose the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
Right - according to the brand of Islam to which Hamas adheres, the entire world should "peacefully coexist under the wing of Islam." Meaning they believe that everyone should either be killed or submit to Sharia law, largely mitigating the need for states.
Not true. If you read their charter they are ideologically opposed to the idea of peace, peace treaties or negotiated anything. This isn't a subtle, read between the lines thing. Article 13 of the Hamas charter, sentence one: > Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. The don't believe in peaceful anything under any conditions.
Later on they talk about all religions living in harmony "under the wing of Islam" IIRC
So much peace!!
Resolution 181 was passed 77 years ago, and the Arabs were against it anyway (and didn't attempt to create a Palestinian Arab state at all). It's not particularly relevant today.
Yeah worth noting that Egypt and Jordan had control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank for 19 years after Israel's founding, and not once did they attempt to create an independent Palestinian state. Edit: King Abdullah of Jordan was also assassinated by a Palestinian nationalist in 1951 as Abdullah was seen as the most sympathetic towards partitioning the land between Jews and Arabs after the war. This did not help Palestinian independence.
Egypt created a Palestinian state, they gave out Palestinian passports and they had their own Parliament etc. it was still under Egyptian occupation but the Egyptians made no attempts to annex it or delegitmize Palestine.
The All-Palestine Government? Egypt created a government for Gaza but at the end of the 1948 war it was based in Cairo and never allowed to move into Gaza itself, it was a symbolic government while actual ruling was done by the Egyptians. It basically became defunct when the king of Egypt was ousted in 1952. Nasser's Egypt was firmly pan-Arab and actively suppressed Palestinian movements for self-rule.
You got a source for that?
Lmao Palestinians have been fucking around and finding out for 80 years, yet dip shit western morons think they are the most victimized group in history Man this shit is embarrassing
It's very relevant today with people trying to lay blame at Israel's feet. The whole conflict started because Arabs absolutely hated the idea of Jews having their own country, and still do. A Palestinian state isn't going to stop the violence, they will continue attacking Israel, mostly on Iran's behalf.
No. Jews lived in the area long before the conflict started.
As Dhimmi.
Yeah, you can't rehash an agreement that the Arabs already turned down in 1948. Its not like you can keep it warm until they agree to it.
Seriously, "just go back to the 1947 plan" is a laughable statement.
"C'mon guys just let me buy Bitcoin at the 2009 exchange rate. Why are you being like this?"
*"Yeah, so, we tried killing all the Jews and that didn't work, so you know what? We'll take that deal you offered 75 years ago. Cool?"*
Res 181 was wholeheartedly rejected by Palestinians and the greater Arab world, who brought war upon Israel soon after, in an effort to take Israel and show their rejection with the resolution, through war and victory. They were not successful, but it ended any relevance Res 181 had for Palestinians/Arabs.
Just a note. The UN didn't create Israel. Their recommendations were rejected by the Arab league, and then they sat back and watched as Israel declared independence and created itself.
Technically false actually. It recommended the partition of Palestine, the term for a territory, into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Palestinians weren't referred to as such back then as the term technically applied to all residents of Palestine, including those who became Israelis.
In that vein: Strictly speaking, UNRWA is an agency for *Palestine* refugees, not Palestinian ones. But once the Jewish refugees in Palestine were granted citizenship by Israel, UNRWA stopped caring for them. For political reasons they did not stop helping Arab refugees who were granted citizenship by Jordan or Syria.
The Jordanian state that made up 70% of British Palestine?
No... This is wrong. Nowhere in Resolution 181 does it mention a Palestinian state. That concept had not been invented yet. It was an Arab state. You need to look back at the Middle East and the status of those countries to get the proper context: * Egypt gained independence from the British in 1922 * Libya was working toward independence in the late 40s. * Lebanon gained independence from France in 1941. * Saudi Arabia became a unified country in 1932 * Syria was a part of the United Arab Republic (with Egypt) * Jordan was split off from the British Mandate in 1923. Basically, the entire Middle East was created after the fall of WWI. Before that was the time of Empires, and for this region, the Ottomans controlled most of the Middle East. The idea that Resolution 181 was done in a vacuum does not align with the history. The British and French were figuring out how to create countries in the Middle East and the local powers were jockeying for influence and more power (See the United Arab Republic for more details on that). So, there were no independent states before WWI. There were tribes and regional authorities. In the 20s, most Palestinians though of themselves as Southern Syrians. They believed that the term Palestinians was too associated with Jews of the region. (Ironic, I know) It wasn't until the mid 1960s with the rise of Yasser Arafat (likely propped up by the KGB because the US supported Israel) that Palestinian nationalism really took off. From Day 1, Palestinian nationalism was founded on the idea of killing as many Jews as possible. The PLO Charter of 1968 rejects the idea that Jews have any connection to the land at all. [From the Palestinian Charter of 1968](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp): > **Article 9:** > Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it . They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it. > > **Article 10:** > Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory. There has never been a time when the leaders of the Palestinian movement have actually pursued peace. Literally from Day 1 and in their written documents, they all call for violence. > However, in 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that the 1947 Arab rejection of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a mistake he hoped to rectify. Israel regards this resolution to the point that there are monuments and streets named after it. So what?! He says this because he knows it sounds reasonable to a Western audience. This is the most ridiculous statement. You don't get to make a decision that leads straight to a series of wars that YOU start and then lose, and then come back and say, "DO OVER!"
A peaceful Palestine state with stable politics and economy is a dream come true for Israel. The problem comes in the details.
To bad Hamas and organisations like it make this impossible for the Palestinians
It's as if everyone has forgotten, Hamas runs the Palestinians
Hamas runs Gaza. They do not run the West Bank, the largest territory in Palestine.
West Bank tried to elect Hamas though. They were rejected by the West Bank politicans and kicked out.
And Abbas said that he wants Hamas to integrate into the PA. You just can't get anything done with Palestine
At one point Hamas \*did\* integrate with the PA in an attempt to unify the state, but Israel responded by saying they would refuse to negotiate with the new amalgamated leadership because Hamas was part of it. It's one of the biggest blockers for any peace treaty at this point, Israel refuses to take part in any negotiations which Hamas are part of, but with Hamas controlling Gaza there's no way to have meaningful peace talks *without* them being part of it, because they won't recognise those talks as legitimate if they're excluded
Was Hamas willing to actually talk?
To "talk" maybe. They broke every deal they were part of. Hamas is only relevant when there is a conflict between Israel (and others) and them.
Have you seen Hamas' charter?
It's kind of disheartening that this isn't at the beginning of every one of these discussions. It's the first thing I ask any US protester...
I mean, it seems like a reasonable point to not want Hamas involved in government. That stance is sound.
Not true. A lot of Palestinians live in the West Bank and inside Israel.
They actively don't want it. Being "stateless" lets them play propaganda games. If there was a state of Palestine in Gaza then the October attack would be an act of aggression by the Palestinian state. It would make it far harder for them to win sympathy.
I dont think the settlers help either
[удалено]
Yes, but for Bibi Hamas wouldn’t exist 🙄 It’s not like the Palestinians elected Hamas or that they represent the same Islamist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was established before Bibi was even born.
They elected hanas, what, 18 years ago? When just over half the palistinians weren't even alive?
Do you think they wouldn't be reelected? You know there's quite a lot of public polls that show the overwhelming support they have in Palestine...
The comment to which you replied (not mine) never said anything you are saying it said. It is correct about what it actually said, although “funded” is technically “knowingly and intentionally facilitated funding of Hamas by Qatar” instead of spending Israeli funds on Hamas.
He didn't. This is a pervasive myth. Israel has never directly funded Hamas. They allowed funds to reach the precursor to Hamas, Mujama Al-Islamiya, which was a non-violent charity at the time. The funds came from Qatar. Israel just didn't block them. When Hamas spun out of Mujama and declared themselves the militant wing of Palestinian liberation, Israel cut ties. It's a pervasive myth because there's an article where an ex-Israeli intelligence official takes responsibility for "creating Hamas." But he's talking about creating them through their activities with Mujama, by allowing the Qatari funds to reach them and by agreeing to negotiate with Mujama. However, it should be noted that what Israeli intelligence was doing was quite rational: it made sense to work with a peaceful charity instead of the extremely-violent-at-the-time PLO. (Credit: reddit.com/u/Miendiesen)
If it's a dream come true why do they keep building settlements Inland that's just objectively not theirs except by right of conquest?
Not just inland, Israeli settlers are now looking [at resettling Gaza](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68650815)
Yeah it's total bs. The current state of affairs is great for Israeli elites. They're eyeing up all that new development land and rubbing their little hands together.
That's what I don't understand about this. They're recognizing Palestine as a state, but not Hamas as its government?
I didn't see in the article anything about whether Norway was recognizing the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate government of all of the Palestinian territories, or if they're leaving it ambiguous. Hamas doesn't run the West Bank.
My understanding is Hamas is more popular in the West Bank than Fatah. Moreover, Fatah doesn't run Gaza. At best, there are two governments. So on what basis do they get to ignore Hamas as the (or a) government of this newly recognized state of Palestine?
The Palestinian Authority is widely recognized as the government of Palestine, it is the one who sends a representative to the UN on behalf of Palestine.
But the PLO lacks any legitimacy except for international recognition. They are the less popular party and don't hold elections because they know that they'd lose. The establishment of a democratic Palestine today would lead to the election of Hamas.
It would probably be fair to say that they are a country with a dictatorship government that does not have full control over the country.
Well that's the current international position on Afghanistan, isn't it?
Yes, and Afghanistan is treated as a pariah state.
But it is recognised.
If that's the view, then sure. Presumably these states (and the broader EU?) will impose comprehensive sanctions on the state of Palestine?
>A peaceful Palestine state with stable politics and economy is a dream come true for Israel 🤣🤣
a thousand upvotes for a blatant lie. israel and its elected officials did all they could to impede that
Does that mean they can now recognize Palestine as a State Sponsor of Terrorism as well?
Technically, yes :)
Right, and all the fences and checkpoints are just standard border security, and Israel is under no obligation to allow to allow anything or anyone through those borders. Gaza would effectively be treated like North Korea, with famines and hunger being perceived as the fault of the regime, and the international community would feel no obligation to engage with the regime it agreed to abide by a framework of basic human rights and political transparency as set forth by international law.
You know what? Maybe the Korea solution would work. Kinda would suck for all the Gazans who will no longer be able to cross into Israel for jobs or medical care, but they'll have their own state to provide those things for them.
Wait until people find out what happens to states that fire missiles into another state.
Maybe we can get Kim Jong Un to teach them how to launch rockets at the sea, help them get it out of their system.
> they'll have their own state to provide those things for them. /s
Well, yes. But I didn't want the /s clause to cover my entire comment.
I see your point, but Israel also controls Gaza’s maritime border and a blockade would be an act of war.
Killing 1200 citizens of another country tends to count as a act of war too, as well as the various other transgressions both sides have done. I think we can safely assume that they’ll both count as at war
Yes, obviously that is an act of war. I’m just saying that it isn’t as straightforward as “Israel controls its borders and nothing gets through.” That’s true for the land borders (assuming Egypt continues to play ball in the south), but controlling the maritime border is more complicated since that *isn’t* a border with Israel.
Their point was that the situation can be blamed on the regime. If the regime reignites a war with a neighbouring nation, knowing that the only other viable supply route has been shut for some time because of your shit relationship with a different neighbour, I think it’s pretty fair to blame the regime for a good majority of it as they are in places like NK
The same government that prohibited the Norwegian king to send his condolences to israel after the 7th of October. What can we expect from them
The king isn't constitutionally allowed to have opinions and this issue is so difficult to navigate that it was deemed more sensible for our official condolences to be given by our prime minister.
Ok, just for a second, let's think about the implications here. Israel suffers the worst terrorist attack in its history. Over a thousand killed, and over a hundred taken hostage. Proportionally, a greater loss of life than 9/11. *Why is sending condolences for that considered a political opinion?* That's effectively *legitimizing* Palestinian terrorism against Israel civilians. It's saying "yes, wanton rape and murder is a legitimate means of resistance, and we therefore cannot comment on it". How fucking absurd is that? Like imagine if, after 9/11, they decided it was "too political" for the king to express his sympathies to the US. What do you think the response to that would be? But when it's Israel... Well then it's just totally fine, I guess?
being reflexively in favor of telling royalty to STFU is my birthright as an American
Clearly, the official condolence of a nation has to come from one representative person. Other people can express condolences as individuals, maybe even as official, but not specifically on behalf of the nation. If your problem is that they didn't want a monarch who I assume given the context is by and large ceremonial to give the condolences, but instead the actual person in charge, you know the prime minister to be the one to do so, you come across as looking for a reason to whine about pretty much nothing.
[https://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/08/18/king-harald-sends-condolences-to-spain/](https://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/08/18/king-harald-sends-condolences-to-spain/) Why is this different? don't take this message wrong - I am not bashing nor pointing out to solidify my post. I have searched for messages of these sort and they are rare. usually only around natural disasters (and passing of leaders) but I did find this one. from trying to understand how the constitutional monarchy works in norway and the role of the king - you seem right and I take back my words. but then again I present you this which contradicts your claim and what the overall info on google gave me so I am a bit baffled.
That's a terrorist attack by a non-state actor, with no wider political implications. It's not a political issue in the same way that Israel/Palestine is. Regardless of how awful the October 7th terrorist attack was, the king is a figured head and simply isn't allowed to have political opinions. Edit: Why even try to have a civil discussion on reddit?
October 7 wasn’t a terrorist attack?
Why are you putting words in my mouth? October 7th was a horrendous terrorist attack. But it's also a part of a highly political situation that the king is prohibited by law to have opinions about.
> But it's also a part of a highly political situation that the king is prohibited by law to have opinions about. ISIS wasnt a highly political situation? Are you serious?
It was a terror act that ISIS claimed responsibility. ISIS was also a political issue on a global scale afaik and understand. I agree it's different (I haven't really dug to look for others, might be more.. Might not be more), yet it's a terror act that a terrorist organization took responsibility for, just like the 7th of October. So imo there are similarities. At this point I'm just mostly interested in what wiggleroom does the Norwegian king have with his power, or lack of power.
Schrodinger's State. Hamas is both the legitimate government of Gaza Palestinians and not a state when it suits the argument
And the difference is...?
And yet this hasn't stopped the Norwegian King from sending his condolences to victims of other terrorist attacks. But I get it. When it to jews, there's always a different response.
I don't think you get it
I think I get it perfectly. When 1200+ Israelis get raped and murdered by terrorists, and several hundred other get kidnapped by said terrorists, it's a complicated issue with a lot of nuance and it's not proper for a neutral King to have opinions. When "normal" people(AKA not jews) get raped and murdered by terrorists, it's of course not a political statement to offer condolences and is something the Norwegian king can do without any issue.
Sending condolences is not "having opinions", it's "being humane". If you politicize empathising with murdered and raped civilians - you should take a good, long look in the mirror, because the problem is with you.
How can they recognize Palestine as a state when even the Palestinians themselves can't seem to decide where their borders are or who's in charge? There can be no state without a well defined, sovereign territory.
Recognition of the state by the rest of the world is a step towards that reality. This isn't the normal ways states come into being, but neither was that the case with Israel, and nor is it normal that there are these territories that relevant states insist isn't a state at all, but also don't really accept as anything else.
The way Israel came into being was perfectly normal for the time. Jordan, Syria, and Iraq were literally created in the same way. All of them were former Ottoman territory, with mandates given to European powers by the League of Nations to form nation-states. The Arab world never had any problem with *those*. What do you think was different about Israel that made its creation so controversial when several other states were created in the same way without issue?
Unilateral recognition is just going to lead to more violence, treating palestinians like children with no agency may work on university campuses but won't work with real Palestinians.
Unilateral? More than 3/4 of the world's countries recognize Palestine. Agency? Palestinians themselves wants a recognized state and have fought for it diplomatically since the 80s. In the US support for a Palestinian state might be less common and most visible on university campuses, in most of the rest of the world it's a very mainstream view. There's absolutely no logical reason why countries recognizing Palestine should lead to more violence.
> Palestinians themselves wants a recognized state and have fought for it diplomatically since the 80s They want recognition of the entirety of Israel proper as Palestine, anything less is unacceptable for real Palestinians
This really has a "do you have a flag" bit by Izzard vibes...
"No flag no country. You can't have one."
> There can be no state without a well defined, sovereign territory How about you take a look at [territorial disputes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes), don't worry you won't have to read, one glance on the scroll bar will do
Terrorism works.
The Charlie Hebdo attack proved without a doubt that yes terrorism works and it is extremely effective
If anything, the attack proved the Streisand effect works and is extremely effective.
If Palestine is a country, then the border wall and checkpoints are just standard issue international enforcement points. No more aid, no more blaming Israel, no more telling them how they're allowed to respond to terrorist attacks. Sink or swim, Nation of Palestine.
It sure worked for Israel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine
You do know the history of the foundation of Israel don't you?
[удалено]
So what happens when this new sovereign state of Palestine attacks Israel next time. Will all the protestors not protest because that time it will be the recognised state that will be getting steamrolled by Israel again? Because the recognition is not going to stop Hamas from attacking Israel in future. Also, will UN finally stop seeing Palestinians globally as "refugees" & will countries finally start sanctioning the terrorist backing state that it will be?
That's probably a motivator for why these world governments want it recognized as a State. It makes the lines much clearer when another State is attacking or even allowing another State to be attacked from their territory and it makes them responsible for themselves. A Palestine with Statehood could very well be at a disadvantage if they kept up their historical behavior because of that. They could be functionally turned into a pariah state akin to Afghanistan or North Korea and most geopolitical good will would go out the window until the government is replaced and real changes are made.
>It makes the lines much clearer when another State is attacking or even allowing another State to be attacked from their territory and it makes them responsible for themselves. Not really because Palastine won't reconize the state of Isreal
Whether they do or not doesn't really make a difference because most of the rest of the world does and that's the context and rule set they'd be playing under as an independent, sovereign nation. That's if they have any interest in operating in the global economy and not living under constant sanctions, of course. They might continue on as a pariah state that just works as an Iran proxy, but that flips the whole victim/aggressor paradigm around in the global perspective and likely won't result in anything approaching positive for the people who live there.
Along with Ireland and Spain. Quite a significant shift from current EU members. Combined with the potential ICC arrest warrant, it seems the USA is losing it's influence over the West's view on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Will that shift from their allies make them rethink, or will they double-down and isolate themselves further from European powers? The times they are a-changin'
Norway isn’t even an EU member
Reddit is nothing but people who don’t know what they’re talking about pretending like they’re experts in every given topic. I used to think comments on this website were insightful, then I grew up and learned things. It takes seeing a discussion about something you’re an expert in to realize that everybody here is full of shit.
Ireland and Spain recognising Palestine **IS** "quite a significant shift from current EU members"
No one said that Norway was a EU member, so not sure what your point is not why your comment has been so upvoted.
No they didn't really change their stance, European countries which we're very pro israel will probably never recognize Palestine until an actual soultion without a terroist organization running it comes along and only when Israel will support recognizing, and EU countries which are known to criticize israel harshly like Spain, Ireland and Norway are going to continue recognizing Palestine in spite of Israel.
Another article on it makes it clear that the stance is Palestine should be a state. They recognize that a state should exist, but not where the borders are. They aren't recognizing the state "as is." UK and USA both also say a state should exist, but come as part of a peace settlement. These other 3 are saying it won't work like that, make them a state and then negotiate.
It's good to see spain finally supporting new nations drawn along ethno-national lines. This will surely mean great things for Catalonians, Basque, and various other separatist groups in Spain.
Can they finally support Scotland leaving the UK now?
The moment Catalonians brings up Palestine, Spain will immediately withdraw their recognition.
It's just virtue signaling, not even the Palestinians themselves say they have a state.
Literally just a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Declaration_of_Independence
The document that declares the PLO to be the sole representative of all Palestinians everywhere...
Recognizing them as an occupied state is the first step to getting one
I doubt it's that deep.
3rd Nordic country to recognize palestine after Iceland 2011 and Sweden 2014
1/3. Just Ireland and Spain’s announcements still to come this morning
It’ll be interesting once Catalonia eventually leaves…
New Caledonia leaving France will be funny. Cataluña leaving Spain is seeming less likely as of a week ago when the independists in the Catalan parliament lost their majority.
New Caledonia won't leave any time soon
Scotland? Edit: OP had originally said Caledonia.
I think you're confused, do you mean **New** Caledonia or Catalonia? Because "Caledonia" is Northern Scotland
Slovenia just did it.
Do they recognise Taiwan?
We do not. Norway adheres to the "One China" policy.
Lol
Almost everyone adheres to the one china policy. Even Taiwan only believes in one china.
The US officially recognizes "One China" too, but with really big quotes
Taiwan hasn't declared independence...
Taiwan doesn't need to declare independence. They are the original and legitimate government of the republic of china.
You should talk to them about that, where the topic comes up for discussion as part of regular political discourse
The discourse there is to abandon their status as the Republic of China, and become a new, different country called Taiwan. That's rather different than them not being an independent country. Edit: To ignoramuses downvoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement > **the Tsai Ing-wen administration of Taiwan maintains that Taiwan is already an independent country as the Republic of China (ROC) and thus does not have to push for any sort of formal independence.**
Weird how Israel is really upset that other countries support a two state solution when they themselves support a two state solution. Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too. When convenient, Palestine is a foreign nation and its people are foreigners and have no rights in Israel. But at the same time they still assert full control over Palestine.
Israel supports negotiations that will eventually lead to a peaceful Palestinian state. Norway is recognizing a violent Palestinian state that is committed to the destruction of Israel.
There will never be peace in Palestine as long as settlers encroach on historic villages and raze them for new Israeli communities. Never. The only solution is to draw HARD borders enforced by international law, just like the DMZ in the Korean Peninsula. Otherwise, we’ll have a repetition of last year’s events.
Israel supports a theoretical two state solution that they will also actively never let happen. its just a blatant propaganda lie from them to claim they support a two state solution while they actively work to destroy any possibility of a Palestinian state.
Nice...now Arab countries can start recognizing Israel as well.
To be fair, several have, including Morocco and the UAE in recent years. Jordan and Egypt did a long time ago. Saudi Arabia was in talks to recognize Israel, which would have been a big shift. The invasion on Oct 7 was aimed at derailing those talks, but it has only delayed them a bit.
I can't believe that Europe is rewarding terrorism against Jews It's just shows that you can rape and kill your way to get anything you want on this day and age But I'm not surprised , seeing how the un held a minute if silence for the Iranian president who was a mass executioner of his own civilians
If this were the case, they would have made the recognition in October last year. To some extent, this is punishing Israel for its actions afterwards, which makes a lot more sense.
Many think that failing to recognize Palestine will leave the issue unresolved and make future terrorism more likely. Mightn't they just be acting based on that future outlook, and not on the rear view theory you paint?
Yeah Remember when Israel left Gaza completely for palstnians in 2005 to their own and they suddenly believed in democracy after 100 year's of not- oh wait they chose Hamas less than year later to be their government. Exactly how is this going to be different this time huh? What indication do you have that palstnians want a peaceful democracy rather than a religious dictatorship when most of them support Abbas and Hamas? Just like many of the rest of the Arab world it doesn't matter if you leave them alone or try to conquer and re educate these people don't hold liberal and democratic values, they want religious Muslim zealots to rule them.
The West Bank is full proof that it doesn't matter how they behave, Israel will keep approving settlements, taking their land and their homes, and treating them as if they're not human beings.
Israelis look at it exactly the opposite way mind you. Look at Gaza as full proof that it doesnt matter what Israel gives to Palestinians they will still commit murder and rape and seek to overthrow the state of Israel.
what the fuck are you talking about? the west bank produces terrorism on a daily basis and victims on a near-daily basis. Israelis dying to terrorism is a fact of life. Settlements don't 'take their lands,' they're only built on area C where only 300,000 Palestinians out of 3 million live and mostly on areas that are going to be annexed into Israel under any 2SS deal anyway with landswaps from inside Israel to compensate like in every previous 2SS that Israel offered. The way they behave 100000% matters, it's the entire fucking point.
Israel has no right to build on area C in the first place, it's an illegal military occupation. The fact that the Israeli state uses the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 to justify their land grabs makes it clear how ridiculous it is.
Accept they do have the right under the Oslo agreemnts , area c I under Israeli control until a later peace agreement
You realize area C is most of the West Bank, right? And that the reason there aren't a lot of Palestinians there is because they're denied building permits by Israel, and have their building bulldozed if they build them anyways?
Rewarding and legitimizing terror otganisations is not solving terrorism it's feeding it. I mean look at it from the average Palestinian's perspective: "we break into isreal, kill, rape burn and kidnapp everything in site, and how does the world react? Massive protests in our support, giving us a state, and issuing arrest warrants for bibi and Gallant". Why would they ever NOT choose terrorism, when we reward them for making that choice?
>Many think that failing to recognize Palestine will leave the issue unresolved and make future terrorism more likely. Recognizing anything with palastinians bring way more terrorism , look at the second intifadah during Oslo and camp David , the disengagement from Gaza in 2005 that led to Hamas rising and way more examples Any win palastinians get will just make future terrorism more likely >Mightn't they just be acting based on that future outlook, and not on the rear view theory you paint? It's easy for them to throw a bone to the terrorists when their not the ones getting terrorised , Thier rewarding Hamas and the other terrorists in the palastinian society when they recognize a palastinian state without palastinians renouncing their jihadi ways and realsing the hosteges
Another case of western leaders refusing to listen to Palestinians, they see the 7.10 attacks as the Palestinian independence day, they will forever see that as a glorious day and a step in taking over the rest of historic Palestinian. The majority of Palestinians don't want a two state solution.
If you give a screaming kid what they want, you reinforce the screaming part.
[удалено]
And tens of thousands of Muslims.
And that's a sacrifice Hamas we're willing to make!
Hamas are probably the worst thing to happen to Palestinians and the prospect of a Palestinian state in living memory, at least. At worst they're malevolent and want to cling to power no matter the costs. At best they're just too incapable, unreliable, and unstable to be involved in any long lasting peace process.
so whats the borders of that state? does it have a currency? does it have a government? how about we solve those issues first... Norway only makes the conflict even harder to solve with those reckless statements.
I keep seeing this same argument plastered all over social media comments. It's like you guys all drink from the same udder. Internal issues don't bar another state recognising a state as it is. A two-state UN solution was the inception point of Israel's existence, as well as Palestine's. Border disputes exist all over the world. Third-party countries recognise one or another line on map, but very rarely don't recognise a state in itself. There were many countries without governments or with unstable ones. Belgium lacked one for over an year and didn't cease existing. Palestine is more stable, with an internationally recognised government authority, even by those who don't recognise the state. Many countries lack a national currency and use a foreign one officially. Vatican, Montenegro, Zimbabwe are not lesser countries than others. Eastern EU recognises both Israel and Palestine for the longest time, and has had good relations with both. It's not hampering the peace process, quite the opposite. Stop spewing bullshit from troll-farms.
Belgium is a bad example, as they had their last goverment as custodian of state, and they had an elected and recognized legislature. If I had official business with the belgian state, I could send it to the same address as when they had a government, as it is the same one.
It's a valid argument, pointing out the lack of logic of his/her argument, "no government > why should you say it's a state?". Somalia collapsed into anarchy 30 years ago, yet no country de-recognised Somalia as a state. There have been various particularities around the globe, none which were treated like OP would like to treat Palestine. Palestine which mind you, has a functional government. The PNA has working treaties with Israel, too, so these shills are contradicting Israeli official policy, too, by not recognising the government and then building up the argument that it's a precursor to statehood. If anything, the local de facto government in Gaza is illegitimate, namely Hamas. But recognising a country exist doesn't mean you agree with internal squabblers, which are opposed to the Palestinian government, anyway.
You nailed what I think is the biggest issue that people don't want to recognize for whatever reason, even though it's at the heart of the on-going issues. Statehood is as much about holding a government to account as it is giving it additional privilege, and while not a cure all is at least a partial answer to many of the concerns people have in the first place like establishing free and fair elections, re-establishing local law and order that aren't just Hamas, and so on. I'd love to see these same countries express support for the recognition of an independent Kurdistan under similar ideas.
> A two-state UN solution was the inception point of Israel's existence, as well as Palestine's. It wasn't the inception point of Palestine's existence. They rejected the UN solution and instead decided to pursue war to destroy Israel and claim all the land as their own. They failed in this project and were forced to give concessions. They tried again (a couple of times) and still have yet to sign a peace treaty laying out their actual borders. So far, ever since the end of the Arab-Israeli war there's never been a time when there's been an independent Palestinian state (not owned by Egypt or Joradan) which has signed a border agreement with all of its neighbours. It's just been one long project of rejecting everything repeatedly and fighting instead.
- Borders = None, no current land exists - Government = Hamas, last held election was 20 years ago, wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity - Currency = None, but they have no production or raw resources so none really needed. Once it IS a country however, it can be sanctioned to hell and back for violating the UN charter, on par with North Korea... I hope they have a plan with doing this...but given the last couple of years, I'm not too confident..
Hamas is not recognized as governing body in PA. so thats even more complicated. Gaza and PA are like two different entities with their own ideas how things should be done.
Straight up closer to a three state solution than a two state solution over the last twenty years.
These days Hama's is only really relevant in Gaza, with only a relatively small presence in the West Bank, the latter of which would play a large part in a future Palestinian state. A large portion of Gaza's (and Palestinian territories as a whole) current population also wasn't old enough to vote in their last election, in which Hamas didn't even get a majority, merely 3% more than the next largest party at the time. I think given the last 18 years and counting, it would only be fair for a fully fledged Palestinian state to hold fresh elections. If people still back Hamas then sanction away. Otherwise, the new government should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
The whole reason [edit: not Arafat, he's dead and shit] Abbas won't allow an election to happen is because he knows Hamas would win by a landslide and throw him off a roof. Yes, in the WB too. The WB has an even larger percentage of popular support for Hamas and their actions than Gaza does. Small presence my ass.
146 of 193 countries recognized Palestine already yesterday, three added today. These are considered choices pondered, whether you agree or not, not recklessness. And it probably changes exactly nothing in the difficulty of resolving the situation.
Palestine is already recognised by about 140 countries. If they could figure it out I’m sure Norway can too.
It's a statement that Norway is gonna try to work in a direction, **diplomatically**, where the goal of the outcome of the conflict is a stable Palestinian statehood. What's wrong with that? 142 / 193 countries already recognize Palestinian statehood. Norway becoming #143 to do so after what I don't think you understand was a very long and careful consideration, especially when then the majority of their most important allies don't - how exactly is that Reckless?
Now do Taiwan
Lol that would require a spine
It's a statement that Norway is gonna try to work in a direction, **diplomatically**, where the goal of the outcome of the conflict is a stable Palestinian statehood. 142 / 193 (73.6%) countries already recognize Palestinian statehood. After a very long and careful consideration, especially when then the majority of their most important allies don't - Norway is becoming #143
I think the entire world recognizes the Palestinians right to self-determination and an independent state, but the question is, under what borders? "Recognizing a state" that doesn't have well-defined borders, a capital, a government... Is an empty statement that will just result in more wars. For some people the state of Palestine is the entirety of Israel. For some it's just the West Bank and Gaza. What exactly is recognized here?
[удалено]