State -building without sovereignty; Is the European Palestinian project deception? – Mehr News Agency Iranian and world news

‌Mehr News Agency, Iernational Group: In rece days, the positions of some key European players in their Middle East policy have been in the headline of the world media; News that France, Britain and some other European couries are on the verge of official ideification of Palestine.

France, led by Emmanuel Macron, has pioneered the route and has stated that if some key conditions are fulfilled, the Palestinian state will formally and independely of the Security Council. Subsequely, Britain also stated that “the right to form the Palestinian state is an unlawful right”, saying that it would join this path if the Israeli regime is uncomplicated.

Following the explicit stance of the two key European actors, many couries, some of whom are from the same coine, at the end of a recely presided over France and Saudi Arabia in New York, announced the upcoming UN General Assembly to recognize the future meeting of the UN General Assembly.

Among these couries, including Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand, Portugal, Malta, San Marino and Luxembourg for the first time declared their ieion to recognize the Palestinian state, and other couries such as Iceland, Ireland and Spain coinued to move in Palestine.

Washington’s soft and corolled protest behind

At the same time as the couries of the world, especially the Europeans, to recognize the Palestinian state, the US position was effective. Although the White House reaction is still critical, their tone was relatively gele and corolled.

The Trump administration declared its opposition to official ideification but refused to exert serious pressure or direct threat; A subject that some analysts consider as a sign of the implicit European and American coherence to redefine the post -Gaza political order; A order that, corary to its appearance, is designed not for the realization of historical justice but to coain security crises and reduce the pressure of Western public opinion.

Currely, more than 5 Palestinian states have recognized. But what makes the situation unprecedeed is the joining of key European couries such as France and Britain; Couries that have been avoided by the United States uil recely because of the political, security and ielligence dependence on the United States.

The importa poi is that Washington’s appare softness against this new wave of ideification, unlike their traditional and traditional positions, cannot be accideal or purely tactical. According to many observers, this change is a sign of a rotational rotation in Western politics for crisis manageme not based on Palestinian rights but on the basis of strengthening the stability of the Zionist regime by spending from the Palestinian state.

Accordingly, some analysts believe that the Trump administration’s green light and the tactical accompanime of the Israeli regime are in fact part of a coordinated package in which the ideification of the Palestinian state is only accepted when the nature of the “coury” is currely corolled, lacking military authority, and secular authority. In such a scenario, not only is Hamas eliminated, but even the independence of the operation of the PA will be severely limited by the presence of iernational supervisory institutions and dependence on foreign aid.

As the New York Stateme, or in other words, the results of the “Solution Conference” recely held in New York on the initiative of France and Saudi Arabia, this approach is being institutionalized. The key conditions of the conference, including Hamas disarmame, complete corol of the PA, guaraeed border security for the Zionist regime, and iernational oversight of the Gaza reconstruction and governance process, although seemingly described by a step towards peace, are in fact part of a Western security framework.

The purpose of this framework is to maiain the strategic position of the Israeli regime, to evacuate the concept of resistance and manage the Palestinian case in safe form for Western ierests. The framework may create relative relaxation in the short term, but in the long run it can lead to structural injustice and disiegration of the Palestinian idea of coe.

“Palestinian Coury” in Western Narrative: Restoping the crisis instead of resolving it

It is impossible to understand the true meaning of the Palestinian state in the curre situation, regardless of the Western strategic goals and its consequences for the Palestinian people. What is today called “the official ID of the Palestinian state” by powers such as France and Britain is more than a reflection of a real geopolitical transformation, an calculated attempt to manage the Gaza crisis, recovering the West’s credit, and consolidating the post -lean security order. In this coext, Palestine has redefined not a genuine national project but a managed, safe and disarmed model of its protest and resistance capacity.

The conditions that Europe has set up to recognize the Palestinian state, including the complete disarmame of Hamas, the transfer of power to the PA, the iernational supervision of Gaza’s administrative structure, and a commitme to guaraee a security guaraee for the Israeli regime, are in fact signs of building an appare governme and lacking national authority; A state that must operate within the favorable framework of the West, especially the Zionist regime, not within the coext of the historical will of the Palestinian people.

As a result, this so -called “Palestinian governme” is not iended to recapture the occupied boundaries, to replace the right to return refugees or to resist; Rather, as an informal security partner for the Zionist regime, it is to be responsible for corolling public anger and corolling the humanitarian crisis.

Europe preses this policy in a wrapper of empathy with the Palestinian people, but in practice, it does its best possible way to calm its public opinion, withdraw from the historical pressure of silence against the growing crimes of the Israeli regime, and to consolidate its place in Washington and Tel Aviv. This is precisely the poi where the real ierests of the Palestinian people are in fundameal conflict with the Western goals.

From the Palestinian people’s view, especially in Gaza, the West Bank and the refugee camps, ideifying a coury that has neither borders, nor the military, nor financial independence, represeing all Palestinian groups, nor even the right to decide on their security, is more likely to institutionalize a stylish and adorned political failure.

This process can implicitly end the claim of occupation and to the “end of the Palestinian case” iernationally; Without reality any of the historical demands of the Palestinian people, including the end of the occupation, the return of refugees, the release of prisoners, and the real independence have been realized.

In fact, if these ideifications are consolidated within the framework of the New York stateme and its security terms, the Palestinians will not reach a real state but to a diplomatic figure under a diplomatic face; This is precisely the project that the Zionist regime, the United States and now Europe, with various and seemingly justified faces, have been trying to erase the Palestinian issue without the actual resolution of the crisis.