Belgium to Recognise Palestinian State(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Belgium to Recognise Palestinian State
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/sep/02/middle-east-crisis-israel-gaza-palestine-un-belgium-live-news-updates
25 comments
I do not agree with Israel's warmongering politics and leadership, but recognising Palestine as a state is incoherent at best and a mistake at worst. What actually would Belgium recognise as a state here? How will it end the "humanitarian tragedy"?
It’s a way to put political pressure on Israel, not a way to directly end the tragedy.
Plus, you can recognise a state without recognizing Hamas as its legitimate government
Plus, you can recognise a state without recognizing Hamas as its legitimate government
> Plus, you can recognize a state without recognizing Hamas as its legitimate government
Neither the chief of state nor the head of government of the State of Palestine are members of Hamas, so, yeah, people recognizing the State of Palestine (a majority of UN members, the Arab League—of which the State of Palestine is a member state—etc.) generally do not recognize Hamas as its government.
Neither the chief of state nor the head of government of the State of Palestine are members of Hamas, so, yeah, people recognizing the State of Palestine (a majority of UN members, the Arab League—of which the State of Palestine is a member state—etc.) generally do not recognize Hamas as its government.
No they are members of the "PA", formally the PLO who you may remember from such hits as "black september", "bombing the olympics", they have an offshoot killing hundreds of thousands of people in Syria.
They recently announced in Arabic that they will keep paying pensions to people who kill Jews, for any reason. If those people died killing Jews, their family members. Oh and in English they denied it [1]. Obviously western press is reporting only ONE of those statements [2].
Remember them? You know, they are generally described as the Palestinian faction who wants peace.
Oh, and they're billionnaires (well, the leaders are), which they weren't before getting their government positions.
[1] for example: https://jewishinsider.com/2025/02/pas-abbas-payments-to-terr...
[2] Just look at Google news: https://www.google.com/search?q=We+Will+Not+Stop+The+Payment... (note where the Reuters and Aljazeera links go)
They recently announced in Arabic that they will keep paying pensions to people who kill Jews, for any reason. If those people died killing Jews, their family members. Oh and in English they denied it [1]. Obviously western press is reporting only ONE of those statements [2].
Remember them? You know, they are generally described as the Palestinian faction who wants peace.
Oh, and they're billionnaires (well, the leaders are), which they weren't before getting their government positions.
[1] for example: https://jewishinsider.com/2025/02/pas-abbas-payments-to-terr...
[2] Just look at Google news: https://www.google.com/search?q=We+Will+Not+Stop+The+Payment... (note where the Reuters and Aljazeera links go)
Care to expand on why you believe Palestine can't be a state?
No, I can't because that's not what I said.
But I can expand on what I meant. What we currently have does not fulfil the common criteria for statehood [1]. Oslo-II was supposed to clear those status questions, but I guess that went down the drain a few years ago.
Palestine is currently not meeting the Montevideo criteria, therefore recognising it as a state is incoherent. It makes Belgium's government itself appear confused about what a state is and what is not, making it a mistake for Belgium to recognise Palestine as a state. Obviously it would be in good company, over a 100 states already have recognised Palestine over the last few decades, yet, unfathomably, Israel descended further into its apartheid regime. Alas, I guess most people are not as much of a stickler as I am if it comes to definitions of terms outside of math.
Of course you can say "to hell with the Montevideo criteria, it's just a convention", but then the Wikipedia article has an apt quote by the Swiss delegation, too:
"neither a political unit needs to be recognized to become a state, nor does a state have the obligation to recognize another one. At the same time, neither recognition is enough to create a state, nor does its absence abolish it."
HTH
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention
But I can expand on what I meant. What we currently have does not fulfil the common criteria for statehood [1]. Oslo-II was supposed to clear those status questions, but I guess that went down the drain a few years ago.
Palestine is currently not meeting the Montevideo criteria, therefore recognising it as a state is incoherent. It makes Belgium's government itself appear confused about what a state is and what is not, making it a mistake for Belgium to recognise Palestine as a state. Obviously it would be in good company, over a 100 states already have recognised Palestine over the last few decades, yet, unfathomably, Israel descended further into its apartheid regime. Alas, I guess most people are not as much of a stickler as I am if it comes to definitions of terms outside of math.
Of course you can say "to hell with the Montevideo criteria, it's just a convention", but then the Wikipedia article has an apt quote by the Swiss delegation, too:
"neither a political unit needs to be recognized to become a state, nor does a state have the obligation to recognize another one. At the same time, neither recognition is enough to create a state, nor does its absence abolish it."
HTH
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention
> Palestine is currently not meeting the Montevideo criteria
Yes, not that it necessarily matters (for reasons I’ll get to later), it does, and while you don't present any argument for your claim that it does not, I suspect that rests on inverting the Montevideo conventions explicit statement on territory acquired by force.
> Of course you can say "to hell with the Montevideo criteria, it's just a convention"
More to the point, it is a convention binding some countries (of which Belgium is not one) to one extreme pole on the question theory of statehood, and it should not be surprising that other nations have views ranging from the opposing pole through a range of positions which balance the considerations of the two poles, informed by various pragmatic and legal factors, including some which were not not norms of international law at the time of the Convention, like the right of self-determination under the UN Charter.
Yes, not that it necessarily matters (for reasons I’ll get to later), it does, and while you don't present any argument for your claim that it does not, I suspect that rests on inverting the Montevideo conventions explicit statement on territory acquired by force.
> Of course you can say "to hell with the Montevideo criteria, it's just a convention"
More to the point, it is a convention binding some countries (of which Belgium is not one) to one extreme pole on the question theory of statehood, and it should not be surprising that other nations have views ranging from the opposing pole through a range of positions which balance the considerations of the two poles, informed by various pragmatic and legal factors, including some which were not not norms of international law at the time of the Convention, like the right of self-determination under the UN Charter.
So statehood has been recognised in cases where the Montevideo criteria were not fully met, Taiwan, Bosnia during its war, and others. That shows the criteria are a useful theoretical framework, but in practice they’re more convention than law, and states can (and do) recognise for political and humanitarian reasons.
In Palestine’s case, the irony is that the very reason it doesn’t meet some criteria is because Israel prevents it, through military occupation, settlement expansion, and now what many legal scholars and human rights bodies describe as apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Saying Palestine must “wait” to meet the criteria is effectively to accept and legitimise the conditions that make meeting them impossible. Does Israel meet the criteria, is another question? I would say not. Should it be disbanded given that?
It’s true recognition of Palestine is unusual, but it is far from incoherent, it has precedent, and the alternative is complicity in decades of systematic dispossession. Recognition isn’t a distortion of statehood, it’s an act of accountability when the usual path to sovereignty has been violently blocked and the alternatives are to allow the Palestinians to be murdered and displaced.
In Palestine’s case, the irony is that the very reason it doesn’t meet some criteria is because Israel prevents it, through military occupation, settlement expansion, and now what many legal scholars and human rights bodies describe as apartheid and ethnic cleansing. Saying Palestine must “wait” to meet the criteria is effectively to accept and legitimise the conditions that make meeting them impossible. Does Israel meet the criteria, is another question? I would say not. Should it be disbanded given that?
It’s true recognition of Palestine is unusual, but it is far from incoherent, it has precedent, and the alternative is complicity in decades of systematic dispossession. Recognition isn’t a distortion of statehood, it’s an act of accountability when the usual path to sovereignty has been violently blocked and the alternatives are to allow the Palestinians to be murdered and displaced.
I'm thinking what will happen to my account if I say "recognising Israel(or the USA) as a state is incoherent at best and a mistake at worst"
Previous submission was censored
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."