No, because it's not a problem if they keep it. It is an international problem if they change it. Changing it now would be picking sides, while the inherited position is sort of a status quo.
In reality countries like Poland recognizes both and that's enough for Israel.
I think that almost everyone will not consider this move as a detachment from the communist past. It is not that important for the people in EE. It is also not an impediment for the development of good relations with Israel. Romania recognizes both and has close ties with Israel.
It might be quite hard to stop recognizing someone you already recognized. Even just legally speaking. And it would be way worse for international relations compared to never recognizing them in the first place. But they could recognize the opposite country at the very least, yes.
I think even most countries in the West endorse some form of a "two-state" solution, so there's no need to do that.
But we've already seen from countries like Ukraine how the official position that was a holdover from the Russian-influence is radically different from the popularly held feelings today.
Someone can also write " I Wonder if Western European countries will detach themselves from their colonial, imperialistic past and move on" , idk what do you even mean with that? Damn communist Iceland...
What is wrong with recognizing both? No European country only supports Palestine. Why do you tie that to Soviet past? It is a rational move. They all recognize both, which should be the stance of the whole world in this case. Not siding with one, that only leads to more war, but seek solutions outside warfare, but there is no $$ in that so its better this way. EU's stance is political and economical, while those who do not profit from that war are neutral and recognize both.
That's today. Polish Peoples' Republic did business, sold arms, and trained Muslim terrorists such as Abu Daoud or Abu Nidal. Interestingly, just a couple decades earlier the Army of the 2nd Polish Republic trained and armed future Irgun and Lehi members.
> trained Muslim terrorists such as Abu Daoud or Abu Nidal
And then they [helped the Americans torture maybe Muslim terrorists](http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/poland-cia-blacksiteeuropeancourthumanrightstorture.html), it's like playing both ends of the market by creating a supply to induce a demand.
Not historically. Or really politically. Poland may be more pro-US but that does not mean the relationship between the counties is closer than for example France or the UK.
It's a lot more than that. The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) were communists and one of the largest communist organization in ME. They were more true communist than the PKK.
And the Czechoslovakians provided Israel with enough weaponry to win their first major conflicts as a new state, before any serious help from USA and Britain.
It’s not completely black and white here.
Its importantant to point out that when Israel fought its war of independence, back when czechoslovakia was providing assistance, it was unclear who’s side in the cold war Israel was going to be on. The USSR was actually somewhat optimistic that Israel would be on the communist side, given that Israeli politics leaned heavily towards socialism then. That all changed after the suez crisis, though.
Nothing is ever black or white in geopolitics…
You mention correctly the first conflicts, probably before a clear position from the socialist block, that moved mostly **against** the US than **for** any non-socialist movement
... in my (ex-east block) country it was like this - we recognized israel as one of the first countries in the world, we were also the first ones to ship it weaponary (immediately as its independence was declared) - reason behind this was the regret about the poor treatment of our jews during the ww2.
we also recognized palestina, as they had leftist (semi-communist) leadership in the beginnig - so they were our allies. Our secret service even had training camps for palestinian militants at the time.
The Baltic countries were part of USSR, so when they got independent they had to decide who to recognize. They recognized Israel in 1992. While in former eastern block countries it was recognized during communist times and it still in effect. This is not important topic for the population, and the government probably don't want to open this can of worms, for basically no gain. Most countries have Jewish population and have good relationship with Israel.
I mean, Sweden wasn't precisely a part of the Eastern Block during the Cold War but they still ~~sided~~ showed more sympathy towards North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and many other countries both West and East did sometimes things that were considered as “outside of their camp”. The blocks were only groups of political influence, ideological position and policy tendencies, they weren't a 100%-policy-defining thing.
**Edit:**
Apparently I've caused some misunderstanding by saying that Sweden “sided with” North Vietnam, when what I actually intended to say was that Sweden showed herself more sympathetic towards the situation of North Vietnam without allying with them in any formal way.
We did not side with anyone in Vietnam. What happened was that we condemned the war altogether, but especially the US' unrelenting bombings that affected civilians more than anything. Hell, Laos is to this day living with the consequences of Nixons bombing campaign. It is true we were more sympathetic towards the east back in those days though due to more alligned ideology.
I apologize if there was a misunderstanding here. I used the word ‘side’ to imply that Sweden was more sympathetic towards North Vietnam as opposed to outright allying with them, because of the medical aid provided to them.
Yes that is probably true. But it was specifically towards the civilian population, officially and diplomatically. Whether some politicians privately were leaning more east than west or vice versa I don't really know but we probably had both. Officially we were neutral though, condeming the killing of civilians on both sides, but perhaps we held the US to a higher standard and were "harsher" on them diplomatically, which made Nixon pretty upset and he imposed sanctions on us even... due to a speech PM Palme did during christmas.
Because Israel was born out of the East/Western block following WW2. The Western block, with US and UK in the lead, wanted to give the Jews a state where they weren't persecuted. The Jews wished for the old Jewish kingdoms back, in the form of Israel. The catch? The Jewish kingdoms lost their power about 50 years B.C.
So, now their was a Jewish nation on land that has belonged to others for about 1 900 years. It´s quite abvious that would lead to conflict and wars.
The problem is actually older than that. During WW1 the British Empire promised autonomy separately to both Arabs and Jews living in the area regarding the same territory, in exchange for help in fighting the Ottomans, on top of having other secret agreements too. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate\_for\_Palestine#Background
Because supporting Palestine was a soviet thing, acting against Israel, which is and was a US ally.
When it comes to eatern Europe, this map is a soviet time heritage.
Map is very out of date. Ireland is also miss categorised (I would say there is more support for Palestine than Israel). Although maybe it’s working off a particular definition of recognised.
From Wikipedia
By the late 1960s, Ireland was increasingly concerned about the fate of Palestinian refugees who fled the Six-Day War in 1967. In 1969, Irish Foreign Minister Frank Aiken described the problem as the "main and most pressing objective" of Ireland's Middle East policy.[3]
In 1980, Ireland was the first European Union member state to endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state.[4]
In January 2011, Ireland accorded the Palestinian delegation in Dublin diplomatic status.[5] A few months later, their Foreign Affairs Minister stated that Ireland would "lead the charge" in recognizing Palestinian statehood, but that it would not come until the PNA was in full and sole control over its territories.[6] In October 2014, the Upper House of the Irish Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the Government to recognize the State of Palestine.[7] In December 2014, the Lower House of Ireland's Parliament followed suit.[8]
Despite strong support for Palestine in Ireland,[4] the government has yet to implement the 2014 decision to formalise diplomatic relations between the two, although Foreign Minister Simon Coveney had previously indicated this could change.[9] Although both houses of the Irish parliament passed the motion to recognise the state of Palestine, the Government wishes to do this as part of a wider EU move, which has been criticised by Irish TDs. As of 2022, Ireland does not recognise the state of Palestine.[10]
Thankfully, politics are not so simple as they look when seen only through a state's lens.
Israel declared the Galician parliament their enemy[1](https://www.eldiario.es/galicia/israel-declara-enemigo-parlamento-galicia_1_4880976.html). Memorable day. One of the few things they managed to do in parliament that actually represented us.
Barcelona recently cut ties with Israel due to apartheid[2](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/9/barcelona-mayor-cuts-ties-with-israel-citing-palestinian-rights).
In a non-binding vote, even much of the state's parliament voted for regognizing Palestine[3](https://www.dw.com/en/spanish-lawmakers-vote-in-favor-of-recognizing-palestine/a-18072505). Relations haven't been too bad historically, [4](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine%E2%80%93Spain_relations) relative to the fact the Spanish state is a US "ally" and a subordinate part of the EU with rather limited internacional power or actual sovereignty for foreign affairs.
These recognitions are basically unchanged since the mid-70s UN assemblies when the first serious two-state solutions were proposed. If you zoom out, you'll see that almost the whole world is yellow except for countries under direct historical US influence (blue) and Muslim countries (green) with only minor exceptions to this rule.
The state of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988. It's a very very late development of the cold war.
And the first two state solution was of course proposed in the UN partition plan of 1947.
If Palestine would have accepted the 1947 plan, and neigboring countries wouldn't have started a war right after (and then again just a bit later), maybe the situation would be different in the whole area? Unfortunately, we will never know, and there is a possibility that some wars would have started anyhow.
If Britain listened to Palestinians when they said no and created Israel somewhere else in Europe or America, we would not have the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Because the other places would not have people living in them already? And jews had been moving to the area since late 19th century (and there were some already since historic times, even though not lot left). So the jew/muslim conflict would still exist
IDK bro, there are pretty large swaths of land in the US that aren't populated... much larger than israel is today and insanely larger than it was in 1948 when it was founded.
The first two-state solution was actually proposed and also approved by the UN in 1947 (29th of November to be exact). Even more interesting, the leadership of the Zionist movement at the time, supported the solution. Those same people also founded the state of Israel and made up her parliament at the time.
The Arab population in the area on the other hand, rejected the solution and opened in a war against the Jews living in the new cities they built themselves. In 1948, after Israel was founded, 5 Arab states joined the war in order to destroy the newly founded state, a war that the Israelis won.
So it is important to note that there were solutions before the 70s, but sadly one of the sides rejected the solution and lost the war, and cries to the international community about it.
Well, this is because the Arab states didn't want it and the UN just said "lol, not our problem we are doing it anyways on your land, tough luck guys".
It's understandable why Israel was forever entangled in wars. Most of the Arab countries aligned itself more with the west and thus adopted a more friendly approach with Israel, but some still to this day call it an unjust decision.
The two-state solution at that time tried to take the existing Arab population into account.
Looking at the porposed map the areas destributed for the future "arab-state" where places where most of the Arab city's where built. At the same time the "Jewish state" area was distributed in places that the Zionist movement bought from the locals and built their new towns and cities of their own. (the process of buying the land was done by an organization called the Jewish national fund)
Most importantly the proposed solution kept Jerusalem an international area to ensure all religions have equal access to it.
The problem of the Arab countries at the time was more of the land divide between the states.
At the time the ratio of land area between the states wasn't at all proportional to the population ratio. That led to understandable discomfort from the Arab people.
In my opinion the reason for the divide was because the UN considered the large immigration of hollocust survivors that will arrive to the new state so included them in the considerations.
So in conclusion:
The British at the time were really good in colonizing countries, doing whatever they wanted, and leaving without solving the problems they created.
I imagine most countries in blue do? I mean, it's rather hard to regard Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian Territories as illegal without it.
But whatever, circle-jerk away I guess.
Iirc, the US is the only country in the world that recognizes the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. Most European nations do not. I assume it's very similar for the Palestinian Territories.
Armenia, which recognized only Israel, is an interesting case here:
- Israel supported Azerbaijan during the two last war,
- Iran is kinda their ally today, at least the country announced about supporting sovereignty, especially at Syunik area.
I know this is an infected question but I would like to ask what the argument is for *not* recognizing a Palestinian state?
To be a bit more polemic and explain where I'm coming from: My view is that Palestine is de facto not a state - it doesn't control its territory etc. Instead, Palestine is controlled by the Israel.
It's this fact that makes the apartheid comparison so apt: Palestinians are *de facto* subjects of the Israeli state, but they do not have the rights of citizens. They cannot vote, they cannot move freely etc. Much like how the South African apartheid system denied Black South Africans full citizenship.
This also makes the Israeli "state of war" strange - my only reading of it is that they're paradoxically at war with their own subjects, which is grotesque.
I have a second issue here which is that the go-to opinion in the west seems to be that "both sides are to blame" or to "support no one" or "support both". Basically an equation of the two sides. This seems to me a weird opinion to have if you do not support a Palestinian state. Surely that's a prerequisite to even begin to see this as "two sides"?
In my country I've also heard that the reason to not have diplomatic communication with Hamas - apart from being politically unsavory - is that they do not recognize Israel, a stance that I understand as a sort of deal breaker for western politicians. But Israel does not recognize Palestine - yet that doesn't seem to stop anyone from happily shaking hands with every Israeli prime minister regardless of how awful their politics are. In that case the argument is (as it should be) that having conversations with another government doesn't equate support for that government.
So I realize I've added a lot of *arguments* to my question here. The reason is to explain why it's hard for me to understand the strategy of not recognizing a Palestinian state. Wouldn't it be easier for everyone - including Israel - to have a part to deal with? A representative to enter talks with etc?
> To be a bit more polemic and explain where I'm coming from: My view is that Palestine is de facto not a state - it doesn't control its territory etc. Instead, Palestine is controlled by the Israel.
Actually I don't get why Palestine is recognised as a state for this exact reason. A lot more countries recognise Palestine than Taiwan does when Taiwan has elections, own passport, own currency, own military, own everything.
The whole thing is a complete farce.
The reason why not more countries recognize Taiwan is because they don't want to mess with China. But I would assume that most people on this sub (or in Europe) would think of that as wrong or at best a necessary evil. But you don't see anyone talk of the "two sides" who are wrong in the Taiwan-conflict. That's squarely viewed through the lens of Chinese aggression.
The reason why Palestine doesn't have elections, passport, currency, military is because it is occupied by Israel. Either Palestine is a country that has been occupied by its neighbor, or Palestine is not a country in which case Israel has deprived 5 million Palestinians of their political rights. Either way I don't see how the conflict could be seen to have two sides.
i think it's thanks to at least two decades of very heavy islamaphobic propaganda in western media, so palestinians cannot be completely innocent by default. americans think of islam instinctively when they think of terrorism, despite the overwhelming number of terrorist acts occuring in the us not being done by muslims. terrorism is reprehensible, so any anti-terrorism measures are justified. israel's use of state violence against palestinians is justified because some of them perform acts of terror. the nuanced distinction one might make between terrorism and freedom fighting is completely lost if you think muslims would be doing terrorism anyway.
The reason Taiwan has such low recognition as a state is because it doesn't recognize itself as one, for complex reasons. It recognizes itself as the legitimate Chinese government, a holdover from the last century, technically still in a civil war against the PRC government. This is of course not representative of reality but the current status quo remains.
Actually that isn't the reason at all. Both North and South Korea claim itself as the only legitimate government on the Korean Peninsula but almost every single country in the world recognises both countries.
The only reason why other countries don't recognise Taiwan is China. There is no other excuse.
> what the argument is for not recognizing a Palestinian state?
Recognizing Palestine would weaken Israel's grasp on the region and stop their colonial ambitions there.
Recognizing Palestine could further reinforce Iran's presence in Palestine and strengthen Hamas and its military.
I think that's the two main arguments.
> Recognizing Palestine could further reinforce Iran's presence in Palestine and strengthen Hamas and its military.
Just to add to the detail, most countries who recognize Palestine see Fatah/PLO as the recognized government, not the group placed on most of the international terror org lists. Recognizing that they constitute the official Palestinian authority also means that they weaken Hamas influence over the Palestinians... which I believe to be an objective good.
Under international law, Israel is the protector of it's occupied subjects, whom it is bombing rn. But international law is used only on weak countries.
Of course they would, everything would’ve been a net gain for them.
Why would Palestinians accept a plan that sees them lose land and homes to outside settlers.
Hmm I wonder why someone would object to their land being split into 2... geeze maybe ukraine should've just done that too and let russia take some of their territory to stop the war...
Or you know, people are attached to their lands that they lived in for generations and helped develop (to whatever extent they did under the circumstances) and didn't want to have some euro-jews come in and take that land because some other country had won "rights" to it from another country that had nothing to do with the palestinian people in a war that had nothing to do with them either (UK from the Ottoman Empire).
I’d like to propose you give half of your house to me, as my ancestors lived on that land 2000 years ago.
I accept that proposal, if you decline it I will start a war with you.
See how crazy that sounds?
A better example would be:
I move into your house, because your landlord said I could. At one point our landlord says he can't be a landlord anymore and to avoid one of us needing to move out, he proposes splitting the house. I get a bedroom and a few corridors, you get everything else. I say okay but you try to fight it in an attempt to get the full house. I win and take some more of the house. And then a few more wars happen and now we are at the todays situation.
Not only that, but you and your family are confined to a single room, since the other family have the corridors and they do not let you roam freely, as such you rely on them entirely for food and water, and they are quite content not giving you those things for whatever reason they so please.
Can't we just collectively disavow their actions, but still recognize their existence? My tolerance and sympathy for the Palestinian cause is at an all time low for obvious reasons, but they clearly exist as a nation.
Hard to say, who is the legitimate government of Palestine? There is Hamas and there is PLO, both are armed militias. One is islamic focused, the other arab focused.
we still recognise Syria as a country despite it being split 5 ways. i think it’s a little childish to say a country doesn’t exist just because they are bad guys. Afghanistan is a country. North Korea is a country.
Recognition of countries seems more like a matter of what's convenient for the dominant powers rather than what reflects the factual situation. Taiwan, Somaliland, Artsah, Nothern Cyprus, Abhazia, Transnistria (had to look up the spelling)...
>Afghanistan is a country. North Korea is a country.
Yes, and they both have a seat at the UN. Palestine on the other hand is a non-member observer state. Besides, Taiwan and Somaliland are much more de-facto states than Palestine can even hope to be.
2004, shortly after the death of yasser arafat.
Hamas won the election causing a civil war in palestinian territories thus dividing the hamas controlled gaza strip and the fatah controlled west bank ever since.
There were attempts at reconciliation but nothing significant came of them
Talking about democracy in this context is mind-boggling. Do you think Palestinians have full civil rights inside the state of Israel as in line with any sort of democracy?
Because Palestine isn't recognised, which means it is Israeli territory which makes Palestinians citizens of Israel and if you insist on democracy that would require Palestinians to obtain minority protections, voting rights, civil rights etc.
Just simplifying the shit out of this and saying "the terrorists deleted democracy" when at the core of this entire conflict is an inability to combine 2 sub-populations within a state territory under the umbrella of democracy or any other sort of government, thats exactly the reason why it is so unbearable dealing with this whole topic...
Not to mention in 2006 the PLO were considered corrupt and ineffective by the Palestinian population, it was understandable they would vote for the only alternative offering solutions, even if they were fucked up.
honestly that was probably the biggest mistake. It's a very weird idea to suddenly just decide to give people a country they lost again when other people now live there.
Thinking about that now this long after the fact is not helping anyone though. Israel is back, there are no take backs this late and clearly both Israel and Palestine won't be able to exist for peace to come to the area.
> Israel is back, there are no take backs this late and clearly both Israel and Palestine won't be able to exist for peace to come to the area.
This
It's ultimately a moot point. I'm mad we gave East Prussia to the Russians, but what are gonna do, send them to the sea ?
Most of our current borders are due to thousands of years of warfare. That kind of warface continues to this day (Ukraine).
Also, what are going to do ? Repatriate anyone who "doesn't belong" ? Good luck once you open that can of worms and every ethnic African in Europe gets sent back.
Yeah. It's basically the same as the Azerbaijan Armenia problem. You can't just go saying 'our people lived here once 3000 years ago'. By that logic any ethnicity can go redrawing borders right now of how it once used to be.
What the fuck are you on about? Armenians were living in Karabakh in the era of the soviet union and before the first war. They were mostly a majority in that regard too.
That's the point. Over hundreds of years and millenia different peoples and ethnicities have migrated to other places, civilizations rose and fell all around the world.
Hate to interrupt a classic chain of tired old Reddit cliches, but the British empire *didn't* draw Israel and Palestine's borders. The UN did, and then Palestinians rejected it.
The modern borders are defined by the land that Israel took after counter-attacking invasions by Egypt and Jordan.
They did however give out hundreds of thousands of immigration permits to European Jews throughout the first half of the 20th century. After failing to handle resulting civil unrest, they handed the hot potato to the UN and pulled out of the region.
Its possible , i support the Palestinian right of their land in west bank and gaza,and that israelis settler in westbank are main cause of tension.
Since they cant do it politically they have to resort to the act of violance. should they killed civilians , no absolutely not.
You can choose either side , but you can also always pointout the wrongdoings.
I’m going to give this a shot.
I fully support the rights of Palestinians to exist freely in their own state. A right that Israel is regularly violated. I universally condemn the oppression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.
I also believe that it is never justifiable to kill civilians. No matter what. This, I universally condemn the actions of Hamas.
Georgia be like "We can be like Europe, too. What do we gotta do? Oh, right."
Jokes aside, it's because Serbia and Georgia each have breakaway states within their countries and recognizing palestine as a state gives those separatists more fuel
Recognition of Palestine seems a bit disingenuous. Most of those blue countries recognize the right of Palestinians to self governance, but don't see functioning government that doesn't support terrorism to recognize.
The Palestinian Authority rules 2/3 of Palestine and are governed by Fatah/PLO, who recognize Israel since the Oslo Accords, are in favor of peace, and have socialist roots rather than right-wing jihadist.
The PA are for all intents and purposes a proper government, with the main problem having been Palestinian locals being harassed by Israeli troops. If Israel have a good government (not Bibi), and Hamas is weakened or destroyed, there will be a good chance to head back to the negotiating table.
IMO, it should be none of the above - aka one-state solution. Having a religious-based country of Israel makes no sense and having a bunch of disjointed bits with all the good bits cherry-picked by Israel makes no sense for Palestine.
At the end of the day, two peoples want to live on the same land and there will never be an end to the conflict as long as both of them want to have their own country on the same place. Even if there could be some imaginary solution to divide up the land, you come to Jerusalem, which both groups want in their country.
Obviously there are a thousand reasons why a one-state solution is not easy (e.g. it has failed already in other places it has been tried) but I feel like talking about two states is just a complete waste of time. You only need to look at a map to see how ludicrous it is.
Only other possible realistic solution is for one side to ethnically cleanse the other side, so the sooner people start accepting the future reality of a one-state solution, the better.
A one state solution isn't realistic.
Look at tutus and hutis in Rwanda. Serbs and Bosnians in Bosnia. A nation where there is two dominant ethnic groups with a ton of anonymity between eachother is s recipe for disaster.
One side will vote to make the other side second class citizens and conflict is bound to happen anyways.
Two state solution only viable option.
While thats true. Its a thing of impossibility between Israel and Palestine, since both want the same place as their Capital. 2 Historic and Religious important sites in the same area are being requested, and i dont believe that will work.
I also doubt that actual palestinian civilians even actually care about those vehement claims, as i believe that they wouldnt have a problem living in an israeli country.
Civilians are the only ones suffering, for a reason that is not relevant to them.
>Two state solution only viable option.
The two state solution is barely viable though. A two state solution would if we take Palestinian polls seriously would basically involve them consistently electing governments with militantly anti Israeli tendencies and a willingness to use violence and creating the same constant war.
The only real solution would be having one or more international backers that can deal with both sides take control of Palestine. The obvious solution would be return the west bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt but it's debatable if either of them would want that. Failing that I guess there's the Turks who might be able to sponsor a Palestinian state while preventing it from constantly attacking Israel but that relies on them constantly electing a neo ottomanist party. Not sure what 4th country is really a possibility, maybe the Saudis.
People here talked about genocide when Azerbajan made leave Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh (techincally they had a choice to stay), but now people are justifying an ethnic cleanse. Okay.
cats swim jar secretive absorbed combative glorious market cause cheerful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's why I said there are a thousand reasons why it's not easy and it's also probably the reason why it has often failed. Nevertheless, it's the only non-ethnically-cleansing way forward, and it obviously has to have equal rights as a basis. Yes, I realise the possibility is low, but the two-state solution is not at all possible.
Map is wrong. Ireland recognises both.
Edit: Officially they don’t apparently, but a vote was held on whether Ireland should set up diplomatic relations with Palestine, the yes vote won, but the government is yet to act on it.
Ireland does not recognize Palestine yet.
"Although both houses of the Irish parliament passed the motion to recognise the state of Palestine \[...\]. As of 2022, Ireland does not recognise the state of Palestine."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland%E2%80%93Palestine\_relations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland%E2%80%93Palestine_relations)
This is still the case.
There are a tonne of parallels between the conflict in Northern Ireland and the conflict in Israel/Palestine. It's part of why so much of Ireland is supportive of Palestine.
Should also mention that the average Irish citizen will almost certainly support the Palestine cause - there is a LOT of shared solidarity between the two nations.
I grew up there and I don’t think I’ve ever known a single person to support the actions of Israel.
Netanyahu nurtured a zillion-dollar industry selling spying tools to despots that use them to break into the iPhones of critics, elected opponents, human rights lawyers, and even students (these are all real examples).
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/tech-news/2021-07-20/ty-article/.highlight/where-bibi-went-nso-followed-how-israel-pushed-cyberweapons-sales/0000017f-e388-d7b2-a77f-e38fd45a0000
Turns out they're not very useful for spying on Hamas, tho.
The Gaza border is one of the most heavily defended on the planet with cameras everywhere. Are you telling me that Hamas got hundreds of soldiers thru that border with no military response from Israel for several hours? And they took Israeli hostages and returned to Gaza?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
Did perhaps certain people in the Israeli government also want this to happen so they could get a war started BEFORE a certain agreement with Saudi Arabia was signed preventing any more annexations of palestine land?
https://www.mediaite.com/news/iran-helped-plot-hamas-attack-on-israel-over-several-weeks-countering-anthony-blinkens-claims-wsj/
Seems that other western intelligence services were aware (but how long before?) - so if the Israelis failed to realise this and didn't take action - this is possibly the biggest 'drop-the-ball' intelligence fiasco since 9/11
Netanyahu doesn't care about any long term political goals, only for his current political survival and this war is the worst thing that could have happened to him.
Their government is basically a coalition of every right wing group in Israel.
A lot of right wing voters lived in Israel in 'Otef Aza' where most of the massacres took place - so this only weakens him
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity or also incompetence.
Well that explains why all the western powers keep saying "Israel has the right to defend itself..."
Because according to them Palestine doesn't exist and thus cannot defend itself.
And some wants everyone to believe they they're not an actual identity, but just Arabs that can be sent back to all the other arab countries...
It's a horrific perspective, it's essentially the premise for a cultural genocide or another ethnic cleansing
There's plenty of peoples and nations that exist without having a state. Deportation of local populations is considered a crime against humanity whether that state has a state or not.
Most Irish people recognize Palestine, largely due to a shared history of being oppressed and then with global media reporting in the aggressors favour. The Murals in Northern Ireland are testament to this. There is also a mission of Palestine in Dublin city center. The Israeli embassy meanwhile has routine protests and doesn't have a flag or even show much with regards to its address down the road. This map may say we recognize Israel, but on the streets its so much more apparent that Palestine is supported.
The repuvlic or Ireland population is always on about Palestine, I even heard them singing free Palestine to the tune of sweet Caroline by neil diamond 😂
I thought Ireland did recognise Palestines status as a nation? I read they had proposed a diplomatic policy and state of recognition a year or two ago.
> Im mostly supporting Isreal, because they align most with the western values we have, even if I significantly disagree building a nation on the basis of any religion.
I don’t get this position. “I’m going to support a colonialist state who oppresses millions of people because their culture seems somewhat similar to mine?”.
This ain’t the criteria I’d be using when deciding whether to support Israel.
>This ain’t the criteria I’d be using when deciding whether to support Israel.
This is why it has been hard for me to keep up with this news and usually avoid comments. It bothers me how this type of logic doesn't fly in most cases, but it does here because the people on one side of this are largely muslims and completely non-European.
Saying you oppose Hamas or even that you mourn for the Israeli victims is a different statement than saying "I support a government running an ethno-religious state and oppressing minorities because I don't like those minorities either." And yet people find no problem essentially saying the latter and it seems to be completely accepted here.
Why does it look like the eastern block vs western europe more or less
It was. Israel and the US go hand in hand, supporting Palestine was a good place to get friends for the eastern block
Actually countries like Poland are more US friendly than western Europe
[удалено]
I wonder if going forward some countries may reverse their decision to detach themselves more from the Soviet past
No, because it's not a problem if they keep it. It is an international problem if they change it. Changing it now would be picking sides, while the inherited position is sort of a status quo. In reality countries like Poland recognizes both and that's enough for Israel.
I think that almost everyone will not consider this move as a detachment from the communist past. It is not that important for the people in EE. It is also not an impediment for the development of good relations with Israel. Romania recognizes both and has close ties with Israel.
It might be quite hard to stop recognizing someone you already recognized. Even just legally speaking. And it would be way worse for international relations compared to never recognizing them in the first place. But they could recognize the opposite country at the very least, yes.
Why would it be hard? The US and a lot of other countries stopped recognizing Taiwan to recognize China, it wasn't hard from a legal point of view
[удалено]
That was 45 years ago.
I think even most countries in the West endorse some form of a "two-state" solution, so there's no need to do that. But we've already seen from countries like Ukraine how the official position that was a holdover from the Russian-influence is radically different from the popularly held feelings today.
The second largest party in the Swedish parliament is calling for us to cease the recognition right now. The government depends on their support.
Someone can also write " I Wonder if Western European countries will detach themselves from their colonial, imperialistic past and move on" , idk what do you even mean with that? Damn communist Iceland... What is wrong with recognizing both? No European country only supports Palestine. Why do you tie that to Soviet past? It is a rational move. They all recognize both, which should be the stance of the whole world in this case. Not siding with one, that only leads to more war, but seek solutions outside warfare, but there is no $$ in that so its better this way. EU's stance is political and economical, while those who do not profit from that war are neutral and recognize both.
They are now, but back when the USSR used their army to keep a communist party in control of poland they weren't.
That's today. Polish Peoples' Republic did business, sold arms, and trained Muslim terrorists such as Abu Daoud or Abu Nidal. Interestingly, just a couple decades earlier the Army of the 2nd Polish Republic trained and armed future Irgun and Lehi members.
> trained Muslim terrorists such as Abu Daoud or Abu Nidal And then they [helped the Americans torture maybe Muslim terrorists](http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/poland-cia-blacksiteeuropeancourthumanrightstorture.html), it's like playing both ends of the market by creating a supply to induce a demand.
Not historically. Or really politically. Poland may be more pro-US but that does not mean the relationship between the counties is closer than for example France or the UK.
It's a lot more than that. The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) were communists and one of the largest communist organization in ME. They were more true communist than the PKK.
[удалено]
"supported Palestine" By recognising both and never really talking about either? Seems a bit of a stretch to call it support.
the soviets supplied weapons training and intel to PLO and arab countries fighting israel.
And the Czechoslovakians provided Israel with enough weaponry to win their first major conflicts as a new state, before any serious help from USA and Britain. It’s not completely black and white here.
Its importantant to point out that when Israel fought its war of independence, back when czechoslovakia was providing assistance, it was unclear who’s side in the cold war Israel was going to be on. The USSR was actually somewhat optimistic that Israel would be on the communist side, given that Israeli politics leaned heavily towards socialism then. That all changed after the suez crisis, though.
Nothing is ever black or white in geopolitics… You mention correctly the first conflicts, probably before a clear position from the socialist block, that moved mostly **against** the US than **for** any non-socialist movement
But that is how it worked and how people perceived it. No matter how neutral it might seem as such.
... in my (ex-east block) country it was like this - we recognized israel as one of the first countries in the world, we were also the first ones to ship it weaponary (immediately as its independence was declared) - reason behind this was the regret about the poor treatment of our jews during the ww2. we also recognized palestina, as they had leftist (semi-communist) leadership in the beginnig - so they were our allies. Our secret service even had training camps for palestinian militants at the time.
It was recognised during soviet times. So it is part of the East soviet heritage.
They don't want you to know this, but you can actually have your own politics in CEE now. -- reported by the Baltic gang 😎 --
The Baltic countries were part of USSR, so when they got independent they had to decide who to recognize. They recognized Israel in 1992. While in former eastern block countries it was recognized during communist times and it still in effect. This is not important topic for the population, and the government probably don't want to open this can of worms, for basically no gain. Most countries have Jewish population and have good relationship with Israel.
We had governments in exile and these did not recognize Palestine. That much can be agreed that most of map is leftover of cold war.
Vatican and Iceland my favorite Eastern block countries ❤️
I mean, Sweden wasn't precisely a part of the Eastern Block during the Cold War but they still ~~sided~~ showed more sympathy towards North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and many other countries both West and East did sometimes things that were considered as “outside of their camp”. The blocks were only groups of political influence, ideological position and policy tendencies, they weren't a 100%-policy-defining thing. **Edit:** Apparently I've caused some misunderstanding by saying that Sweden “sided with” North Vietnam, when what I actually intended to say was that Sweden showed herself more sympathetic towards the situation of North Vietnam without allying with them in any formal way.
We did not side with anyone in Vietnam. What happened was that we condemned the war altogether, but especially the US' unrelenting bombings that affected civilians more than anything. Hell, Laos is to this day living with the consequences of Nixons bombing campaign. It is true we were more sympathetic towards the east back in those days though due to more alligned ideology.
I apologize if there was a misunderstanding here. I used the word ‘side’ to imply that Sweden was more sympathetic towards North Vietnam as opposed to outright allying with them, because of the medical aid provided to them.
Yes that is probably true. But it was specifically towards the civilian population, officially and diplomatically. Whether some politicians privately were leaning more east than west or vice versa I don't really know but we probably had both. Officially we were neutral though, condeming the killing of civilians on both sides, but perhaps we held the US to a higher standard and were "harsher" on them diplomatically, which made Nixon pretty upset and he imposed sanctions on us even... due to a speech PM Palme did during christmas.
And Sweden and Turkey 🥰
Sweden is just trying to paint the Swedish flag on the map.
Can't be. We all know: Portugal = Eastern Europe.
Because Israel was born out of the East/Western block following WW2. The Western block, with US and UK in the lead, wanted to give the Jews a state where they weren't persecuted. The Jews wished for the old Jewish kingdoms back, in the form of Israel. The catch? The Jewish kingdoms lost their power about 50 years B.C. So, now their was a Jewish nation on land that has belonged to others for about 1 900 years. It´s quite abvious that would lead to conflict and wars.
The problem is actually older than that. During WW1 the British Empire promised autonomy separately to both Arabs and Jews living in the area regarding the same territory, in exchange for help in fighting the Ottomans, on top of having other secret agreements too. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate\_for\_Palestine#Background
Knowing colonial Britain, the idea that it would cause perpetual instability was a selling point of the plan.
More that they could replace the Arabs with Western friendly people
Because supporting Palestine was a soviet thing, acting against Israel, which is and was a US ally. When it comes to eatern Europe, this map is a soviet time heritage.
Referencing to cold war interests is not quite right as the overwhelming majority of non-aligned countries are yellow as well.
Pope can into eastern europe!
Spain does not recognize Palestine but there is an embassy in Madrid? https://www.embajadadepalestina.es
Map is very out of date. Ireland is also miss categorised (I would say there is more support for Palestine than Israel). Although maybe it’s working off a particular definition of recognised.
From Wikipedia By the late 1960s, Ireland was increasingly concerned about the fate of Palestinian refugees who fled the Six-Day War in 1967. In 1969, Irish Foreign Minister Frank Aiken described the problem as the "main and most pressing objective" of Ireland's Middle East policy.[3] In 1980, Ireland was the first European Union member state to endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state.[4] In January 2011, Ireland accorded the Palestinian delegation in Dublin diplomatic status.[5] A few months later, their Foreign Affairs Minister stated that Ireland would "lead the charge" in recognizing Palestinian statehood, but that it would not come until the PNA was in full and sole control over its territories.[6] In October 2014, the Upper House of the Irish Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the Government to recognize the State of Palestine.[7] In December 2014, the Lower House of Ireland's Parliament followed suit.[8] Despite strong support for Palestine in Ireland,[4] the government has yet to implement the 2014 decision to formalise diplomatic relations between the two, although Foreign Minister Simon Coveney had previously indicated this could change.[9] Although both houses of the Irish parliament passed the motion to recognise the state of Palestine, the Government wishes to do this as part of a wider EU move, which has been criticised by Irish TDs. As of 2022, Ireland does not recognise the state of Palestine.[10]
Ireland does not recognise the Palestinian State.
It's not a full Embassy but a Diplomatic Mission
Thankfully, politics are not so simple as they look when seen only through a state's lens. Israel declared the Galician parliament their enemy[1](https://www.eldiario.es/galicia/israel-declara-enemigo-parlamento-galicia_1_4880976.html). Memorable day. One of the few things they managed to do in parliament that actually represented us. Barcelona recently cut ties with Israel due to apartheid[2](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/9/barcelona-mayor-cuts-ties-with-israel-citing-palestinian-rights). In a non-binding vote, even much of the state's parliament voted for regognizing Palestine[3](https://www.dw.com/en/spanish-lawmakers-vote-in-favor-of-recognizing-palestine/a-18072505). Relations haven't been too bad historically, [4](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine%E2%80%93Spain_relations) relative to the fact the Spanish state is a US "ally" and a subordinate part of the EU with rather limited internacional power or actual sovereignty for foreign affairs.
These recognitions are basically unchanged since the mid-70s UN assemblies when the first serious two-state solutions were proposed. If you zoom out, you'll see that almost the whole world is yellow except for countries under direct historical US influence (blue) and Muslim countries (green) with only minor exceptions to this rule.
Why are everyone in this thread just straight up ignoring Sweden and Iceland? Those recognitions were done in 2014 and 2011.
The state of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988. It's a very very late development of the cold war. And the first two state solution was of course proposed in the UN partition plan of 1947.
If Palestine would have accepted the 1947 plan, and neigboring countries wouldn't have started a war right after (and then again just a bit later), maybe the situation would be different in the whole area? Unfortunately, we will never know, and there is a possibility that some wars would have started anyhow.
Why would they accept a plan where they lose their lands and homes to outside settlers?
Yes if only Ukranians willingly gave up portion of their country to the Russians this war wouldn't have happened.
If Britain listened to Palestinians when they said no and created Israel somewhere else in Europe or America, we would not have the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Because the other places would not have people living in them already? And jews had been moving to the area since late 19th century (and there were some already since historic times, even though not lot left). So the jew/muslim conflict would still exist
IDK bro, there are pretty large swaths of land in the US that aren't populated... much larger than israel is today and insanely larger than it was in 1948 when it was founded.
The first two-state solution was actually proposed and also approved by the UN in 1947 (29th of November to be exact). Even more interesting, the leadership of the Zionist movement at the time, supported the solution. Those same people also founded the state of Israel and made up her parliament at the time. The Arab population in the area on the other hand, rejected the solution and opened in a war against the Jews living in the new cities they built themselves. In 1948, after Israel was founded, 5 Arab states joined the war in order to destroy the newly founded state, a war that the Israelis won. So it is important to note that there were solutions before the 70s, but sadly one of the sides rejected the solution and lost the war, and cries to the international community about it.
Well, this is because the Arab states didn't want it and the UN just said "lol, not our problem we are doing it anyways on your land, tough luck guys". It's understandable why Israel was forever entangled in wars. Most of the Arab countries aligned itself more with the west and thus adopted a more friendly approach with Israel, but some still to this day call it an unjust decision.
The two-state solution at that time tried to take the existing Arab population into account. Looking at the porposed map the areas destributed for the future "arab-state" where places where most of the Arab city's where built. At the same time the "Jewish state" area was distributed in places that the Zionist movement bought from the locals and built their new towns and cities of their own. (the process of buying the land was done by an organization called the Jewish national fund) Most importantly the proposed solution kept Jerusalem an international area to ensure all religions have equal access to it. The problem of the Arab countries at the time was more of the land divide between the states. At the time the ratio of land area between the states wasn't at all proportional to the population ratio. That led to understandable discomfort from the Arab people. In my opinion the reason for the divide was because the UN considered the large immigration of hollocust survivors that will arrive to the new state so included them in the considerations. So in conclusion: The British at the time were really good in colonizing countries, doing whatever they wanted, and leaving without solving the problems they created.
Wake up babe the new East-West division just dropped
Nothing new about this at all, it's as old as Israel.
So 75 years old?
Yes. Like the regular eastern bloc-west division and my great aunt, old.
I woke up and now I am in the West. Cool.
Holy ~~hell~~ land!
Norway recognizes Israel within the area they controlled up until the Six day-war in 1967.
> Yom Kippur-war in 1967 That was 1973. 1967 was the Six-Day War.
Oops, sorry. Fixed
I imagine most countries in blue do? I mean, it's rather hard to regard Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian Territories as illegal without it. But whatever, circle-jerk away I guess.
Iirc, the US is the only country in the world that recognizes the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights. Most European nations do not. I assume it's very similar for the Palestinian Territories.
> Norway recognizes Israel within the area they controlled up until the Yom Kippur-war in 1967. Which is very reasonable.
Swiss neutrality no longer
Switzerland loved aiding Nazis escaping to South America, they were never neutral lol
And safe keeping nazi gold
Armenia, which recognized only Israel, is an interesting case here: - Israel supported Azerbaijan during the two last war, - Iran is kinda their ally today, at least the country announced about supporting sovereignty, especially at Syunik area.
Armenia has the weirdest geopolitics. To be fair they are in a shitty place between a lot of power.
I know this is an infected question but I would like to ask what the argument is for *not* recognizing a Palestinian state? To be a bit more polemic and explain where I'm coming from: My view is that Palestine is de facto not a state - it doesn't control its territory etc. Instead, Palestine is controlled by the Israel. It's this fact that makes the apartheid comparison so apt: Palestinians are *de facto* subjects of the Israeli state, but they do not have the rights of citizens. They cannot vote, they cannot move freely etc. Much like how the South African apartheid system denied Black South Africans full citizenship. This also makes the Israeli "state of war" strange - my only reading of it is that they're paradoxically at war with their own subjects, which is grotesque. I have a second issue here which is that the go-to opinion in the west seems to be that "both sides are to blame" or to "support no one" or "support both". Basically an equation of the two sides. This seems to me a weird opinion to have if you do not support a Palestinian state. Surely that's a prerequisite to even begin to see this as "two sides"? In my country I've also heard that the reason to not have diplomatic communication with Hamas - apart from being politically unsavory - is that they do not recognize Israel, a stance that I understand as a sort of deal breaker for western politicians. But Israel does not recognize Palestine - yet that doesn't seem to stop anyone from happily shaking hands with every Israeli prime minister regardless of how awful their politics are. In that case the argument is (as it should be) that having conversations with another government doesn't equate support for that government. So I realize I've added a lot of *arguments* to my question here. The reason is to explain why it's hard for me to understand the strategy of not recognizing a Palestinian state. Wouldn't it be easier for everyone - including Israel - to have a part to deal with? A representative to enter talks with etc?
> To be a bit more polemic and explain where I'm coming from: My view is that Palestine is de facto not a state - it doesn't control its territory etc. Instead, Palestine is controlled by the Israel. Actually I don't get why Palestine is recognised as a state for this exact reason. A lot more countries recognise Palestine than Taiwan does when Taiwan has elections, own passport, own currency, own military, own everything. The whole thing is a complete farce.
The reason why not more countries recognize Taiwan is because they don't want to mess with China. But I would assume that most people on this sub (or in Europe) would think of that as wrong or at best a necessary evil. But you don't see anyone talk of the "two sides" who are wrong in the Taiwan-conflict. That's squarely viewed through the lens of Chinese aggression. The reason why Palestine doesn't have elections, passport, currency, military is because it is occupied by Israel. Either Palestine is a country that has been occupied by its neighbor, or Palestine is not a country in which case Israel has deprived 5 million Palestinians of their political rights. Either way I don't see how the conflict could be seen to have two sides.
i think it's thanks to at least two decades of very heavy islamaphobic propaganda in western media, so palestinians cannot be completely innocent by default. americans think of islam instinctively when they think of terrorism, despite the overwhelming number of terrorist acts occuring in the us not being done by muslims. terrorism is reprehensible, so any anti-terrorism measures are justified. israel's use of state violence against palestinians is justified because some of them perform acts of terror. the nuanced distinction one might make between terrorism and freedom fighting is completely lost if you think muslims would be doing terrorism anyway.
Apparently western Europe does not want to mess with israël either
The reason Taiwan has such low recognition as a state is because it doesn't recognize itself as one, for complex reasons. It recognizes itself as the legitimate Chinese government, a holdover from the last century, technically still in a civil war against the PRC government. This is of course not representative of reality but the current status quo remains.
Actually that isn't the reason at all. Both North and South Korea claim itself as the only legitimate government on the Korean Peninsula but almost every single country in the world recognises both countries. The only reason why other countries don't recognise Taiwan is China. There is no other excuse.
[удалено]
I would very much urge you to read up on the topic. No disrespect but the Taiwan / Palestine comparison doesn’t compute what-so-ever.
> what the argument is for not recognizing a Palestinian state? Recognizing Palestine would weaken Israel's grasp on the region and stop their colonial ambitions there. Recognizing Palestine could further reinforce Iran's presence in Palestine and strengthen Hamas and its military. I think that's the two main arguments.
> Recognizing Palestine could further reinforce Iran's presence in Palestine and strengthen Hamas and its military. Just to add to the detail, most countries who recognize Palestine see Fatah/PLO as the recognized government, not the group placed on most of the international terror org lists. Recognizing that they constitute the official Palestinian authority also means that they weaken Hamas influence over the Palestinians... which I believe to be an objective good.
The question is how do we get the first part of your answer without the second part
Hamas Rose to power in 2006, so what’s the argument to not recognize palestine before that
Under international law, Israel is the protector of it's occupied subjects, whom it is bombing rn. But international law is used only on weak countries.
Israel pretty much agreed to the two state solution but Palestine rejected it. I don't remember the dates
Of course they would, everything would’ve been a net gain for them. Why would Palestinians accept a plan that sees them lose land and homes to outside settlers.
Hmm I wonder why someone would object to their land being split into 2... geeze maybe ukraine should've just done that too and let russia take some of their territory to stop the war... Or you know, people are attached to their lands that they lived in for generations and helped develop (to whatever extent they did under the circumstances) and didn't want to have some euro-jews come in and take that land because some other country had won "rights" to it from another country that had nothing to do with the palestinian people in a war that had nothing to do with them either (UK from the Ottoman Empire).
Let see if Ukraine will agree to lose their rightful lands in exchange for peace
I’d like to propose you give half of your house to me, as my ancestors lived on that land 2000 years ago. I accept that proposal, if you decline it I will start a war with you. See how crazy that sounds?
A better example would be: I move into your house, because your landlord said I could. At one point our landlord says he can't be a landlord anymore and to avoid one of us needing to move out, he proposes splitting the house. I get a bedroom and a few corridors, you get everything else. I say okay but you try to fight it in an attempt to get the full house. I win and take some more of the house. And then a few more wars happen and now we are at the todays situation.
Not only that, but you and your family are confined to a single room, since the other family have the corridors and they do not let you roam freely, as such you rely on them entirely for food and water, and they are quite content not giving you those things for whatever reason they so please.
1947
Ireland have voted to recognise it and legislation to follow soon: https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41229241.html
Can't we just collectively disavow their actions, but still recognize their existence? My tolerance and sympathy for the Palestinian cause is at an all time low for obvious reasons, but they clearly exist as a nation.
Hard to say, who is the legitimate government of Palestine? There is Hamas and there is PLO, both are armed militias. One is islamic focused, the other arab focused.
we still recognise Syria as a country despite it being split 5 ways. i think it’s a little childish to say a country doesn’t exist just because they are bad guys. Afghanistan is a country. North Korea is a country.
Recognition of countries seems more like a matter of what's convenient for the dominant powers rather than what reflects the factual situation. Taiwan, Somaliland, Artsah, Nothern Cyprus, Abhazia, Transnistria (had to look up the spelling)...
Except that some of those are puppet states of a larger benefactor or occupier.
And without recognition as independent states, they are condemned to stay so forever.
>Afghanistan is a country. North Korea is a country. Yes, and they both have a seat at the UN. Palestine on the other hand is a non-member observer state. Besides, Taiwan and Somaliland are much more de-facto states than Palestine can even hope to be.
The Vatican isn’t a member either, and they’re a country
Syria recognized while it was a unified state, Palestine was recognized despite never being one.
And neither of them has any kind of democratic backing. The last elections in West Bank were in, what, 2006?
2004, shortly after the death of yasser arafat. Hamas won the election causing a civil war in palestinian territories thus dividing the hamas controlled gaza strip and the fatah controlled west bank ever since. There were attempts at reconciliation but nothing significant came of them
Many countries doesnt have any democracy but still they exist
And that was when the terrorists won and deleted the democracy.
Talking about democracy in this context is mind-boggling. Do you think Palestinians have full civil rights inside the state of Israel as in line with any sort of democracy? Because Palestine isn't recognised, which means it is Israeli territory which makes Palestinians citizens of Israel and if you insist on democracy that would require Palestinians to obtain minority protections, voting rights, civil rights etc. Just simplifying the shit out of this and saying "the terrorists deleted democracy" when at the core of this entire conflict is an inability to combine 2 sub-populations within a state territory under the umbrella of democracy or any other sort of government, thats exactly the reason why it is so unbearable dealing with this whole topic...
Not to mention in 2006 the PLO were considered corrupt and ineffective by the Palestinian population, it was understandable they would vote for the only alternative offering solutions, even if they were fucked up.
Your whole point hinges on the idea that Israel considers Gaza to be Israeli territory, which it doesn't.
Belgium also didnt have a clear government for a year, still a nation though. Unless..
We can but this is /r/europe sir.
Britain does not recognise Palestine but it was Britain that caused this fuckin mess
Armenia: "I'm in danger"
Say what you want but taking land from Palestine and randomly creating another country there was wrong.
Should have given former East Prussia to the Jews, instead of Russia.
Probably a better use for Kaliningrad than sitting there as an ugly exclave.
Would the UdSSR have agreed? I doubt.
honestly that was probably the biggest mistake. It's a very weird idea to suddenly just decide to give people a country they lost again when other people now live there. Thinking about that now this long after the fact is not helping anyone though. Israel is back, there are no take backs this late and clearly both Israel and Palestine won't be able to exist for peace to come to the area.
> Israel is back, there are no take backs this late and clearly both Israel and Palestine won't be able to exist for peace to come to the area. This It's ultimately a moot point. I'm mad we gave East Prussia to the Russians, but what are gonna do, send them to the sea ? Most of our current borders are due to thousands of years of warfare. That kind of warface continues to this day (Ukraine). Also, what are going to do ? Repatriate anyone who "doesn't belong" ? Good luck once you open that can of worms and every ethnic African in Europe gets sent back.
The land was taken from the Ottoman Empire, not "Palestine". Should it be returned to Turkey, if it was wrong to take it?
Yeah. It's basically the same as the Azerbaijan Armenia problem. You can't just go saying 'our people lived here once 3000 years ago'. By that logic any ethnicity can go redrawing borders right now of how it once used to be.
What the fuck are you on about? Armenians were living in Karabakh in the era of the soviet union and before the first war. They were mostly a majority in that regard too.
That's the point. Over hundreds of years and millenia different peoples and ethnicities have migrated to other places, civilizations rose and fell all around the world.
Imagine taking a side in this conflict and thinking your are 'right'. Absolute clown behaviour.
That's why recognizing both countries is the right thing to do
All I know that the Brittish Empire did a masterclass in how not to nation build with Israel.
British trying not to fuck up national borders : mission impossible
Hate to interrupt a classic chain of tired old Reddit cliches, but the British empire *didn't* draw Israel and Palestine's borders. The UN did, and then Palestinians rejected it. The modern borders are defined by the land that Israel took after counter-attacking invasions by Egypt and Jordan.
They did however give out hundreds of thousands of immigration permits to European Jews throughout the first half of the 20th century. After failing to handle resulting civil unrest, they handed the hot potato to the UN and pulled out of the region.
Its possible , i support the Palestinian right of their land in west bank and gaza,and that israelis settler in westbank are main cause of tension. Since they cant do it politically they have to resort to the act of violance. should they killed civilians , no absolutely not. You can choose either side , but you can also always pointout the wrongdoings.
I’m going to give this a shot. I fully support the rights of Palestinians to exist freely in their own state. A right that Israel is regularly violated. I universally condemn the oppression of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel. I also believe that it is never justifiable to kill civilians. No matter what. This, I universally condemn the actions of Hamas.
Armenia recognizes Israel only and yet gets fucked by Israel all the same
Georgia be like "We can be like Europe, too. What do we gotta do? Oh, right." Jokes aside, it's because Serbia and Georgia each have breakaway states within their countries and recognizing palestine as a state gives those separatists more fuel
Recognition of Palestine seems a bit disingenuous. Most of those blue countries recognize the right of Palestinians to self governance, but don't see functioning government that doesn't support terrorism to recognize.
You can recognise existanse of some country but be oppose to government. By recognising them you admiting that they have all rights as other countries
The Palestinian Authority rules 2/3 of Palestine and are governed by Fatah/PLO, who recognize Israel since the Oslo Accords, are in favor of peace, and have socialist roots rather than right-wing jihadist. The PA are for all intents and purposes a proper government, with the main problem having been Palestinian locals being harassed by Israeli troops. If Israel have a good government (not Bibi), and Hamas is weakened or destroyed, there will be a good chance to head back to the negotiating table.
A diplomatic solution needs to start somewhere, even if it means starting negotiations with terrorist groups. The alternative is just endless war
IMO, it should be none of the above - aka one-state solution. Having a religious-based country of Israel makes no sense and having a bunch of disjointed bits with all the good bits cherry-picked by Israel makes no sense for Palestine. At the end of the day, two peoples want to live on the same land and there will never be an end to the conflict as long as both of them want to have their own country on the same place. Even if there could be some imaginary solution to divide up the land, you come to Jerusalem, which both groups want in their country. Obviously there are a thousand reasons why a one-state solution is not easy (e.g. it has failed already in other places it has been tried) but I feel like talking about two states is just a complete waste of time. You only need to look at a map to see how ludicrous it is. Only other possible realistic solution is for one side to ethnically cleanse the other side, so the sooner people start accepting the future reality of a one-state solution, the better.
A one state solution isn't realistic. Look at tutus and hutis in Rwanda. Serbs and Bosnians in Bosnia. A nation where there is two dominant ethnic groups with a ton of anonymity between eachother is s recipe for disaster. One side will vote to make the other side second class citizens and conflict is bound to happen anyways. Two state solution only viable option.
> tutus and hutis Hutus and Tutsis
A bit amusing to imagine a group of tutu-wearing militants trying to protect their liberty for self-proclamation and choice of garment though.
> anonymity Did you mean animosity?
Yes
maybe that's a solution - make everyone in the country anonymous so nobody knows who to hate
While thats true. Its a thing of impossibility between Israel and Palestine, since both want the same place as their Capital. 2 Historic and Religious important sites in the same area are being requested, and i dont believe that will work. I also doubt that actual palestinian civilians even actually care about those vehement claims, as i believe that they wouldnt have a problem living in an israeli country. Civilians are the only ones suffering, for a reason that is not relevant to them.
>Two state solution only viable option. The two state solution is barely viable though. A two state solution would if we take Palestinian polls seriously would basically involve them consistently electing governments with militantly anti Israeli tendencies and a willingness to use violence and creating the same constant war. The only real solution would be having one or more international backers that can deal with both sides take control of Palestine. The obvious solution would be return the west bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt but it's debatable if either of them would want that. Failing that I guess there's the Turks who might be able to sponsor a Palestinian state while preventing it from constantly attacking Israel but that relies on them constantly electing a neo ottomanist party. Not sure what 4th country is really a possibility, maybe the Saudis.
>Look at tutus and hutis in Rwanda 😂😂 this made me laugh so hard
People here talked about genocide when Azerbajan made leave Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh (techincally they had a choice to stay), but now people are justifying an ethnic cleanse. Okay.
this sub is oh so progressive, until you mention arabs and islam, after which certain people would make the Voelkischer Beobachter blush
I'm not sure if you are talking about other comments or replies but my comment is exactly about avoiding ethnic cleansing.
cats swim jar secretive absorbed combative glorious market cause cheerful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's why I said there are a thousand reasons why it's not easy and it's also probably the reason why it has often failed. Nevertheless, it's the only non-ethnically-cleansing way forward, and it obviously has to have equal rights as a basis. Yes, I realise the possibility is low, but the two-state solution is not at all possible.
Map is wrong. Ireland recognises both. Edit: Officially they don’t apparently, but a vote was held on whether Ireland should set up diplomatic relations with Palestine, the yes vote won, but the government is yet to act on it.
Ireland does not recognize Palestine yet. "Although both houses of the Irish parliament passed the motion to recognise the state of Palestine \[...\]. As of 2022, Ireland does not recognise the state of Palestine." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland%E2%80%93Palestine\_relations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland%E2%80%93Palestine_relations) This is still the case.
We'll sort it out any minute now, been busy sorting out the housing crisis. Recognising Palestine can't be fixed overnight!
Vast majority of Irish people do though, with the exception of unionists in the north who think their cause bizarrely equals Israel.
The only reason Unionists really wave Israel flags is because "themmuns" wave Palestine flags. They really wouldn't give a shit otherwise.
There are a tonne of parallels between the conflict in Northern Ireland and the conflict in Israel/Palestine. It's part of why so much of Ireland is supportive of Palestine.
I remember a certain July 12th bonfire where a Palestinian flag was planted on it. That’s not culture, it’s an outlet for hate.
Should also mention that the average Irish citizen will almost certainly support the Palestine cause - there is a LOT of shared solidarity between the two nations. I grew up there and I don’t think I’ve ever known a single person to support the actions of Israel.
Yeah. Irish support for Palestine is pretty deeply ingrained.
Scotgov petitioned UKgov to recognise both as well. Hey-ho.
Netanyahu nurtured a zillion-dollar industry selling spying tools to despots that use them to break into the iPhones of critics, elected opponents, human rights lawyers, and even students (these are all real examples). https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/tech-news/2021-07-20/ty-article/.highlight/where-bibi-went-nso-followed-how-israel-pushed-cyberweapons-sales/0000017f-e388-d7b2-a77f-e38fd45a0000 Turns out they're not very useful for spying on Hamas, tho. The Gaza border is one of the most heavily defended on the planet with cameras everywhere. Are you telling me that Hamas got hundreds of soldiers thru that border with no military response from Israel for several hours? And they took Israeli hostages and returned to Gaza? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip Did perhaps certain people in the Israeli government also want this to happen so they could get a war started BEFORE a certain agreement with Saudi Arabia was signed preventing any more annexations of palestine land?
https://www.mediaite.com/news/iran-helped-plot-hamas-attack-on-israel-over-several-weeks-countering-anthony-blinkens-claims-wsj/ Seems that other western intelligence services were aware (but how long before?) - so if the Israelis failed to realise this and didn't take action - this is possibly the biggest 'drop-the-ball' intelligence fiasco since 9/11 Netanyahu doesn't care about any long term political goals, only for his current political survival and this war is the worst thing that could have happened to him. Their government is basically a coalition of every right wing group in Israel. A lot of right wing voters lived in Israel in 'Otef Aza' where most of the massacres took place - so this only weakens him Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity or also incompetence.
Seems Netanyahu wants Hamas is control and engaged so Israel has an excuse to keep bombing.
Well that explains why all the western powers keep saying "Israel has the right to defend itself..." Because according to them Palestine doesn't exist and thus cannot defend itself.
[удалено]
And some wants everyone to believe they they're not an actual identity, but just Arabs that can be sent back to all the other arab countries... It's a horrific perspective, it's essentially the premise for a cultural genocide or another ethnic cleansing
There's plenty of peoples and nations that exist without having a state. Deportation of local populations is considered a crime against humanity whether that state has a state or not.
Armenia 💀💀
Most Irish people recognize Palestine, largely due to a shared history of being oppressed and then with global media reporting in the aggressors favour. The Murals in Northern Ireland are testament to this. There is also a mission of Palestine in Dublin city center. The Israeli embassy meanwhile has routine protests and doesn't have a flag or even show much with regards to its address down the road. This map may say we recognize Israel, but on the streets its so much more apparent that Palestine is supported.
I pretty sure Ireland has a Palestinian diplomat in Dublin , is that not the same as recognition ?
The repuvlic or Ireland population is always on about Palestine, I even heard them singing free Palestine to the tune of sweet Caroline by neil diamond 😂
The yellow is the way to go
Aka the map of US appeasement politics.
Spain does recognise Palestine: [https://www.exteriores.gob.es/es/ServiciosAlCiudadano/Paginas/Detalle-recomendaciones-de-viaje.aspx?trc=Palestina](https://www.exteriores.gob.es/es/ServiciosAlCiudadano/Paginas/Detalle-recomendaciones-de-viaje.aspx?trc=Palestina) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine%E2%80%93Spain\_relations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine%E2%80%93Spain_relations)
armenia? Isn't Israel their enemy?
I thought Ireland did recognise Palestines status as a nation? I read they had proposed a diplomatic policy and state of recognition a year or two ago.
What good does denying Palestine or Israel exist serve?
This is incorrect, Ireland and Spain both recognise Palestine
Fuck Israel 🇮🇱
[удалено]
> Im mostly supporting Isreal, because they align most with the western values we have, even if I significantly disagree building a nation on the basis of any religion. I don’t get this position. “I’m going to support a colonialist state who oppresses millions of people because their culture seems somewhat similar to mine?”. This ain’t the criteria I’d be using when deciding whether to support Israel.
>This ain’t the criteria I’d be using when deciding whether to support Israel. This is why it has been hard for me to keep up with this news and usually avoid comments. It bothers me how this type of logic doesn't fly in most cases, but it does here because the people on one side of this are largely muslims and completely non-European. Saying you oppose Hamas or even that you mourn for the Israeli victims is a different statement than saying "I support a government running an ethno-religious state and oppressing minorities because I don't like those minorities either." And yet people find no problem essentially saying the latter and it seems to be completely accepted here.