Palestine: to recognise or not to recognise?
In view of the crisis situation in Gaza, a growing number of countries are speaking out in favour of recognising Palestine as a state. Canada has now become the third G7 country after France and the UK to announce that it is willing to take this step. The press assesses the impact of the initiative and the preconditions for genuine statehood for Palestine.
Time for new faces in Ramallah
The Palestinian Authority under Abbas must accept reforms and new political parties, demands Der Standard:
“The time has also come for the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah to make a decision. Canada has made its recognition contingent on the reform of President Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority, which should finally - after 20 years - allow elections to be held again. That sounds plausible. However no one knows where the electorate, which has long since turned its back on Abbas and the PLO, is supposed to find a credible and moderate political party to vote for. One could conclude from this that the states calling for a new Israeli-Palestinian peace process are naive. But they're probably not.”
Questionable stance on violence and terror
Zeit Online doesn't think recognising a Palestinian state is a good idea for the time being:
“Ultimately, the question is whether the Palestinian nationalist movement can be trusted to lead a state in this state, and the answer is no. The ties to violence and terror, the influence of radical Islamism, the attitude towards the existence of Israel as a Jewish state - all these issues raise serious questions for Palestinians and their leading representatives, to say the least. The approval, indeed the jubilation, that Hamas's bloody deeds have often met with is unforgotten.”
No more than a phantom
The two-state solution is obsolete, writes Eric Gujer, chief editor of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:
“The state of Palestine will not exist, even if Paris and London recognise this phantom. The pariah status of the Palestinians is cemented. ... With the pogrom, Hamas gave Israel the opportunity to significantly expand its power in the region. It handed its people over to the Jewish enemy for better or worse and caused the greatest catastrophe in Palestinian history, worse than the 'Nakba', the flight and expulsion in the 1948 war, which was also largely self-inflicted. ... The best thing would be elections [in Israel] and a cabinet without extremist parties. A fresh political beginning would offer the chance to look for an emergency exit from this inexorable enmity.”
Hamas must first surrender
De Telegraaf is against recognising a Palestinian state at this moment in time:
“In the eyes of Hamas, the ritual slaughter and mass kidnappings of 7 October were the starting signal for the destruction of the Jewish state. This threat must be eliminated before there can be any talk of negotiations on a two-state solution. Those advocating a punitive campaign against Israel must realise that the only way to achieve peace is not through the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state but through the surrender of Hamas.”
Time to take a stand
Finland should also recognise Palestine, Helsingin Sanomat urges:
“On Wednesday it emerged that Finland has signed a petition by 15 foreign ministers calling for Palestine to be recognised as a state - or at least for recognition to be considered. ... The government had previously stated that Finland was prepared to recognise Palestine under appropriate circumstances. The move was justified on the basis that recognition should not be merely a symbolic gesture but should bolster the peace process. The UK's conditional promise is precisely such a measure in that it pushes for peace. Finland must stand alongside France and Britain. It's high time the government took a stand.”