Explainer: What to know about the West's growing push for Palestinian statehood?
BEIJING, Aug. 1 (Xinhua) -- The United Nations (UN) conference on the two-state solution wrapped up its general debate on Wednesday amid growing international support for recognition of Palestine's official statehood.
Rising civilian casualties and worsening humanitarian conditions in Gaza are pushing more Western nations to back Palestinian statehood. Which countries are leading this shift, and why?
WHO'S GETTING ON BOARD?
On July 24, French President Emmanuel Macron declared France will formally recognize Palestine at September's UN General Assembly, making it the first G7 country to take this step.
"The urgent need today is to end the war in Gaza and to rescue the civilian population," Macron posted on X. "We must build the State of Palestine," he said.
Downing Street issued a statement Tuesday urging "immediate and meaningful" action to ease the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, or else the British government will recognize the State of Palestine in September to "protect the viability of the two-state solution."
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Wednesday that Canada also plans to recognize the State of Palestine in September. "This intention is predicated on the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms," said its statement.
A high-level UN conference on the two-state solution concluded on Wednesday in New York after debating pathways to implement the two-state solution.
The representative of Malta said at the conference that his country could formally recognize the State of Palestine in September, calling it "a concrete step towards the realization of a just and lasting peace."
Moreover, Portugal, together with a group of other countries, reexamined the issue and the conditions for recognizing the State of Palestine during the meeting.
"From multiple contacts, it was possible to determine that many of the states with which Portugal has coordinated positions on the matter expressed a willingness to begin the procedure of recognizing the State of Palestine," its statement read.
Following the meeting, 15 foreign ministers signed a joint statement, stating that they will consider formally recognizing the Palestinian state at the upcoming UN General Assembly.
WHY SUCH A TUNE?
France's move signals a break with Europe's past stance. The French daily Le Monde reported that the turning point was Israel's prolonged Gaza offensive and aid restrictions, worsening famine and civilian suffering.
Israeli military operations in Gaza since October 2023, triggered by a deadly Hamas-led attack on Israel, have resulted in over 59,210 Palestinian deaths and more than 143,040 injuries, Gaza-based health authorities reported on July 24.
They also said on Wednesday that the total number of fatalities related to hunger and malnutrition had risen to 154 in Gaza, mostly children.
Just a day after France's announcement, Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz jointly demanded an immediate Gaza ceasefire and pressed Israel to end aid restrictions.
"Israel must uphold its obligations under international humanitarian law," the statement said.
Britain's decision comes amid growing domestic pressure, with over 200 MPs from nine parties urging Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy in a letter last Friday to recognize a Palestinian state immediately.
Britain bears a moral duty to safeguard peace prospects, given its historical role in the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Lammy said.
The collapsed ceasefire talks, tepid U.S. diplomacy, and Israel's symbolic West Bank annexation vote have convinced Paris and London that traditional mediation approaches have failed.
Adel Bakawan, a researcher at the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs, said France is capitalizing on a "window of political opportunity" amid waning U.S. regional influence. "France is offering an alternative vision," he said.
Analysts see the general move as a deliberate push to revive a stagnant peace process long controlled by Israel, Hamas and the United States, all of whom, they say, have shown little appetite for compromise.
HOW DOES THE WORLD SEE IT?
In response to Macron's announcement last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said such a move "rewards terror and risks." "A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel, not to live in peace beside it," he said.
But the latest UN conference in New York showed that Israel is increasingly finding itself "in a minority position," German Foreign Minister Thomas Wadephul said Thursday, as he pressed Israel to act on Gaza's "unfathomable" humanitarian crisis.
U.S. President Donald Trump has condemned the French move, saying it "doesn't carry any weight." He also dismissed Britain's intention to recognize a Palestinian state as "dangerous."
As the United States maintains its stance that Palestinian statehood requires direct talks with Israel, more governments now embrace recognition as a practical alternative.
The African Union (AU) on Saturday welcomed France's announcement to officially recognize the State of Palestine, calling it a "significant step" that aligns with the AU's longstanding position.
Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi on Wednesday described Britain's intention to recognize a Palestinian state as a step toward advancing the two-state solution.
"I highly value the statements made by Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, regarding the UK's intentions to recognize the State of Palestine," said the president.
In a statement issued Thursday by the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan said that international recognition of Palestine would enhance prospects for lasting peace and contribute to long-term regional stability.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday also expressed strong support for international efforts to recognize the State of Palestine, saying recent developments in Europe have been "very valuable."
"We welcome every step toward the recognition of the State of Palestine. We consider the growing humanitarian reactions from Europe to be of great importance," Erdogan said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What do we do now regarding emissions?
Opinion Over the past months, multiple impassioned pleas in the Free Press have demanded Canada reduce greenhouse gases. Concern and angst are evident, but no practical or actionable suggestions. This aptly characterizes the wasted decade under Justin Trudeau, with lots of aspirations and haughty pronouncements, but policies poorly conceived and overly political, resulting in woeful performance. That's not just me talking but the United Nations Environment Program. They note Canada as worst of the G7 for over-promising and under-delivering on emissions. Unfortunately, little seems to have changed under Mark Carney, whether on the environment or even on trade; still too much over-promising and under-delivering. Carney, for example, vowed to shield Canadians from content-thievery by U.S. tech giants, only to completely cave, almost on cue, when Trump objected. There is constant touting of 'clean growth,' but nothing concrete and little tangible progress. So, what can we do now? Taking a business perspective on climate is increasingly important, given economics is a key pillar of sustainability. As Vaclav Smil suggests, 'Without affordable solutions, wishful thinking on decarbonization risks unimaginable economic misery.' Carney dropped the useless commodity carbon tax but did not acknowledge failures both on emissions and fairness. Most Canadians, especially lower income, paid more than received back. Carney is now focused on the large industrial emitter tax, a tempting cash-cow. Yet such industries, like steel, are under dire threats. A better idea today is to temporarily drop the tax to help preserve jobs. We could also smartly set up special levies in the case of desired exports to Europe, matching carbon border adjustments there for any exports, but with collected funds going back to affected industries to help make improvements. If people want electric vehicles, fine, but let's drop the unachievable mandates, as recommended by automotive manufacturers. Electric vehicle progress is inconsequential, still only around three per cent of overall fleet, with almost all being imports. The bigger issue is excessive price, unaffordable for most Canadians even with incentives. Speaking of incentives, more than $2.2 billion went overwhelmingly to the top 16 per cent income bracket, hardly in need. A positive alternative, both cost efficient and equitable, is public transit. Across Canada, transit has not fully recovered to pre-COVID ridership, everywhere facing huge challenges, with cumulative financial losses approaching $12 billion. Even diesel buses are good. They too get people out of cars. For personal vehicles, why not modest incentives, say $2,000, but for all more-efficient vehicles including conventional hybrids. These are more affordable, provide reductions, and are made in Canada in significant numbers. Such incentives would go much further too. On the trade side, though, not a dime should go to any company benefiting Elon Musk, given his odious role. Despite pronouncements on heat pumps, there is not much reality. They still represent only three per cent of heating. Air source heat pumps are suitable in only a few provinces, not including the prairies. I know of failures. Ground source heat pumps can save operating costs, but are pricy, $30,000 to $40,000 per single site. Examining government information more closely shows a current focus on trying to shift all-electric homes. This conserves electric power and lowers operating costs, but no GHG reductions, and a high-cost per kW reduced, more than $4,000. For good reasons, we already have efficient natural gas systems, exceeding 90 per cent, and these are affordable. Despite incentives, heat pump economics are questionable for getting off natural gas. There is a logical path, though, involving community loops and multi-house neighbourhood-systems. These have demonstrated high performance and low costs, but no level of government pays any attention. Until this happens, heat pumps will languish at the periphery. Regarding electricity, Manitoba and Canada have lots of energy, i.e., kWh, but are limited on capacity, i.e., kW. These are distinctly different parameters. Jay Grewal stressed we could face problems here before 2030. Wind can provide diversification to guard against drought, so is positive, but solar, often touted, is overly expensive, surprisingly dirty, especially solar trash, involves largely imported equipment, and cannot provide kW. Natural gas turbines are a good capacity option, less than $2,000 per kW. They only generate emissions when actually running. If only operated as needed, say 10 to 20 per cent of the time, numbers show this is better than solar. A last opportunity to note is transforming canola we already grow, but threatened too, into low-emissions sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). A realistic plant has already been proposed for Manitoba. Further analysis is still needed, but there is potential for what could be the largest emissions reduction project in Manitoba, combined with local value-add opportunities, and support for Canada's crucial canola sector, more economically important than automotive but receiving little federal attention. Yes, we have opportunities, but we need to be realistic and think things through. Robert Parsons, PhD, MBA, teaches at the I.H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Of apes, men and war
Opinion Now would be a good time to watch a Netflix documentary series called 'Chimp Empire'. It's about one year of an ongoing war between two bands of chimpanzees, shot up close and personal, and the narrator never suggests that there is any similarity between their war and our wars. He doesn't need to. You'd have to be dead to miss it. The central issue, as in most human wars, is about territory, or more precisely the resources it contains. Fruit trees near the constantly patrolled border between the territories of the two chimp groups in Uganda's Kibale National Park are the apple of discord in this case. The aim of the game is to shift that boundary eastward to include those trees (the Western band) or to keep it where it is (the Central group). It's rather like the recent mini-war between Thailand and Cambodia, currently stalled by a ceasefire — although the bone of contention in the human case is only a symbol (an ancient temple) rather than a resource of real value. By the time we come to big wars between major developed states like Russia and Ukraine, the causes of the wars are often abstract 'strategic' concerns far removed from the realities of daily life for their citizens. Yet still the echoes of past behaviours resonate. What drove Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, for example, was regret at the collapse of the Soviet empire almost 40 years ago and the determination to reassemble at least the Slavic parts of it ('Russky Mir') into a single, powerful Orthodox state. Even though he is probably not a believer himself. At that point we have left our primate relatives far behind. So far as we know, they are not prone to abstract thinking, so their wars are always about real resources and/or personal advantage. Whereas the 'world wars' of the 20th century and the possible global nuclear holocaust of the 21st are not rational: the cost vastly outweighs any potential gain. That does not mean that no country will ever again resort to violence, nor does it mean that non-violence is the answer. Naked violence always trumps sweet reason. The only answer is what is now known as the 'international rule of law': a de facto alliance of countries that outlaw military conquest and is willing to enforce that law by violence if necessary. That alliance already exists and its rules are spelled out in the Charter of the United Nations, signed in 1945. The fact that many countries have ignored its ban on changing international boundaries by force (and in some cases got away with it for long periods of time) is less important than the fact that it exists at all. Tuesdays A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world. The diplomats who wrote that Charter did not know how old and deeply rooted the institution of war was. They knew nothing about war among non-human primates. They did not realise that war was universal among human hunter-gatherers even long before the rise of the first civilizations. But they knew that their attempt to end war would fail many times in many places before it succeeded, if it ever did. Over the past 80 years many millions of people have been killed in wars, but their project has been more successful than most of them expected: the death toll from war dropped steeply as the decades passed, and nuclear weapons were never used again. In the past few years, however, there has been a sense that the project is backsliding. Not only are major powers resorting to war more often, but they are doing so without even trying to justify it under the UN Charter rules for the use of force: Russia in Ukraine, Israel in Gaza, the United States over Iran. Maybe so much time has passed that they have forgotten what everybody's objective was at the end of the Second World War: to replace the rule of war with the rule of law. If so, they should all be obliged to watch 'Chimp Empire', to remind them where we have come from and why we need to get to a better place. Gwynne Dyer's new book is 'Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers'. The previous book, 'The Shortest History of War', is also still available.
CBC
7 hours ago
- CBC
Report urges recognition of anti-Palestinian racism in Canada
A new report out of York University outlining dozens of incidents in the last two years is urging all levels of government to recognize anti-Palestinian racism as its own form of discrimination.
