Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond
From Venezuela and made by Venezuelan Chavistas
Ireland's Foreign Minister Micheal Martin (Left), Spain's Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares Bueno (Middle) and Norway's Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide (Right) pose for a photo, at the end of a media conference, during talks on the Middle East, in Brussels, on May 27. Photo: Geert Vanden Wijngaert/Associated Press.
By Xavier Villar – June 1, 2024
MADRID- The Spanish government officially recognized the State of Palestine on May 28th following a decision adopted by the Council of Ministers. The decision was announced to the parliament by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.
In his institutional statement, Sánchez justified this decision as “the only way to move towards a solution that we all recognize as the only possible one: that of a State of Palestine coexisting alongside the State of Israel in peace and security.”
In addition to Spain, Ireland and Norway have taken the same step, joining more than 140 countries that already recognize Palestine. In response, Israel has summoned the ambassadors of the three European countries for consultations and has warned of possible more severe reprisals in the future.
In this context, Sánchez made Spain’s position clear regarding its recognition of the Palestinian State: “A viable state with the West Bank and Gaza connected by a corridor and unified under the governance of the Palestinian Authority.”
In the institutional appearance, the prime minister added: “This is a historic decision. We are acting in line with what is expected of a great country like Spain. It’s not just a matter of historical justice; it’s the only way to move towards what everyone recognizes as the only possible solution to achieve a peaceful future: a Palestinian state living alongside the State of Israel in security and peace.”
Yolanda Díaz, the second deputy prime minister and leader of the leftist Sumar alliance, which is part of Sánchez’s coalition government, gave an interview on state broadcaster TVE and stated: “This is a historic day; this is the path to peace. But with what we are witnessing in Palestine, it’s not enough.” Díaz emphasized the need for stronger measures: “We must summon the ambassador for consultations, we must join South Africa in an arms embargo against Israel. This is genocide. We are facing a far-right government, Netanyahu’s, which violates human rights and discredits all the institutions of the world, including the UN. Something must be done. We must act against Netanyahu,” added the second deputy prime minister.
Historical US and Israeli Abuse of ICC Leads to Netanyahu Indictment
The recognition of these three countries (along with the possibility that Slovenia and Malta may follow the same path in the coming weeks) underscores Israel’s increasing international isolation. In recent times, Israel has faced significant diplomatic setbacks. For instance, on May 10th, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of Palestine’s full membership in the UN. Additionally, just over a week ago, the International Criminal Court announced that it was seeking arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza war. With the potential addition of Slovenia and Malta to this movement, Israel’s international isolation appears to be deepening even further.
Despite Israeli threats against Spain, it is crucial to remember that what has been recognized is the two-state solution. It is important to note that the idea of “two states” emerged as a response to the Zionists’ inability to successfully colonize the entire Palestine. From a political standpoint, Zionism, as a paradigm of settler colonialism, seeks absolute domination over all Palestinian territory. Therefore, the notion of “two states” does not align with Zionism’s colonial vision but rather arises as a result of material limitations.
According to the prevailing narrative, the “two-state solution” refers to the diplomatic process initiated in the 1970s, aimed at establishing a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. The first bilateral breakthrough in this direction came with the Oslo Accords, which were initially confidential. In these agreements, the Palestinians, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the Israelis, agreed on a declaration of principles aimed at creating the Palestinian Authority as an interim government, supposedly paving the way for a final agreement. These agreements were primarily a declaration of principles that did not detail what that state would look like. In fact, the word “state” in reference to the Palestinians was not even mentioned. It was two years later, in what is known as Oslo II, when negotiations became more concrete, discussing details and methods to establish what would become the Palestinian Authority on the ground.
From a critical perspective, the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 was viewed, according to the PLO itself, as the culmination of the “two-state solution”, legitimizing Israel while offering a perpetually postponed mini-state as consolation. For the Israelis, who essentially drafted the agreements, the Oslo treaty was merely a public relations ploy for the “two-state solution”, while secretly signaling its end, gearing up for a final “one-state solution”.
It is important to highlight that the purported “two-state solution” implies that Palestinians must relinquish any rights for their millions of refugees, as well as their rights to over 80% of the land from which they were displaced. Additionally, it suggests that the distribution of resources, from water to fertile land, will heavily favor Israel.
In summary, while the gesture of the Spanish government serves to isolate Israel and condemn the ongoing genocide in Gaza, it proves insufficient in addressing historical errors. It focuses on the pre-1967 borders as a starting point, which are a result of colonization, rather than addressing the fundamental cause: Zionist settlement colonialism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
In the two-state theory, Israeli control is regarded as a fait accompli, and Palestinians are expected to accept it without seeking justice. This is the central premise of the two-state solution: that Palestinians relinquish their rights to obtain a small and weak semblance of statehood in part of their land.
It’s worth noting that similar arrangements were devised for the various bantustans (supposedly autonomous territories created by the South African government during apartheid, to which the non-white population was compelled to move). These arrangements, akin to those in Palestine, are specifically crafted to sidestep settler colonialism and find a convenient “solution” for settlers without impeding their expansionist ambitions. This pressure forces Palestinians to make concessions until they have nothing left to give.
In conclusion, Palestinian political aspirations cannot be constrained by the “crumbs” offered by the so-called two-state solution.
