U.K. will not recognize unilateral Palestinian state, official says
Speaking during Jordan visit, Foreign Office official Alistair Burt says direct talks are the only way to reach a viable two-state solution.
By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service Tags: Israel news Middle East peace UKA British Foreign Office minister said Thursday that only direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations can achieve peace, adding that the U.K would not recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.
|
British Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt speaking in Amman, Jordan, Thursday, Jan. 20, 2011. |
| Photo by: AP |
Wrapping up a Mideast tour that included stops in Israel and the Palestinian territories, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Alistair Burt said in Jordan on Thursday that Britain would not recognize a Palestinian state unless it emerged from a peace deal with Israel.
Speaking with the Palestinian Ma'an news agency, Burt said London could not "recognize a state that does not have a capital, and doesn’t have borders."
"We are looking forward to recognizing a Palestinian state at the end of the negotiations on settlements because our position is again very straightforward: We wish to see a two-state solution, a secure and recognized Israel side by side with a viable Palestine, Jerusalem as a joint capital and agreed borders," Burt said.
"That’s where we want to get to. When we get there, that of course will imply recognition of a state of Palestine," Burt told Ma'an.
Referring to the possibility of reviving defunct Middle East peace talks, Burt acknowledged that while direct talks that began in September and collapsed soon after might be difficult to revive now, negotiations were "most likely" to result in Palestinian statehood and guarantee Israel's security.
He said a unilateral Palestinian declaration would mean ambiguity on crucial issues like the capital of the state, its borders and the fate of refugees.
Burt's comments came as several countries announced their recognition of Palestinian statehood. Earlier this week
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday in Jericho that his country did not withdraw its 1988 recognition of a Palestinian state, but fell short of an new and unequivocal recognition of the state within the 1967 borders, similar to declarations made by a number of countries over the past two months.
Last week, Al Jazeera reported that, following Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, Guyana became the seventh South American nation to recognize an independent Palestinian state.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Surprise surprise and from London itself! How did Alistair Burt get past the 'Palestinians' in London? Congratulations to Alistair Burt.. He is but One 'Churchill' against thousands of 'Chamberlains' .....
«London could not "recognize a state that does not have a capital, and doesn’t have borders."» most certainly not; and that is why the 109 nations that have recognised a non-existent state are making a fool out of themselves. But again, we are used to political nonsense (for example, President Medvedev reiterated that Russia wants the Palestinian People under the yoke of Jordan and Egypt again [just like in 1967] - and the "Palestinians" bought this as a token of friendship and support...come on!). A Palestinian State? Absolutely (perhaps with Gaza as its Capital). A 1967 Palestine controlled by Jordan/Egypt? Right now, that is what 109 nations are offering support too.
you mad?
Spineless, faceless, and useless. That's why I didn't vote for them.
and the only policy that can work. I am pleased to say the UK has got it right on here.This is the position of the US and indeed Israel too so my advice to the Palestinians is you want a State start talking and negotiating NOW. You can not bypass Israel and go for it unilaterally.
if israel were sincere, it would not unilaterally and provokingly continue to carry on building in areas where it is in dispute. typically,israel ignores the palestinians and everybody else and does what it wants because it is not interested in a peace deal that would culminate with the realisation of a palestinian state.
israel, USA, England
Neither have a proper capital, nor proper borders because of the illegal occupation and settlements by Israel.
Its called Jerusalem! And no one but G.O.D can change this!
I question their reasons. Was it because of Russian's move? US support? Other interest? Hopefully we will find out soon. As far as I understand UK is not an ally to Israel.
My government always takes a very disappointing stance when it comes to the Palestinians. There must be a lot of lucrative deals going on with Israel or something like that!
break-away provinces (Scotland, Wales, N-Ireland, Man, Cornwall), which consists basically of some incestuous Germans (the Royal Family) and some proletarian fish&chips with a vocabulary of 10 words.
"A British Foreign Office minister said Thursday that only direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations can achieve peace ..." ("Or at least I think that's what this letter from Barack Obama says," the minister added. "It's kind of smudged.")
The idea that the Palestinians get to replay the "Three No's of Khartoum" (No recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel and no peace with Israel) is as useful a declaration in 2011 as it was when it was originally stated by the Arab League. Land for Peace. That was the formula that set things in motion after 1967, first with Egypt, then with Jordan and even with Syria despite the hiccups the back-room discussions had. The Palestinians aren't going to be able to walk away and declare 'independence' because they're still mired in a decades old conflict between states.
"[Couldn't] recognize a state that does not have a capital, and doesn’t have borders"... Surely Israel falls into the second category, and potentially the first since the international community doesn't recognise Jerusalem (in its entirety) as its capital? As a citizen of the UK, I think this policy will go by the wayside soon enough. Time to end this charade and declare two states... unless that is, the Israelis would prefer a single and apartheid state, because that is the only other option (no nonsense about Palestinians being deported to Jordan or Egypt please)
Apparently he doesn't know that this has been going on for decades without even coming close to resolution. Apparently he doesn't know that Israel profits by avoiding peace and is therefore unlikely to participate in any successful peace negotiation. Apparently he has the impression that the UK is obligated to echo Americas bias and hypocricy. Sad that such a once great nation and great empire has sunk to the level of being a stooge for a stooge.
The UK would coordinate such an important position with America. I wish that the UK could step out of America's shadow once in a while, but I am not holding my breath. Israel dictates American policy on Israel and the Palestinians. Through America Israel can effect several other nations like the UK. The rest of Europe is not so much influenced by either America or Israel. You can bet that Canada will also side with Israel, but unlike the UK, America has nothing to do with Canada's position. They are Israel groupies independently of America but for the same reasons. That's about how it will end. America, Canada, and the UK opposing a Palestinian state. The rest of the world in support.
Afraid of offending the US, the UK once again bows to pressure. Shame on them.
Who cares what this insignificant little nation recognises?
The permanent seat on the UN security council guarantees that.
do they have a lobby in the UK too?
I understand you think very highly of us, but this assumption you bring forward is probably unfounded.
Canadá the US and UK Will prove freedom and democracy good for except Palestinians
"recognize a state that does not have a capital, and doesn’t have borders.". What is it's relationship with israel then?
Israel has borders and a capital, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.