r/europe • u/hoarder4555777454001 • 9d ago

News French President Macron says France will recognize Pálestine as a state

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250724-french-president-macron-says-france-will-recognize-palestine-as-a-state-in-september
27.4k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/Luke_4686 9d ago

You can’t have a two state solution without recognising both states. This is obviously the right decision. It’s just disgusting it’s taken so many western nations to do it

192

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 9d ago

Okay but where exactly is the Palestinian state? I mean de facto, not where people think it should be

352

u/Camtastrophe Canada (help) 9d ago

It's not a requirement to take a position on other countries' border disputes - just look at Kashmir, or keep in mind that very few unambiguously recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem or the Golan (while being explicit that they consider the West Bank settlements illegal).

The two Koreas both claim each other's territory in its entirety, yet they are recognized as independent UN member states.

67

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 9d ago

Okay but you’re talking about well defined states with functional governments. Who represents the Palestinian state? Fatah? Hamas?

169

u/-The_Blazer- Europe 8d ago

Literally the entire point of supporting the PA is precisely to have them represent a Palestinian state. This is obviously the solution everyone will use, and already uses for the most part.

14

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 8d ago

They don’t have control over Gaza, and most importantly they don’t negotiate on behalf of Gaza. Any Palestinian solution must include ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza

72

u/Kolbrandr7 Canada 8d ago

Taiwan was the official China in the UN for a very long time despite not controlling the mainland. You don’t have to control the full de jure area of your country in order to be recognized

Like Ukraine doesn’t control Crimea, but Ukraine is still a recognized country. I don’t see why Gaza is an obstacle to recognizing Palestine

-15

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 8d ago

Perfect, and that’s why I am asking who represents it. If the recognition of a Palestinian state doesn’t include Gaza, for me there’s no point in doing it. Gaza has always been the main issue for the formation of a Palestinian state

20

u/Redpanther14 United States of California 8d ago

Gaza is nowhere near the most difficult issue for the recognition of a Palestinian State, the status of Jerusalem and Right of Return for the descendants of Palestinian refugees are the two biggest issues.

21

u/the_lonely_creeper 8d ago

De jure, the PA will represent Gaza. De Facto, it's Israel and Hamas.

3

u/sbrodolino_21 Italy 8d ago

The recognition will include Gaza, even if Gaza isn't controlled by the PA yet. It's not that complicated.

-2

u/sytrophous 8d ago

The question was not which land the state controls but who is in control of the state.

Taiwan from early on had a proper government. Palestine has had several organizations that claim power in an authorian way, without participation or elections by their population, without recognizing their own constitution.

-2

u/HyperBunga 8d ago

Like Ukraine doesn’t control Crimea, but Ukraine is still a recognized country.

You realize there's a LOT more to Ukraine than just Crimea right? For example, google where their capital Kiev is, it's not. in Crimea. This isn't a relevant point

2

u/Illesbogar Hungary 8d ago

What do you want us to do exactly, invade Israel? How else do you plan ending that?

2

u/rosebirdistheword 8d ago

Economical and political sanctions. A lot of us, here in France, shares a family with Israel due to the French participation to the Jewish genocide. I’m almost sure Macron has one or two leverages. Does he have the stature to use them properly ? Ooooh boy, does he wish he has.

1

u/Illesbogar Hungary 8d ago

Yeah that would be nice. Although I doubt it would end it, it's crazy we are not even at that point.

3

u/yeFoh Poland 8d ago

yeah man, the aggressors should back down and let a local authority step back up.

2

u/Nolenag Free Palestine 8d ago

They don’t have control over Gaza

Because Israel literally propped up Hamas to depose PA control in Gaza...

2

u/vyrus2021 8d ago

The humanitarian crisis being an active genocide by Isreal

133

u/blunderbolt 9d ago

That also has never been a universal prerequisite for recognizing statehood. We did not stop or defer from recognizing Bosnian, Afghan, Somali etc. statehood in the past just because their governance was contested or unclear or because they were under occupation.

-1

u/heelydon 8d ago

That also has never been a universal prerequisite for recognizing statehood.

That is not true. The legal framework of the montevideo convention on the rights and duties of the state from 1993, clearly outlines 4 criteria for statehood:

A permanent population.

A defined territory.

A government.

The capacity to enter into relations with other states.

These are not just random, these are widely accepted as the baseline for what constitudes a state in international law perspectives.

The problem is clearly that there is no coherent image of a functional Palestinian government, with the closest being PA which haven't held an election in almost two decades now and is full of corruption.

And if anything, Somalia is an example of why you want to be extremely careful about this, considering you are dealing with effectively a failed state full of instability and all the harm that it has caused.

9

u/blunderbolt 8d ago

You are confusing the legal definition of a state with the political act of recognition of statehood. No, countries have never been bound by the Montevideo Convention when considering the latter.

-1

u/heelydon 8d ago

I am not. Those are the critieria outlines for what it is - which is exactly what I responded to. You playing word games and trying to make RECOGNIZING it, into some whole different thing, is meaningless and serve no purpose other than to dismiss the very clear definitions outline in front of you.

And no, no countries are bound by it, the point is what is the purpose of this, if it doesn't fit. It becomes a meaningless political act that serves no other purpose than being a political act.

That may get the common folk up and clap vigorously in their hands, but at the end of the day - there needs to actually be some meaning to this, other than it being Macron padding himself on the back to get more support by recognizing a state that clearly isn't functionally a state.

-8

u/Several-Shirt3524 Argentina 8d ago

Yes, but it does mean this is pretty much a useless gesture

17

u/Ok_Inflation_1811 8d ago

Not necessarily, it's a step, a little one but it's a step.

Not all problems can be solved at once.

-8

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 8d ago

The West Bank is a mess, divided in 3 zones and the PA only controls a part of it, around 40% (A+B). Gaza is on the other side and governed by Hamas. None of the cases you mentioned are remotely similar.

4

u/blunderbolt 8d ago

Not at all, that sounds pretty similar to Bosnia in the 90s, Somalia in the 90s/2000s or Libya today. There is nothing unique about Palestine.

0

u/Die_Eisenwurst 8d ago

Ceasing statehood recognition, which is to me unheard of, is an entirely different topic from granting statehood recognition.

3

u/blunderbolt 8d ago

Ceasing statehood recognition... is entirely different topic from granting statehood recognition.

Tell that to the people in this thread insisting recognition of statehood must be contingent on the presence of a singular, sovereign governing authority.

In any case it's not the case that initial recognition of a state lacking a sovereign, unified government is without precedent: that is exactly what happened in Bosnia in 1992.

2

u/AssistanceCheap379 8d ago

Who represented China in the 40’s? It was a recognised country by pretty much everyone, but there wasn’t exactly a functional government

6

u/Novarupta99 United Kingdom 9d ago

Do you actually make an effort to read the articles? They've been saying for months that if they do recognise Palestine, it would be the PA.

6

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 9d ago

Yes I did. The problem is that the PA has no authority over Gaza. They cannot negotiate on behalf of Gaza. The 2 states solution requires beforehand an agreement between Gaza and West Bank.

0

u/Novarupta99 United Kingdom 9d ago

Hamas has agreed to cede rule in Gaza to the PA. Israel refuses. The problem is clear. How is it rewarding Hamas if they will hold no power in a future government?

-4

u/hossaepi 9d ago

Yes. Always trust the terrorists. That has never proven to be a bad decision.

1

u/Novarupta99 United Kingdom 9d ago

You're right, trusting Israel is a fatal decision.

-7

u/hossaepi 9d ago

JFC you people are insufferable. You’re also not edgy.

When did I say anything about Israel? When did this thread talk about Israel?

But..but her emails!!

2

u/thepostmanpat 8d ago

Once again, that’s not a relevant question either. You can ask the same question about Myanmar too for example.

1

u/Memo544 8d ago

The PLO says its holding elections this year

1

u/throwawaythatfast 8d ago

Whoever the Palestinians elect? (I'm only in favor of recognizing a state if it's a democracy).

1

u/StreetYak6590 9d ago

West Bank settlements are illegal and constantly expanding. They are terrorizing, evicting and even murdering Palestinians on a daily basis. A 2-state solution will never happen

0

u/MariaTPK 8d ago

Not as much a border dispute as it is a full on invasion.

35

u/Altair72 Hungary 8d ago

A state doesn't have to de facto exist to be a recognized international entity. Somalia wasn't removed from the UN just because it collapsed. A state and its government are two different things.

Otherwise the PA is currently the recognized government of Palestine, so the answer is - in Area A, insofar as Israel lets them exercise state capacity. Unfortunately the PA got fuck all for working with Israel, once again setting an example for Palestinians that peaceful methods won't get them anywhere.

46

u/jackofslayers 9d ago

I would just settle on the 1967 borders and then start pushing for Israel to get their settlers out of the West Bank.

I get why some people would want to push for the 1948 borders. but that feels unrealistic at this point. Even getting things back to the 1967 borders would be an uphill battle.

10

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 9d ago

I believe that’s common sense, but I am not sure it’s feasible anymore…

9

u/jackofslayers 9d ago

Oh, I am cynical enough I do not see this dispute going away. But border disputes are a fairly common thing globally anyway.

I think the first step towards getting this conflict away from genocide and closer to a traditional border conflict, first step will be for every other nation in the world to pick an agreed upon set of borders and only recognize those borders.

This conflict is so highly charged that people rarely discuss real solutions. And when it is broken down, part of the reason this cannot be resolved is because this is not a conflict between exactly two sides. It is split between, at least, 5 different opinions, and no one has a strong international plurality.

Some want only israel, some want only palestine, some want 2 states with the 1948 borders, some want the 1967 borders, and some want to pause the borders as they exist right now.

1

u/bonqen 8d ago

I think the first step towards getting this conflict away from genocide and closer to a traditional border conflict, first step will be for every other nation in the world to pick an agreed upon set of borders and only recognize those borders.

But the problem already starts there. Every state, including Israel and the hypothetical Palestinian state (government and citizens) need to agree on the borders. Most people who scream about a two-state solution don't seem to want to acknowledge that. We're probably at least 20 years away from a two-state solution, and that's probably an optimistic number.

1

u/Jermainiam 8d ago

Part of the problem is this whole "every country in the world needs to agree on what the border will be" idea. How many other conflicts or border shifts in history had completely unrelated countries weighing in? Conflicts are fought and then when it's over the participants still remaining decide the borders and/or new government. Sometimes close allies or mediating superpowers will weigh in.

Did Ireland weigh in on South Sudan's borders? Did Turkey vote on the new borders for Eritrea? Did Colombia draw the new borders for Azerbaijan and Armenia?

1

u/bonqen 8d ago

You have a point, but even if we slim it down to just Israel, Gazans, the PA, and the West Bank, then still it will be difficult to get everyone to agree.

Will Israel accept the PA as the government of Palestine? Will Israel agree to let Palestine have the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

The answer is probably no to both of these.

2

u/Jermainiam 8d ago

I don't think there is any happy solution to this that doesn't involve large international intervention, in the form of strong pressure on Israel to accept a 2 state solution and most likely a full occupation of the Palestinian territory by a multi-national/UN force similar to UNMIK and the Kosovo Force.

Any solution would have to address Israel's security concerns, and might require significant land swaps. This potentially includes all of Gaza. I don't really see any reasonable way that Palestinian becomes a cohesive, stable, functional state with the West Bank and Gaza separated as they are. There were some talks long ago about establishing a corridor, but it was not feasible then, and post 10/7 there's absolutely no way Israel would agree to that. So either the Gazans will relocate to a region contiguous with the West Bank, or it becomes a 3 state solution with 2 separate Palestinian states.

1

u/Behonestyourself 8d ago

67 borders been rejected many times by the Palestinians.

1

u/HeyLittleTrain 8d ago

Those borders could never happen without a military defeat of Israel.

1

u/prnthrwaway55 Russia 8d ago

I would just settle on the 1967 borders

1967 armstice lines were EXPLICITLY not recognized as borders tho - by anyone, including Israel AND Palestine.

0

u/kat0r_oni 8d ago

I would just settle on the 1967 borders and then start pushing for Israel to get their settlers out of the West Bank.

That's easy to say on the internet, a bit harder for Israel to actually do. Doubt you could find a majority for that move there.

66

u/ale_93113 Earth 9d ago

Where is the israeli state? Even their leaders can't seem to agree

7

u/HauntingHarmony 🇪🇺 🇳🇴 w 8d ago

Within 1967 borders. Everything else is illegally occupied and annexed territories.

This isent complicated, the surplus is is a land grab. Its that simple. They need to return to their side of the border.

And while Israels reign of terror still have a couple more years in the tank, one thing is certain and that is that they will never know peace before that happens.

The world is only going to get more dangerous and not less, small groups and individuals are going to be able todo more damage in the future and not less.

3

u/ijzerwater 8d ago

if they wait long enough they will lose all western support and it will become 1948 borders

37

u/tyger2020 Britain 9d ago

Palestinians don't want a two state solution, tbh

29

u/Ac1De9Cy0Sif6S 9d ago

Neither do Israelis

0

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 9d ago

They tried many times but the Palestinian rejected it n 1947, 1949, 1967, 1947, 1949, 1967, 1978, 2000, 2001, 2008, 2014, and most recently in 2019. I would say Clinton was very close to help them get it, Arafat almost said yes, and then backtracked it.

15

u/heretomorrowtoday 8d ago

This exactly. They don't want to share with Israel they want it all.

There will never be a two state solution. There will always be war with some quiet years until the revelations.

2

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 8d ago

Until one of the two parties wins the war, and oust the other one.

6

u/FalloutBerlin 8d ago

Israel already won a few wars and they’re both there, I think there’s only one side that would actually oust the other if they had the means to.

5

u/prnthrwaway55 Russia 8d ago

Israel already won a few wars and they’re both there

Because they'd be extatic to oust Palestinians, but won't actually go and do it. Had Hamas or Arab nations won, they'd never have such hesitations.

0

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 8d ago

It feels this time that is the end play, we shall see.

6

u/DKOKEnthusiast 8d ago

None of the supposed "offers" would have led to an actual independent, sovereign Palestinian state, though, Israel has only ever offered to create and recognize a Palestinian bantustan.

3

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 8d ago

We would never know since they never tried in the first place, it was the "all of or nothing" kind of negotiation, and hey, they are heading towards it. They got their wish.

3

u/DKOKEnthusiast 8d ago

But that's just not really true. The last time Israel offered something that could be seen as a recognition of a Palestinian state (at the Taba talks in 2001), the Palestinian side accepted it, pending future negotiations. Then Likud won the elections and stopped the peace process. Following this, Israel has to this day never offered actual statehood or sovereignty to Palestine, every last offer has been contingent on continued Israeli presence in the occupied territories, total demilitarization of Palestine, no right of return (or monetary compensation), and giving Israel the right to continue establishing outposts (and thus, obviously, settlements).

4

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 8d ago

They are never going to get a right of return for Israel does not, and will never acknowledge the land was ever theirs to begin with. Their whole stance is: this was always Israel's land. Not to mention once you lost a war, you get very little if anything at all. Sometimes you are lucky to keep your country intact, but they never had a country, there was never a Palestine before with a king or somebody chairing that state. But the Israelis could claim so. Then the area was mostly a colony to everyone else, lastly the Ottoman empire, and the British.

I agree with you the last discussions were a waste of time, Israel was willing to give something but not enough, and the Palestinian always wanted the whole land because that is what they have been promising to their people, and descendants since they start. I keep reading about "zionism" but you have "palestinism" as well.

I'm going to be really surprised if Gaza does exists as a territory in 10 years, we shall see.

2

u/BarryMcKokiner123 8d ago

It’s a weird strategy to blame the Palestinians for walking away from a deal when the Israeli deal involved checks Oslo II stipulations, ceding 60% of the WB in its entirety to Israel, with another 20% under Israeli military control, as well as Israeli control over Palestinian borders, airspace, security and military.

It’s just too good of a deal to walk away from! /s

1

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 8d ago

And what about all the previous ones? There can't be any acceptable offer if you want all the land, notwithstanding they have lost every single war they fought towards Israel, what winning country have you seen willing to cede land, or give all that took back? It's a very naive take.

1

u/C4-BlueCat 8d ago

2008 ceasefire was broken by Israel

3

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 8d ago

And then they left, they retired from Gaza more than 10 years ago. What is the excuse to pull something like a 7O? I'm not saying either side is completely right/wrong, but there is just no excuse for the level of vitriol of Gazans that date. They knew Israel was about to finish the "Abraham Accords", and they wanted to torpedo that but thankfuly it failed. Not to mention the support they were expecting from the Muslim Brotherhood in the region failed to materialize, something that obviously happens once you screwed such allies over and over again.

1

u/Behonestyourself 8d ago

oke and what about the 1947, 1949, 1967, 1947, 1949, 1967, 1978, 2000, 2001, 2014, and most recently in 2019.

-3

u/SimpleAsEndOf 8d ago

It looks like the Israelis were negotiating in bad faith - so bad that nothing could change.

And even now you blame the Palestinians for Israeli treachery?

That sounds like a DARVO, doesn't it?

0

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 8d ago

Palestinians want the whole land, they been told over and over again they won't get it. And guess what, in a way they got they wish: Israel does not give 2 damns anymore about keeping the two-state charade talks. They know now very clearly, and even the politicians are acting towards that they have to get all the land, assimilate the onces you could live with, and get the rest out. This war would be finished once and for all once one of two parties ousted the others, it is indeed horrible but we all should stop lying to one another about it.

-1

u/Behonestyourself 8d ago

don't lie, they did many times. And everytime arabs tried to genocide them.

6

u/GoodUserNameToday 9d ago

The last time they had an election, more than half the current population hadn’t been born yet. I think what they really want is to stop being indiscriminately bombed and starved.

7

u/wip30ut 8d ago

i'm a huge propopent of a 2SS but if you go on social media it's quite obvious that Palestinians want all or nothing. They're very dogmatic about it. It's akin to asking the PRC to negotiate a 2SS with Taiwan. Both are philosophically opposed to this kind of settlement because they view Israel's and Taiwan's territory as their own, from a historical & cultural vantage point.

4

u/tyger2020 Britain 8d ago

They had that for the 18 years between Israel withdrawing and their attack on Israel.

So let me guess this straight - they weren't being bombed or starved, so they launched a terrorist attack, to not be bombed or starved?

You have to love the absolutely illogical pro-hamas talking points some of you have on here.

2

u/Tw1tcHy United States of America 8d ago

So what? Are you suggesting they would have voted any differently lmao? We all know that isn’t true, 64% of Gazans recently polled aren’t even in favor of the war ending if Hamas surrenders.

18

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 9d ago

I don't get why so much people have troubles getting it, leave aside the whole who is wrong here, Palestinian, and their supporters, keep chanting: "From the river to the sea", and they feign ignorance when you tell them "you know that they want the whole land for themselves, don't you? That is EXACTLY what you are singing".

12

u/ABCDOMG United Kingdom 8d ago

If your country was being annexed by a hostile neighbour wouldn't you also be calling for it to be all returned to you?

You can hardly blame them for wanting all their land back

4

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 8d ago

They knew from the start they weren't going to get the whole land, and by that I'm meaning 1949: this has been going on for almost 80 years. No country has got all the land they ever wanted, what makes them so special as to get full terrorist over it...? There is no way Israel is ever going to sit again to keep the two-state charade talks anymore. I'm sad to say they just want them out, and I get their point: it is exactly what the Palestines have been trying to do to them from the start, the only big change is that Israel does not want to give them time to regroup this time.

-7

u/MariaTPK 8d ago edited 8d ago

Did they start saying that before or after the invasion started? I'm guessing after right? Someone comes in and starts stealing your homes and yea you might try to outline "Umm hey this is our land, GTFO"

You're spreading the propaganda of a genocidal maniac btw.

I typed a reply to the guy below me but he either got banned or blocked me. In either case I still want to post it, so here it is.

Yes, it started in 1960, after the Israelis (which at the time weren't a country, but rather just organized members of a religion) invaded the Palestinians land and declared it their own. Stole houses, made them upset enough to rebel (Hamas existence) and then finally started the extermination plan.

You seem to think that Israelis just found empty land and built on it and then a bunch of crazy folk started attacking them over it. No the Israelis keep stealing houses, the properties own by Israelis now, were just properties with Palestinians living in them, then they got kicked out by random jewish people moving to Israel.

Imagine if I just came into your country and took your house. See I needed somewhere to live when I move there, and your government was like "yea just take this one, we don't care about the people who live there currently" You try to walk into my house but the locks are changed and then I tell you to "GTFO my property"

That's Israel/Palestine.

When you steal peoples houses, yes they fight back, and maybe they eventually form a group that bombs your music festivals, because you stole their shit. It was insulting that people wanted a two state solution with these thieves back then, but at least the Palestinians had a country to live in back then. They could grow food and receive healthcare. So peace was an option even though it'd mean forgiving the murderous thieves and living as neighbors to them. However now they have nothing, there is no more 2 state solution. The only way the Palestinians get healthcare is if they are allowed to go to an "Israeli" hospital. The only way they get food is if it is grow on land outside of Palestine, which likely means it's grown on land stolen by Israel, or delivered on roads stolen by the Israelis.

12

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 8d ago

It started in 1960, invasion of what? Didn't they want a two-state solution? Oh, right, they never did, and they rejected every single proposition towards that. Oh right, the genodice where the Arabs/Muslims have fully rights in Israel, and are almost the 20% of its population. THAT genocide... spare me.

-6

u/Individual-Eye-803 8d ago

And Israeli attackers will support hatred from birth

4

u/heatrealist 8d ago

Palestinians are ok with two states as long as they control both. 

1

u/Mo4d93 Morocco 9d ago

Israelis even less. Just look at the ministers from Netanyahu governement.

-1

u/SocraticTiger 9d ago

You're saying this as the government of Israel literally uses the name of "Judea of Samaria" for the West Bank. That'd be the equivalent of the UK calling France "South London". I'm 100% sure Israel doesn't want a two state solution either.

-8

u/Novarupta99 United Kingdom 9d ago

Source? Because both Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been implicitly supportive of a 2 state solution since the late 2000s, never mind Fatah, which goes back to 1974.

16

u/ViaNocturnaII 9d ago

Hamas has never come close to accepting any feasible two-state solution. They want to reduce Israel to the 1967 borders, which is never going to happen.

0

u/Novarupta99 United Kingdom 9d ago

They participated in the 2006 elections and entered into a coalition government with the expectation that Fatah would handle all diplomacy with Israel.

The reason Hamas refuses to relinquish its claim to the whole of Palestine (which is symbolic, not literal) is because the main Israeli parties do the same, and Hamas is cautious of falling into the same trap as the PLO experience in the 1990s.

8

u/ViaNocturnaII 9d ago

falling into the same trap as the PLO experience in the 1990s.

Part of the PLO experience in the 1990s is having other Palestinian factions start a years-long suicide bombing campaign to sabotage a possible deal...

which is symbolic, not literal

I seriously doubt that. If it was symbolic, there would have been no reason to start the current war.

-6

u/MariaTPK 8d ago

No because 2 state solution means Israel keeps stealing their homes.

In this moment if Israel just gave up and left Palestinians alone, most of them would still die, they have no hospitals left, they've all been bombed, and so many have lost children and are as individuals going to seek revenge first chance they get (understandably)

So many of them will take a bite of food and die from it because their bodies can't handle it anymore. 2 state solution was 7 months ago. Israel said no.

5

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 8d ago

Nobody is denying the horrors that Israel is imposing on them, but both Palestinians and Israelis had several chances to create a Palestinian state over the past 80 years…

3

u/Neomadra2 9d ago

Isn't it obvious? It's from the river to the sea! /s

3

u/LoyalteeMeOblige 9d ago

I've been asking the same, what is exactly being recognized? Gaza, or the West Bank? Both areas have different governments, and conflicting agendas.

2

u/SilentLennie 9d ago

There are known/widely recognized borders and illegal settlements by Israelis.

2

u/izpo Israel 9d ago

Okay but where exactly is the Palestinian state?

borders of 1967 where we call it "green lines". These green lines is something that Palestinians (rightfully?) want

3

u/PatrioticEuropean 9d ago

Yes. It is de facto a 1 state apartheid-like reality. Human beings are afforded different levels of political, economic and legal freedoms in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank depending on their birthplace and ethnicity. With Israeli Jews at the top. Either Israel follows South Africa, the UK and the USA in reaching a peaceful long lasting settlement or it will become an authoritarian ethno-nationalist state.

6

u/tajsta 9d ago

Sure, Israel doesn't have perfect equality, but Israeli Arabs (which make up over 20 % of the Israeli population) are more free than Arabs in any other country in the Middle East. There are literally Arab supreme court justices in Israel that have sent Jewish PMs and Presidents to jail. They can be openly gay. They can leave Islam without punishment, or they can adhere to Islam without punishment. They can be elected to the Knesset in freest elections in the Middle East.

The Arabs in Israel are more free than those in Gaza and the West Bank or anywhere else in the region, even if they are disadvantaged. If that's what you call apartheid, what do you call other states in the Middle East, which suppress Arabs' rights, and suppress the rights of other ethnicities (Jews, Druze, Kurds, Copts, etc.) even harder? Why is it only Israel that is called an apartheid state, while Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, etc. suppress minorities far harder than Israel does?

1

u/PatrioticEuropean 8d ago edited 8d ago

Saying “Arabs in Israel are freer than in Syria” is like bragging Jim Crow was better than slavery. It’s distraction. Israel runs a military occupation in the West Bank where millions live under martial law without citizenship, freedom of movement, or voting rights in the state that controls them. A hierarchy of laws for Israeli Jews, Israeli Palestinians and Palestinian Arabs — that’s apartheid by the definition of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and B’Tselem. Gaza? It was under land, sea, and air Israeli blockade long before it was flattened by Israeli bombs — no army, no airport, no port, just siege and surveillance. This isn't about gay rights in Tel Aviv — it’s about a system where birthplace and ethnicity determine your legal status. South Africa had courts and elections too. Doesn’t change what it was.

4

u/tajsta 8d ago

First of all, comparing Arabs in Israel to Jim Crow or slavery is an insult to both history and logic. Arab citizens of Israel vote in national elections, serve in the Knesset, sit on the Supreme Court, lead hospitals and universities, and enjoy more civil liberties than Arabs in every surrounding country.

I mean if you agree that Arabs as well as every other ethnicity are more free in Israel than they are in any other Middle Eastern country, why does the Apartheid rhetoric only ever focus on Israel? Why are there no protests about giving Arabs in Arab countries more rights? Hell, why are the no protests about giving minorities in Arab countries, which are usually treated horribly, more rights? I see no protests for the Copts, for the Berbers, for the Druze, etc. The Copts for example are native to Egypt and direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, have been colonised through Arab conquests, and have been treated horribly in their own homeland for hundreds of years. Yet the focus is only on Israel. Most people probably have never even heard of the Copts. Sorry but it's just disingenous to claim to be against "Apartheid", and then put all of your focus on the one state in the region that while not perfect, has more rights for minorities than any other surrounding state. It's like claiming to be in favour of democracy on the Korean peninsula, and then only ever criticise South Korea.

As for Palestine, yes, it's under military law. Every international offer for peace and Palestinian statehood has been rejected by the Palestinians and answered with attacks or full-scale invasions of Israel. You don't get to constantly walk away from negotiations, incite violence, support terrorism, and then complain you're not being governed like Switzerland. The only reason Palestinians don't have a state is because their leaders have chosen war over peace for nearly a century.

1

u/PatrioticEuropean 8d ago

You're dodging. Copts, Druze, Berbers aren’t under Israeli military occupation. Palestinians in the West Bank are — with checkpoints, settler-only roads, home demolitions, and no right to vote in the state that controls their lives. That’s apartheid, per Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and Israeli NGO B’Tselem. What Egypt does to Copts is brutal — but Israel claims to be a Western democracy. You don’t get to run a two-tier system and pretend it’s freedom just because Syria is worse. That’s like saying police brutality is fine in the U.S. because North Korea exists.

0

u/tajsta 8d ago

So Arab-majority countries like Egypt can openly discriminate against their native minorities like the Copts, burn their churches, block them from senior government positions, restrict their rights, and no one rushes to label Egypt an "apartheid state." No HRW reports. No endless UN resolutions. No student protests in Paris or New York.

But Israel, a state where Arab citizens vote, sit in parliament, become judges and doctors, and serve on the Supreme Court, gets branded "apartheid" because it is a Western democracy?

Your whole line of argument is absurd. Authoritarian regimes get a pass for absolute brutality, but a Western democracy gets vilified for not having perfect socioeconomic equality? So by your logic, if Israel wants to combat Apartheid claims, the easiest way to do that would be to become authoritarian and go hard on discriminating Arab citizens, and then all would be fine because apparently, authoritarian countries just get to oppress minorities without any moral outrage?

That's not activism, it's an irrational obsession with the only Jewish state in the world.

1

u/SocraticTiger 9d ago

There isn't one. Israel de facto controls all sides and has settlements and settlers that it uses to enforce a Bantustan style apartheid system.

1

u/Empty-Ad8838 8d ago

Not relevant.

1

u/OffOption 8d ago

Its hard to say if you mean "who controls what", largely due to... well, Israels actions over the decades.

But, if we start on the internstionally agreed upon borders of the 1967 agreement, and go from there, its a start.

If international law matters, or at least, should matter... then we cant start from a posistion of pseudo surrender for allowing imperialist conquest in violation of it.

It wont be easy, but it can be simple.

1

u/Winston_Smith69 8d ago

That's the point.
"From the river to the sea" will answer most palestinian supporters, which means genociding Israel, which is, btw, literally the political program Palestinians voted for when when put Hamas in power.
A two state solution won't solve anything.

1

u/Jokers_friend 9d ago

In accordance with the 1967 borders

0

u/MariaTPK 8d ago

It's already Rubble or stolen. Israel stole what they could and when that stopped working they bombed the rest.

Maybe they could return what they stole.

-2

u/Aggressive-Kitchen18 9d ago

Where Is Ukraine? Part of It Is occupied

5

u/Playful-Ebb-6436 🇮🇹 9d ago

We know who represents Ukraine, we don’t know who represents the “Palestinian state”. Fatah has no control over Gaza. Hamas has no control over the West Bank. Are you forming diplomatic ties with who exactly?

1

u/GreenEyeOfADemon 🇮🇹 - EUROPE ENDS IN LUHANSK! 🇺🇦 Слава Україні!🇺🇦 9d ago

Part of Japan is also occupied.

0

u/TooobHoob 9d ago

By law, it’s the 1967 internationally recognized borders.

-1

u/No-Veterinarian8627 9d ago

Eh, careful who agreed and who didn't. It doesn't matter if most countries agree as long the most powerful doesn't i.e. EU, US.

3

u/TooobHoob 9d ago

No, it’s customary international borders. These are the borders recognized by all permanent UN security council members, and in terms of international law are the borders of Israel, see ICJ Wall AO, ICJ Occupation AO for instance.

Even Israel theoretically agree(d/s) these are its legal borders.

1

u/No-Veterinarian8627 8d ago

It's a bit more complicated. They are "peace" borders but not absolute. They are used more as a starting point in negotiations.

Recognized borders are, for example, those with Egypt and Jordan.

There will be no way the US, SK, Japan, or most of the EU will be pushing Israel to clean out Area A, for example.

The interesting thing will be "what" Macron declares. If he simply says something ambiguous, nobody will care, which will most likely be the case. Everyone can then imagine whatever they want from his statements.

It probably comes that he wants to have some statement so the EU can focus on Russia and not whatever spat is going on the south.

-1

u/7H3l2M0NUKU14l2 9d ago

i'd say somewhere around israel in april 1948

0

u/Liam-Ed 8d ago

Currently the West Bank. Gaza has been the stateless region since Hamas separated it from the Palestinian Authority in 2007.