Recognize Palestine and at what price?

The Portuguese government has decided to move forward with recognizing the State of Palestine, after saying in June that it would only do so under a set of conditions that have clearly not been met: "the safe release of the hostages"; "internal reforms by the Palestinian Authority", "the demilitarization of the State", "the disarmament of Hamas" and "the recognition of the State of Israel by the Palestinian Authority".

This is a difficult somersault to understand, since none of the conditions are objectively met. It is most likely a yielding to media pressure, despite the Prime Minister's statement last month that he would not "make up numbers to appear in the news," and a yielding to external pressure, despite the Minister of Foreign Affairs' statement a few days ago that "Portugal is a sovereign country."

It is above all a serious error that cannot fail to meet with our firm opposition.

This is diplomatic nonsense. If it wants to be consistent with the "nobility" of its decision, the Portuguese government must clarify whether, after official recognition, it will open diplomatic and consular representation in Palestine, in which part of the territory, and whether it will obviously transfer its diplomatic corps there. Or whether Portuguese diplomacy for Palestine will continue to be carried out... in Israel?

This is legal and political nonsense. Where are the criteria enshrined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention for the recognition of a state met? Permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and the capacity to maintain international relations? What kind of state is Palestine, after all?

What entity is this whose population lives fragmented among disconnected enclaves, under different forms of control, without a functional political system or a unified authority capable of exercising full sovereignty over a territory with indeterminate borders?

Gaza is governed by a terrorist organization, at declared war with the Palestinian Authority, based in the West Bank, which, in turn, has not held elections since 2005, and which, if it did, would lose them precisely to Hamas, which the European Union itself officially designates as a terrorist organization.

What kind of state is this, after all, that doesn't know where it begins, who represents it, or to whom it answers—fragmented between those who accuse the Jews of perpetrating a new Holocaust and those who deny that one ever occurred? To recognize Palestine as a state, under these conditions, is to abdicate the very concept of statehood.

It's a serious security risk. Recognition comes in response to the pogrom of October 7, 2023, in which Jewish civilians (babies, women, the elderly) were raped, burned alive, and executed. Many remain hostages in Hamas tunnels. Recognizing a state under these circumstances is to convert barbarity into a criterion of sovereignty, as if the slaughter of Jews were now the new requirement to satisfy Montevideo. We are rewarding terrorism, encouraging its replication, and elevating it to the status of a political foundation.

It's a clash with history. The future of the Middle East doesn't lie in the darkness of Hamas and modern-day Iran. It lies in the light of the new Regional Order of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Muslim states and brought the prospect of a prosperous and dignified second half of the 21st century to a region martyred by forces stagnant in the 7th century.

The two-state solution is the only possible path to lasting peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the only way for both peoples to live the dignified and decent lives they both deserve. As Simon Schama said at the end of the magnificent BBC series *The Story of the Jews* (inspired by his book of the same name), “The Bible is full of encounters between men and God, between men and men, and between estranged brothers.” It is time for these estranged brothers to meet again.

But this solution, which ultimately implies the recognition of the State of Palestine – strictly speaking, mutual recognition – must be subject to prior, non-negotiable conditions.

The "Two-State Solution" should be part of the peace negotiation process, involving both parties, and never be an external diktat. It can, in fact, be one of the most powerful incentives for the spirit of negotiation and goodwill among the parties interested in living in peace and security.

It is crucial that recognition of the State of Palestine be made within the framework of a consensual European position. The worst thing that could happen to the European Union is to once again appear divided in its foreign policy.

It is irresponsible to consider recognition from Portugal within the framework of a divisive coalition, driven by internal political reasons of other states, be it France or Spain.

Recognition of the State of Palestine must also be coordinated with Portugal's and the European Union's main allies, and it is especially important for us to consider the positions of our Atlantic allies and friends, particularly the United States.

As the Portuguese government initially stated, recognition must also be conditional on the elimination of Hamas, the release of all hostages, a profound reform of the Palestinian authority, and the recognition of Israel by all Palestinian groups. To this must be added the holding of free and fair elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

We will pay dearly for this rashness and this double surrender to media pressure and barbarism. When civilizations lose the firmness of their moral convictions, only weak protagonists can lead them and satisfy the irrelevance to which they are condemned.

MEP and University Professor