Four European countries call for Palestine's full UN membership, implementation of two-state solution
They also renewed their commitment to the two-state solution.
This came in a joint statement by the four European countries published by the Spanish Foreign Ministry on its website following the Madrid+ Group meeting, a year after the group officially recognized the State of Palestine.
The Spanish Foreign Ministry said one year after the official recognition of the State of Palestine by Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Spain, in the framework of the 'Madrid+' Group of the meeting, we have met to renew and reinforce the international commitment for the implementation of the two-State solution and to the principle that only a viable, contiguous Palestinian State, with internationally recognised borders, comprised of Gaza and the West Bank and with East Jerusalem as its capital, can fully satisfy the legitimate national aspirations and the needs of peace and security of both the people of Palestine and Israel.
This commitment has had an undeniable impact on the international dynamics regarding the conflict in Gaza, creating momentum for the implementation of the two-State solution.
After many years of stagnation, implementation of the two State solution and recognition of Palestine is not only morally right, but it also produced the necessary momentum to revive the spirit of the implementation of the two-State solution. In September 2024 in the United Nations, the international community agreed on the creation of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State solution. Its meetings have, in this spirit, strived to make the two-State reality possible.
The Spanish Foreign Ministry said, 'The momentum that was created in May last year, ultimately culminated on 10th December 2024, when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution A/RES/79/81, which called for a High Level Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution. We believe that this High Level Conference, to be held on 17th June 2025 under UN auspices and co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, represents not only the occasion with the highest degree of international legitimacy, but also the appropriate framework in which to finally advance the implementation of the two-State solution.'
'We have committed, along with all the participating countries in the meeting 'Madrid +: for the Implementation of the Two-State solution', to engage substantially in the work of the Global Alliance and to ensure a meaningful participation in the High-Level Conference. We remind that recognition is another step for the implementation of the two-State solution, and we call on all members of the international community to take the necessary steps to make it reality, including individual recognition of Palestine and Israel by those who have not yet done so, UN membership of Palestine and support of an agreement between the parties, with eventual mutual recognition between Palestine and Israel.'
Spanish Foreign Ministry concluded, 'It is up to the parties to bring peace to the region, but the international community has the obligation to change the ongoing dynamics on the ground that have created an endless cycle of violence and devastation.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Blaming the Israeli 'far right' lets a genocidal society off the hook
Time and again, western political elites and opinion leaders have blamed Israel's "far-right" government for atrocities committed in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Given that Israel is often given a free pass in the West, it is notable that some criticism is finally being directed at Israeli policy. But much of this critique has focused narrowly on the right-wing coalition currently in power - particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich - while ignoring the broader political apparatus and societal consensus that enables and supports ongoing crimes against Palestinians. There are countless examples. Throughout much of the current war on Gaza, former US President Joe Biden publicly criticised the Israeli government, targeting Netanyahu, Ben Gvir and Smotrich by name. The European Council and various European heads of state have also singled out the Israeli far right, and the UK has imposed sanctions on Ben Gvir and Smotrich. The US and EU have additionally sanctioned certain "extremist" Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. A growing number of American politicians, including Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer, have condemned Netanyahu's coalition. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Mainstream western media figures have joined the chorus of criticism: CNN's Jake Tapper issued a harsh rebuke of the Israeli right's "extreme speech", New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explicitly attacked Netanyahu's leadership, and broadcaster Piers Morgan acknowledged he was wrong to defend the Israeli government against genocide allegations. Yet while this rhetoric might appear to mark a shift in the political and media landscape, it ultimately functions as a convenient scapegoat. Criticising Israel's right wing serves as a safe outlet for western concern, allowing officials and commentators to distance themselves from Israeli war crimes without challenging the broader ideological and institutional foundations of Israeli policy. In short, Israel's far right has become a fig leaf for mainstream Israeli violence. Broad support for genocide What is often lost in this discourse is that Israel's genocidal and apartheid policies are not the product of one faction. They are widely supported across the Israeli political spectrum. Israeli opposition parties have largely endorsed the forced displacement, mass killing and deliberate starvation of Palestinians in Gaza. Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid offers a useful case in point: though positioned against Netanyahu, he has promoted core Israeli government narratives in international forums. In a recent interview with Egyptian journalist Emad Adeeb, Lapid said that Palestinians are starving in Gaza because Hamas steals humanitarian aid, and that civilian casualties are primarily the result of Hamas using them as "human shields". Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war The Israeli opposition also supports the longstanding blockade on Gaza and the programme of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Far from offering a meaningful alternative, they have enabled - and even cheered on - many of the current government's most criminal actions. Moreover, when afforded the chance to govern, liberal and centrist Israeli governments have consistently upheld Israel's core occupation policies. Just as significant is the role of Israeli society - particularly Israeli Jewish society - in supporting and legitimising criminal policies. A Pew Research poll conducted more than five months into the Gaza war, when the Palestinian death toll had surpassed 30,000 and a growing number of experts were accusing Israel of genocide, found that only four percent of Israeli Jews believed Israel had "gone too far" in its military actions. More recent surveys paint an even bleaker picture. A poll commissioned this past March by Penn State University and the Israeli polling firm Geocartography Knowledge Group found that 65 percent of Israeli Jews believed in the existence of a modern-day Amalek, referencing the biblical population that the ancient Israelites were commanded to annihilate. Eighty-two percent supported the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, while 47 percent openly endorsed killing all Gaza residents. Israel's culture of genocide is spreading globally. We must build an alternative Read More » A separate Hebrew University poll conducted more recently found that 64 percent of Israeli Jews believed there were no innocent people in Gaza. The Viterbi Family Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research at the Israel Democracy Institute conducted a new poll this week, finding that 79 percent of Israeli Jews "are not so troubled or not troubled at all" by reports of famine in Gaza. Such results suggest that extreme views are not confined to fringe political actors, but are widely held across Israeli society. Although a small number of anti-war protests have taken place in Israel -typically attracting only a few hundred participants - they remain marginal, particularly given polling data showing that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis support the war effort and dismiss civilian harm. Public discourse has also reflected this disturbing normalisation of cruelty. In recent months, Israeli TikTok users have popularised a number of viral trends mocking the suffering of Palestinian children and a bombed foreign journalist. These videos emerged after Israeli soldiers were criticised for posting social media videos mocking Palestinian victims in Gaza. In this context, scholar Norman Finkelstein's description of Israel as a "lunatic society", and Israeli academic Menachem Klein's characterisation of it as a "genocidal society", do not appear hyperbolic. The evidence - both quantitative and cultural - points to a population desensitised to mass death and committed to the elimination of Palestinians. Western discourse that confines blame to Netanyahu and his far-right allies misdiagnoses the nature of the problem. This is not merely a story of extreme leadership gone rogue; it is a reflection of longstanding mainstream ideology and practice rooted in ethnic supremacy, settler-colonialism and militarism. Focusing narrowly on the far right obscures the systemic nature of Israeli violence and absolves the rest of Israeli society from accountability. Worse still, it encourages the illusion that a change in leadership would bring about meaningful change. In truth, the problem is much deeper. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Zawya
3 hours ago
- Zawya
United Arab Emirates (UAE) leaders congratulate President of Côte d'Ivoire on Independence Day
President His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan has sent a congratulatory message to President Alassane Ouattara of Côte d'Ivoire on the occasion of his country's Independence Day. His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, and His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Vice President, Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Presidential Court, dispatched similar messages to President Ouattara and to Prime Minister Robert Beugré Mambé. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of United Arab Emirates, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Web Release
4 hours ago
- Web Release
Digital Sovereignty is far more than compliance
I have honed my expertise in digital sovereignty in recent years largely as a result of it being one of the things our EMEA-based partners and customers always ask about. There is no one unifying reason for this increased interest in digital sovereignty, but rather several converging factors are accelerating its urgency. The most obvious is geopolitical instability. Sanctions and trade wars continue to disrupt global business operations. As reported, a coalition of nearly 100 organisations has urged European Commission leaders to establish a dedicated fund for building technological independence. In a joint letter addressed to President Ursula von der Leyen and Digital Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, the group advocated for strategic investments in homegrown infrastructure to reduce reliance on non-European tech giants. Another concern is that seemingly neutral cloud providers can become liabilities. One example is the high profile move of a major hyperscaler to cut off the International Court of Justice's email access following political pressure, highlighting that vendor obligations can sometimes override customer needs. In addition to geopolitical concerns, regulatory pressure is also mounting, with regulations like DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act) and NIS2 in Europe requiring financial institutions and critical infrastructure providers to ensure operational resilience. While it is true that geopolitical dynamics have put digital sovereignty into the spotlight, it would be a misconception to think of this as a fresh challenge, as at its core digital sovereignty is about resilience and autonomy. Organisations need to prove they can operate independently, even when global political shifts or vendor decisions disrupt their operations. Prepare for unintended consequences In April 2022, the Amsterdam Trade Bank (ATB), a financially stable Dutch institution, was forced into bankruptcy. This wasn't due to poor management or insolvency, but rather because of sanctions imposed on its Russian parent company, Alfa Bank. When the US, the EU and UK enacted sanctions against Russian entities in spring 2022, the ripple effects were catastrophic for ATB. Despite ATB being fully compliant with Dutch and EU laws, service providers, again being respectful with the same laws and sanctions, were obliged to abruptly terminate critical cloud services, including email and core banking operations. Without access to cloud-based workspaces and business software suites, ATB lost the ability to communicate internally or with customers, leading to its sudden collapse. While the sanctions against Alfa Bank have been implemented in a different context this case nevertheless underscores a critical distinction when it comes to the question of sovereignty: Own compliance does not guarantee autonomy. Even legally sovereign organisations can fail if they lack operational resilience. ATB's total dependence on their service providers left it defenceless when they withdrew support, a stark warning against vendor lock-in. While 'digital sovereignty' refers to government-mandated control, such as GDPR or data localisation laws, 'digital autonomy' is about an organisation's ability to operate independently, regardless of whether disruptions originate at the geopolitical or vendor level. This distinction has now been officially defined in the Netherlands by the Dutch government. ATB was sovereign (regulated under Dutch law) but not autonomous, so when its cloud providers pulled the plug, it had no backup plan. And, of course, ATB is not alone, in Australia another major hyperscaler accidentally deleted superannuation fund UniSuper's online account. Thankfully for UniSuper and its half a million members, they had taken the wise step of having a third party back-up. Building true autonomy takes a strategic approach To avoid ATB's fate, organisations need to take proactive steps towards technology and systems resilience. First, they should eliminate single points of failure by adopting multi-cloud or hybrid cloud strategies including on-premise solutions, reducing reliance on any single provider. Open source solutions, such as Red Hat OpenShift, offer portability across environments, helping businesses avoid lock-in to a single vendor's ecosystem, and providing customers with the flexibility, privacy and portability required to adapt to future regulations and sovereign requirements. In addition to this, specific technologies such as Confidential Computing can help you to continue using your current investments in cloud technologies while protecting your data from third party operations. Open source software, being a neutral decentralised way to develop software, delivers access and transparency while not relying on a single vendor, instead leaning on the decentralised community as the real back up. Next, organisations must control their exit strategy, for a smooth migration of data and applications if vendors change policies or face geopolitical restrictions. Lastly, they should invest in community-driven resilience that can provide an additional safety net. The CVE database, a cornerstone of global cybersecurity, nearly collapsed after US funding cuts but was saved by international collaboration, demonstrating the need for decentralised solutions and also the need to be able to keep innovating while protecting global collaboration and contributions. Innovating is costly and if you are only a consumer you may miss important advances and security. While digital autonomy is needed, we also must protect global collaboration and innovation with open source communities at its centre. Open source provides transparency and control of code while at the same time accelerating innovation, making it a key strategic investment for local/sovereign talent development. Organisations cannot afford to take a wait-and-see approach when it comes to establishing their digital future. Sovereignty laws will evolve, but resilience is permanent. Digital sovereignty isn't just a regulatory obligation, it's a strategic imperative for survival. The ATB and UniSuper cases showcase that legal compliance alone is insufficient, and that true autonomy requires technical resilience and independence from vendor lock-in.
