‘Not In Favour Of…' Italy's Meloni On France Move To Recognise State Of Palestine
Italian PM Giorgia Meloni opposes recognizing Palestine as a state before its establishment, contrasting with French President Macron's recent UN announcement.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Saturday resisted the growing momentum in Europe to recognise Palestine as a state, describing the move as 'counter-productive.
'I am very much in favour of the State of Palestine, but I am not in favour of recognising it before establishing it," Meloni told Italian daily La Repubblica. 'If something that doesn't exist is recognised on paper, the problem could appear to be solved when it isn't," she added.
Meloni's remarks come just days after French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from both Israel and the United States.
In addition to Italy, Germany also signalled that it won't recognise Palestine as a state anytime soon, adding that its priority now is to make 'long-overdue progress" towards a two-state solution.
Macron's announcement represents a major shift in European diplomacy, sparking intense debate across EU capitals.
'True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine. I will make a formal announcement at the United Nations General Assembly in September," the French head of state wrote on X and Instagram.
According to an AFP tally, Palestinian statehood is now recognised by 142 countries after the inclusion of France, though Israel and the United States strongly oppose recognition.
A resolution of the UN General Assembly decided on the partition of Palestine in 1947, then under a British mandate, into two independent states — one Jewish and the other Arab.
The State of Israel was declared the following year. For decades, most UN member states have backed the two-state solution, envisioning Israelis and Palestinians living in peace and security, side by side.
(With inputs from AFP)
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Why voting rights at 16 is the way forward
The United Kingdom has decided to permit 16-year-olds to vote in general elections. Incidentally, they can already vote in elections to the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales. That's one of the interesting quirks about Britain. And there's no doubt this will happen. It's a Labour manifesto promise and Prime Minister Keir Starmer has the numbers to push it through. Now, what it does is create a rather interesting situation for British 16-year-olds. In addition to voting in national elections, they can also marry with parental consent, enter into a civil partnership, consent to lawful sexual intercourse, leave home without their parent or guardians' permission, join a trade union, pay taxes and work as a waiter or waitress. They also have to pay full train fares. But there are also things they can't do. For instance, they can't buy a lottery ticket, drive a car on their own, purchase alcohol from an off licence or drink a pint of beer in a pub. Paradoxically, they can't stand for elections. So, they can't vote for themselves. If this creates a confusing picture, you would not be the first to say so. That seems to be the response of the opposition Conservatives. However, the essential question is: Are 16-year-olds mature enough to decide who should rule the country? You'll notice I haven't qualified that question by including the adverb intelligently. Do people in their 20s and 30s or 50s and 60s decide intelligently? Or do they do so emotionally? Or just out of habit and prejudice? If it's ok for them, why not 16-year-olds? That still leaves the core question: Are they mature enough to vote? Some clearly are. The BBC interviewed Alex Nurton, the chair of the UK Youth Parliament's Vote at 16 Campaign, and, frankly, he was better informed and certainly more thoughtful than most adults I know. Leave aside granting him the right to vote, he could even be given the right to rule! But are people like him an exception? I tend to think so. Perhaps because I'm more than half a century older, I'm inclined to believe 16-year-olds are still in the process of making up their minds. They're feeling their way. Learning through experience what could be right or what might turn out to be wrong. That was certainly true of me in the early '70s. If I was eligible, would I have been able to sensibly choose between Indira Gandhi's Congress and the opposition's Grand Alliance? Or would I have been swayed by my parents' opinion and, as young people often do, make it my own? Of course, there are young people who think for themselves. I wouldn't deny that. But I suspect the majority accept the view of the adults around them and hold on till they realise they disagree or just grow beyond it. Now, should you be voting when that's how you approach politics? It's easy to say no because we assume a vote is cast only after carefully considering the choices on offer. But think again. Is that really what adults do? Aren't we influenced by others just as 16-year-olds might be? Are we any more committed to or convinced of the person we vote for than a 16-year-old would be? I don't think so. In fact, in 1989, when India gave the vote to 18-year-olds, these very issues and concerns were debated. Time has proved the doubters wrong. Wouldn't you say that's likely to happen again? The truth is — and it's probably difficult for the elderly to accept — young people today are far more astute and intelligent than we were at their age. Actually, that was also true of our grandparents and us and their grandparents and them. Every generation is brighter than its predecessor. Just watch a four-year-old with an iPhone and you'll know I'm right. So I applaud the Brits for what they intend to do. Is it time for us to consider something similar? Karan Thapar is the author of Devil's Advocate: The Untold Story. The views expressed are personal.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump's tariff reset: From Canada to Laos, even dealmakers face higher costs as legal fight brews; US allies & rivals hit with steep import taxes
US President Donald Trump's sweeping new tariff regime, set to take effect August 7, has triggered a wave of economic disruption across the globe, from low-income nations like Laos and Algeria to wealthy trade partners such as Canada and Switzerland. Under the new policy, countries face steep new import duties unless they agree to revised trade terms with the US. Trump has framed the plan as a campaign for "fairness" under the slogan of "Liberation Day," invoking a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency and bypass Congress. But legal and economic blowback is mounting, with US courts weighing challenges and allies questioning Washington's reliability, AP reported. 'Everybody's a loser': Experts flag fallout "In many respects, everybody's a loser here," said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School. "The U.S. consumer's a big loser," added Alan Wolff, a former WTO deputy director-general and trade official. Even countries that struck deals to reduce their tariff exposure are still facing steeper import duties than before. The UK agreed to raise tariffs on its exports to the US from 1.3% to 10%, despite the US running a trade surplus with it for nearly two decades. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now Tips and Tricks Undo The EU and Japan accepted 15% tariffs, lower than the threatened rates but still significantly higher than last year's levels. Steep tariffs for those resisting Trump's demands Nations that refused to negotiate fared far worse. Laos and Algeria, despite low per capita incomes, now face tariffs of 40% and 30% respectively. Brazil was slapped with a 50% levy, reportedly over its treatment of former president Jair Bolsonaro. Canada drew a 35% tariff, tied in part to its position on Palestinian statehood. Even Switzerland, which did not reach an agreement, was hit with a 39% import tax, exceeding the originally announced 31%. "The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington to make a deal," said Wolff, now a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Legal battle escalates as costs rise for US consumers Five US businesses and 12 states have filed lawsuits against the new tariffs, arguing that Trump overstepped his authority. In May, the US Court of International Trade sided with plaintiffs, blocking the tariffs, though collections continue during the appeal process. Economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that US businesses and consumers are absorbing most of the cost. Companies including Walmart, Nike, Best Buy and Procter & Gamble have all raised prices in response. "This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those with lower incomes," said Appleton. "Your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to go up." According to Yale University's Budget Lab, the average US tariff has jumped from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3%, the highest since 1934. The lab estimates this will cost the average US household $2,400 annually. Winners still end up paying more Even countries that reached deals to avoid Trump's harshest penalties are still absorbing high tariffs. Taiwan saw its rate lowered from 32% to 20%, and Angola's from 32% to 15% — but both were paying less than 2% before the new policy. Lesotho, one of the poorest nations affected, saw its tariff reduced from 50% to 15%, though economists say the damage may already be done. "He [Trump] wants to do it because he found an undervalued franchise -- not because the market says you need to do a deal," said Wolff, referring to Trump's transactional approach to global trade. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . Discover stories of India's leading eco-innovators at Ecopreneur Honours 2025
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Palestine statehood: More countries back two-state solution - what's keeping the dream a dream?
Palestinians carry sacks of flour taken from a humanitarian aid convoy en route to Gaza City, in the outskirts of Beit Lahiya, northern Gaza Strip. (Pic credit: AP) First France, then the United Kingdom, and now Canada: three of America's closest Western allies have recently voiced support for the idea of a Palestinian state, adding significant political heft to a movement already endorsed by more than 140 countries. On paper, it sounds like a diplomatic shift. In reality, the goal of Palestinian statehood may be further away than ever. Why now? The recent declarations by France, Britain, and Canada stem from several motives: Frustration with Israel's actions, especially in Gaza, where images of starving Palestinians have outraged many in the West. Domestic political pressure, as citizens and lawmakers demand their governments take a stand. A desire to reinvigorate peace efforts long stalled in the region. Meanwhile, Palestinians have welcomed these moves as a major boost for their cause, but Israel has rejected them outright, calling recognition of a Palestinian state tantamount to "rewarding terrorism." Where does the US stand? These announcements have left the US looking increasingly isolated in its steadfast support for Israel. US President Trump, who has aspirations for a Middle East peace legacy, has grown frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — especially over starvation in Gaza, which Netanyahu denies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pirates Climb Aboard Cargo Ship - Watch What The Captain Did Next Tips and Tricks Undo Trump wants Saudi Arabia to normalise ties with Israel as part of expanding the Abraham Accords, but Riyadh has made it clear: there will be no normalisation without an irreversible path to Palestinian statehood. What's stopping it? A lot. Here's why the dream of a Palestinian state remains just that — a dream: 1. No partner in power Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flat-out rejects a two-state solution. He has described the idea of a Palestinian state as a "launch pad to annihilate Israel." Even if Netanyahu were to waver, hardline ministers in his coalition have threatened to collapse the government over any hint of compromise. 2. Palestinian leadership vacuum On the Palestinian side, things aren't any more stable. The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is seen as weak and out of touch. Meanwhile, Hamas, which controls Gaza, is internationally designated as a terrorist group. So even if a state were created, who would run it? Who could actually deliver peace? 3. The geography just doesn't work anymore The borders discussed in the 1990s Oslo Accords, based on 1967 lines with minor land swaps, are now more fantasy than framework. Massive Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank has carved up Palestinian territory into disconnected fragments. A contiguous, functioning Palestinian state under these conditions is nearly impossible. Can Israel accept a Palestinian state? The short answer: Not under Netanyahu's government. Netanyahu has declared that a Palestinian state would serve as a 'launch pad to annihilate Israel.' Even more extreme members of his coalition openly oppose any Palestinian sovereignty and have threatened to collapse the government if Netanyahu shows signs of compromise. Some cabinet members have even suggested starving Palestinians in Gaza rather than negotiating. What does it all mean? Recognition by France, the UK, and Canada is largely symbolic without Israel's agreement. In fact, it could even entrench Netanyahu further, allowing him to rally his base against what he will frame as unfair outside pressure. But at the same time, Israel's growing international isolation — especially among its traditional Western allies — could build pressure on leaders like Trump to reconsider their unwavering support, potentially reshaping the diplomatic landscape. The harsh reality Despite global calls, a Palestinian state faces more roadblocks now than in past decades. If anything, the conflict and entrenched positions have made it harder to imagine such a state ever existing — let alone thriving. The dream of Palestinian statehood continues to inspire hope — and trigger fierce debates. But right now, it's a dream suspended in diplomatic limbo, with no clear path, no consensus, and no timeline. The louder the world speaks, the more distant the solution seems.
