however a clear display of the end of the US soft power, after an interesting 6 months of foreign policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_rec...
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_recognit... (“File History”)
Just browsing history on MediaWiki will probably show the old tex with recenn image. If you want full article, you'd have to use web.archive.org, archive.is or somethinglike that.
>[light green] Countries that have announced their impending recognition of Palestine (Australia, France, Malta, and San Marino)
but Australia is dark green in the current image (France still light green and I can't be bothered zooming to see the small ones)
As an Assyrian, my nation has been getting exterminated by Arabs, Turkish and Kurdish colonialist for millennia. We live in constant fear and I don't think we will exist in the next 30 years
1. South Africa / Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where Palestine and Israel is united leading to an exodus of the former ethno-nationalist "managerial" class.
2. Two-state solution where an acceptance of each other is grown over generations.
3. Continuation of the current genocide of the Palestinian people until they are exterminated from their land. Leading to the isolation of Israel.
For Israel and the Israeli people the only palatable option should be 2, but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.
Netherlands loses control of it about the same time as US became independent and they developed mostly independently since then
Besides that Apartheid South Africa is remarkably similar to Israel (of course the race part is entirely replaced by religion/culture making assimilation into the Israeli society actually somewhat feasible).
Considering how many times Arabs started and lost wars against Israel, how many atrocities they did to Israel people it's not a surprise your #2 is not a popular option there.
Need to mention nothing can justify current levels of destruction in Gaza.
There are a few things that made this possible. One important factor is the change of prime minister. Whereas Thatcher saw things only in terms of terrorists who need to be fought, John Major had more holistic view and recognised that in spite of the terrorism, there were some real structural problems that needed addressing. Even Ian Paisley admitted as much later in life, which would be roughly equivalent to Ben-Gvir admitting there is something to the Palestinian complaints.
I guess my point is there can be happy endings to these types of conflicts. No one wins with the current situation, certainly not Israel. Punching everyone around you in the face as a defensive strategy works fantastically well right up until the point you take a nap, at which point everyone will stomp on your head like it's a right watermelon.
You're right in drawing parallels between the two. But the ira seem to be far more pragmatic then the palestinians and for all their sins they never deliberately targeted women and children in the way organised palestinian terror does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Manchester_bombing
Terror was the aim, not death.
Paramilitaries on both sides carried out many actions that killed women and children.
Nowhere near the scale of Hamas, and certainly nothing close to the magnitude of the IDF.
It's a sad conflict that can't be solved without some kind of superior external force, that would use extreme economic and military measures to make two sides tolerate each other. America is closest to that force, and they've chosen their side. Best Palestinians can hope for is a peaceful relocation somewhere else I'm afraid.
A genocide doesn't happen. While we see a lot of death in wars and any death it too much, it isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things regarding population numbers.
Number 1 will never happen, it would end in a real genocide that does fit the term. Number 2 has become less likely and was rejected thoroughly in the past by Palestinians. Number 3 is actually Israel occupying Gaza for a long time and it will probably prompt a repeated aggression in the future. This is the most likely option for now.
Perhaps with Hamas ousted and the realization how much suffering their aggression did inflict, there can be peace in the future, that results in something like number 2.
There is no excuse for what Israel and the US have done. Not that there weren't wrongs by Hamas but there is no comparison at this point. It's repugnant that that argument is made and it's not something that will ever be forgotten.
In UK’s case, it seems to me more of the classic Starmer flailing about to recapture the votes of whatever group fared worst in his opinion polls. After appeasing Reform and the Tory voters, he probably feels it’s time to throw a bone to the Corbynites now.
For the people in the west bank who is having their land stolen daily by foreigners.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/05/wasteland-rubb...
But it makes incursions into Palestine by Israel explicitly of an international nature. Palestine is and has been considered occupied territory, but without recognizing Palestine as a state, what soverign country's territory is occupied?
Perhaps now that there is a recognized country whose territory is being occupied, the recognizing countries may oppose the occupation in more specific ways. Perhaps, the same sorts of protestations without specific action as in years past.
Real (positive) change for Palestinians would start with Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories[1], and that needs more than a declaration of statehood, but a declaration of statehood may be a tiny step towards that goal.
[1] It's not strictly required, but I suspect it's more likely for Israel to withdraw than it is for Israel to radically change how they interact with the occupied territories.
An equal territorial exchange is much more realistic, as part of a two-state comprehensive package. However, "63% of Palestinians, 65% of Israeli Jews, and 13% of Israeli Arabs are opposed to this two-state comprehensive package.', see https://pcpsr.org/en/node/989 .
In my mind, if both sides are equally opposed to it, it's probably fair... But that poll also offers hope; it said there were steps each side could take unilaterally or paired that would get to majority support. I didn't see list of those steps, except the two paired options which they said could individually make a big difference (anti-incitement, especially in textbooks and mutual employment authorization).
That this fact is ignored in the debate is deplorable, but fortunately there are those working in states across the world that understand that, in order for there to be reliable, official assistance granted to the people of Palestine, having their state recognized first of all, makes it far more likely to happen.
It means that the Palestinian passport can be recognized, officially, on refugee lines. It means that aid can be declared a state-to-state expenditure.
There are so many benefits to recognizing Palestinian statehood that one really must question the motives of those who do not understand why it is essential that it happen.
We should remember that it was those very same governments that happily supplied weapons to Israel and actively blocked resolutions by the UN to recognize and stop the genocide that's been happening in the last two years. We need to hold our "leaders" accountable and not allow them to escape culpability.
In the end, they might just end up tanking more in the polls as they end up having no consistent values.
[1] https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
His party lost the last legislative elections. Polls show 78% against recognizing palestinian statehood NOW and without conditions.
He is totally illegitimate in doing so.
He's still going to do it.
0: https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/exclusif-reconnaissance-d-un-et...
Which is why he should refrain from acting such a strong policy shift and what could be perceived as a major change of alliance.
What would be equivalent would be Trump deciding to change a long standing geopolitical policy after he lost the mid-terms and without the US congress having any voice in the matter.
The polls just reinforce the issue.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
In general all topics about politics gets flagged when they first appear since they are semi off topic. Then when enough people vouch for them they get unflagged, reports of big political events tend to get unflagged, but political opinion pieces or smaller events typically do not.
No shit. You are welcome to go further. Why people would use this as an argument against recognizing statehood baffles me.
I guess we shall see how Israel actually benefits from this soon.
The allies did not stop bombing Germany and Japan until they surrendered.
Why do we expect Israel to behave differently than we would have?
How about Gaza/West Bank, no even before Oct 7 attacks it didn't look like a state. Israel is right now so much more powerful that it won't let Palestinians have independence. This situation is so strange I don't have time to write a more detailed answer about my opinions.
The only moral viable solution I can see is 2 separate states. At this point support of anything else is supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing. If it doesn't happen then that is a deliberate choice of the US and I fear for the world never mind Israel or Palestine.
Is there any objective difference to recognizing a Palestinian state, and Taiwan?
Simulacra•4mo ago
ViewTrick1002•4mo ago
> That the United Kingdom…
> Formally recognises the State of Palestine.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-the-r...
PhilipRoman•4mo ago
__s•4mo ago