France recognises Palestine

[PaxAeterna]

A big deal.
Macron said

The urgent thing today is that the war in Gaza stops and the civil population is saved

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/24/macron-anuncia-que-franca-ira-reconhecer-estado-da-palestina

Interesting,

Are you posting from Gaza?

It’s not my claim that Israel started the 1967 war with a pre-emptive strike.

Yes, a pre-emptive strike after Egypt removed UN peacekeepers, blocked the Straits of tiran (cutting off 90% of isrsels oil, mobilised forces on israels borders and outright threatened war publicly.

No historian calls it “self defence”.

That claim is flat-out false. The context was unmistakable: Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers, massed 100,000 troops in the Sinai, closed the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli under international law), and entered a war pact with Jordan and Syria. Israel’s June 5 pre-emptive strike came amid clear and escalating existential threats. I struggle that anybody would not see it was obvious self-defence but as you insist on denying reality and flat out lying ...

Historians like Michael Oren (Six Days of War), Martin Gilbert (Israel: A History), and Efraim Karsh are just three examples of historians who consider it self defence and legal experts like Julius Stone and Stephen Schwebel (former President of the International Court of Justice) also ruled it lawful. Even the UN Secretary-General at the time, U Thant, acknowledged that Egypt's blockade was a major provocation. The US, UK, and many Western governments also considered Israel’s response justified given the military threats and rhetoric of annihilation from Arab leaders like Nasser.

Egypt did not declare war was imminent. They signed a mutual defence pact with Jordan and Syria after Israel had bombed Jordan and Syria…

Yes they did.

Quoting from Wikipedia "at the end of May 1967, Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian general, Abdul Munim Riad.[173] On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."[174]

”In November 1966 an Israeli strike on the village of Al-Samūʿ in the Jordanian West Bank left 18 dead and 54 wounded, and, during an air battle with Syria in April 1967, the Israeli Air Force shot down six Syrian MiG fighter jets. In addition, Soviet intelligence reports in May indicated that Israel was planning a campaign against Syria, and, although inaccurate, the information further heightened tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors.” - Encylopedia Britannica

You're reading snippets not a full story.

There was border skirmishes with Syria. Israel carried out a retaliatory strike on al-Samūʿ in 1966 after a Fatah landmine killed Israeli soldiers. Yes, Syrian and Israeli jets clashed in April 1967 after Syrian artillery shelled Israeli villages from the Golan Heights!!!!

Again, youre nischarachterising by telling hslf the story. These border clashes are further examples of Israel being consistently attacked and they do not change the fact that Egypt made a series of deliberate escalations in May 1967 that created a casus belli:

May 16: Egypt demanded the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force from Sinai.

May 22: Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, an act Israel had said publicly would be a cause for war.

May 30: Egypt signed a defense pact with Jordan, followed by Syrian mobilisation.

Public declarations by Nasser and other Arab leaders promised Israel's destruction.

As for the Soviet disinformation: yes, they falsely told Egypt that Israeli troops were massing on the Syrian border. This was false.

”Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac. A similar air assault incapacitated the Syrian air force. Without cover from the air, the Egyptian army was left vulnerable to attack. Within three days the Israelis had achieved an overwhelming victory on the ground, capturing the Gaza Strip and all of the Sinai Peninsula up to the east bank of the Suez Canal.” - Encyclopedia Britannica

Yes - and they did this in pre-emptive self defence against a country presenting an open, well evidenced and imminent threat against them. They went to great pains to avoid it!

All citations provided here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War?

I suggest you read the entire thing.

Not really kept up with this thread
But:

A state must first declare itself, and demonstrate the basic elements of statehood under international law. That requires...
A permanent population
Prior and as part of the establishment of Israel- there was a real drive to get Jews to emigrate to Israel. This is still going on as Israel continues with expansion aspirations.

A defined territory
Can we say Israel has kept to any defined territory- its borders seem to growing within the West Bank, into Golan Heights and now back into Gaza.

A government
The capacity to enter into relations with other states

Israel’s first government was elected after its creation- and therefore its capacity to enter into relations with other states

so strictly speaking- none above necessary prior to creation a state?

Prior and as part of the establishment of Israel- there was a real drive to get Jews to emigrate to Israel. This is still going on as Israel continues with expansion aspirations.

And? There was a permanent population.

Can we say Israel has kept to any defined territory- its borders seem to growing within the West Bank, into Golan Heights and now back into Gaza.

And? There was clearly defined territory.

Israel’s first government was elected after its creation- and therefore its capacity to enter into relations with other states

Huh? Nobody has an elected government before they exist. They had exactly what was needed, a representative group.

I'm very worried too. Truth doesn't seem to matter anymore. Thanks for rebutting this rubbish.

News now suggesting Canada may join France in the recognition. Reported by various usually reliable sources. Though earlier in the day the word was both Canada and the UK were afraid to draw the ire of Trump.

I didn’t say there wasn’t a permanent population. It was by far in the minority. Immigration was used to support the establishment of the future state of Israel -partly against the British rulers wishes.

Israel continues to support the immigration of Jews to Israel when it clear doesn’t have the land to support this. They need to occupy the WB.

Firstly there weren’t fixed borders- I am surprised that this is news to you, as it’s often used to argue that Israel isn’t occupying land illegally:

“The modern Israeli state was forged in the fires of the first Middle East war in 1948-1949, but from the beginning it was a state without clear borders.
The fact that complete, permanent borders still have not yet been drawn around Israel 60 years later is testimony to the rancour of its relations with neighbouring Arab states.
Jordan and Egypt have signed treaties with Israel, turning some of the 1949 ceasefire lines into state borders. But the absence of final settlements with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians mean most of Israel's boundaries remain potential flashpoints and the state itself is unstable.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11102696

“Israel’s first government was elected after its creation- and therefore its capacity to enter into relations with other states
Huh? Nobody has an elected government before they exist. They had exactly what was needed, a representative group.”

Absolutely- I thought you had argued in the post I had tagged that it was too early to support a Palestinian state without a government. Clearly we agree that this is not necessary!

At least we agree on something 😄

I am sure a civil group of pro-Palestinians Arabs can be found to negotiate with.

I wish the British on here would care more about their own country than they do about some random country in the Middle East.

Nailed it.

We Brits have big hearts, care about a multitude of issues and can multi-task.

I've got no idea what you're arguing about. Your theories are not interesting to me.

Israel is a state. Its not up for debate anymore.

👏👏👏 @Stripes56 especially when there are children starving to death

The actions of the current Israeli Government have become increasingly extreme tho. The terrorist atrocity committed against them by Hamas was hideous - as was 9/11.
In this instance, and in the last two months in particular, any rules governing warfare/ attacking women and children/ allowing aid through have been ignored.

I think it just seems that way because there's so much media coverage and so much talk about it.

In reality the aftermath of 9/11 triggered two decades of US led wars and military interventions. The human toll was staggering.

Over 940,000 people killed, this includes civilians, US and allied troops, opposition fighters, contractors, journalists, and aid workers.

Indirect deaths (due to war-caused disease, infrastructure collapse, etc.) is estimated at 3.6–3.8 million.

38–60 million were displaced or forced to flee

Tens of millions faced acute hunger

It just wasn't as publicised and the US and others were not really demonised for it.

Of course the state of Israel is not up for debate!

I was responding to how it could be argued that it didn’t meet all the parameters that you outlined in your post when it was initially established- it’s your argument:

“Actually, it’s the other way around: recognition acknowledges a state that already exists.

It doesn’t magically create one out of thin air.
A state must first declare itself, and demonstrate the basic elements of statehood under international law. That requires...

A permanent population
A defined territory
A government
The capacity to enter into relations with other states”

Of course you don’t need to continue to engage with me.

No, it's not "my argument".

To qualify as a sovereign state under international law, the most widely accepted criteria come from the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which outlines four key requirements:

1. A permanent population – A stable community of people residing in the territory.

1. A defined territory – Clear and recognised borders (even if disputed in parts).

1. A government – An organised political authority with control over the territory and people.

1. Capacity to enter into relations with other states – The ability to conduct foreign policy and enter treaties independently.

These are the basic legal standards, not "my argument".

Whether you think Israel met them or not doesn't really seem relevant to anything.

Once again if they have nothing to hide and claim people are lying then let independent war correspondents in to cover what is actually going on. What are they trying to hide?

@Voxon
If it wasnt necessary for Israel, hopefully they will not argue those criteria are necessary for Palestine.

Ghandi wasn't responsible for how Pakistan was created and the borders. It was a British civil servant. Let's place the blame where it belongs and that isn't with Ghandi.

They deemed Israel did have all those things. But you're missing the point of the conversation you interjected into.

Nobody said Palestinians don't, they were invited to join the process the same as Israel was but refused.

Apologies if misunderstood the point you were making. Its been argued by others that it’s too early for Palestine to be recognised as a state.

@Voxon genuine question, not trying to be gladly. I actually do know a fair bit about the history of the Middle East. I know it’s not as black and white as it’s sometimes presented. however, my question is: do you genuinely believe that the Israeli government’s response to October 7 is still justifiable and proportionate?

I meant not trying to be goady!