OPINION
What to do for the TRNC to be recognized?
Published
on
By
Hasan ÜnalPresident Erdoğan’s visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), the messages he conveyed there for the recognition of the TRNC and his announcement that he would be back on the island on the anniversary of the Happy Peace Operation (July 20, 1974) are important in many ways. First of all, it is completely correct and accurate in terms of continuing the tradition that every prime minister/president who takes office makes his first foreign trip to the TRNC (the second one being Azerbaijan). In addition, having been adopted since the election of Ersin Tatar as the TRNC President in late 2020 and materialized by Türkiye especially with Erdoğan’s statements, the reiteration of the two-state solution has also revealed what kind of policy will be followed on Cyprus after the elections. Erdoğan’s speeches delivered in Cyprus on July 20, 2021 and at the UN General Assembly the following year (September 20, 2022), in which he called on all countries of the world to recognize the TRNC and ensured that the TRNC was admitted as an observer member to the Organization of Turkic States (Hungary has the same status in the OTS), constituted the main axis of the Cyprus policy. Although during the election campaign, the opposition’s foreign policy spokespersons gave the impression that they would revise this policy, these possibilities seem to have completely disappeared since they lost the elections. Erdoğan’s recent statements have only reinforced this policy.
While two-state solutions are generally accepted in the aftermath of decolonization when one of the nations living in a country/region does not recognize the sovereignty of the other or when there are different sovereignty claims over a piece of land, as in the case of Israel-Palestine, the Western world has been making extraordinary efforts for decades to prevent such a solution in Cyprus. The essence of the Cyprus issue, spearheaded by the US and the UK, and with the involvement of the European Union due to Türkiye’s mistakes, is the effort to remove Türkiye from the island, and it is the Collective West that has been trying to accomplish that through many ways and means to this day. However, while the rapidly emerging multipolarity is leading to a gradual/relative decline in the power of the Western world, it is exponentially increasing the importance of a medium-sized country like Türkiye, and thus seems to allow Ankara’s policies to achieve results in many issues, especially in the Cyprus issue.
RUSSIAN INITIATIVE FOR RECOGNITION OF CYPRUS
It is futile to expect the Collective West to be sympathetic to the solution of the Cyprus issue. The Western world only accepts new situations and developments or adapts itself to the new situation when a situation arises that it cannot influence. Therefore, the fact that Türkiye and/or the TRNC authorities have made statements about a ‘two-state solution on the basis of sovereign equality’ will not persuade Western states; it will only force them to face new realities.
It is impossible to solve the Cyprus question with Western formulations, since it is the Collective West that has complicated the issue in the first place. The fact that the Greek Cypriot side has been admitted to the EU under the name of the Republic of Cyprus, representing the whole island, has completely eliminated the possibility of solving the problem in line with the sovereign will of Türkiye and the Turkish Cypriots, since for the US and the EU, and for Greece and the Greek Cypriots acting with their support, any solution means the effective establishment of the sovereignty of the Greek Cypriot state over the whole island, which the Greeks consider to belong to them, including the territory of the TRNC. Thus, the entire island of Cyprus will become an EU territory and the opportunity to become a NATO member will be sought. On the other hand, since Türkiye and the TRNC insist on the ‘two sovereign states’ thesis, it does not seem possible to solve the problem at the negotiation table. Since there will be no war unless circumstances dictate, there is no doubt that the struggle of the parties to insist on their current positions and to impose their own conditions on the other side will continue in a world that is evolving towards multipolarity.
In a multipolar world, the Collective West is diplomatically opposed to Türkiye and the TRNC’s ‘solution on the basis of two independent sovereign states’ thesis, but is also aware that their ability to exert pressure on Ankara is considerably diminished. It is not only impossible for the Collective West to put pressure on Türkiye, one of the medium-sized states that play an important role in shifting or even contributing to changing the balances alongside the superpowers that have decisive power and capabilities in a multipolar world, but it is also clear that there will be a significant increase in the number of states that will not yield to the pressure of Western states that have been keeping a tight grip on all states for decades, for example, in preventing the recognition of the TRNC, and we have already started to see examples of this on many occasions. The complete collapse of the assumptions of the Western propaganda machine from the early days of the Ukraine war that Russia would soon be brought to its knees by sanctions and arms aid to Ukraine, and that China would be brought into line, has brought many states in every continent of the world to the point of being bolder against the Collective West. But all this does not automatically lead to the recognition of the TRNC. In this multipolar world, where many developments that would have been unimaginable during the Cold War and in a unipolar world order are possible, it is necessary to develop official, semi-official and unofficial policies for the promotion of the TRNC in each state individually and to keep them constantly updated.
Russia is one of the states where intensive efforts should be made to promote the TRNC, since Moscow’s old arguments for a one-state solution in Cyprus no longer have anything in its favor. For example, a solution to the Cyprus problem under a single state, under the Annan Plan or any other model, would automatically make the island an EU territory. Since such a solution can only be achieved through/as a result of Türkiye’s handshake with the US, the UK and the EU, a solution to the Cyprus problem would not only be contrary to Moscow’s national interests, but would also harm Russia’s overall strategic posture, as it would result in Türkiye’s further alignment with the Collective West. In the case of Cyprus, while Russia is engaged in a war in the former Eastern Europe and now in Ukraine and Georgia, taking the risk of using nuclear weapons to prevent NATO’s expansion, it would be condoning and even supporting the EU and NATO to turn a very important island with the capacity to control a very important region of the world such as the Eastern Mediterranean into EU and NATO territory. On the other hand, while during the Cold War the Soviet Union and later the Russian Federation wanted the Turkish-Greek rift within NATO to continue to deepen, a Russia that now supports a one-state solution in Cyprus would be harming its own strategic interests, as such a policy and the outcome would directly and significantly contribute to solidarity within NATO. In short, the one-state solution model does not serve any of Moscow’s interests.
On the contrary, a two-state solution would put an end to the possibility of the entire island becoming EU and NATO territory and would serve Moscow’s strategic interests by deepening the Türkiye-Greece rift within NATO. Moreover, such a solution would prevent Türkiye from becoming an outpost of the Collective West against Russia, and Türkiye, remaining in NATO, would continue to criticize the West’s anti-Russian policies and maintain its economic, commercial, political and even military relations with Moscow. The fact that Greece and Greek Cypriots have acted as the spearhead of the Collective West against Russia since the Ukraine war has also facilitated this process.
So how can this outcome be achieved? Ankara’s declaration of a two-state solution in Cyprus alone may not be enough to achieve this outcome. While we expect that Azerbaijan will recognize the TRNC after the peace treaty with Armenia (it could be before), this issue will also need to be discussed with Russia at the highest levels. For example, the fact that the Syrian issue, one of the most troublesome problems between Russia and Türkiye, has entered the stage of being resolved largely through Moscow’s mediation may facilitate the discussion of this issue between Ankara and Moscow. In any case, as part of a compromise with Syria, Syria should be asked to recognize the TRNC while Türkiye transfers the territories under its control to the sovereignty of the Damascus administration and a full compromise is reached on other issues.
If Ankara reaches a peace and compromise in Syria in return for a TRNC agreement/reconciliation with Moscow, which is also in its own interest, it will result in Russia crowning its military successes with a diplomatic victory, which will give momentum to Ankara-Moscow relations and greatly break the will of Greece and the Greeks to fight. The Western world will not be able to do more than a few ‘we do not accept’ statements and Türkiye will force Greece and the Greeks to face the realities of multipolarity by getting Azerbaijan, the Turkic World states (except Uzbekistan at first), Pakistan, most of the Arab World countries with which we have normalized our relations, and many other states with which we provide humanitarian aid and have good relations to recognize the TRNC. Let us not forget that the fault lines of multipolarity pass through this geography. If we make the building strong, that is, if we set up the game in accordance with the spirit of multipolarity, we will get results and the ghost buildings built by the Greece-Greek Cypriot side on the power of others will collapse. Why not?
You may like
-
Russia eyes to support Taliban in politics and economic affairs
-
On what terms can a fresh start be made with Greece?
-
Turkish Cypriots’ President Tatar addresses the new UN representative in advance…
-
‘TRNC was not on the table in Athens. If there were, this positive atmosphere could not have been created’
-
EU tales for grown-ups: One day chicken and the next day the feathers
-
Recognition diplomacy for TRNC begins with Turkic states
Li Yunqi, Journalist
CGTN Radio
“If there’s an extra guest, you have to prepare an extra pair of chopsticks,” – an ancient Chinese wisdom for the upcoming G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
The global economic order is undergoing an obvious shift toward Global South countries, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts that by 2030, developing economies will account for 60% of global GDP—up from already 50% in 2010. With emerging markets playing an increasingly prominent role at the global “economic table,” the question facing the G20 is clear: Where is the hospitality, and those extra pairs of chopsticks?
Formed in the 1970s, G7, the more “elite” club of G20, was designed to address the economic challenges of its time. At its peak, the G7 nations accounted for 60-70% of global GDP, with the U.S. alone contributing 25%. This dominance made the G7 a natural hub for global economic decision-making.
But as the global economy diversified, so too did the need for governance structures that reflected this reality. By the 1990s, the rapid growth of emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil reduced the G7’s share of global GDP. Recognizing the limitations of G7 as an exclusive forum, the G20 was established in 1999, incorporating a broader range of voices from across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Yet, despite its broader membership, the governance structures of the G20 still tilt heavily toward historically dominant economies, leaving the perspectives of the Global South underrepresented.
In 2023, developing economies attracted about 65% of global foreign direct investment (FDI). Many of these nations boast young populations, in stark contrast to aging demographics in Western countries. For instance, Africa’s median age is 18.8, compared to over 40 in many Western European countries. By 2030, the Asian middle class alone is expected to exceed 3 billion people.
These economic transformations underline the need for more fair and inclusive governance systems. Just as a gracious host ensures there are enough chopsticks for every guest, the G20 must adapt to accommodate the realities of a multipolar economic world.
This is not merely a symbolic gesture. Global South nations have legitimate demands for reforms in international institutions like the United Nations Security Council, the IMF, and the World Bank, all of which remain skewed toward the interests of Western nations. The inclusion of perspectives from emerging economies isn’t just about fairness—it’s about crafting more effective and sustainable solutions to global challenges.
The rise of the BRICS is a case in point. Originally formed as a loose group of emerging economies, BRICS has evolved into a platform for addressing global imbalances, recently expanding to include nations like Argentina, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This expansion signals a broader desire among Global South countries for alternative frameworks to the traditional Western-led institutions.
The 2024 G20 Summit in Brazil offers a rare chance to recalibrate global governance. With a host nation that is itself a leader in the Global South, the summit is well-positioned to champion a more balanced approach to decision-making for global affairs.
This does not mean sidelining the priorities of developed nations; rather, it calls for recognizing that the inclusion of diverse perspectives leads to more innovative and equitable solutions. For Western countries, this shift will require letting go of long-held assumptions about leadership and embracing the legitimacy of different economic models and governance approaches.
The Global South’s rise is not about dismantling the established order but about evolving it to reflect the realities of today’s interconnected world. By preparing those extra pairs of chopsticks, the G20 can ensure a more inclusive future—one that respects the voices of all its members, regardless of their economic status.
Not having to share the table may seem convenient, but if we zoom out, we see that many in the world still struggle to secure even the basics, let alone a seat at the global table. Preparing a few extra pairs of chopsticks isn’t just a metaphor, but a call for a more balanced, diverse, and inclusive global order.
OPINION
Türkiye’s “soft severance of diplomatic relations” with Israel has limited impact on the Middle East
Published
3 days agoon
18/11/2024By
Ma XiaolinOn November 13th, Turkish President Erdoğan announced that Türkiye has cut off trade and diplomatic relations with Israel. Anadolu Agency reported his statement during his return trip from visits to Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan. Erdoğan declared, “We currently have no relations with that country,” emphasizing that Türkiye has responded in the strongest terms to “Israel’s atrocities” by taking concrete measures, including halting all trade exchanges. He also stated that the ruling “People’s Alliance” firmly supports this stance.
Observers believe that Erdoğan’s remarks, coming just after the conclusion of the Arab-Islamic Riyadh Summit, aim to enhance Türkiye’s discourse power, express additional sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinian people, maintain sustained anger towards Israel’s belligerence, and exert pressure on Trump, who is about to return to the White House and is highly pro-Israel. This move may also serve to soothe strong anti-Israel public opinion domestically. However, it is conceivable that this posture will not affect the development of the current war situation in the Middle East, let alone change the geopolitical landscape; on the contrary, it may bring pressure on Türkiye from the United States and the European Union.
Erdoğan’s statements further highlight Türkiye’s tough stance and sanctions against Israel over the past year, attempting to demonstrate Türkiye’s political responsibility, humanitarian concern, and religious obligations as a major country in the Middle East, especially an Islamic power. Objectively, this will make the six Arab countries that still maintain policy relations with Israel feel embarrassed and will also enhance Türkiye’s discourse power in Middle East disputes, particularly in promoting the de-escalation process of this round of conflict.
Türkiye is not only a major country in the Middle East and the Islamic world but also a NATO member and EU candidate country, as well as the initiator and leader of the Turkic States Alliance. From the outbreak of the “Arab Spring” in 2011 to the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, Türkiye has been a very active geopolitical actor and has played an important role in shaping the regional landscape. However, in the grand chessboard of Israel’s “eight-front warfare” triggered by the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the space for Türkiye to maneuver is very limited.
Erdoğan’s publicized severance of relations with Israel seems to be a kind of “salami-slicing,” or even a painless “soft severance,” and therefore will not cause significant shockwaves. Tükiye had already recalled its ambassador to Israel in November last year and announced in May this year the suspension of all imports and exports with Israel to punish the latter for exacerbating the humanitarian tragedy of the Palestinian people. In August, Türkiye formally submitted an application to the International Court of Justice to join the lawsuit initiated by South Africa against Israel’s alleged “genocide,” becoming one of the few Third World countries to use international legal means to challenge Israel.
However, Türkiye has not announced the closure of its diplomatic missions in Israel, nor has it punished Israel as severely or even rudely as it did in May 2018. Six years ago, when Trump announced the relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, thereby recognizing the latter as Israel’s capital, the Erdoğan government not only immediately recalled its ambassadors to the United States and Israel but also expelled the Israeli ambassador to Türkiye on the spot. The ambassador was subjected to a full set of humiliating security checks at the airport, including body searches and shoe removal, causing bilateral relations to plunge to a historic low, only beginning to recover slowly two years ago.
Israel has not made any response to Türkiye’s latest declaration of “severing diplomatic relations” and may continue to maintain a low profile or restraint. Perhaps Israel has adapted to Türkiye’s nearly two-decade-long “angry diplomacy,” or perhaps it currently lacks the energy and willingness to provoke Ankara and thereby create new enemies for itself. It is already overwhelmed dealing with the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance” and the United Nations, not to mention the internal frictions and power struggles among its top officials.
Türkiye’s tough stance against Israel is actually facing very similar historical scenarios, making it seem powerless or even counterproductive when playing the Palestinian card. This is because the Arab world does not welcome the successor of the former Ottoman Empire changing the long-standing Western-oriented “Kemalism” to an “eastward and southward” approach. They especially strongly resist Türkiye’s deep involvement in Arab affairs, much like their strong aversion to Iran constructing a “Shia Crescent” in the Arab world. From this perspective, Middle Eastern countries, particularly the Arab world, exhibit an “Arab Monroe Doctrine,” opposing any external interference, even though they are incapable of fairly resolving the Palestinian issue.
Since the Justice and Development Party led by Erdoğan won the general election in 2002, based on the disappointment and dissatisfaction arising from repeated setbacks in pursuing EU membership, as well as a dual return to Neo-Ottomanism and Islamism, Türkiye has significantly elevated the strategic position of the East, especially the Middle East—its traditional sphere of influence—within its foreign policy framework. Ankara began by actively attempting to mediate the Iranian nuclear crisis, suddenly paying high-profile attention to the Palestinian issue, and in 2008, a public dispute erupted between then-Prime Minister Erdoğan and Israeli President Peres at the Davos World Economic Forum.
In May 2010, disregarding Israel’s warnings, Türkiye dispatched the humanitarian aid ship “Mavi Marmara,” attempting to forcibly cross Israel’s naval blockade to dock in the Gaza Strip. This led to Israeli special forces air-dropping onto the ship, resulting in a bloody conflict. Türkiye announced the severance of diplomatic relations with Israel, and it was not until Israel later apologized that bilateral relations were restored. However, due to the indifferent or even critical stance of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and even the PLO towards the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), which was fighting Israel alone, Türkiye’s proactive “foreign aid” actions did not receive enthusiastic responses.
After the outbreak of the “Arab Spring” in early 2011, the development model of the Arab world was widely questioned and even lost its future direction. The “Turkish model” received widespread international attention and was even considered a reference or option for Arab countries. Facing an Arab world mired in failure and chaos, the Erdoğan government was highly proactive, even being described as “attempting to act as the leader of the Islamic world.” Driven by such wishful thinking and strategic impulses, Türkiye not only supported Egypt’s “Square Revolution” in a high-profile manner, strongly backed the Muslim Brotherhood entangled in power struggles, sent troops to Syria and Libya, intervened in the Eastern Mediterranean oil and gas disputes, and openly supported Qatar in its rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, Türkiye’s relations with Arab countries deteriorated from the idealized “zero problems diplomacy” to a nightmarish “all problems diplomacy.”
It can be said that the decade or so during which the “Arab Spring” evolved into the “Arab Winter” was a period when Türkiye’s realist offensive diplomacy and “eastward and southward” strategy suffered major defeats. Türkiye not only lost its traditional ally Israel and offended more than half of the Arab world, but its relationships with Russia and the United States also faced unprecedented challenges.
The Middle East today has once again plunged into war and turmoil, but the causes, nature, conflicts, and opponents are vastly different from those of the “Arab Spring” or the Arab-Israeli conflicts during the Cold War. Several non-state actors from Arab countries are involved in what some are calling the “Sixth Middle East War.” However, countries that have normalized relations with Israel—such as Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, and even the Palestine Liberation Organization—have no intention of re-entering the historical stream of the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the contrary, Iran and its leadership of the “Shia Crescent” have become the main forces opposing Israel in this new Middle East war. Some non-state actors in Arab countries have formed a new “Axis of Resistance” in alliance with the Shia Crescent. This shift in geopolitical relationships makes the attitudes of Arab nations more nuanced. Yet, in balancing “interests and righteousness,” they still value the hard-won Arab-Israeli peace and the crucial Arab-American relations. Although Arab countries are deeply frustrated by Israel’s refusal to cease fire and feel powerless to change the situation, they are absolutely unwilling to accept Iran and Türkiye taking the lead in Arab affairs.
Therefore, Türkiye’s new round of Middle East diplomacy is bound to fall into an awkward position similar to that after the “Arab Spring.” It is unlikely to receive widespread and positive responses in the Arab world or have any substantive impact on the current “eight-front warfare.” Nonetheless, Ankara’s diplomatic efforts to support the rights of the Palestinian people are commendable, reasonable, and even resonate with mainstream international public opinion.
With the openly pro-Israel Trump team controlling the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon, and the Republican Party—which has always been more favorable toward Israel—fully controlling the U.S. legislative, executive, and judicial branches, Washington’s Middle East policy will further tilt toward Israel. Even if the new U.S. government does not encourage Israel to escalate and expand the existing conflicts and wars, it will mobilize all resources and employ all means to exert maximum pressure on Israel’s opponents to force them to compromise. At that time, Türkiye’s relations with the United States will experience new friction and uncertainties due to its tough stance against Israel.
Not only will the new U.S. government’s Middle East policy fail to reward Türkiye’s hardline approach toward Israel, but major European powers—which generally support Israel’s security and hold unfavorable views toward Iran and its led “Axis of Resistance”—will also be dissatisfied with Türkiye’s intensified pressure on Israel. This could further affect the smooth development of Türkiye-Europe relations.
Therefore, although Türkiye’s stance toward Israel is tough, the pressure it can exert is nearly exhausted, and Israel has considerable capacity to withstand such pressure, especially from Türkiye’s “soft severance of relations.” Given that Arab countries do not welcome deep Turkish intervention and that the U.S. and Europe oppose Türkiye joining the anti-Israel camp, Türkiye’s role and space for maneuvering in the Middle East are very limited and unlikely to see significant breakthroughs.
Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.
Our people have endured decades of oppression, during which their rights were virtually destroyed and forgotten. In the post-Oslo period, when the Palestinian leadership opted for negotiations, settlement expansion accelerated while the foundations of national independence eroded under partition, isolation and prolonged blockades. Today, the occupation seeks to complete the historic Nakba by exploiting the Palestinian uprising that began on 7 October in response to escalating Zionist extremism, attempts at Judaisation and efforts to marginalise and eradicate the Palestinian entity. This existential challenge, backed by a broad coalition with regional and international dimensions that do not serve the interests of our people, obliges us to unite our efforts around common principles. Despite these barbaric attacks, limited resources and the imbalance of power with the enemy, we stand in solidarity with the resistance and determination of the Palestinian people. If these efforts are coordinated, we can put counter-pressure on the occupation, deepen its political and legal isolation and worsen its economic crisis. This will be an opportunity to force the occupation and its allies to stop the aggression and strengthen the ongoing struggle of our people.
Today, the Palestinian people are facing one of the heaviest Zionist attacks on the Gaza Strip, which reaches the dimensions of genocide and ethnic cleansing. According to unofficial statistics, the number of Palestinian martyrs since the beginning of the war has exceeded 186,000, and the environmental and health destruction caused by the attacks has directly contributed to this number. This scenario could, God forbid, be repeated in the West Bank, with radical settlers attacking Palestinian towns and villages through the occupation army or with the official support of the occupation government.
Historically, the Palestinians have paid the heaviest price for the Western approach to the Eastern question. The consequences of this approach have been disastrous for us: It not only led to the seizure of our land by the Zionist movement, but also paved the way for the establishment of a settler state. In this war, the Arab and Islamic countries acted with great responsibility, rejecting the international categorisation of the resistance as terrorism and insisting on presenting it as a national liberation movement.
Arab and Islamic countries have played a strong role in supporting our cause in international forums, with a growing regional awareness of a common destiny and the need for common security against a common enemy. This solidarity is a very important step in supporting our cause through the work of the Ministerial Committee of the Arab-Islamic Summit convened in Riyadh, which is expected to be an international framework for shaping a solution to the Palestinian issue in accordance with the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.
Internationally, unlike in previous crises, we have seen clear international positions condemning the genocide and crimes against humanity committed against our people, reflected in firm positions at the United Nations. We appreciate these positions of the nations and peoples of the world and see the path to the establishment of a Palestinian state based on international legitimacy as the result of more than a century of Palestinian struggle and the revival of their rights, which have historical and political roots. Since 1922, the foundations of a Palestinian state have been laid, and despite British and Zionist conspiracies, Palestine retains its political primacy on the world map.
Today, more than 150 countries recognise the State of Palestine on the basis of international resolutions such as the General Assembly Settlement Plan (Resolution 181), the Algiers Declaration declaring the State of Palestine in 1988, and Security Council resolutions on the illegality of settlements outside the 1967 borders. The most recent resolution demands that Israel end its ‘illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’ within 12 months of the General Assembly’s request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in Palestine. The resolution was adopted with overwhelming support – 24 votes in favour, 14 against and 43 abstentions – demonstrating the gains made by the Palestinian cause and highlighting the growing political isolation of the occupying state.
Despite the obstacles to sovereignty posed by the occupation, the Palestinian state remains a legal reality. We see current international efforts to revive these historic and entrenched rights, against the post-World War II trend of international powers favouring the establishment of a Zionist political entity at our expense.
These forward-looking initiatives, called the ‘International Alliance for the Realisation of the Two-State Solution’, include direct steps to organise the establishment of a Palestinian state, rather than merely negotiating its right to exist. This is an important step for regional security and international peace, a necessary way to stabilise the global system and prevent the spread of geopolitical conflicts, sometimes with a religious or cultural dimension.
Diplomatic and political efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood must be compatible with efforts to end the war, protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian aid and address the consequences of the aggression through compensation and reconstruction. At the same time, Palestinian efforts to meet the conditions for a sovereign state consistent with the principles of regional security and global peace should be intensified.
In the midst of these efforts, it is clear that the Palestinian forces will respond sincerely to these initiatives and are willing to overcome differences over governance, elections and the so-called ‘day after’ issues. Palestinian behaviour shows that these disputes are now a thing of the past and that focusing on the future enhances the ability to build and govern the Palestinian state on the basis of national spirit and solidarity.
Operationsplan Deutschland: The debate over ‘planned economy’ in Germany
Some Afghan journalists contemplating suicide; but why?
How will Trump’s potential tariffs affect Southeast Asia?
ICC issues arrest warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant on war Crimes charges
The era of the ‘right-wing majority’ in the European Parliament
MOST READ
-
EUROPE2 days ago
The German army takes steps toward economic militarization
-
EUROPE2 weeks ago
A ‘holy alliance’ in the Bundestag: Anti-semitism law unites AfD and Greens
-
ASIA2 weeks ago
AstraZeneca’s top Chinese executive detained by authorities
-
AMERICA1 week ago
New trade wars on the horizon: Trump signals return of ‘isolationist’ Lighthizer
-
ASIA1 week ago
Taiwan considers major U.S. defense purchases in anticipation of Trump
-
RUSSIA2 weeks ago
Russia’s federal dudget in deficit again
-
ASIA2 weeks ago
Taiwan braces for second Trump term
-
OPINION2 weeks ago
Trump’s overwhelming victory to reclaim the White House: Mixed reactions across the globe