On Thursday, the UN General Assembly voted by a large majority for Palestine to be given the status of a “non-member observer state”. Palestine will now join Vatican City (the only UN observer state until now) in being able to address the General Assembly, as well as taking part in committees and (potentially) signing up to international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). The vote, however, was not unanimous, with 41 abstentions and nine votes against.
Officially, the EU is committed to eventually recognising Palestinian statehood. Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, released a statement ahead of the vote saying: “The EU has repeatedly expressed its support and wish for Palestine to become a full member of the United Nations as part of a solution to the conflict… Recalling the Berlin Declaration of March 1999, the EU reiterates its readiness to recognize a Palestinian State when appropriate.”
However, whilst some EU member-states (including France, Italy, Spain, Austria and Denmark) voted in favour of the upgrade on Thursday, others (such as Britain and Germany) abstained, and the Czech Republic was one of the few countries that voted against. Clearly, European governments remain divided on this issue – which brings to mind a comment sent in by Nikolai on the question of EU recognition of Kosovo: “How, in fact, can the EU even have a position on Kosovo when so many Member States don’t and won’t recognise it?“
Can the EU have a position on Palestinian statehood whilst there is so much disagreement internally? And, even if it could agree on a unified position, would such a development necessarily be a positive thing? During an earlier debate, we had a comment sent in from Christos arguing that Western countries have been doing more harm than good in the Israel-Palestine conflict: “Whenever the West meddles in a region they create a fine mess.”
We put this comment to Jill Evans, a Welsh MEP and President of the Plaid Cymru party, for her reaction:
I think Europe has a particular role in Palestine and Israel because of Europe’s record on human rights, because Europe is the biggest single financial donor to the Palestinian Authority, and because people in Europe care so much about the way that the rights of the Palestinians have been undermined.
Palestine is a country under occupation, and Europe does trade very heavily with Israel (we’ve just had an upgrading of the trade agreement) and therefore it’s our duty and our responsibility to ensure that all human rights are respected, particularly with countries we trade with. Therefore, I think it’s quite right that the EU should be involved in a diplomatic way with the situation in Palestine and Israel and, of course, the whole of the international community should take responsibility for restarting the peace process there too.
What do YOU think? Should the EU recognise Palestine as a state? Or is this an unrealistic expectation, given how divided member-states are on this question. Perhaps Europeans should just keep out of Middle Eastern affairs, for fear of doing more harm than good? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.
126 comments Post a commentcomment
EU, now, is a caca
No, until they wanna live in peace instead of destroy Israel.
Then the EU should not recognize either Israel, as they destroy Palestine instead of live in peace.
No!This is not U.S.E. to decide for all member states what to do!I sincerely think E.U. should not encourage a so-called state teh harbours terrorists like Hamas!
Of coz..yea,why should,how could..
Only as a way to pressure both sides to come into an agreement. Nothing in politics is granted for free: the authorities in Palestine should firstly committ to peace and reform and then Europe provide recognition. Also, equal attention should be given to the other stakeholder: Israel, both for its security, but also for its obligation to respect human rights. You cannot disconnect one from the other.
Mora.
yes
It should, of course! That would be a mean for improved negociation. If not, conflicts can spread over EU as well. Soon or later Palestine will be recognised as full member state of UN. And become an EU partner as Israel is in this moment…
There is place for all in the world.
Yea..they hiding the true..n nw,they co-operation wit anoymous to destroy israel connection
I LOVE PALESTIN AND I HOPE ONE DAY IT WILL BE CUNTRY
Yes they should
frankly,palestine has proven dat its not peace loving so i reckon dat d E.U mst nt concider it as a state since d main aim is 4 europe 2 b united and palestine is being rebellious.
EU should definitely recognize the Palestine State without any doubt !
I’m fan of a one state solution. historically the two have never existed as separate entities (lang the UN also uses.). Dorian, gd pt ..
Palestine problem had been created by Europe especially UK after the World Wars. The responsibility to solve leans Europe firstly. Therefore Germany voted as an refusal due to Nazis and UK voted as an abstention due to head responsible. But France and Mr. Hollande had been realised a wonderful step. Of course Palestine was recognised by EU also.
yes!
To everyone talking about Palestinians as not peace-friendly. You might wanna check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoJYoWmnlWk
Who’s the real terrorist?
Yes.
Place more than 2000 years, the war is a business, and war interests, maybe I’m not the person giving the recipe for Peace … The position of the vote, good perspective control and responsibility through equitable relationships and obligations.
Against those who believe trust and responsibility are only one side of the coin, and the changing world there is room for conservative dogma. /? /
Abstentions, those who do not have a position ready to lead the others, but where??
Europe should be a good distance because of their own problems because they can not judge strictly, but can be reconciled!
YES YES YES
When the arabs recognise Israel.
Yes,I think.
Yes!
1) There is no consensus among the member states as required by the Common Foreign and Security Policy for the EU to act on this issue
2) Even if it were, it is not helpful to the peace process. Pressure should be brought to bear on both sides to mutually recognize one another, for Israel to cede East Jerusalem to be a Palestinian capital, and then do some land swaps between the two states – majority Arab lands in Israel for some West Bank settlements which have grown since 1967 into West Jerusalem. Every plan, from Saudi Arabia’s to Ehud Barak’s to the Road Map, to the EU’s own plan all call for these major points.
EVERYTHING ELSE is a distraction that doesn’t contribute to peace
of course we should…
yes!!!
I agree with Jill Evans. I think that it’s the time for palestinians to see their rights of existing been recognized.
YES!!!
YES.
Yes!
Of course, yes, Palestine and its people are being subjugated in full view of the world. Yet we turn a blind eye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQhFC64fQUY
And the Balfour Declaration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iEAcnDq4_k
yes
Yes!
yes, without a Palestinian state no stable peace is possibile
Not after the rockets bombardament to the Israelians city from Gaza.
And of course there’s the point that nearly all EU members supported the proposal. As for the abstentions I know that the UK only did so because of concerns over the potential ICC application. Was Germany taking a similar stance? Maybe we should work closely with the Palestinians with an offer of EU recognition in return for certain concessions that allow the Peace Process to continue. For them to get the support of a major democratic bloc like the EU would be an important counter-balance to Israel’s unequivocal support from the USA.
My understanding is, the EU members who voted for, are:
Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Finland, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Denmark, Austria, Belgium.
And the Pontius Pilates:
Australia, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland and UK.
Even, China, New Zealand, Bolivia and Turkey voted for.
What an eye opener that is.
Israel is recognized so why should Palestine not be?
Europe and European Union probably want to resolve this question but I think they will not be same for this decision.
http://www.filigeanu-adina.eu
Well, first we should ask ourselves if Palestine fulfills all the criteria of a “state” as defined by the international law. Only after should we discuss about different geo-strategic interests and power games inside EU..
Yes
Yes. I Agree. Stop Israel Killing…
I subscribe wholeheartedly and, at the same time, critically too, to the cue provided by Jill Evans’ two-paragraph comment. It is a great shame that the people of Europe (of all places!) are acquiescing to the only remaining apartheid regime in the world, a regime which is committed to the occupation of Palestinian land in order to re-create the Biblical confines of a land allegedly “promised” by some extra-terrestrial entity (“God”) to a particular (Jewish) race of people, to the detriment of its former occupants. It is time people woke up to reality and begin considering critically (without fear of being automatically deemed to be anti-semitic, by the Axis of Zionism’s willful agents!) the rights (of the former inhabitants!) and the wrongs of creating realities on Occupied land, despite 65-odd UN Resolutions to the contrary.
this is what happens when I try posting the above comment 500 – Internal server error.
There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed. Good job, people!
EU should recognize definitely according to the international justice!
#YES!
Only if everyone in it agrees.
E.U. should recognise Palestine, since U.N.O. has recognised it yet !
Eu is not a country. So has no opinion.
EU is not a country but it should have an opinion!
For me it is essential that the whole world designate the whole of the Promised Land as being BOTH Israel and Palestine. Like with the EU, they won’t be able to attack their own polity, so they will be forced to get around the table and do Jaw-Jaw instead of War-War.
Not yet,While the crisis in EU and in that country.I think next time
Are member-states divided? In the UN only one member-state voted against the UN Resolution. Granted, there were some abstentions but there seems to me a shift in political direction.
Well, if the EU is not ready to exert pressue on Israel, there is no use in recognizing the Palestinian State !
https://www.facebook.com/vapaaksi.unionista
https://www.facebook.com/vapaaeurooppa.freeeurope
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Murskaa-Euroopan-unioni-Crush-the-European-Union/171858402959763
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Say-no-to-the-eussr/153147328137588
The decision is not easy- If you support the Palestinians you will give Hamas which is racketeering his own people and recruting suicide bombers the opportunity to have all of the political power and if you not support the Palestinians you are accepting on a status quo for more than one milion Palestinians who are living like in prison. My opinion is that we need to recognize Palestine beacuse of a really clear reason- If in the future will come to a agreement between Israel and Palstine, we need to grant Palestine the right that they can equally sit on the negotiating table whit Israel and not like a hostage of West politics.
No power of recognition is assigned to the EU, in the Eyes of International Law. The EU can talk about it, not recognize it.
Should we recognize a state for the sake of it? Is Palestine as it is now, a viable state? I mean is it economically viable, or will we allow for another Kosovo, where gun, drug and human trafficking are the main GDP contributors?
Most of all, is the one Palestinian leadership? One common cause? For all I know is that the only thing Palestinians agree on is denying the existence of Israel (only the means to wipe out Israel is a point of disagreement). Will the new state be Islamic or secular? Yes sure, it’s up to them to decide, so would you be comfortable with yet another radical Islamic state at your doorstep?
Without a doubt, Palestine should become a state, after all it has been one before Israel anyway, so in principle, it is hard to say no. But do the Palestinians themselves have a clear view about what country the want, or will the new state collapse under the weight of a new civil war? If so, why should we encourage such an outcome?
The topic requires a much more complex answer that the one it encourages you to give. Personally at this stage I would have to say no.
“But do the Palestinians themselves have a clear view about what country the want…”
Creating a single narrative is highly problematic in the current state of affairs and expecting something like that to happen before we allow progress towards stability is unrealistic. Supporting the proposal of the Abbas government actually demonstrates the potential success of peaceful negotiations and the path of politics. It can achieve so much more than firing rockets at Tel Aviv.
Take the path of peace and the international community will support you, that is the clear message we should be sending. So we should keeping supporting the diplomatic efforts of West Bank’s Hammas movement and shun the violence of Gaza’s Fatah movement. Palestinians will judge for themselves which path they should support by the success it brings.
As for the comment about another Islamist regime, well, the situation in the West Bank is very much a known quantity. Unlike the uprisings of the Arab Spring against foreign backed dictators where we didn’t know who the opposition would turn in to, so the two aren’t comparable at all.
So what you are saying is actually influence their decision by taking the side of the fraction we think is right (so you take it for granted that we are right). I thought this has always been part of the secret services’ job (excuse my sarcasm). Oh and talking about the “men in black”, I am sure they knew very well how the situation was going to turn out after the Arab “spring”. It became evident with the Iranian experiment back in the 70’s and has worked like a fine Swiss-made clock ever since.
You see a “way of peace” when the most peaceful approach (to Israel’s existence among Palestinians) is that they can stop questioning Israel’s existence for now to allow for some progress to be made. That is, to let radicalism lay dormant for a while.
The core of the conflict is that Palestine is being USED by the Western world and the Arab world as a battleground. The Americans (and allies, notably the UK with its long tradition in generating regional conflicts) want cheap oil so they’ve stuck Israel into the Arabs’ eye. The rich Arabs do not want to risk their dominance in their little dictatorships, so they fuel a conflict to show some Arabian solidarity still exists, but away from their own backyards. The sides BEHIND the conflict do not want a common ground to be reached and they have ensured that by making an agreement impossible.
Look at the arguments of both sides. Well, there aren’t any. Israeli’s simply say: recognize the occupation and our existence to allow for some progress. Palestinians say (openly or covertly) that they want to wipe Israel out of the face of this world. How can you compromise the two?
That is why I would wait to see which side will become expandable for its “patron” and will be dragged to concede. Then I would ratify the status-quo. I think that you try to approach the issue from a very civilized, democratic and very “European” perspective. Things do not work like that in the Middle East.
How can you not approach the situation guided by your own morals? Its impossible to ignore that. You paint a picture of the Palestinians as a people hell bent on the eradication of Israel. Sure, that is the case for the extremists but it is equally true of the Zionists. The Israeli state practices apartheid and Zionism as a practice is akin to racism, and one day will be condemned to the history books.
Living the situation as it is would suit Israel down to the ground I think and if we just ignore it and pick the winning side, as you suggest, then we’re doing exactly what you claim supporting Palestinians looking for a political solution.
Yep they do, lots of them still have the deeds to the homes they owned before they were occupied and evicted. Whereas Israel’s ‘claim’ to the land is a tenuous link to 2000 year old fictional King who’s existence isn’t backed up by any archaeological evidence. People always talk about the right of return for Jews, but never the Palestinians who lived there within living memory.
Preferably stop both.
Agora temos a Palestina como um estado sim a UE deve reconhecer o estado da Palestina este estado novo será um novo desafio de uma nova esperança de paz entre Israel e a Palestina estes dois estados tem o dever de assumir os seus compromissos
You mention the word morals and I congratulate you for that. You could be a great friend but a lousy diplomat. You see, international politics has nothing to do with morals.
I would like the two people to get closer to one another and find a mutually beneficial solution. I want no more dead children in either side of the border. The problem is, you΄re simply watching the pawns in a game of chess, while I am talking about the players.
We (and I mean Europe) may like the black or the white side better but it totally irrelevant. I could condemn Israel and Palestine a million times, but I would achieve little, especially since a part of me (UK, Netherlands? Or you may call them BP or Shell) have no interest in resolving the crisis.
So follow your heart, recognize a stillborn state which will sink in poverty and fundamentalism, at the end of the day, it is your right to be romantic.
P.s. I really enjoy your arguments and try to reply with the utmost respect.
In the main I agree with your post.
However, if you remove the human element from world politics, or, politics in general, you end up with a world we cannot live in civilsation with.
Civilisation is the evolution of mankind. The difference between the under developed world and our own Europe. And, yes, it has to be tough and respond with a certain savagery. However, what you suggest will take us all back to the Borgias and before. Is that the world you want us to return to and to live in yourself?
Morality has to supercede absolute aggression. Otherwise we are savages who behave like animals. And with the gift we have of intelligent thought, as well as a spiritual awareness, we should all want to be guided by a sense of morality. For our own survival, if nothing more.
Dear Catherine,
Thank you for your reply. What I am suggesting is to let the two sides (or their patrons) to find the solution and civilized Europe to come and ratify any viable outcome (when the time is right for one).
One point I am trying to make is that it is not our business to take sides using the “messianic” approach that we are an intelligent/spiritual/ethical/democratic/civilized breed. The US has been using this approach to export “democracy” to countries where that system has never worked for historical/cultural reasons and has turned the world into a mess (for its own benefit).
Second point is that most people here answered this question as if they where asked whether they prefer dogs or rats better. They gave an easy answer to a seemingly easy yet very complicated question. I say unless you have been on the spot, you form views based on what you see on TV. We see dead Palestinian kids and we’re shocked. Now go to Israel, where they say most of those kids are not really dead and that all this is propaganda.
Based on what they say, they cannot even take their kids to school safely. Buses explode killing people, suicide bombers everywhere, everyday terror. For every dead Palestinian they have a dead Israeli. So (to use your moral approach), who is right? None? Both? We all like morality over aggression. Will that be the case if we to choose a side? Oh boy, ethics are tricky, right? Just like a “Libyan dictatorship was bad, Saudi dictatorship is good” thing. Or, “terrorists are bad, freedom fighters are nice” (they do exactly the same thing but the latter kill for us)
Third point. It is not really an Israeli/Palestinian thing. Both sides are the pawns in a bigger game where there are bigger players. The fact that you can have oil to move your car is because the US has Israel to keep the Arabs quiet. So you may use morality and ethics to write an article in favour of poor Palestine, but at the same time your well-being relies on Israel and the fact that they are doing the dirty job for you. It’s nice being NICE, but I would like to see how nice you’re going to be if you were to wake up one day and the price of oil was at $200. I can assure you that you’re not going to be so nice.
Arabs at the same time use the Palestinian cause to show to their people that there is still solidarity among the Arabs, although really one Arab fraction would be killing the other if there was no Israel in the region and the first casualties would have been their oppressive dictatorships.
In all, I think a Palestinian state is not viable (economically, politically etc.) so it is doomed to sink to fundamentalism if it is established now. I also think that there are reasons for the conflict and these reasons are beyond Europe’s control. Finally morality has never been the driving force of history, interests were and -surprisingly- Europe’s interests are with the perpetuation of the conflict.
If my last comment sounds weird, think of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. They have been used as a tool for the Western world to limit China and allow for US involvement in a region where it should not be present. Once the two sides started facing one another directly (China owns a big chunk of US debt), the relative importance of the islands has diminished and I think Taiwan as well, will eventually be devoured by the dragon. The same will happen in the Middle East. Once global balances shift and the conflict becomes useless, the issue will be resolved by the ones who created it.
I resent you trying to push me with the idea that I rely on Israel.
The opposite is true, Israel relies on us. They started out with terrorism against my country. And from then became a pariah state. Bleeding the rest of us dry with their insistence on subjugation of the Palestinian people.
Here is a little history. Unheard of before this discussion and radio play.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0137tff
We should have separated from Washington back then. Had we done so, we would not face what we are facing now, the collapse of our fiscal system as a result of US sabotage. The USA, along with its satellite, Israel, has been a plague which drags us down into barbarian depthsl.
You do not rely on Israel, you need Israel, like you need a hammer to put a nail on the wall. You can do the job using another tool maybe, but you need a tool to get the job done.
Israel is the hammer, the “western world” is the hand. Hand needs hammer, hammers effectiveness relies on the hand. That simple.
Talking about the western world, let me remind you that it was the UK which has pushed for US intervention during WW2. Hitler himself tried to avoid the clash with Britain twice, half the Americans did not want the US to interfere but Churchill insisted the war should continue.
Brits say, “beggars can’t be choosers” and that’s exactly what happened back then. Brits brought the Americans here as saviors, then begged them to stay to finance European reconstruction, then begged them to stay to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. After all that, you expected an independent foreign policy?
Israel was created to counteract Arab nationalism. To ensure western control (particularly UK and French) over the Suez canal and oil reserves in the region. Israel itself is also being used, one could also argue it is a victim as well, but the fact is, the Jewish state is a useful tool for the western world JUST like Palestine is a useful tool for Arabs.
Arabs already lost 3 wars against Israel, they need Palestine to remain an open sore, like a thorn in the side of Israel to show they haven’t given up. They are not able to confront Israel directly as all the Arab states are actually covert or open dictatorships. There is no cohesion internally, there are tribes and warlords (the idea of a state has never been compatible with Arab social structures and borders in the Middle East are a western invention), so they stand no chance despite the obvious advantage in terms of seer numbers.
I am obviously repeating myself here, so I will summarize everything:
(1) There is a conflict because it serves a purpose.
(2) Europe has contributed massively to that conflict and still gains from it.
(3) Both Israelis and Palestinians are being used by bigger powers, so for me they are both victims. Without that assistance either side had no chance of survival.
(4) Europe’s interests (as part of the western world) are obviously served by Israel (unless you want extremely expensive oil and an inaccessible Suez Canal)
(5) An independent Palestinian state at the moment has no chance of survival. There is no internal unity, there is no economy, no resources, not even an access to a safe way to get foreign aid. A Palestinian state would be another black hole on the map, where poverty and Islamic fundamentalism would thrive.
Laura the EU is an organization made up of 27 different states who have agreed to a common foreign policy when they agree to act together. If the EU does something, it would be like all 27 members doing it at the same time. Mind you, I don’t think the EU should recognize Palestine, but to suggest that “international law” doesn’t grant it power is ludicrous.
soon to be 26 I hope
Actually David, it’s soon going to be 28 (Croatia). The UK has been pursuing a completely counterproductive austerity policy which double dipped you into a recession, unbalancing your budget further, and eviscerating your investments into your future human capital with Osborne butchering investments in education and the NHS. You are losing market share because your companies are less competitive than their German counterparts on your biggest market (the Eurozone) because the pound if more expensive, and Scotland is closer to walking out on England than at any time in the last 300 years.
So instead of trying to make sure your country stays together, you think the UK’s biggest problem at the moment is its EU membership. That way you can have worse access to your biggest trading partner, tank your economy even more and make Scotland all but certain to leave. And if that were to happen, of course Northern Ireland will remain completely calm.
But hey, forget what I said. Please, think of me as an idiot and convince a few more of your fellow Brits to vote for the UKIP. As the coalition leaves their supporters disillusioned, it’s helpful that Lib Dems are flocking to Labor, but even more helpful that your side is stealing votes from the Tories. Why make Mr. Milliband’s job in the next election hard when you can make it easy? By all means, full steam ahead.
The biggest problem we have in the UK today is more of our people are being pushed into starvation than since WW11. Quite literally. This right wing government we have is forcing families who cannot find work, or, who can only find work that pays so little they cannot afford to live, into lining up at food banks in order to find food. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens are being treated like animals and called skivers and scroungers for wanting to have food to eat for themselves and their children.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/360348/3m-starving-in-the-UK
And most of the people who are not able to afford to eat are young people and children.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/young-people-starving-themselves-to-pay-bills-in-london-8220152.html
The right wing Tory press deny this is happening, and yet it is happening from the top of the country to the bottom. And they refuse to stop their attack on our citizens. They are using hate speech to encourage the citizens who can afford to live to ill treat our victims of poverty. It is horrific. Lawyers should be able to appeal to the European Human Rights courts in order to stop this new form of genocide.
They are denouncing ‘Save the Children’ and other charities liars for exposing the reality of this practice which is taking from the very poorest in the UK to give more to the corporate super class.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198927/It-s-obscene-political-stunt-Save-The-Children-equate-British-families-starving-poor-Africa.html
Additionally there is the push to secret courts. Where government are following the USA into hiding the secret torturous practices they carry out jointly.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/yvonne-ridley/secret-courts-what-they-dont-want-british-people-to-know
most of our trade is with non eu countries….your Eurozone is in recession….70% of Scots do not want to leave….and if you think we will not trade with continental Countries after we leave you are mistaken….and yes our biggest problem at the moment is being in your union and having to waste money on your bloody euro…the sooner we leave the better.
Small and medium British firms export mostly to the EU because unlike larger exporters who can overcome cumbersome non trade barriers, no trade barriers exist with the EU. They WILL go up if the UK leaves. So you will continue to trade but from beyond the internal market. And if you think there will not be an economic hit and that will not sway Scots on their decision whether to stay in the Union, that’s a VERY naive view.
if the cost to us does go up….counteracted by not wasting our tax money on your union it will be well worth it and I will happily pay it to get out….wait for the Scottish vote….then we will see.
As someone who wants to see Ed Milliband move to Downing Street in the next 2-3 years, I sincerely wish you the best result the UKIP has ever had in the next general election.
you would…milliband and clegg are such good little eu serfs.
Freedom to Palestine!
The Palestinians are just as wrong as the Israel in this sad affair. Therefore in my opinion a simoultaneous regognition should take place. The day that Arabs regognise Israel and its existence, we should all recognise the Palestinians and their right to a country of their own, and visa versa.
Can the EU as a whole recognise Palestine as a state, or is this the prerogative of individual Member States? If it could, I would be interested in launching a European Citizens’ Initiative on the issue.
yes !
Yes, of course, the Palestinian State should be recognized by the EU as a sovereign state with rights equal to all other.
If you like to debate please press “Like“ and follow the link… http://www.facebook.com/pages/Denons-Political-Views-Debate-Page/378349805578764?ref=stream
Everybody else does…
As israelit point of view: No.
Yes, they must do it !!!!
Yes and absolutely YES. Its about the time!
Saying yes its easy, however, you do not have to go beyond the EU to see that recognizing a nation is not easy. See Catalans etc. Regardless of all my support to the EU, there are situations where it cannot/should not intervene, the case of Palestine is such a case.
@Tiago, why you say? everybody does?
@Alberto: Israel does not say no! Israel, such as any other country (again see Spain) has to think further than the limited box. Israel cannot disregard the existence of Hamas who’s main aim is to destroy Israel, so vicious circle, isn’t it? :)
Well, honestly in this cases we should think in how EU has got relationships with countries that are still repressive, that don’t preserve the human rights and still have the death penalty. USA for example-in some states its still legal, and the sell of guns are more liberal than in Europe. I think thats against the europenean principals, and there is another thing, we can not deny that economic interest are higher (and mostly of the times they ‘forget’ moral and human rights) so what to do? Being hypocrites, and don’t forget Germany has got the biggest ‘international’ community
After more than 60 years we should get rid of “recognising the state of Palestine is not easy”. Of course is not easy! But we are just normalising a situation that shouldnt be acceptable! In addition to the so known not-doing- something-which-can-worsen-relations-with-the-US approach , the EU lacks leadership. It is true that the fact of gathering 27 foreign policies- which rely on a different historical context, rationale, economic interest, etc- is not that helpful, at least for having a common EU position. Yet, we saw that the situation in Palestine is getting worse and worse – no need to recall of settlements- so a further step is more than necessary!
And yes, Hamas is not the best fan of Israel, but I guess that if someone leads an illegal occupation and makes your life really difficult – violating a set of international laws- you are not that keen on building a real friendship. Sorry for being sarcastic, but it is very sad that many of you recall of the attacks of Hamas to Israel: Please, just take a look at some data at Human Rights Watch – main source used by the EU when delving into this issue- or Amnesty International.
No. Wait until we will be asked to take sides on the matter. I do not see any benefits coming our way from such an action.
Since when have EUROPE a common opinion about this topic?
never, thats why I said it :)
No question about it. Yes
The test for what to do with this topic is whether it will advance peace in the Middle East. Recognition of Palestine should be pursued within the context of a wider agreement – pushing Israel and Palestine to recognize each other, territorial agreement and land swaps, and permanent settlement of the right of return by Palestinian refugees.
@Alejandra: Have you ever been in those territories? Both Israel and Palestinian Authority? :)
Reading your comment, I am not sure!Have you talked with an Israeli kid or a Palestinian kid. I am not sure!
Have you spend one day of your life in a place hiding from a bomb? I am not sure; so until then, sarcasm is not appropriate!
I get your point but each situation has a Janus face ;)
No for Palestine
IT SURE SHOULD !!! Israel IS THE NO.1 COUNTRY in the world that violates continuously UN resolutions more than any other country on this Planet and is still unpunished for it’s crimes against humanity !!!!
@George Pap: One of the benefits is that all Greek Orthodox Palestinians will be freed as well as other Christian Palestinians (majority are Catholics) together with their Muslim compatriots!!!! This is smthing that ALL Christian Patriarchs are calling for in the Occupied Holy Land !!!
John, perhaps the problem is that when we talk about this particular region the conversation sooner or later turns religious. I am a religious person myself but I m sure religious thinking is not going to solve this particular problem in favour of any of the parties involved. Therefore, when I say that I don’t see any benefits coming our way I mean political benefits for the EU as a whole and not just for Greece or even a certain religion in particular. This turmoil has been around for many yrs on and I think one of the reasons is exactly that! Religion! On top of that, and realistically speaking, I am not sure whether the parties involved are ready to resolve the issue! I am also a bit confused regarding the term “occupied”. Who owns the place anyway and how it all started…?
iSrael was created on RELIGIOUS basis in 1948, and massacred millions of Palestinians without any single consequence to its acts. By doubting who owns the place one would say that u are implementing that Greek Jews should all leave Hellas ?? and that the Philistines should RETURN to KRITI and to the Aegean Islands ??? The Holy Land was always inhabited by many Semites (Phoenicians, Philistines, Arameans,Israelites…who in time were dispersed in various religions) The matter will be resolved when the Palestinians will have an independent nation and the right to refugees to their stolen properties(Lands and houses…) Political benefits for the EU is to safe guard Human Rights for which it got a Nobel !!
I never said or implied such a complete nonsense, quotting your statement “greek jews should leave Hellas”, and I am afraid I cannot follow this logic. International issues such as this one demand unbiased judgement and political maturity and definately not religious involvement. Both of the parties have had civilian casualties in this conflict and I guess we both agree on that. However, noone can force a resolution by recognising a palestinian state. A recognision will not stop the killings and therefore, to me, is pointless.
“Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool
in the continuing battle against Israel.”
— Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head
of the PLO and member of its Executive
Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977
Yes! And peace please in the Middle East.
My Dear George….
The best thing that Israel can do to get rid of the Palestinian problem is to give them capitalism… The more they keep them isolated with no chance of any future, the more they radicalize them and the more the rockets will fall like rain…
Palestinian children have nothing to lose.. They have no future in the “state” they are living… If in the other hand they had capitalism, don’t you think that they would focus on this new i-phone that Apple just got out in the market, instead of firing rockets or committing suicide attacks on Israel?
But to have capitalism they must get a state first…. So what the Israelis are doing is perpetuating both nation’s martyrdom and allowing more people to be killed from both sides… They should stop any new settlements at once and withdraw back to the old borders agreed….
The Arabs on the other hand must accept that Israel is here to stay and start a reconciliation process…. And what must Europe do? Punish both of them each time they brake the rules agreed.. Place sanctions both on Israel and the Arabs each time they do not abide by what they have agreed… By siding with Israel or Palestine we only make things worse…
As some one else said above, they are both the victims in this story, but also they are both the aggressors.. Each time they must be dealt accordingly.. Israel got away with a lot, because of its special relationship and protection from USA and partially from Europe… The Palestinians are suffering more because they are the underdogs in this story..
But if I was forced to live in a ghetto (that is what Palestine is at the moment) I wouldn’t care less to fire rockets to any neighboring nation, especially if they told me that they are the cause of all my suffering.. Why can’t the Israelis understand that the more they isolate them, they more they radicalize them and they push them into supporting radical and terrorist groups?
A Palestinian state and economic growth is the only way for me… Sorry… Otherwise I would suggest the unthinkable, a federation of an Arab-Israeli state in which the lands will belong to both and none separately…. Now that would be a challenge!!
@Virag Gulyas : Yes, I have been there. Indeed, I have lived there and worked on this issue -also focusing on children, by the way. I dont wanna say with this that I know everyting, because it is not at all the case,but I have been joining both Palestinians and Israelis, greatly including the grassroots, so I feel I have something to say, at least the right to express an opinion based on certain experience. I am not gonna list all I went through with them or enlighten with examples, as this is not worth it for the questions addressed and I am nobody. The only thing I hope is that this ends. As I think that recognising the state of Palestine is helping, in the long run,sort this situation out, therefore my answer is YES and YES.
It’s been 70 years since the end of WW2, Europe has done all it could and should have to help Israel. It’s tiem to grow a damn spine and say this injustice of building settlements on top of palestinian people ( LITERALLY ) MUST END.
Recognize Palestine as a state and see how “peaceful” Israel is.
If the EU doesn’t, who else will? Of course YES, YES & YES!!!
@George …”International issues such as this one demand unbiased judgement and political maturity and definately not religious involvement” Do u know that iSrael was established on RELIGIOUS basis !!! read the “Lord Balfour Declaration” U are to know that many Jews support a Free Palestine , in Dec.2012 prior to the UN vote many German Jews asked Her Excellency Chancellor Merkel NOT to vote against Palestine, thus Germany’s vote was neutral for the 1st time in history with regard to iSrael. (Haaretz) Read as well “Shlomo Sands”..and…. Palestinian sufferings are by far more in this unfort. conflict. There is NO comparison. and How iSrael lost Europe’s support : http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/how-israel-lost-europe-s-support.premium-1.481544
@Alejandra, thanks for your fair answer;) afterall we both want the same: PEACE
@john…every state, when established, involves religion one way or another. However, this does not mean that problem solving and decision making should be based on religious grounds. Anyway, we disagree. I have my own experience from the region and google-type references will not change it. I noticed you did not comment on the ex-PLO’s statement about the true purpose of a palestine state. Instead, you keep repeating that israel is a religious based state. So what? Italy, greece, spain, portugal, usa, etc etc are as well, so what? In case you are having difficulties undestanding my argument, try and answer this simple question “will the matter be terminated if a palestinian state is declared?”. NO. And regarding the origin of the palestinians there are many views in the international literature and not just yours. Why dont you ask an arab about palestine..?
?f the Palestinian State is recognised by EU also, the problem might not terminate but it will be a model for other similar conflicts to the traditional diplomacy. Besides Arab Spring will not be provocated by the stablemate which ?srael and ?ran. EU will overcome the crisis with to enhance of production of EU. Because US is much more far away to the Middle East than EU. EU should support to establish of Palestinian State.
John Ioannis Hanna, that is an incredibly one sided portrayal of history straight out of Hamas propaganda books, and is completely inaccurate. Israel was hardly a religious state because Israel’s first elected leaders like Ben Gurion were European style socialists. 1948 Israel didn’t even include Jerusalem, Labor was a dominant political force well into the 60s at which time religious Zionism started having some clout. And last but not least, the original Israeli borders in 1948 included a majority Jewish population under the UN partition, and a separate, bigger Palestinian state which would have been less than 5% Jewish and included all of Jerusalem was provided for. Israel accepted these terms and the Palestinians didnt. All their Arab friends proceeded to invade Israel which resulted in the war they lost, and in Israel seizing the territories it did to make itself more contiguous and defensible. So Israel was attacked and threatened with genocide before they seized these territories – they didn’t just wake up one morning gun in hand and start killing Palestinians. Even Abbas recently admitted that Palestinians made a mistake for not taking this deal, and here you are reciting Hamas propaganda about the past. I a not 100% certain how we get to peace, but we certainly don’t by listening to these types of propagandist versions of history.
And the Balfour declaration or the subsequent League of Nation policy on it was to establish a Jewish state while safeguarding the civil and religious liberties of non-Jews, which the UN Partition plan in the 1940s proceeded to do.
Until Israel does, the EU shouldn’t.
Of course in was in the past up until several periods of conflict justified or not , is not the issue they are a people with a cultural identity underoppucation , to deny then statehood is to deny them diginiy , as my EU respects human rights .
“Iranian missiles will hit New York in “three to four years”. A nuclear Iran is like “50 North Koreas”.
This could be the sound of a deranged, dangerous sociopath, or this could be the sound of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu addressing the UN General Assembly.
Compare for yourself. Last week we had Iranian President Hassan Rouhani calling for the world to surf a WAVE (as in World Against Violence and Extremism).
This week we had Bibi saying that was a “cynical” and “totally hypocritical honey trap”.
In the world according to Netanyahu, “Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Rouhani tried to present himself as “pious”, but he’s always been involved with “the terror state of Iran”. He’s like “a serial killer going to court dressed in clerical attire and giving testimony to his nature as an ‘ethical’ and ‘religious’ man.”
Ranting aside, Bibi did change his game. Now it’s not silly cartoons and begging the US to bomb Iran virtually on a weekly basis. Now it’s Iran’s “military nuclear program” that must be shut down – a program, by the way, that the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies says does not exist.
And this after Netanyahu told US President Barack Obama to forget – forever – UN Security Council resolution 242, which determined total Israeli withdrawal from all lands occupied after the 1967 war.
What a bomb
So let’s get some things straight.
The state of Israel does not have any internationally recognized borders, and does not have an internationally recognized capital. It’s bound to be perpetually expanding.
Israel has disrespected no less than 69 UN Security Council resolutions and has been “protected” from no less than 29 more, courtesy of US vetoes.
It has been occupying sovereign territory of Lebanon and Syria without giving a damn to UN Security Council resolutions.
Israel signed the Oslo Accords promising to stop building for good, any new settlements in Palestine. Instead, it has built over 270 new settlements. This is part of the slow motion ethnic cleansing of Palestine over the past six decades.
Israel has been threatening to bomb Iran on a weekly basis for at least three decades.
Israel is an undeclared nuclear power with as many as 400 nuclear warheads; refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT); bars international inspections; never ratified the Chemical Weapon Convention Treaty; used chemical weapons on Gaza; and holds an undeclared stockpile of chemical weapons larger than any other nation in the Middle East.
Iran, on the other hand, has no nuclear warheads. Iran has signed the NPT and is inspected on a regular basis. Iran has not invaded another country for at least 250 years. Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, but Iran did not occupy Iraqi territory.
The Israel lobby in Washington and the US Congress imposed a financial blockade on Iran, which for all practical purposes is a declaration of war. This has led to a massive depreciation of the Iranian rial – with drastic consequences for the lives of ordinary Iranians. Yet in his meeting with Obama this Monday in Washington, Netanyahu not only asked for more sanctions; he said Israel will unilaterally attack Iran if Rouhani’s words are not followed by “action”.
The real “international community”, as in the overwhelming majority of the developing world, including the BRICS group of emerging powers, have all these facts at their fingertips. These facts help to see right through Bibi’s game.
Just look at the map
The mere possibility of a US-Iran dialogue is the Israeli right’s real “existential threat”. Bibi won’t accept even Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, accorded to it by the NPT.
A US deal with Iran is a win-win proposition for all; not only the two principals but energy-starved Europeans, the global economy, multinational corporations, you name it. Except for Israel.
Bibi’s nightmare is the Islamic Republic of Iran not only as an independent geopolitical actor in Southwest Asia – which it already is – but also as a thriving regional power; in this aspect, the only way for Iran is up, considering its huge, young, well-educated population, its massive energy resources, it’s fabulous location and its complex ties to South, Central and East Asia.
For the Israeli right, the status quo is ideal. Either we find US puppets such as the petro-monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC); or Arab secular republics that – with various degrees of Israeli input – have been mired in extreme turmoil, like Iraq and especially Syria.
It’s very easy for Israel to maneuver among these actors; the Israelis can, for instance, rejoice with a military coup in Egypt (because the Egyptian military are no threat) while partnering with Saudi Arabia to try to bring down Assad in Syria. Middle East balkanization over sectarian lines is sweet as honey for Israel.
But Iran as an emerging economic/political power, with normalized relations with the US and Western Europe, it’s a much more serious matter, “existentially” threatening Israel’s supposed hegemony in the Middle East, which rests solely on its military muscle (not to mention hidden nuclear capability).
So much for Netanyahu ’s obsession with regime change in Tehran – or the next best option, which is total isolation from the West (because as far as the East is concerned, Iran has thriving relations with all key actors in Asia).
The crucial point is that Iran’s “existential threat” has been extremely useful for the Israeli right as a diversionary tactic, changing the subject from what’s happening in real life; a nuclear garrison state/settler colony literally, graphically wiping a whole people – the Palestinians – off the map. When in doubt, just look at the map.
So here’s where we are. Netanyahu is a hawk who swears by Eretz Israel – a “Greater” Israel with ever-expanding borders and undisputed military/nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. He has powerful allies; US extreme right-wingers and neo-cons, demented Republicans who will support anything as long as it’s against Obama, a great deal of the Israeli-manipulated US Congress, large swathes of corporate media. They will stop at nothing to derail even the hint of an agreement between Washington and Tehran.
The temptation for the real “international community” would be to tell Netanyahhu to shut up – and go play with his silly cartoons. Obama at the UN last week said his priorities are now Iran and taking another shot at solving the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy. …
Just to put things in perspective..
YES
I believe Palestine should be a state recognised by the EU, their suffering has gone on far too long and the world just watches.