By John Q. Hosedrinker During a recent meeting in Jerusalem, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen discussed the recognition of Palestine with his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Sa’ar. Sa’ar expressed concerns that establishing a Palestinian state would compromise Israel’s security, therefore, Denmark is not prepared to recognize Palestine. Furthermore, the article emphasizes that Israel does not possess the authority to veto the recognition of Palestine by other nations.
Read the original article here
Denmark’s stance on recognizing Palestine boils down to a simple premise: they aren’t ready to take that step yet, but Israel doesn’t get to call the shots. The reasons are complex, but the core message is clear. It’s a cautious approach, one that acknowledges the complexities of the situation without giving Israel a veto over the recognition of Palestinian statehood.
The hesitation stems from a few key observations. Some feel that a functioning government is a prerequisite for recognition. The absence of a strong, unified Palestinian government, capable of providing basic services and security, is a major point of contention. Some see it as a major problem. The comparison to a scenario like a cartel-controlled Mexico highlights this point. Imagine a country plagued by violence and a lack of governance, unable to control its own territory. The situation isn’t ideal, but the arguments should be nuanced. Others point out the parallels to situations like the treatment of indigenous populations, where land rights and self-determination were denied. The crucial point is that the ability of a people to have their own nation is not conditional on external forces.
However, the conversation doesn’t end there. Those who want to see Palestinian statehood emphasize the impact of Israeli actions. The assertion is that Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories, including occupation, restrictions on movement, and the control of resources, severely hamper the ability of Palestinians to build the very infrastructure and governance structures that some deem necessary for recognition. The argument being that the cards are stacked against the Palestinians, and that waiting for perfect conditions, while under occupation, is essentially granting Israel a veto.
Think about it: how can a government truly function when its access to resources and even the basic ability to build are severely limited? The argument is that Israel essentially controls the economic lifeblood of Palestine. Denmark’s reticence is also probably due to pressure from allies, it is not easy to have a unified stance on the issue.
And that brings us to the heart of the matter: Israel’s role. The idea that Israel has a veto is firmly rejected. Denmark’s reluctance isn’t a consequence of Israeli pressure. It’s a matter of weighing the situation, evaluating the ground realities, and determining the best approach to promote a just and lasting peace. Denmark’s approach is not a reflection of Israeli preferences. It is something different.
Ultimately, it’s about finding a balance. Recognizing a state is a complex matter, but denying recognition shouldn’t be about giving another country the power to dictate events. Denmark’s position appears to be that Israel’s actions shouldn’t dictate when or if Palestine becomes a state. The underlying point is that Israel can’t say “no.”