Fifteen Western countries call on other nations to express willingness to recognize Palestine
"In New York with 14 other countries, France is making a collective call: we are expressing our willingness to recognize the State of Palestine and invite those who have not yet done so to join us," Jean-NoEl Barrot wrote on X, following the "New York call" issued at the end of a ministerial conference at the United Nations for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In addition to France, two G20 members — Canada and Australia — are part of the call. The other signatory countries are: Andorra, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia and Spain.
Nine of them, which have not yet recognized the Palestinian state, "express the willingness or positive consideration of their country" to do so: Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Portugal and San Marino.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, for his part, announced Tuesday that the United Kingdom would recognize Palestine if Israel does not take certain measures. Last Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would officially recognize a State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly in September.
This call from the 15 countries was made public at the end of a ministerial conference held Monday and Tuesday in New York, at the initiative of France and Saudi Arabia, who are trying to keep the two-state solution alive as a way out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a scenario challenged by the ongoing war in Gaza and settlements in the West Bank. During the conference, several Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt, called on Hamas to hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
L'Orient-Le Jour
2 hours ago
- L'Orient-Le Jour
On the eve of government meeting, Hezbollah says 'resistance is the only choice and support for the Lebanese Army'
On the eve of the Cabinet meeting focused on the disarmament of armed factions in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, the party released a video Monday night in which it said that resistance was "the only choice and support for the Lebanese Army." "The disarmament of Hezbollah is a deliberate Israeli goal. We reaffirm that we are always ready to discuss any national defense strategy," can be heard in the video titled "Our choice is resistance," with the voice of the former head of the party, Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed last September by an Israeli strike on the southern suburbs of Beirut. The video continued with words from Hezbollah's current secretary-general, Naim Qassem, who stated that "the protection of Lebanon's sovereignty and the liberation of its land, the cessation of any form of Israeli aggression, and the use of the strength of the resistance and its weapons within the framework of a defense strategy that allows us to free our land and protect the country." "We reject any measure that weakens Lebanon ... Resistance was created out of necessity: to confront [the Israeli enemy]." "It has turned out to be the only choice and support for the Lebanese army," the video said. Hezbollah continues to denounce any pressure regarding its disarmament before an actual Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, pointing to what it considers Israel's failure to abide by the truce agreed upon last November. The group also warned against the manipulation of the issue, which it says could turn the matter into a "Lebanese-Lebanese" problem, while Lebanese authorities are calling for a clear decision regarding the state's monopoly over weapons.
L'Orient-Le Jour
2 hours ago
- L'Orient-Le Jour
Israeli army spokesperson denounces 'Hezbollah's central role' in the Aug. 4 explosion
On the fifth anniversary of the deadly explosion at Beirut Port, on Aug. 4, 2020, Avichay Adraee, the Arabic-language spokesperson for the Israeli army, published a message on X Monday in which he vehemently denounced Hezbollah's supposed role. "Five years ago, we were the first to reach out to the Lebanese people, offering sincere humanitarian assistance ... without distinction of religion, denomination or political affiliation," he wrote. "We simply saw a people in distress, and we responded to humanity's call." On the evening of the tragedy, Israel offered humanitarian assistance to Lebanon, with which it is technically at war. "Israel turned to Lebanon through international security and political contacts to offer humanitarian and medical aid to the Lebanese government," Israeli foreign and defense ministries announced at the time. For Adraee, "even at that time, it was perfectly clear who ... insisted on dragging Lebanon into hell." "Hezbollah is the cause of Lebanon's calamity," he stated, accusing the party of having "played a central role in causing the port disaster by storing explosive materials in the heart of the capital." He added that Hezbollah "mocked the helping hand extended to Lebanon, and preferred to throw itself into the arms of the Iranian regime, as usual, even at the expense of its people." Beirut airport and port are considered to have served as transit points for the party's weapons and funds for many years, and it has also largely lost its land supply routes from Syria, following the fall of its ally, the deposed President Bashar al-Assad, last December. Hezbollah has been blamed by its detractors for being responsible for transporting and storing the ammonium nitrate that caused the deadly explosion on Aug. 4, 2020. The party denies these accusations, as the investigation continues and several security and political officials have been charged by Judge Tarek Bitar, some of whom are close to the party. The Israeli spokesperson also reproached Hezbollah for 'deceiving people with slogans of resistance,' for 'turning Lebanon into a hostage in the hands of Iran,' for having 'dragged the country into wars, paralyzed institutions, impoverished people, driven away youth, and contributed to the port explosion.' "We cut off its hands and legs in the last war, and unveiled its truth before the world, and despite that it continues to persist in the calamity of the Lebanese ... as if the destruction of Lebanon was its only project," the Israeli army spokesperson added. His comments come as Lebanon emerged from a devastating war with Israel that severely weakened Hezbollah. Despite the adoption of a cease-fire on Nov. 27, 2024, the Israeli army continues to occupy five positions along the Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel, and carries out almost daily strikes in the south of the country and the Bekaa Valley. Adraee concluded his message by saying: "We were, and we will remain with the Lebanese people, but is the Lebanese people with itself?" His post was accompanied by a screenshot of a message he had already published on the same platform, dated Aug. 4, 2020, illustrated by a photo of the Lebanese and Israeli flags side by side. He wrote: "On instructions from the Defense and Foreign Affairs ministers, Israel reached out to Lebanon through security, political and international channels, and proposed humanitarian and medical aid. Israel has great expertise in these areas, as evidenced by the many humanitarian missions it has conducted around the world in recent years. It is time to put aside all conflicts." On Aug. 4, 2020, one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history devastated entire neighborhoods of the Lebanese capital, leaving 235 dead and 6,500 injured. This disaster, which has become a symbol of a culture of impunity, was triggered by a fire in a warehouse where tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer were stored without precautions, despite repeated warnings to the highest officials. President Joseph Aoun said Monday that the Lebanese state was "committed to uncovering the whole truth, no matter the obstacles or the high positions involved."
L'Orient-Le Jour
2 hours ago
- L'Orient-Le Jour
Attempts to reach a consensus continue ahead of Cabinet meeting
Until late in the evening, political contacts continued to reach a formula that the government could adopt regarding the issue of Hezbollah's weapons and their transfer to the Lebanese Army. These contacts are expected to continue up until the last moments before the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. Especially since, according to L'Orient-Le Jour's information, Hezbollah has made its participation conditional on knowing in advance what decisions will result from the meeting. It is relying on the role of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who is working to find a formula acceptable to all political forces as well as the international community. The latter is calling for the establishment of a timeline for a monopoly on arms. L'Orient-Le Jour has learned that a meeting took place Monday between President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. Berri was also expected to go to Baabda for talks with the president. These contacts are happening at a time when some stakeholders remain firmly attached to the idea of adopting a clear and public decision on the withdrawal of all weapons outside the authority of the state, with a precise timeline and an implementation program to be completed no later than the end of 2025. These parties argue that they represent the majority of the Lebanese people, especially after the positions taken by some of Hezbollah's allies – including MP Tony Frangieh – who have also expressed the need for the state to have a monopoly on arms. These actors believe they have a two-thirds majority in the cabinet, especially with the support of ministers close to the president and prime minister, prompting them to demand a clear decision, even if it means resorting to a vote. The international community insists on the need for the country to begin the process of reclaiming monopoly over arms and to define a clear execution plan with precise deadlines. Israel is convinced it has won a victory and that Lebanon, like Hezbollah, is in a position of weakness after the strikes they have suffered. This means, according to Israel, that Hezbollah must make the expected concessions, and that Lebanon must commit to the proposed path. Hezbollah's conditions Hezbollah is standing firm on its positions. While it does not reject the principle of a debate over the state's arms monopoly, it makes any disarmament contingent on a prior Israeli withdrawal, a halt to violations, the release of prisoners and the launch of the reconstruction process. The party has prepared an argument it considers clear, stressing that it accepted the cease-fire agreement, which stipulated that Israeli operations should cease and a withdrawal should take place within 60 days of the cease-fire, along with the holding of a reconstruction conference. However, in its view, none of these promises have been kept. It will therefore insist on Tuesday that priority be given to Israel fulfilling its previous commitments. On Monday, the party's media services shared a video on social media in which Secretary-General Naim Qassem and his predecessor Hassan Nasrallah stated that handing over the weapons is out of the question. Hezbollah also remains on guard against any initiative that could catch it off guard, such as the adoption by vote of a decision for weapons withdrawal with a specific timetable. This risk is all the more present given reports that Lebanon's international partners are insisting on the approval, without further debate, of the roadmap that has been proposed to Lebanon. This is why the party demands to know in advance the content of the government's decision. Several proposals Proposals have emerged to avoid a confrontation, a government crisis or rising tensions politically or among the public. One such proposal would involve presenting the American envoy Tom Barrack's roadmap, discussing it and sharing Lebanese observations during Tuesday's Cabinet meeting. The debate would be initiated, and Lebanon would enter a serious dynamic toward a state monopoly on arms. The final decision could then be postponed to another session, on Thursday or the following week, in order to defuse tensions and continue discussions toward a clear decision. Among the ideas mentioned is also the possibility of mandating the Lebanese Army or the Higher Defense Council to report on the progress made so far and to propose a mechanism for completing the army's deployment and implementing the state's monopoly on arms, with a realistic timeline. However, this solution may not suffice for the Americans and the Israelis, who insist on the establishment of a timeline. Lebanon faces a crucial deadline. Officials know a clear decision and a precise action plan are needed. But experience shows that such an agreement requires a matured political consensus, both internally and externally. Failing that, Lebanon could be headed either for a deep internal split or an increase in external pressure.
