lexpress.fr
156 Countries Recognize Palestinian State Despite Opposition
As of late 2024, 156 countries, over three-quarters of UN member states, recognize Palestine, but at least 39, including the US and Israel, do not, citing various reasons ranging from concerns about Hamas to maintaining strategic alliances.
- Beyond the US and Israel, which countries oppose recognition and why?
- Several European nations, including Hungary and the Czech Republic, have reversed earlier recognitions, citing technicalities or disagreements with the recognition's implications. Other countries like Germany, Italy, Denmark, and the Netherlands express reservations due to concerns about the ongoing conflict, Hamas's actions, and the need for a negotiated two-state solution.
- What are the main reasons for the US and Israel's refusal to recognize the State of Palestine?
- The US cites its strong support for Israel, driven by economic, diplomatic, and security interests in the Middle East, including countering Iran and maintaining oil price stability. Israel's refusal stems from a long-standing political consensus opposing a two-state solution, viewing it as rewarding Hamas terrorism.
- What is the broader significance of the widespread recognition of the State of Palestine, despite significant opposition?
- While largely symbolic, the recognition by 156 countries represents a strong international consensus supporting Palestine's claim to statehood. This underscores the pressure on countries like the US and Israel, and potentially shapes future negotiations and international relations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a balanced view of the issue, presenting arguments from both sides. However, the emphasis on the opposition to Palestinian state recognition might inadvertently frame the issue as more contentious than it is. The headline, while not explicitly biased, could benefit from more neutrality, perhaps by focusing on the number of countries recognizing Palestine rather than those opposing it.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, although terms like "indelible ally" when referring to US-Israel relations might subtly convey a sense of unwavering support. Phrases like "rewarded terrorists" (referring to Hamas) are loaded and reflect a particular viewpoint. Neutral alternatives include "provided support to" or simply stating the specific actions of Hamas without value judgment.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of the historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the various international resolutions related to it. This could lead to a simplified understanding of the complex history behind the current situation. It also lacks detailed exploration of the internal political dynamics within Palestine itself. Omissions regarding economic and social considerations within both Israel and Palestine leave a limited perspective of the conflict.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by implying that the only two options are complete support for or opposition to Palestinian state recognition. The nuanced stances of some countries, such as those willing to recognize Palestine under certain conditions, are not fully explored, which oversimplifies the range of perspectives.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the recognition of a Palestinian state by numerous countries. This directly relates to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. The recognition of Palestine contributes to international peace and security by acknowledging the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and potentially paving the way for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The ongoing debate and opposition highlight the challenges in achieving sustainable peace and justice.