They have been the playthings of powers for decades, and there is no promise that this will end soon. Empires and powers seem to come and go, yet the plight of the Palestinians remains more horrific than ever. Now, in the next instalment of the grand morality game, France, the United Kingdom and Canada promise to recognise Palestinian statehood at the September meeting of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly.
From the perspective of soothing the conscience, this is a mighty thing – for those in Paris, London and Ottawa. It does not save a single life on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, provide a single meal for a starving family, or rebuild a single destroyed school. But President Emmanuel Macron, and Prime Ministers Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney can all commune as a triumvirate of principled statesmen.
Macron, the first of the three, had been making signals on the issue earlier in the year. The French leader had hoped that a UN conference sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia would be the venue for joint recognition, but it came to naught with the resumption of hostilities in Gaza and Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In turning to the G7 nations, he hoped to amplify the urgency of recognition.
In doing so, the onus was also on the Palestinian Authority to make certain concessions to add momentum. A letter from PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent to Macron duly came, condemning the attacks of October 7, 2023 by Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages and pledged the holding of elections and reforms to governance. Hamas – not that Abbas had any claims on this point – would also “no longer rule Gaza” and would have to surrender “weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian Security Forces, which will oversee their removal outside the occupied Palestinian territory, with Arab and international support.”
On July 24, Macron confirmed in a letter to Abbas conveyed via France’s Consul General in Jerusalem that recognition of a Palestinian state would follow in September “in light of the historic commitments that were made” and the threatened two-state solution. On July 28, in his opening speech to a plenary session of the High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement on the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, France’s Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Nöel Barrot stated the “prospect of two States, whose rights are recognised and respected, is in mortal danger.” But assurances and momentum had been achieved, with Barrot acknowledging the condemnation by the Arab League of the Hamas attack and the insistence by its members on the release of the remaining hostages, the disarming of the group and conclusion of its rule in the Strip.
Of the G7, Starmer was the next to be swayed, but with a notable proviso: “the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two-State Solution.” To this could be added the need for Hamas to release the hostages, accept a ceasefire, disarm and “play no part in the government of Gaza.” In shabby fashion, room is left to withdraw the offer for recognising Palestinian statehood. “We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps.”
Carney, the latest addition, claimed on July 30 that the two-state solution growing from a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority had been eroded as a prospect by four factors: the threat of Hamas to Israel; accelerated building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including numerous instances of Israeli settler violence; the E1 Settlement Plan and the July vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank; and the ongoing failure by the Israeli government to arrest “the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with impeded access to food and other essential humanitarian supplies.”
The Canadian PM, in reasons almost identical to Macron, had also been swayed by “the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to much-needed reforms” in governance, including the promise to hold elections in 2026 that will exclude Hamas, undertaking anti-corruption measures and the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state.
A resounding theme comes through in the latest flurry of statements: Palestinians continue to be lectured and harangued under the guise of humanitarian understanding, told who can represent them or not (a reformed Palestinian Authority promisingly good, Hamas decidedly bad), and whether they can have any semblance of a military force. “Recognising a State of Palestine today,” states Barrot, “means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.” Standing, it would seem, with a certain type of idealised Palestinian.
The Palestinians have become diplomatic merchandise or bits of currency, to be gambled with in the casino of power politics. Starmer is the worst exponent of this, hoping for such returns as Israel’s halt to the slaughter and famine in Gaza and the release of the hostages by Hamas and its disarmament. But the idea of Palestinian recognition remains, at this stage, a moot point.
At the end of any diplomatic tunnel on this lies certain requirements that would have to be met, not least the criteria of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. Despite gathering some dust over time, it outlines the relevant requirements for statehood: any recognised state in international law must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a discernible government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In the UK, some 43 cross-party peers have sent a letter of warning to Starmer arguing against recognising a Palestinian state, citing such familiar, legal grumbles. There was, for instance, “no certainty over the borders of Palestine” nor “a functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies.” Neither could enter into relations with foreign states, with one entity having not held elections for decades, and the other being a “terrorist organisation.” Despite the UK not signing the Montevideo Convention, recognising Palestine “would be contrary to the principles of governing recognition of states in international law,” the convention having become part of international customary law.
On the bloodied ground, where legal abstractions dissolve into fleshy realities, Israel is doing its level best to make sure that there will be nothing left of a Palestinian state to recognise. For Israel, the case is not one of if or when, but never. The machinery of slaughter, deprivation and dislocation is now so advanced it risks smothering the very idea of a viable Palestinian entity. Israeli policy till October 2023 was engineered to stifle and restrain any credible progress towards a Palestinian state, crowned by feeding the acrimonious divisions between Hamas and Fatah. After October 7 that year, the sharpened focus became one of expulsion, subjugation, or plain elimination of the general populace. Palestinian sovereignty remains, to date, incipient, a bare semblance of a political self. This egregious state of affairs continues to be supported, even by those wishing to recognise Palestine. In some ways, those sorts are arguably the worst.
Also by Dr Binoy:
The Paranoia of Officialdom: Age Verification and Using the Internet in Australia
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
“It does not save a single life on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, provide a single meal for a starving family, or rebuild a single destroyed school.”
The sad fact of the GAZA GENOCIDE BY THE AMORAL ZION@ZI IDF FOLLOWING THE PLAN OF THE ZION@ZI KNESSET & THE RABID ZION@ZI RABBIS is that a foundation axiom of Zionism theology is that Indigenous Palestinian s are ”unfit” to own & benefit from the lands & natural resources that the ZION@ZIS covet for their own, without any legitimate legal or historical claim.
So the ZION@ZIS HAVE A DUTY TO KILL BY ANY/ALL MEANS POSSIBLE EVERY INDIGENOUS PALESTINIAN MAN WOMAN & CHILD so that THEY ARE DISPLACED, DISPOSSESSED OR DEAD. This WHITE SUPREMACIST THEOLOGY is as dangerous as any 20th century thinking before 1945 because it means that the ZION@ZIS are prepared to impose a GAZA Holocaust to ultimately rebuild the destruction as the GAZA GOLD COAST for the benefit of international carpet-baggers, including TACO TRUMPERY ENTITIES.
Yes and no, cherry picking the same western targets or leaders that RW MSM, far right and MAGA white Christian nationalists disapprove of?
However, one cannot ignore the role other leaders and nations including Netanyahu, Putin, Trump, Erdogan, el Sisi, Saudi’s MBS, Qatar et al, could play, especially those who are proximate?
Starmer, Carney, Macron and (probably) Albanese are all jumping on their respective diplomatic bandwagons due to political and civil discontent in UK, Canada, France and Australia. Whilst proclaiming to have sympathy for the Palestinians each of the afore-mentioned governments continue to supply Netanyahus’ IDF with military hardware and supplies. Total weak kneed hypocrisy!
@Mediocrates:
https://theshot.net.au/uncategorized/a-comprehensive-list-of-the-non-lethal-parts-of-my-big-death-plane/
Hypocrisy rules! After being occupiers of the land for millennia, 20thC Palestine extant was unilaterally overwhelmed by the ‘West’ who then set about re-definining its borders without consultation with them.
Never mind alleged constraints of Palestine becoming a state, per the cited ‘Montevideo Convention from 1933’ and various protocols of the UN, Israel ought not be recognized as a state. Because, amongst many other things:
1 It does not have a Constitution. Instead it variously relies on the supremacist flim-flam of the ‘Zionist Manifesto’ developed by others and never tested / adopted by referendum or plebiscite.
2 It has never defined or confirmed its state borders, nor accepted those specified by the UN during the formation process of Israel.
3 And etc, ad infinitum
It would seem that the ‘West’ through guilt about their previous annihilation of Jews, turned a blind-eye to their own rules, allowing Israel to assume the posture of a state. At least for the ‘West’ the bothersome Ashkenazi would have a place to go.
As a result, the political blackmailing continues.