By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a symbolic but significant move, Britain, Canada, and Australia have recognized a Palestinian state. This recognition arrives late, as the possibility of a Palestinian state diminishes due to rapid territorial loss in Gaza and the West Bank. Despite the challenges, including the weakened Palestinian leadership, this action by Western governments conveys an important diplomatic message. Symbols hold significant value in international relations and provide a crucial signal to Palestinians.
Read the original article here
The subject of the UK, Canada, and Australia recognizing a Palestinian state, while facing staunch opposition from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a complex situation, to say the least. Portugal, too, has joined the list, officially recognizing the State of Palestine. It’s a bold move, carrying significant implications, and, as one might expect, it’s sparking a heated debate.
If we take the idea of recognizing Palestine at face value, then logically, Palestinians should be treated as Israeli citizens, with voting rights and all the other privileges of citizenship. However, Netanyahu’s stance seems to suggest that this is not the path he intends to take. He’s made it very clear: recognition is not going to happen under his leadership. The world, thankfully, doesn’t always dance to his tune.
The implications of this recognition are multifaceted. It could be seen as a symbolic gesture of support for the Palestinian people, giving them hope and bolstering their claims to statehood. For some, it’s a move towards a two-state solution, acknowledging the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Others view it as an empty gesture, unlikely to change the reality on the ground, particularly given Israel’s power and influence. There is a general consensus that the declaration of support may not improve the situation in any meaningful way. This all leads to the idea of “pressure Israel in all the ways possible but these declarations feels like fake support to me”.
Then there’s the impact on the conflict itself. Some fear it could embolden Hamas, who are already celebrating this as a victory, leading to an escalation of violence and instability. Others believe it could potentially help to weaken Hamas’s grip on the people with the expectation of a democratic process starting in the region. The current situation has brought the worst-case scenario for conflict. It may result in hostage taking with an expectation of a significant worsening of the conflict as the Palestinians now seem to genuinely believe they will soon get to exterminate the jews.
The historical context is also crucial. The roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict run deep, and the actions of European powers, particularly Britain, have played a significant role in shaping the situation. Some opinions are that “The middle east is the mess it is because of the British!” The British input has its problems. The West’s involvement over time has created the problem.
The recognition of Palestine is also tied to the issue of land. Some believe that Israel’s ultimate goal is to annex all of the land, and the recognition by other countries challenges that ambition. It’s also interesting to note that there’s a saying: Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, but it cannot be both.
Ultimately, there’s a significant gap between the symbolic recognition of Palestine and the practical realities on the ground. Netanyahu’s stance, along with the ongoing conflict and Israel’s military strength, poses a substantial obstacle. It’s clear that the path to peace is not a straightforward one, and the recent declarations may only be the beginning of a new chapter in this long and complex story. Without pressure on Israel, the declarations will amount to nothing and do nothing.