UK, Canada and Australia formally recognise Palestinian state | Hacker News Reader

UK, Canada and Australia formally recognise Palestinian state

theguardian.com

246 pointsath3nd297 comments

Based on history and looking long term I see three paths out:

1. South Africa / Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) where Palestine and Israel is united leading to an exodus of the former ethno-nationalist "managerial" class.

2. Two-state solution where an acceptance of each other is grown over generations.

3. Continuation of the current genocide of the Palestinian people until they are exterminated from their land. Leading to the isolation of Israel.

For Israel and the Israeli people the only palatable option should be 2, but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.

If you had said in 1988 that The Troubles in Northern Ireland would have a peace accord ten years later no one would have believed you. Everything seemed at a complete stalemate, and there is a history going back hundreds of years. Yet in 1998 the Good Friday accords were signed. And now, almost 30 years later, I think we can safely say it's been a huge success.

There are a few things that made this possible. One important factor is the change of prime minister. Whereas Thatcher saw things only in terms of terrorists who need to be fought, John Major had more holistic view and recognised that in spite of the terrorism, there were some real structural problems that needed addressing. Even Ian Paisley admitted as much later in life, which would be roughly equivalent to Ben-Gvir admitting there is something to the Palestinian complaints.

I guess my point is there can be happy endings to these types of conflicts. No one wins with the current situation, certainly not Israel. Punching everyone around you in the face as a defensive strategy works fantastically well right up until the point you take a nap, at which point everyone will stomp on your head like it's a right watermelon.

I don't know that you can describe northern island as being a happy success story. The most you can say is it's stable which is a success in its own right.

You're right in drawing parallels between the two. But the ira seem to be far more pragmatic then the palestinians and for all their sins they never deliberately targeted women and children in the way organised palestinian terror does.

The IRA never expected women and children to be near shopping centres?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Manchester_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bombings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_bombing

No because the IRA generally called in warnings. In both the 90s Manchester bombings there, people had 75-90 minutes to evacuate, they moved ~80,000 people each time and saw no fatalities. The warning for Warrington wasn't as effective.

Terror was the aim, not death.

> But the ira seem to be far more pragmatic then the palestinians and for all their sins they never deliberately targeted women

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jean_McConville

The parent was alluding to civilians, not spies.

Northern Ireland is absolutely a success. Having family that are from there it's utterly unrecognisable to what existed in the 70s and 80s. It's far from perfect but the difference to those on both sides who live there is vast.

Paramilitaries on both sides carried out many actions that killed women and children.

Nowhere near the scale of Hamas, and certainly nothing close to the magnitude of the IDF.

>> but they seem hellbent on 3 as per how Israeli people post here on HN and the actions of their democratically elected government.

Considering how many times Arabs started and lost wars against Israel, how many atrocities they did to Israel people it's not a surprise your #2 is not a popular option there.

Need to mention nothing can justify current levels of destruction in Gaza.

I think it's been pretty obvious for decades already that something like solution 3 is what will eventually happen. First two solutions would require compromise and sanity from both sides, which they are clearly not capable of. If roles were reversed, Palestinians would treat Israelis just as bad as Israelis are treating them now.

It's a sad conflict that can't be solved without some kind of superior external force, that would use extreme economic and military measures to make two sides tolerate each other. America is closest to that force, and they've chosen their side. Best Palestinians can hope for is a peaceful relocation somewhere else I'm afraid.

What happened in Rhodesia was very different from the situation in South Africa. Whites are still very influential (especially economically) in SA. Rhodesia -> Zimbabwe is maybe closer to French Algiers.

Neither is comparable to Israel since there's no home country for most Israelis to return to.

If a person's great-grandparent is the colonizer can you really say they have a "home country" beyond the one they were born in?

grant me safe passage to Algeria then… and return my family’s property while you’re at it.

Well.. Afrikaans people are as native to SA as Americans and Canadians are to their countries.

Netherlands loses control of it about the same time as US became independent and they developed mostly independently since then

I have no skin in the game, but I will do that for you, if you bring back the children from the death. Can you do that? Let's start from the Nakba. Maybe even from last year. No one is asking people to go back to Europe. All you have to do is Stop the Genocide, Repair. Reconcile. And stop the apartheid. But you know what, you have decided that Israel is untenable without war. Israel is of no use to the neo Imperialists, unless it keeps the region unstable.

Well majority of the white population in South Africa don’t have a home country to return to either. Afrikaans people moving to Australia, Britain or the US is not much different than forcing the Jewish people in Israel to go to those countries.

Besides that Apartheid South Africa is remarkably similar to Israel (of course the race part is entirely replaced by religion/culture making assimilation into the Israeli society actually somewhat feasible).

There is now even less hope for Palestine to ever become a country. These states try to keep this hope alive, despite it looking like it could justify terrorism like others see it.

A genocide doesn't happen. While we see a lot of death in wars and any death it too much, it isn't relevant in the grand scheme of things regarding population numbers.

Number 1 will never happen, it would end in a real genocide that does fit the term. Number 2 has become less likely and was rejected thoroughly in the past by Palestinians. Number 3 is actually Israel occupying Gaza for a long time and it will probably prompt a repeated aggression in the future. This is the most likely option for now.

Perhaps with Hamas ousted and the realization how much suffering their aggression did inflict, there can be peace in the future, that results in something like number 2.

2 million starved, 200,000 murdered or maimed, countless tortured, kidnapped, raped, districts and now cities raised. Never mind the decades of apartheid and similar acts of slaughter. Freedoms removed, and propoganda on a global scale.

There is no excuse for what Israel and the US have done. Not that there weren't wrongs by Hamas but there is no comparison at this point. It's repugnant that that argument is made and it's not something that will ever be forgotten.

I think there should first be something resembling a state and only then it could be recognised. Now there isn't any entity that looks like an independent Palestinian state. For that reason this recognition seems pointless to me although I'm sympathetic to finding a peaceful solution.

Do you think it's possible that Israel's campaign of violence and destruction was to result in a scenario not unlike what you're describing: a land so thoroughly bombed and a people so controlled by terrorism that it barely resembles anything self-governing?

None of the groups who rule Palestine have surrendered to Israel.

The allies did not stop bombing Germany and Japan until they surrendered.

Why do we expect Israel to behave differently than we would have?

That would be rewarding Israels actions though. Similarly your arguments apply to Israel as it doesn't meet all of the standard criteria of statehood, should it's statehood be revoked?

I don't think this from the point of view of who I'm rewarding. To me, Israel looks like a state with its independent foreign policy, army, government.

How about Gaza/West Bank, no even before Oct 7 attacks it didn't look like a state. Israel is right now so much more powerful that it won't let Palestinians have independence. This situation is so strange I don't have time to write a more detailed answer about my opinions.

Palestine is not allowed statehood by Israels actions, often illegal. Israels illegal settlements and apartheid regime should have resolved the discussion on statehood decades ago.

The only moral viable solution I can see is 2 separate states. At this point support of anything else is supporting genocide and ethnic cleansing. If it doesn't happen then that is a deliberate choice of the US and I fear for the world never mind Israel or Palestine.

With France expected to recognize Palestine today, the United States will be the only permanent UNSC member not to recognize Palestine. (And over 75% of the UNGA also recognizes Palestine.)

The irony is the British signed the Balfour declaration back in the day that in many ways helped to create Israel in the first place.

Indeed. Some analysis say this serves Israel's plan and it's smoke and mirrors.

I guess we shall see how Israel actually benefits from this soon.

Haven't come across this take before, what's the idea behind it?

Of the top of my head I'd say it takes pressure of Israel. "Our leaders are doing something", which makes western populace feel good about themselves again and move on to the next thing. I'd describe it as a 4d chess move for Israel.

For the sake of discussion.

Is there any objective difference to recognizing a Palestinian state, and Taiwan?

China will not stop having diplomatic relationships with a state that recognizes Palestine, as opposed to those who recognize Taiwan.

And if a country does not recognize taiwan why would they recognize palestine? is it simply that there are greater consequences to the former?

There's less pressure to do something about Taiwan because people are not currently starving or dying violent deaths at a high rate in Taiwan.

Perhaps Tibet might be a better example?

There are many differences between the two cases, and also some similarities. I don't really understand the purpose of your question, or why it's useful to compare?

I suppose it feels inconsistent in my mind not to do both, and personally I feel like Taiwan is a more legitimate case. (afaik they are not actively attacking another nation, the picture with Palestine is far less clear)

Serious question: how is declaring “oh wait, Palestine actually exists!” help the plight of the Palestinian people? I really doubt Bibi and his cronies will lose any sleep over a timid declaration in a climate that is increasingly critical of Israel’s actions.

In UK’s case, it seems to me more of the classic Starmer flailing about to recapture the votes of whatever group fared worst in his opinion polls. After appeasing Reform and the Tory voters, he probably feels it’s time to throw a bone to the Corbynites now.

Recognizing Palestine as a state is an act of diplomacy that certainly has no specific benefit for the people of Palestine.

But it makes incursions into Palestine by Israel explicitly of an international nature. Palestine is and has been considered occupied territory, but without recognizing Palestine as a state, what soverign country's territory is occupied?

Perhaps now that there is a recognized country whose territory is being occupied, the recognizing countries may oppose the occupation in more specific ways. Perhaps, the same sorts of protestations without specific action as in years past.

Real (positive) change for Palestinians would start with Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories[1], and that needs more than a declaration of statehood, but a declaration of statehood may be a tiny step towards that goal.

[1] It's not strictly required, but I suspect it's more likely for Israel to withdraw than it is for Israel to radically change how they interact with the occupied territories.

It is very unlikely that Israel will ever withdraw its 500,000 citizens from Judea and Samaria, given the result from the 8,000 citizen withdrawall from Gaza.

An equal territorial exchange is much more realistic, as part of a two-state comprehensive package. However, "63% of Palestinians, 65% of Israeli Jews, and 13% of Israeli Arabs are opposed to this two-state comprehensive package.', see https://pcpsr.org/en/node/989 .

Equal territory exchange seems reasonable to me, borders needed to be negotiated; moving borders may be easier than moving population. Ensuring equal territory is equal is a hard problem, and perceived unfairness could lead to future conflicts, but any chosen border could be perceived as unfair.

In my mind, if both sides are equally opposed to it, it's probably fair... But that poll also offers hope; it said there were steps each side could take unilaterally or paired that would get to majority support. I didn't see list of those steps, except the two paired options which they said could individually make a big difference (anti-incitement, especially in textbooks and mutual employment authorization).

I don't disagree with you, but I think it's hard to convince the Israel government, since the last time Israel withdrew from Gaza (in 2005), a terrorist organization was elected and it resulted in multiple wars and waves of violence, leading up to the current conflict.

This is basically it. It provides the backbone for international rule based order to apply pressure.

It’s better than the alternative, which is to NOT recognise Palestine.

For whom and how it’s better?

For the people in Gaza who are now being blown to bits by an occupying force.

For the people in the west bank who is having their land stolen daily by foreigners.

Does recognising a state stop people from being blown to bits? Not in my experience.

So your experience, which doesn't matter by the way, calls to do nothing. You need to self reflect.

It is far more plausible for any state to accept refugees from a recognized state rather than an unrecognized one.

That this fact is ignored in the debate is deplorable, but fortunately there are those working in states across the world that understand that, in order for there to be reliable, official assistance granted to the people of Palestine, having their state recognized first of all, makes it far more likely to happen.

It means that the Palestinian passport can be recognized, officially, on refugee lines. It means that aid can be declared a state-to-state expenditure.

There are so many benefits to recognizing Palestinian statehood that one really must question the motives of those who do not understand why it is essential that it happen.

If anyone really cared, there should have been drones from every country flying recon over the place for years now confirming or denying evidence of atrocity

We don’t need drones for that. There’s plenty of Jordanian airdrops that confirm the destruction just fine:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/05/wasteland-rubb...

If anyone really cared, they would have pushed out Hamas years ago.

they would do anything but concrete steps to help

First step is acceptance?

Australia is doing 2 way arms trade with Israel, UK is helping Israeli planes refuel and doing recon for them. Seems pretty paltry

Bargaining is definitely one of the other steps.

I hope they recognize the stete of Assyrians, aramiac/Syriac, Chaldeans, Yizdi and every other indigenous nation in the middle east.

As an Assyrian, my nation has been getting exterminated by Arabs, Turkish and Kurdish colonialist for millennia. We live in constant fear and I don't think we will exist in the next 30 years

practically means little

however a clear display of the end of the US soft power, after an interesting 6 months of foreign policy

> does nothing to stop the suffering of innocent people caught in this war

No shit. You are welcome to go further. Why people would use this as an argument against recognizing statehood baffles me.

My cynical take is that the leadership in these countries has realized that no amount of hiding under the carpet could save them from the culpability of having actively supporting a genocide, so now they are scurrying like cockroaches trying to distance themselves from the genocidal Israeli state.

We should remember that it was those very same governments that happily supplied weapons to Israel and actively blocked resolutions by the UN to recognize and stop the genocide that's been happening in the last two years. We need to hold our "leaders" accountable and not allow them to escape culpability.

Yet another flagged post, this should be unflagged and returned to the default homepage.

It's off topic for HN:

> 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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Charlie Kirk was off topic but yet it didn't get flagged…

Are you implying that was due to HN right wing bias? If so why is this the topic about Jimmy Kimmel not flagged when it is clearly left wing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45282482

In general all topics about politics gets flagged when they first appear since they are semi off topic. Then when enough people vouch for them they get unflagged, reports of big political events tend to get unflagged, but political opinion pieces or smaller events typically do not.

This is real life not some made up rule book, people like you refer to when faced with things they don't like.

Candada? really?

Labour is down really bad in the polls [1] and they need to score political points at least with left-wing voters who are currently split. This doesn't actually change anything on the ground especially as the UK is still arming Israel [2].

In the end, they might just end up tanking more in the polls as they end up having no consistent values.

[1] https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

Macron wants France to recognize a palestinian state as well.

His party lost the last legislative elections. Polls show 78% against recognizing palestinian statehood NOW and without conditions.

He is totally illegitimate in doing so.

He's still going to do it.

That's not what illegitimate means. Polls are no legitimate basis for policy.

No, but losing the legislative elections does.

The polls just reinforce the issue.

Which polls ?

This one from june[0]. 78% that are against recognizing a Palestinian state now, emphasis on now.

0: https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/exclusif-reconnaissance-d-un-et...

FWIW: Polling showed American support for interracial marriages was still underwater in 1992, decades after the Loving ruling. Majortity support only happened on the mid-to-late 90s

You do what you want in the US, but I prefer my country to be a democracy.

You have a parlementaire democratie, so do I. It is not illegitimate for a democraticly elected official to do something within his legal rights that is against the opinion of the people. Doesn't matter wether he "lost" the election, he still won it more than you. You calling it illegitimate is more illegitimate than what Macron is doing.

No he didn't. He lost the election and as a result we don't have any government able to get a majority at the Assemblée Nationale.

Which is why he should refrain from acting such a strong policy shift and what could be perceived as a major change of alliance.

What would be equivalent would be Trump deciding to change a long standing geopolitical policy after he lost the mid-terms and without the US congress having any voice in the matter.

I think a more correct title would be they recognized the potential of a Palestinian state.

> I state clearly, as Prime Minister of this great country…

> That the United Kingdom…

> Formally recognises the State of Palestine.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-the-r...

I think a more correct title would be anything not containing "Candada" :)

save me Candaddy from geopolitical feuds

As a Japanese person, I think that Japan before World War II was probably seen by the world much like Israel is seen today. The difference is that Israel has the United States backing it.

Last month the Wikipedia article for "International recognition of Palestine" had these countries in dark green, what am I missing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_rec...

When you look at an old version of a wikipedia article it still displays the current version of images. That's why in your link the image legend has eg

>[light green] Countries that have announced their impending recognition of Palestine (Australia, France, Malta, and San Marino)

but Australia is dark green in the current image (France still light green and I can't be bothered zooming to see the small ones)

If you're talking about the image, I think you need to look at the image history itself:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_recognit... (“File History”)

Just browsing history on MediaWiki will probably show the old tex with recenn image. If you want full article, you'd have to use web.archive.org, archive.is or somethinglike that.

Thank you very much, this is the answer.

They already announced they intended to do this a month ago

Reply on news.ycombinator.com