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

The boundaries were drawn up after consultation with interested parties. Ghandi wasn't too bothered as long as he got the British out of India. It is well known that both Gandhi and the Congress had stoutly opposed the two-nation theory and were against the Partition.

• In June 1947, Sir Cyril John Radcliffe, a British lawyer, was made the Chairman of two boundary commissions of Punjab and Bengal and given the task to draw up the new borders of India and Pakistan.
• He was given a period of five weeks to complete this task and arrived in India in July 1947.
• The boundary commissions of Punjab and Bengal also included two nominees each of the Indian National Congress and Muslim League respectively.
• The Punjab commission had Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, Justice Teja Singh, Justice Din Mohammad and Justice Muhammad Munir as members.
• The Bengal commission comprised Justice CC Biswas, Justice BK Mukherjee, Justice Abu Saleh Akram and Justice SA Rehman.
• The Boundary Commissions award was made public on August 17, 1947.

Despite all this consultation, in the end no-one was completely happy and unrest and bloodshed followed partition.

Ghandi eventually capitulted to the Muslim League under Jinnah.

Congress and Gandhi accepted partition at the end of a long and arduous period of countering the Muslim League’s concerted attempts to create communal violence and stall any agreement on a united India.

But we don't have bottomless wallets !

This entire situation is flooded with disinformation, double standards, and outright lies. A lot of it comes from an aggressive pro-Palestinian PR machine where falsehoods are repeated so often they pass as fact. I’ve watched this happen daily since the conflict began. Antisemitism plays a major role in it too, that’s why we’re seeing swastikas at protests and Jews assaulted on the streets. Antisemitism thrives on lies and scapegoating, and we’re watching it unfold in real time.

There's also a strong element of social contagion. For many, this isn’t about justice....it’s a trend. It gives people a cause, a costume, a Saturday activity, and someone to gang up on. That mob mentality has existed since humans first walked the earth. It disgusts me. I can’t stop wars, but I can - and will - speak up when I hear lies or antisemitic poison in my own community.

Frankly, the Western obsession with offering “hot takes” on Gaza reeks of arrogance. Nobody in the region cares what you or I think, and the performative outrage from people in Britain who claim to oppose colonialism while dictating foreign borders, is laughable. It isn't up to you or me or Macron to decide who's land is who's or what sort of government Palestinians choose.

My own view though is that this conflict isn’t as complicated as people pretend. One side wants liberal democracy and coexistence. The other wants to wipe that side off the map. Hamas has never supported a two-state solution. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews, with a toned down version of that in its updated text. That’s not fringe, that’s core ideology, and it’s what kids are taught in UN-funded schools.

Even when Hamas spokesmen say they’d accept a state, they admit it’s a stepping stone to more violence. So what exactly are people celebrating? A tactical pause on the road to genocide? I literally don't get it.

If people think the entire land of Israel belongs solely to Arabs or Muslims, that’s historically illiterate. If people think October 7 was “justified” because of the Nakba, then they’ve done mental gymnastics worthy of Olympic gold to get there. There is no justification for what was done to Israeli civilians that day. None.

Unlike the keffiyeh crowd, I don’t rank suffering. I feel the same sorrow for starving children in Gaza as I do for those in Congo, Yemen, or Hackney. All suffering matters. That includes Israeli hostages, many still alive, held in horrific conditions. I find the entire obsession with Gaza to be demonstrative of targeting Israel rather than anything reflective of more.

Where I differ most is this: I understand that the vast majority of Palestinian suffering comes from their own leaders. I don’t pretend blockades happen in a vacuum. I don’t think shipping missiles is a human right. And I know that when a terror state devotes itself to your destruction, you don’t sit and wait to die.

It doesn't matter what I think though.

Israel’s response to October 7 is justified under international law, Article 51 of the UN Charter guarantees the right to self-defence. That doesn’t mean tit-for-tat casualty counts. “Proportionality” means striking military targets without excessive civilian harm relative to the advantage gained. Hamas hides in civilian areas, uses schools and hospitals, and booby-traps tunnels beneath homes. Civilian casualties, though tragic, do not make those strikes unlawful when precautions are taken.

And no, this isn’t over. Hamas is still firing rockets. Still holding hostages. Still threatening to repeat October 7. Israel’s campaign is not just retaliation, it’s prevention.

No nation would tolerate what Israel is facing. Hamas is a genocidal terrorist group. Its goal is not resistance or freedom, it’s obliteration. It’s astonishing that more people aren’t demanding they surrender. That’s the only moral position.

I’m a pacifist. I hate war. I doubt I could ever pull a trigger, much less drop bombs. But I have the luxury of safety, a life secured by people who fought so I wouldn’t have to. And I’m deeply grateful. Hitler had to be stopped. So does Hamas. Or more innocents will die.

I think the best thing anyone eho avtually cares can do would be to bin their keffiyehs and replace then with signs calling for the return of the hostages and Hamas' surrender. Thats whats morally correct.

You can debate Israel’s leadership or tactics, but the core principle here is clear: a sovereign state has not only the right, but the obligation, to protect its people from mass murder and terror. And let’s be honest, if most of Israel’s critics were in the same situation, they’d be ten times harsher, and nobody would bat an eye.

But my personal concern doesn't stretch to the middle eastern peace process. It only extends to doing whatever small things I can do to say "no: to the frenzy of lies, historical distortion and outright obsessive bullying that means Jews aren't safe in the town where I live.

"I think the best thing anyone eho avtually cares can do would be to bin their keffiyehs and replace then with signs calling for the return of the hostages and Hamas' surrender. Thats whats morally correct."

This ^

"My own view though is that this conflict isn’t as complicated as people pretend. One side wants liberal democracy and coexistence. The other wants to wipe that side off the map.
@Voxon

Surely you can't really believe that. As someone who is Pro Palestinian I could see hate on both sides. But to think Israel are a victim in all this and just want peace cheapens any argument you want to make.

For years they have murdered and imprisoned Palestinians without trial, exerted their control with silly permits, demolished peoples houses and restricted building/water/electric/Internet.
Does that sound like a group that want "co existence"

Currently some Israelis are blocking food trucks, going with picnics to watch the destruction of Gaza and supporting politicians like Gvir , Smotrich and Netanyahu. All of which could be seen to release statements that are incitement to genocide. Israeli teenagers have social media trends to mock Palestinans and IDF soldiers have posed in Palestinan women's underwear.

I will completely acknowledge the hate by all of Hamas and many Palestinians as well as the Israelis who are protesting against the actions but to think it is one-sided shows that actually your understanding of the issue is completely flawed by your prejudices.

You're a good example of the mental gymnastics I was talking about.

Yes, I 100% believe that. If you don't believe it, then you've gone through a process of looking over a mountain of evidence and choosing to disregard the 90% that doesn't fit your anti Israel bias.

Palestinians have the option to live freely and equally with Jews in their territory and choose not to.

Palestinians have the option to stop trying at every available opportunity to murder Israeli civilians and choose not to.

They could lay down their weapons tomorrow, sign a peace treaty, stick to it, and they'd be left completely in peace, but choose not to.

Israelis dont have that option.

Their option is, defend themselves constantly from missiles, suicide bombs, stabbings and to prevent their stated enemy from gaining unilateral control of territory from which they could wipe out Tel Aviv.

The situation is unchanged from 1947. Palestinians largely deny the right of Jewish independence on any part of their land - certainly parties representing them do. Their leadership has consistently refused compromise on that and while 2 million Muslims live freely and safely in Israel, a Jew would be dead in 15 minutes if they wandered into Palestinian territory where they're not protected.

This was the same when the Israeli government was left wing, it was the same when not a single Israeli was in the west bank, it would be the same if they all left tomorrow.

The root of the problem is, as I said, one side wants liberal democracy and coexistence. The other wants to wipe that side off the map.

Peaceful coexistence isn't a one sided party. If the other side persists with trying to kill you then you end up with never ending conflict and people will die and people will suffer. Nothing Israel does or doesn't do has ever changed the mathematics.

@Voxon Can I ask where the mental gymnastics in my post were?

Sure.

Your is full of emotional reasoning, false equivalence, and selective evidence, all wrapped up in moral relativism. Here’s a breakdown of the mental gymnastics involved:

Strawman Argument
Youre distorting mu original point. i never said Israel was blameless. I said its foundational aim was liberal democracy and coexistence, compared to the stated goal of Hamas, and indeed many other groups, to destroy Israel. That’s a clear, factual contrast, not a claim that Israel has never done wrong.

Moral Equivalence Fallacy
You conflate systemic, genocidal ideology (Hamas) with individual bad behaviour (settlers, fringe politicians, social media users). A few Israelis mocking Palestinians is not comparable to a terror regime indoctrinating children to kill Jews or launching wars of extermination. These aren’t equivalent.

Selective Outrage
You highlight everything wrong with Israel (many of which are genuine criticisms) while saying almost nothing about the governing party in Gaza committing mass rape, murder, hostage-taking, and openly declaring it wants more. You ignore the backdrop all your criticisms are set against- thousands of terror attacks, half a dozen wars, outspoken and proud hatred of Jews to a point they would be literally killed if they walked into Gaza. You admit Hamas is hateful, but still try to present both sides as equally bad, which is nonsense.

Guilt by Association
You point to extremists like Ben Gvir and Smotrich, as if their existence nullifies Israel’s entire legitimacy or intentions. That’s like saying the UK is a fascist state because Farage exists. Extremists in a democracy don’t define the whole nation. Israel, as a whole nation, since it's Inception, has largely tried everything to live in peace and failed because the other side refuses.

False Inference from Policy to Motive
You list policies (permits, demolitions, etc.) and assume those policies reflect Israel's foundational desire to dominate. They ignore context: terrorism, security threats, and a long history of wars started against Israel. That’s bad-faith reasoning. Objevtively, a lot of israel's policies are the result of Israelis not wanting to die.

You've sidestepped my actual point about ideological goals and twisted it into a morality competition. Instead of engaging with Hamas’s (and actually pretty much all leaderships) genocidal aims or the liberal democratic nature of Israel’s government, you derailed the conversation with cherry-picked misdeeds and knee-jerk whataboutism.

That is mental gymnastics - because it takes real effort to ignore the core facts and shift the debate into a fog of moral ambiguity. Palestine, and every leadership its ever had, has always held the same view: that Israel cannot exist. Its that simple, and it remained that simple before any of the misdeeds you listed ever happened.

👏

👏👏

"Youre distorting my original point. i never said Israel was blameless. I said its foundational aim was liberal democracy and coexistence, compared to the stated goal of Hamas, and indeed many other groups, to destroy Israel. That’s a clear, factual contrast, not a claim that Israel has never done wrong".

No you didn't . You never mentioned the words foundational aim so that's a complete and utter distortion of the truth. What I took issue was with "One side wants liberal democracy and coexistence. The other wants to wipe that side off the map" wants as in present tense never mentioned anything to do with a foundational aim. In good faith I answered in the present tense about how both sides are behaving in a very negative way in contradiction to your statement and then you decided it was about foundational aims and completely changed the meaning.

Maybe you (and your cheerleaders) should proof read posts if you are going to write such long ones.

And both sides are equally bad.

What I said was:

"My own view though is that this conflict isn’t as complicated as people pretend. One side wants liberal democracy and coexistence. The other wants to wipe that side off the map"

Everyone reading seems to have understood that I was talking about the broader conflict, but if you didn't and thought I was only speaking of the present tense, it really doesn't change anything in my post. The current conflict is a continuation of the exact same one that's not changed in 80 years.

This is the most poignant post, I've ever read on this matter. A handshake, dear friend 🤝

Fair enough but I feel you completely changed the goalposts after I answered in good faith and gave examples in the present tense which you ignored and the you replied with a very long post that was a completely different meaning to what I quoted. You write very well and are obviously passionate about your support for Israel but I don't feel in this instance you were very fair in the debate.

I'm passionate in my support for honesty. I support Israel because they have always wanted liberal democracy and peaceful coexistence and i would defend any groups right to have that. I fully support Palestinians also having that, as well as every other group on earth.

Well if you think that's what Israel wants Ill leave you to it.

How can you doubt that Israeli society values its liberal democracy? Even the demonstrations against the war show Israeli's passion for the society they have built.

Oh I'm sure it values it's own, amazing society in the country.
You don't get to say you value liberal democracy however when you are an Occupying Power though.

Liberal democracy refers to how a country governs its own citizens, not disputed territories. Israel, within its sovereign borders, is a liberal democracy.

Occupation is a separate legal issue under international law. The West Bank is disputed territory, not sovereign Israeli land, and Israel has repeatedly offered to withdraw as part of a peace deal, which Palestinian leaders have rejected time and again (2000, 2008, 2014, and more). Gaza was already vacated in 2005.

You don’t stop being a democracy at home because there’s an unresolved conflict next door. By that logic, every democratic state involved in a territorial dispute would cease to be a democracy, which is absurd.

You seem angry that Israel is a nice country with a liberal, democratic system, but nobody was ever stopping Palestine from being that.

They could decide tomorrow to go back to the negotiating table and make a deal for permanent peace that met fair terms for israel's security.

They could decide tomorrow that Jews were welcome to live with them, serve in their government and be equal under law.

They could decide tomorrow to take on a legal and civil rights system that mimicked israel's.

It's not israel's fault they reject that.

This war costs Israel $750m a day. They need an iron dome. Their people have bomb shelters in their homes. I'm sure they'd far prefer people stopped trying to obliterate them.

Erm ...

• the fact that between 1948 and 1967 it literally ruled one part of its population by military rule and the other not?
• that since 1967 (let's be fair here: a few months in between) it has been ruling a whole population over whom it exerts control in every meaningful way but which does not get any say at all?
• dozens of laws that discriminate implicitly or explicitly against non-Jewish Israelis?

... okay, let's be kind and consider ONLY Jewish Israelis:

• the whole judicial reform situation (people forget now but prior to October 2023 Israel was already on the news daily - over mass protests against government authoritarianism)?
• the fact that people get arrested and interviewed under caution for expressing inopportune opinions?
• the government boycotting media outlets it disagrees with? The military censor?
• autocratic moves such as the executive getting rid of anyone from ministers over the head of Shin Bet to now (in progress) the Attorney General?

I could go on.

Israel is a lot of things but certainly not a liberal democracy in the classical sense. I'd personally call it an increasingly authoritarian ethnocracy with democratic features.

This.

I don't care what the definition of liberal democracy is I was concerned about the word values . As an Occupying Power it obviously doesn't value it that highly that it doesn't extend its values to the country it occupies.

Israel is objectively a liberal democracy. It has

Free elections: Regular, competitive elections with universal suffrage for all citizens, including Arab Israelis.

Multi-party system: Dozens of political parties spanning the ideological spectrum, including Arab-majority parties that criticise the state and sit in parliament.

Independent judiciary: A powerful Supreme Court that can overturn government decisions and has often ruled in favour of minorities and against the state.

Free press: A vibrant, often highly critical media landscape with no government-controlled news outlets.

Freedom of speech and protest: Mass nationwide protests are common and legally protected, including against the government and military.

Equal voting rights: All Israeli citizens, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Druze, or otherwise, can vote and run for office.

Minority representation: Arab Israelis serve as judges (including on the Supreme Court), doctors, diplomats, professors, and members of Knesset.

Legal protections: Basic Laws serve as constitutional protections for individual rights, including due process, freedom of religion, and equality.

Civil society: Thousands of NGOs, including those critical of the government and supportive of Palestinians, operate legally within Israel.

Military accountability: Israeli courts, including the Supreme Court, regularly hear and adjudicate cases against the IDF.

Israel isn’t perfect, no democracy is, but by every objective, comparative metric, it meets the definition of a liberal democracy.

This is another example of mental gymnastics really. This is a laundry list of half-truths and distortions designed to obscure the bigger picture: Israel remains the most liberal and democratic country in the Middle East by any serious comparative measure.

Yes, Arab citizens of Israel were under military rule from 1948 to 1966 at the time, the Arab world was engaged in a process of trying to obliterate Israel. They weren't being racist, they were being cautious. By comparison, every Jew was simultaneously being jailed, expelled, stripped of rights or even murdered in every Aran state. And you think Israel wasn't being fair to Arabs? Wow.

That system ended, which fundamentally demonstated it was indeed precautionary, and today Arab Israelis vote, serve as judges, diplomats, doctors, MPs, even party leaders. No other MENA country gives minorities comparable rights. None.

The West Bank and Gaza are not part of sovereign Israel. The PA governs Areas A and B. Gaza is ruled by Hamas. Palestinians don’t vote in Israeli elections because they are not Israeli citizens, just as French people don’t vote in UK elections. Their status is unresolved not because Israel wants it so, but because peace offers were rejected (2000, 2001, 2008, 2014, 2020).

There are tensions and inequalities, as in every multi-ethnic state, but Israeli law guarantees equal rights under Basic Laws. The Israeli Supreme Court routinely rules in favour of Arab petitioners. Jewish extremists have been jailed for racism and terrorism. It’s not perfect, but neither is the UK, France, or the US.

The very fact that millions protested peacefully, courts remained functional, the media stayed free, and the government backed down, proves Israel’s democracy is alive and well. In authoritarian states, those protestors would be in prison or dead.

Arrests in Israel are subject to judicial oversight. When overreach occurs, courts intervene. And military censorship in Israel is narrowly focused on national security, not political criticism. You’ll find far more press freedom in Israel than in Turkey, Iran, or even some EU states.

Democracy backsliding? Perhaps, but so has the US, Poland, Hungary. That’s not the same as not being a liberal democracy. Israel has free elections, independent courts, multiple parties, a strong civil society, and a free press. That’s the textbook definition.

Calling Israel an "ethnocracy" ignores every Druze, Circassian, Arab Christian, Bedouin, or Muslim Israeli who lives, works, and votes freely and it flattens an incredibly diverse, complex society into a slur. It's rhetoric, not reality.

They've actually done an amazing job of forming the first society in history which gives Jews and Muslims equal rights and where they live peacefully under democracy and a fair legal system. What a shame they get no credit, not just for creating that, but for doing so whilst most of the Arab world was openly trying to kill them.

What do you think would happen if this "occupation" ended tomorrow. Be really specific.

I will tell you what I think would happen.

In Gaza, weapons of all kinda, including weapons of mass destruction would be imported along with fighters from other jihadi organisations that would be used to launch an attack on Israel that would make Oct 7 look like a Sunday picnic.

I base this on what Hamas have openly said, along with evidence of multiple ships filled filth weapons being intercepted before the blockade as well as the support hamas has from Iran amd other terror proxies.

In the west bank, I think Hamas would take over quickly, or similar groups (polls show this is likely) and without Israeli forces present the thousands of Jews living there would need to flee or would be murdered. I then think exactly the same as has occurred in Gaza would also occur in the west bank, albeit from positions from which it would be far easier to murder everyone in tel aviv.

I base all this on evidence of what Palestinian leadership has said, done, polls and what they've done every chance they've had previously.

So tell me what you think would happen if mean old Israel stopped defending itself occupying because I'd really love to know?

Democracy backsliding? Perhaps, but so has the US, Poland, Hungary. That’s not the same as not being a liberal democracy.

I would not exactly call any of these a "liberal democracy" in their current state either. Hungary under Orban in particular, has openly aspired to being an "illiberal democracy". Claim made by Orban, not me.

And, yes, Israel is multi-ethnic in practice. It is also, in law, a state in which "the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people" (direct quote from the 2018 nation state law - the same law also downgraded Arabic - the native tongue of most non-Jewish Israelis - from its status as a national language to one with merely "special status". It is not equal.

And that is without even getting into the nitty-gritty of various laws on details.

So, yes, "increasingly authoritarian ethnocracy with democratic features".