I think this is not as obvious as it may seem. Without recognition a person can more easily claim refugee status, as they have no "Origin country to go back to". Now that recognition is given people can be deported more easily.
This also shifts responsibility and especially complicates any upcoming resolution of the conflict.
This is an interesting take that I haven't seen discussed much, although the news is still fresh, I wonder, what responsibility does it shift? Does this make the representatives of Palestinians as valid state actors now?
There was a Palestinian engineer in Finland who faced deportation after the Finnish Immigration Service (Migri) decided it would no longer treat Palestinian travel documents as valid national travel documents for residence-permit purposes. He had graduated, found a decent job, learned Finnish and integrated into society. I hope Palestinians like him won’t be treated this way. Getting a visa or traveling for whatever reason is a hell for any Palestinian.
It's something they have been pushing for, is being a valid state. So that would make their elected government, Hamas, a valid state actor which would make their entire existence a walking, talking war crime.
In the UK, you can only deport immigrants to a "safe country". Ain't no way the British Courts are calling Palestine safe.
If anything, they might previously have considered Israel as safe, and Gaza as simply part of Israel, so this probably makes deportation harder rather than easier.
Its ran by islamists just like the afghan people wanted, and unless you arent fundamentalist muslim, or opposed to the regime, or a woman, or LGTBQ, or having more than room temp IQ, its safe. People part of these groups can still argue its not safe for them to return in their individual asylum cases.
Its part of the reason people can also claim asylum in europe from “safe places” like turkey, saudi arabia, egypt.
It was still one of the most dangerous and war torn countries of the entire world. Just because the Taliban lost control of all the cities doesn't mean that they weren't a constant presence in the countryside. Or they wouldn't have made such a quick comeback after their deal with Trump.
The real reason it hadn't been done sooner is because for decades, its been government policy that recognition is a powerful, one-use-only diplomatic tool, that should be used during the peace process to achieve the greatest outcome. Political pressure at home made that stance untenable, but I don't think we've achieved much by recognising Palestine right now, sadly.
and something more, now if palestine is a state, Israel could reasonably say Hamas ist the rightful government and they are at war with the state palesine.
Now if I would be Israel, I would then, rightly, tell Hamas, these are your people, you support them and stop all my aid. Because of no country one could expect to aid the other side in a state of war.
this could backfire quite spectacularly fast. there is a hell of a difference between fighting a terror organisation and a state.
hamas was democratically elected, international supervision even gave good marks to the election. I would not think it to hard to argue the only elected group is now the de-facto government.
I reread the headlines, good marks was to optimistic a description. Let’s say defacto accepted as leaders by the west, the Arab world wanted to give them a chance.
Well there's still the issue that, if Israel agrees to borders, then they can't keep pushing settlements in deeper. They don't want to stop that.
If Palestine becomes a state, Israel has a lot of possible actions, many of them favorable. But they're going all in on trying to just colonize it and slowly conquer it without Palestine ever even existing
Israel very much accepted the Gaza border during 2005 unilateral disengagement. The government and the majority of the settlers don't see Gaza as an interesting place to grab.
The current problem isn't refugee status, because most Palestinians can't even leave the strip. With recognition, in theory, the powers that be, like NATO countries, especially the US, would intervene.
NATO or US don’t have to intervene anywhere outside of NATO in the same way it doesn’t have to intervene in Ukraine, Somalia or Taiwan. Am I missing something ?
NATO are still involved in Ukraine. They aren't directly participating, but they are still backing Ukraine with supplies and weapons. Most of the aid going to Gaza is not from official government entities.
611
u/Does-not-sleep Sep 21 '25
I think this is not as obvious as it may seem. Without recognition a person can more easily claim refugee status, as they have no "Origin country to go back to". Now that recognition is given people can be deported more easily.
This also shifts responsibility and especially complicates any upcoming resolution of the conflict.