Recognition

Four of America’s nominally closest allies — Britain, Australia, France and Canada — disgraced themselves this week by recognizing a so-called Palestinian state. In so doing, these nations didn’t merely betray their Western civilizational inheritance. They also rewarded terrorism, strengthened the genocidal ambitions of the global jihad and sent a chilling message: The path to international legitimacy runs not through the difficult work of building up a nation-state and engaging in diplomacy, but through mass murder, the weaponization of transnational institutions and the erasure of historical truth.

The Trump administration has already denounced this craven capitulation by our allies. There should be no recognition of an independent Palestinian state at this moment in history. Such a recognition is an abdication not only of basic human decency, but also of national interest and strategic sanity.

The global march toward recognition of an independent Palestinian state ignores decades of brutal facts on the ground as well as the specific tide of blood behind this latest surge. It was less than two years ago — Oct. 7, 2023 — that Hamas launched the most barbaric anti-Jewish pogrom since the Holocaust: 6,000 terrorists poured into Israel, massacring roughly 1,200 innocent people in acts of unconscionable depravity — systematic rape, torture, kidnapping of babies. The terrorists livestreamed their own atrocities and dragged more than 250 hostages back to Gaza’s sprawling subterranean terror dungeons, where dozens remain to this day.

Many gullible liberal elites wish to believe that the radical jihadists of Hamas do not represent the broader Palestinian-Arab population, but that is a lie. Polls consistently show — and anecdotal videos of large street crowds consistently demonstrate — that Hamas and like-minded jihadist groups maintain overwhelming popularity in both Gaza and Judea and Samaria (what the international community refers to as the West Bank). These groups deserve shame, scorn and diplomatic rebuke — not fawning sympathy and United Nations red carpets.

The “government” in Gaza is a theocratic, Iranian-backed terror entity whose founding charter drips with unrepentant Jew-hatred and whose leaders routinely celebrate the wanton slaughter of innocent Israelis as triumphs of “resistance.” Along with the kleptocratic Palestinian Authority dictatorship in Ramallah, this is who, and what, Group of 7 powers like Britain and France have decided to reward with an imprimatur of legitimate statehood.

There is no meaningful “peace partner,” and no “two-state” vision to be realized, amid this horrible reality. There is only a sick cult of violence, lavishly funded from Tehran and eager for widespread international recognition as a stepping stone toward the destruction of Israel — and the broader West for which Israel is a proxy.

For decades, Western leaders maintained a straightforward position: There can be no recognition of a Palestinian state outside of direct negotiations with Israel, full demilitarization and the unqualified acceptance of Israel’s right to exist in secure borders as a distinctly Jewish state. The move at the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state torches that policy, declaring to the world that savagery and maximalist rejectionism are the currency of international legitimacy. By rewarding unilateralism and eschewing direct negotiation, these reckless Western governments have proved us international law skeptics right: The much-ballyhooed “peace process” agreements, such as the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, are not worth the paper they were written on.

In the wake of Oct. 7, these nations condemned the massacre, proclaimed solidarity with Israel and even briefly suspended funding for UNRWA, the U.N. aid group for the Palestinian territories, after agency employees were accused of participating in the attack. Yet, under the relentless drumbeat of anti-Israel activism and diplomatic cowardice, they have now chosen to rehabilitate the Palestinian-Arab nationalist cause — not after the leaders of the cause renounced terrorism, but while its most gruesome crimes remained unpunished, its hostages still languish in concentration camp-like squalor and its leaders still clamor for the annihilation of Israel.

Trump should clarify not only that America will not join in this dangerous, high-stakes charade, but also that there could very well be negative trade or diplomatic repercussions for countries that recognize an independent Palestinian terror state. The reason for such consequences would be simple: Undermining America’s strongest ally in the Middle East while simultaneously creating yet another new terror-friendly Islamist state directly harms the American national interest. There is no American national interest — none, zero — in the creation of a new Palestinian state in the heart of the Holy Land. On the contrary, as the Abraham Accords peace deals of 2020 proved, there is plenty of reason to embolden Israel. Contra liberal elites, it is this bolstering of Israel that fosters genuine regional peace.

The world must know: In the face of evil, America does not flinch, does not equivocate and does not reward those who murder our friends and threaten the Judeo-Christian West. As long as the Jewish state stands on the front lines of civilization, the United States must remain at its side, unwavering, unbowed and unashamed. Basic human decency and the American national interest both require nothing less.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

A wave of recognition from Western countries – led by France, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada – means that 157 countries now recognise a Palestinian state.

The latest countries to recognise Palestine include strong allies of Israel who have tried to frame the recognition as an attempt to keep alive the idea of a two-state solution, which envisions a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

“In the face of the growing horror in the Middle East, we are acting to keep alive the possibility of peace and a two-state solution,” Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister, said in a statement. “That means a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state. At the moment, we have neither.”

While diplomatically the recognition of Palestine is a major step forward, on a practical level, it does little to bring the possibility of statehood any closer.

Israel has only increased settlement construction in the occupied West Bank throughout its war on Gaza and responded to the recognition of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly this week by doubling down on its commitment to never allow a Palestinian state.

So does recognition bring Palestine any closer to statehood, and what does a territory need to be considered a state? Let’s take a closer look.

What does it take to be a state?

There is no single definition of a state, but international law widely cites the Montevideo Convention of 1933. The UN has previously referenced the Montevideo Convention when discussing Palestinian statehood.

The convention does not require a state to be recognised by others. Instead, it specifies that a territory must have defined borders, a government, the capacity to enter into relations with other states and a permanent population.

So could Palestine be a state?

While many of the states that recognise Palestine are vague about its exact borders, most envisage lines close to those before Israel’s 1967 war, including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel has occupied Palestinian territory since 1967 despite that being illegal under international law.

The Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians in the 1990s were supposed to start the process leading to the formation of a Palestinian state and created the Palestinian Authority (PA).

The PA engages in foreign relations, maintaining diplomatic ties with numerous countries and operating various diplomatic missions, including embassies, representative offices and delegations

And in terms of its permanent population, millions of Palestinians live in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and have done so for generations despite decades of Israeli policies.

However, the degree to which Israel allows the PA to operate as an independent state is disputed. While the PA exercises some governmental functions, international bodies have questioned its full capacity to govern.

For example, the UN Secretariat in 2011 and the International Criminal Court in 2020 noted that despite meeting all the other conditions for statehood set out in the Montevideo Convention, Israel’s control over the PA’s borders, movement within the territory – where Israel maintains a heavy security presence – resources and security operations undermine the PA’s ability to govern.

So, why isn’t Palestine a state?

Because international law can go only so far.

Since establishing Kfar Etzion, its first settlement in the West Bank after the 1967 war, Israel has created more than 160 settlements across the Palestinian territory and occupied East Jerusalem, housing about 700,000 Israelis. These settlements are illegal under international law.

During its war on Gaza, settlement construction has surged. Israel’s latest plan to build about 3,400 new homes would bisect the West Bank while linking thousands of existing settlements by roads for Israeli use only, making any future Palestinian state almost impossible.

In addition, Israel has constructed industrial developments, such as the Barkan Industrial Park, in occupied territory.

Israeli and international firms are encouraged to locate themselves in the industrial parks, receiving government subsidies, low rents, favourable tax rates and access to cheap Palestinian labour in return for supporting the settlements’ economies.

Among them, according to Amnesty International, are international companies such as Airbnb, Expedia and JCB.

How likely is Israel to give up its settlements?

Very unlikely.

Many settlers and their supporters in the Israeli government see their presence in Palestinian territory as ordained by Jewish scriptures.

According to them, in addition to settling Gaza, they hold a “divine mandate” to reclaim the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as they refer to it, and even to potentially expand Israel’s frontiers to form “Greater Israel”, a territory that includes parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

Settlers themselves are being increasingly aggressive in seizing Palestinian land, facing little pushback from the Israeli state, and their agenda is openly supported by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party.

Many settler leaders are in government, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

But what about international law?

Israel, with the absolute backing of the United States, has shown little regard for international law from the first ejection of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 to the present.

In fact, rather than recognise a Palestinian state as others have done, the Israeli Knesset voted in July in defiance of international law and approved a motion to annex the West Bank, which constitutes much of one.

On Sunday in response to the moves by the UK, France, Australia and other countries, Netanyahu was clear: “It will not happen. There will be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan [River],” he pledged.

Several Western nations, including the UK, Australia, and Canada, have formally recognised Palestine, drawing praise from Palestinians and outrage from the Israeli government, which insists it will never allow a Palestinian state.

Palestinian Ambassador Zomlot says ‘moment stands as defiant act of truth, a refusal to let genocide be the final word’.

The Palestinian flag has been raised outside the premises of what is now Palestine’s embassy to the United Kingdom in London, marking Britain’s historic and long-awaited recognition of a Palestinian state, as Israel’s relentless destruction of Gaza and its military’s crackdown in the occupied West Bank continue.

The flag-raising ceremony on Monday followed a speech by Palestine’s Ambassador to the UK, Husam Zomlot, outside what was previously the Palestine Mission to the UK.

“Please join me as we raise the flag of Palestine with its colours representing our nation: Black for our mourning, white for our hope, green for our land and red for the sacrifices of our people,” Zomlot said.

Zomlot said the recognition of a Palestinian state was about “righting historic wrongs and committing together to a future based on freedom, dignity and fundamental human rights”.

He called on people to remember “that this recognition comes at a time of unimaginable pain and suffering as a genocide is being waged against us – a genocide that is still being denied and allowed to continue with impunity”.

He continued: “It comes as our people in Gaza are being starved, bombed, and buried under the rubble of their homes; as our people in the West Bank are being ethnically cleansed, brutalised by daily state-sponsored terrorism, land theft and suffocating oppression.”

Zomlot said the recognition was occurring “as the humanity of Palestinian people is still questioned, our lives still treated as disposable and our basic freedoms still denied”.

“Yet, this moment stands as a defiant act of truth, a refusal to let genocide be the final word; a refusal to accept that occupation is permanent; a refusal to be erased and a refusal to be dehumanised,” he concluded.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the United Kingdom’s decision to formally recognise a Palestinian state, more than 100 years after the Balfour Declaration backed “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, and 77 years after the creation of Israel in the British Mandate of Palestine.

“In the face of the growing horror in the Middle East, we are acting to keep alive the possibility of peace and of a two-state solution,” Starmer said in a video statement Sunday.

The UK government said in July it would shift its longstanding approach of holding off recognition until a supposed moment of maximum effect – unless Israel stops its genocidal war in Gaza, commits to a long-term sustainable peace process that delivers a two-state solution, and allows more aid into the enclave.

But the catastrophic situation in Gaza has only grown significantly more dire over the past few weeks, as the Israeli military continues to systematically destroy Gaza City to seize it, while continuing to starve and displace the famine-stricken population of the enclave.

Daily raids by Israeli soldiers and attacks by settlers are also ongoing across the occupied West Bank, with Israel advancing plans to annex the Palestinian territory.

Canada, Australia, and Portugal also officially recognised Palestinian statehood two days before the start of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), where Palestinian sovereignty after decades of occupation and apartheid by Israel will be in focus.

France and Saudi Arabia are preparing to host a one-day summit at the UN, a day before the start of the UNGA, both of which will be heavily focused on Israel’s war on Gaza and the elusive two-state solution.

At the UN headquarters in New York, world leaders will convene on Monday to revive the long-stalled notion, amid warnings that a contiguous Palestinian state could “vanish altogether” as a result of Israel’s hegemonic moves in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Australia’s formally recognition of the State of Palestine, in a coordinated move with the UK and Canada, in an effort to revive a two-state solution. Albanese made the declaration from New York where he’ll be attending the UN General Assembly this week.

West Jerusalem, Israel – Two blocks from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s residence in West Jerusalem, where Balfour and Gaza Streets meet behind layers of steel barricades and weekly pro-hostage rallies, a tiny cornerside cafe, oddly unnamed and half-hidden, buzzed with mid-morning chatter.

As phones lit up with news that United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer had announced formal recognition of a Palestinian state, a few patrons looked up, while others shrugged.

“Of course I’m angry,” said Shira Hazan, 55, a shop owner and longtime supporter of Netanyahu’s Likud party. “But what changes? Britain doesn’t bury our soldiers. It’s just politics while Iran is shooting at us.”

A man sitting next to her, like most of those at the cafe, waved the headline off with a flick of the hand, treating it as little more than background noise.

“It’s colonial arrogance, nothing less,” he said, wearing a knitted kippah and barely looking up as be scrolled through his phone.

But the UK’s recognition of Palestine, while not a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) vote like Israel’s in 1948, could still set off a wave. The decision marks the first time a major Western power that once held the Mandate for Palestine – given to Britain by the UN predecessor, The League of Nations, after the end of World War I to administer what is today the area that includes Gaza, the West Bank and Israel – has formally recognised Palestinian statehood.

Australia and Canada have also issued recognitions in what appeared to be a coordinated move, piling pressure on Israel and placing the three countries at odds with the United States.

The announcement comes shortly before a special summit on the war in Gaza, to be held by the UNGA on Monday. The gathering is part of a diplomatic initiative led by France and Saudi Arabia to revive the two-state solution as the only viable path to ending the decades-long conflict in the region.

Several countries, including France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Malta, have said they will join the more than 145 UN members that already recognise a Palestinian state.

Political push back

Though anticipated for some time now, the statehood declaration set off an immediate and forceful backlash, with leaders across Israel’s divided political establishment and segments of the public urging swift and sweeping retaliation.

Within hours, far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said he would push for an immediate annexation of the occupied West Bank, describing the recognition as “a prize for the murderous Nukhba terrorists”, a reference to the Hamas unit that led the October 7, 2023, assault in southern Israel.

He pledged “the complete dismantling of the ‘Palestinian’ Authority” and added that he intended to “submit a proposal for the application of sovereignty at the upcoming cabinet meeting”.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum – a group that campaigns for the safe return of captives taken to Gaza during the 2023 attack on Israel, which has camped out for more than 740 days outside Netanyahu’s home in Tel Aviv – condemned what it called “the unconditional recognition of a Palestinian state while turning a blind eye to the fact that 48 hostages remain in Hamas captivity”.

The outcry extended to the opposition. Benny Gantz, the centrist former defence minister and a leading Netanyahu rival, warned that the move would only harden Hamas’s grip and complicate efforts to free the captives held in Gaza.

“Recognising a Palestinian state after October 7 ultimately only emboldens Hamas, extends the war, distances the prospects of a hostage deal, and sends a clear message of support to Iran and its proxies,” Gantz said. In an English-language post on X directed at Western capitals, he added: “If advancing peace & stability in the Middle East is what you seek, dear Western Leaders – and not buckling to domestic political pressure, then maximum pressure must be applied to Hamas to relinquish power and return the hostages before anything else.”

One of the lone voices calling Starmer’s recognition “a step in the right direction” is left-wing Israeli parliamentarian Ofer Cassif. He told Al Jazeera that the Israeli government treats recognition as “a win-lose game”, when in reality, it could be a win for all sides.

In January 2024, Cassif signed a petition supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, prompting efforts to expel him from the Knesset on the grounds of supporting armed struggle. He was eventually suspended for six months.

“Recognition is a crucial first step toward a just peace, and all other countries that have not yet done so should follow suit,” Cassif told Al Jazeera. “But it must not become an end goal by itself. A complete arms embargo on Israel must follow, until the government of death and destruction ends the genocide in Gaza and dismantles the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories.”

Asked about further UN actions, he said that he would “absolutely” support a peacekeeping force and reactivating anti-apartheid mechanisms used in South Africa, which included weapons and oil embargoes, among other moves.

‘The absolute worst moment’

Noam Achimeir, 29, a PhD candidate at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University who described himself as left-leaning, took issue with the timing of the Palestinian statehood announcements.

“Look, I believe in two states, I’ve marched for peace; I’ve argued with my parents about the occupation for years. But this?” Achimeir said. “This is the absolute worst moment. We’re under missile fire, families are hiding in shelters, and people are still held hostage. When countries make a grand gesture right now, it feels like rewarding the people doing that to us.”

However, he also argued that Israel cannot “control millions of Palestinians forever”.

“Maybe it’s symbolic. But symbols matter,” he told Al Jazeera. “If Britain recognises Palestine, maybe it forces us to admit this conflict won’t just vanish.”

Eliyahu Korenman, 42, a religious Zionist from the illegal settlement of Shilo north of Jerusalem who said he backed Ben-Gvir at the last election, said that London’s decision “tells Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran to keep firing rockets, holding hostages, killing Jews – and the world will reward you”.

“Every Israeli knows Palestine is just another word for surrender,” Korenman said. “If anything, the timing proves we were right all along. The only way forward is to hold on tighter, to build more, to show the world we don’t need their approval. The world doesn’t understand that.”

Yael Ben Eshel, 27, a veterinary apprentice from West Jerusalem who voted for Netanyahu’s Likud, was also dismissive.

“Honestly? Who cares? Britain hasn’t mattered here in decades. They can recognise Palestine, they can recognise the moon, it changes nothing on the ground,” she told Al Jazeera. “We don’t wake up tomorrow and give up land because of what they say.

“It’s for their politics, for the immigrants and the refugees, so forgive me if I don’t get worked up about a British speech,” Ben Eshel added, echoing Netanyahu’s comments last week on Israel’s increased international isolation, which the prime minister blamed in part on Muslim minorities in the West, rather than Israel’s killing of more than 65,000 Palestinians in Gaza.

‘Britain cannot wash its hands of history’

The announcement lands amid a tense military escalation, where the Israeli army recently deployed a third division into Gaza City as part of an operation dubbed “Gideon’s Chariots B”, expanding a months-long offensive in the enclave that has killed hundreds in an area where famine has also been declared.

It also followed a drumbeat of moves by Israel’s hard-right government aimed at forestalling Palestinian statehood. Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich last week unveiled a proposal to annex 82 percent of the occupied West Bank, an idea he framed as a permanent bulwark against a two-state solution.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu signed a controversial settlement expansion agreement this month, reiterating his long-held rejection of a Palestinian state and declaring that “there will be no Palestinian state; this place belongs to us”.

“Britain set the stage. First, it promised Arabs freedom if they fought the Ottomans, then, secretly carved up the region in Sykes-Picot [treaty]. It told Jews one thing in the Balfour Declaration and told Arabs another,” Achimeir said, in criticism of the UK’s policy in the aftermath of World War I.

Daniel Darby, 51, an anti-Zionist from Pardes Hanna, north of Tel Aviv, agreed, stating that London’s recognition of a Palestinian state today is “an empty, symbolic gesture that will not change a thing for the people in the occupied West Bank and for the people who are now suffering horrific genocide in Gaza”.

“The UK, which together with other European imperialistic forces is responsible for the creation of the Zionist state, is now even more fully responsible for the horrific acts taking place in occupied Palestine by supplying reconnaissance, intelligence, and all kinds of military support for Israel,” Darby said.

He added that recognition alone is meaningless without real consequences.

“The UK will not clear its past and its responsibility unless it takes action now, with a full weapons embargo and full sanctions on the state of Israel.”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced the United Kingdom’s formal recognition of Palestinian statehood, joining Canada and Australia in a move aimed at reviving the push for a two-state solution. The US and Israel have criticised the decision.

BRITAIN’S top cop yesterday hailed Live Facial Recognition technology as a “game-changing tool.”

Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley revealed how more than 700 arrests have been made so far this year thanks to camera vans deployed on streets to find wanted suspects and offenders in breach of orders.

2

Those arrested include 50 registered sex offenders in breach of licence conditions, Sir Mark said in a speech to the TechUK trade association.

He described Live Facial Recognition(LFR) – which uses biometric technology to identity wanted suspects from unique measurements of the face – as a “targeted” investment to back front-line policing.

Sir Mark told how he went on an LFR operation at last month’s Notting Hill Carnival, saying: “Every officer I spoke to was energised by the potential.”

He added of the Carnival operation: “Across the weekend, LFR delivered 61 arrests-including 16 for serious violence-related offences and 13 for violence against women and girls.

“The first arrest happened within five minutes of going live, locating someone wanted on a prison recall since 2015.

“Another suspect was wanted for GBH, having allegedly stabbed a victim five times with a machete.

“These results show that LFR played a critical role in keeping the public safe at Carnival.”

Sir Mark said LFR had made “a major contribution” to one of the safest Carnival events in years, with robbery down 70%, violence reduced by more than half and sex offences by 8% compared to 2024.

TRAIN HORROR

Boy, 16, stabbed to death at train station as teen, 16, arrested over ‘murder’

geordie-dropping

Ant & Dec are finally beaten to NTAs Best Presenter award after 23 YEARS

BREAK POINT

Brit tennis ace SPLITS from wife of 15 years and joins dating app

DOUBLE STABBING

Boy, 15, & man, 42, stabbed at bus station as girl, also 15, is arrested

Meanwhile, the Met boss also revealed how the force plans to use drones to support public safety.

He said: “From searching for missing people, to arriving quickly at serious traffic incidents, or replacing the expensive and noisy helicopter at large public events.

“Done well, drones will be another tool to help officers make faster, more informed decisions on the ground.”

A data-driven approach to tackling violence against women and girls has led to more than 162 of “the most prolific and predatory offenders” in London being convicted, Sir Mark said.

The Met’s V100 programme uses data to identify and target men who pose the highest risk to women, enabling cops to focus their efforts on dangerous suspects.

Sir Mark also told how the London force will be using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to help catch criminals caught on CCTV and translating languages of suspects, victims and witnesses.

He said: “CCTV helps secure thousands of charges against dangerous offenders, but trawls are time-intensive and rely on the human eye.

“Take Oxford Street, with 27 junctions—a trawl to identify a suspect’s route can take two days.

“Now imagine telling AI to find clips of a male wearing a red baseball cap between X and Y hours—and getting results in hours. That’s game changing.”

However, Sir Mark warned the current national policing model must be changed if the force can “unlock the full benefits” of AI.

He said the current setup of 43 forces using hundreds of technology systems “just won’t cut it.”

Sir Mark urged the Government to create a new national centre for policing and set up of regional forces to create shared technology platforms and make better use of data.

2

In recent months, the small East African coastal region of Somaliland has been making international headlines after several high-profile Republicans in the United States endorsed a bill to recognise it as an independent state.

The question of Somaliland’s independence from Somalia has long divided the region. While the territory declared its sovereignty in the 1990s, it is not recognised by Mogadishu or any other world government.

Recently, Republicans in the US House of Representatives, including Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Representative Pat Harrigan of North Carolina, and other key conservative heavyweights, have backed the push for recognition.

“All territorial claims by the Federal Republic of Somalia over the area known as Somaliland are invalid and without merit,” said the text of the bill introduced in June, calling for the US to recognise Somaliland “as a separate, independent country”.

At around the same time, media reports surfaced that said Israel had reached out to Somaliland as a possible location to resettle Palestinians it plans to expel from Gaza.

Human rights advocates from Somaliland have voiced concern that the forced resettlement of Palestinians could “render Somaliland complicit in the genocide against Palestinians in Gaza”, with worries that countries who previously sympathised with Somaliland may potentially “withdrawing their support”.

During a news conference at the White House in early August, US President Donald Trump addressed the issue. “We’re looking into that right now,” he said in response to a question about whether he supported recognition of Somaliland if it were to accept Palestinians. “Good question, actually, and another complex one, but we’re working on that right now,” he added, without giving a clear answer.

Less than a week later, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas penned a letter to Trump calling for Somaliland’s recognition. One of the key justifications stated in the letter by Cruz, who has received nearly $2m in funding from multiple pro-Israel lobby groups, including the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), was that Somaliland “sought to strengthen ties with Israel, and voiced support for the Abraham Accords.” The accords are a set of agreements normalising diplomatic ties between Israel and several Arab states.

In response to Cruz’s letter, Somalia’s ambassador to the US released a statement warning that any infringement of Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would empower armed groups and “destabilise the entire Horn of Africa region”.

Al Jazeera reached out to the ministers of foreign affairs and information of Somaliland for comment on the plan to forcibly relocate Palestinians and whether they were engaging in talks with the Israelis about this, but did not receive a response.

Somaliland has not commented on the forced relocation of Palestinians, but officials have openly stated that it welcomed US consideration for its recognition, with the spokesperson for the region’s presidency thanking US Senator Cruz for his advocacy and stating that “recognition of this established fact [Somaliland] is not a question of if, but when”.

Recognition plus armed groups: A recipe for disaster?

In Somaliland, a region with traditionally strong support for the Palestinian cause, many people are hopeful about one half of the plan and concerned about the other.

Those who spoke to Al Jazeera shared concerns about the ramifications and possible dangers that could arise from potential Israeli plans to force Palestinians to relocate to Somaliland.

Ahmed Dahir Saban, a 37-year-old high school teacher from the town of Hariirad in Awdal, a province in the far northwest bordering Djibouti, said Palestinians would always be accepted with open arms in Somaliland, but that any attempts to forcibly relocate them from Palestine would never be accepted. He cautioned the authorities in Somaliland about the deal.

“The people of Palestine cannot be forced from their blessed homeland. What the Americans and Israelis are doing is ethnic cleansing, and we in Somaliland want no part of it,” he said.

Ahmed said, aside from the move being morally wrong and inhumane, he believes it would “risk violence from [armed] groups” and have serious ramifications for the region.

“Al-Shabab and Daesh [ISIL/ISIS] could carry out attacks throughout Somaliland if the authorities went through with accepting forcibly relocated Palestinians. Even here in Awdal, we wouldn’t be safe from the violence.”

Ahmed fears that if Somaliland accepts expelled Palestinians, the armed groups will exploit public anger against such a move to expand their sphere of influence and possible territorial control in the region.

Armed groups like al-Shabab maintain a presence in the Sanaag province, which is partially administered by the Somaliland government.

Analysts who spoke to Al Jazeera share similar concerns.

Jethro Norman, a senior researcher with the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), believes the US and Israel’s meddling in Somaliland under the pretext of relocating Palestinians would create significant opportunities for armed groups.

“Al-Shabab and IS-Somalia [ISIL Somalia] have consistently framed their struggle in terms of resisting foreign interference and protecting Somali sovereignty, but they’ve also spent years perfecting narratives about Western-backed dispossession and ‘Crusader-Zionist’ intrigue,” he remarked.

When Israel’s war on Gaza began in October 2023, al-Shabab held protests in areas they govern in support of Palestine. Large crowds also came out in support of the Palestinian cause in rebel-controlled territory in Somalia.

“A Palestinian relocation programme, especially one perceived as externally imposed and aligned with Israeli wishes, would provide these [armed] groups with an unbelievably potent propaganda tool, allowing them to position themselves as defenders of both Somali unity and Palestinian dignity against what they could characterise as a cynical Western-Israeli scheme,” Norman told Al Jazeera.

Peace at what cost?

Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991 after the country descended into civil war. In the years since, the administration in the capital, Hargeisa, has been able to create a de facto state within Somalia’s borders. Schools, security and stability emerged, but Somaliland has yet to secure international recognition.

However, some of the decades-long gains have come at a cost to many who call Somaliland home.

Dissent and freedom of expression have come under fire in Somaliland. This has affected the press, civilians and marginalised communities alike, with media outlets raided and journalists arrested.

Members of the public are routinely arrested for having the Somali flag in an attempt to silence unionist voices, which make up a significant portion of the Somaliland populace.

More recently, entire communities have fallen victim to scorched-earth policies implemented by Hargeisa. Nowhere is this more visible than in the city of Las Anod in Sool province. For years, local clans complained of marginalisation by the centre, which led to a public uprising. Security forces responded by killing civilian protesters in December 2022. Somaliland authorities then laid siege to the city for nine months; hundreds of people were killed in the violence, almost 2,000 were injured, and 200,000 were displaced.

Somaliland eventually lost control of Las Anod and the vast majority of its eastern region – about one-third of the territory it claims – to pro-unionist communities who have recently formed the semiautonomous Northeast regional state.

As a result of the siege, rights groups such as Amnesty International released a damaging report in 2023 accusing Somaliland of indiscriminately shelling homes, schools, mosques, densely populated civilian neighbourhoods, and even hospitals in Las Anod, which is a war crime under international law.

The Somaliland administration became the only local actor in Somalia to be accused of war crimes since al-Shabab, which was accused of committing war crimes by Human Rights Watch in 2013.

But now talk of possible Israeli plans to forcibly relocate Palestinians has heightened fears of further violence in Somaliland.

“You can hear the whispers of something,” said Mohamed Awil Meygag in the city of Hargeisa. The 69-year-old witnessed how conflict devastated the region in the 1980s and fears another uncertain path for Somaliland.

Mohamed adamantly supports the recognition of Somaliland as an independent state, but is wary of reports about forcibly relocating Palestinians from Gaza. He also feels the authorities in Hargeisa have not been sufficiently transparent.

“When Americans talk about recognising Somaliland, they [Somaliland’s government] always welcome it, and it’s right, but when it’s about Palestinians being brought here by force and the role of Israel, you don’t get the same kind of response. They’re quiet,” he said.

“Relocating Palestinians forcefully here, no matter what is given in return, even if it’s recognition, is not worth it. We [Somaliland] will have the blood of fellow Muslims on our hands, and no Muslim should support such a thing,” Mohamed added.

“They [the US and Israel] don’t have good intentions and we cannot risk jeopardising our country.”

For analysts, the possible forced relocation plan is also just one part of broader international interests at play in the region.

“This so-called ‘relocation plan’ is part of a wider architecture of power that extends far beyond the interests of US and Somaliland officials,” noted Samar al-Bulushi, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine, who said that more foreign alliances in the region could help fuel political instability.

Al Jazeera reached out to the US Department of State for comment. In response, they directed us to the government of Israel. Al Jazeera contacted the Israeli embassy in the US for comment on the plans to relocate Palestinians to Somaliland, but they did not respond to our queries.

Uncharted waters

Amid reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is in contact with at least four countries to explore the forced transfer of Palestinians, Israel’s Channel 12 reported recently that “progress has been made” in talks with Somaliland over the issue.

On September 2, US Representatives Chris Smith and John Moolenaar also wrote a letter to Secretary of State Marc Rubio, urging the removal of Somaliland from its travel advisory on Somalia, citing Hargeisa as a strategic partner in containing China, actively engaging and supporting US interests, as well as “growing ties with Israel through its solid support for the Abraham Accords”.

“The pro-Israel networks sit in the same Washington ecosystem as Red Sea security hawks and China sceptics, and you can see some sponsors explicitly pairing Somaliland recognition with closer Israeli ties and anti-China rhetoric. Ted Cruz’s August letter urging recognition is a clear example of that framing,” said analyst Norman.

However, if the Trump administration were to recognise Somaliland, it would lead to catastrophic ripple effects in Somalia and beyond its borders, he feels.

“It would risk turning a smoulder into open flame,” the DIIS researcher said.

For al-Bulushi, the deal that is reportedly on the table says more about the region’s lack of global power than its growing influence.

“The very act of entering into such a compact with the US and Israel speaks to the lingering power asymmetries between African leaders and global powers,” she said. “[It] symbolises a lack of independence on the part of Somaliland leaders – ironically at the very moment when they are seeking recognition as a sovereign state.”

A Reuters/Ipsos survey shows 59 percent of US respondents say Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has been excessive.

Washington, DC – Most Americans believe that all countries should recognise Palestine as a state, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests, as public support for Israel in the United States continues to plunge amid the atrocities in Gaza.

A majority of respondents – 59 percent – also said that Israel’s military response in Gaza has been excessive.

The survey, released on Wednesday, quizzed 4,446 US adults between August 13 and 16.

Fifty-eight percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “Palestine should be recognised as a country by all UN members”. The number rose to 78 percent amongst Democrats, compared to 41 percent of Republicans.

Strikingly, fewer Democratic respondents, 77 percent, agreed that “Israel should be recognised as a country by all UN members”.

The study comes as global outrage grows against Israel’s campaign of destruction, starvation and displacement in Gaza, which leading rights groups have labelled as a genocide.

Several US allies, including France, the United Kingdom and Canada, have said that they intend to recognise Palestine as a state at the United Nations General Assembly next month.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has rejected international efforts to recognise a Palestinian state and dismissed the moves as meaningless.

The overwhelming majority of countries already recognise Palestine. It remains to be seen how further recognition by Western countries would impact Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank – the two territories that would form a Palestinian state.

Rights advocates have been calling on the international community to impose tangible consequences on Israel for abuses against Palestinians, including sanctions and an arms embargo.

Despite protests by European countries, Israel is pushing on with a campaign to seize Gaza City, an assault that risks displacing tens of thousands of people and destroying what remains of the area that was once the largest city in Palestine.

In the West Bank, Israel continues to step up military and settler attacks while building more settlements in violation of international law.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich celebrated a newly announced plan for 3,400 illegal Israeli housing units between occupied East Jerusalem and Palestinian communities in the West Bank as an effort to eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian state.

“The Palestinian state is being erased from the table not by slogans but by deeds,” Smotrich said, according to the Times of Israel. “Every settlement, every neighbourhood, every housing unit is another nail in the coffin of this dangerous idea.”

Last year, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territories – Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem – is unlawful and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible”.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, prohibits the occupying power from transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.

Successive US administrations have verbally supported the two-state solution, while continuing to provide Israel with billions of dollars in military aid as it further entrenches its occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Trump – a staunch supporter of Israel – has broken with traditional policy, refusing to explicitly back the two-state solution or criticise settlement expansion.

Still, US public opinion has continued to turn against Israel.

In a YouGov poll released on Tuesday, 43 percent of US respondents said they believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, compared to 28 percent who disagreed with the statement.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Canada’s announcement that it will recognize a Palestinian state “will make it very hard” for the U.S. to reach a trade agreement with its northern neighbor.

Trump’s threat, posted in the early hours Thursday on his social media network, is the latest way he has sought to use his trade war to coerce countries on unrelated issues and is a swing from the ambivalence he has expressed about other countries making such a move.

The Republican president said this week that he didn’t mind British Prime Minister Keir Starmer taking a position on the issue of formally recognizing Palestinian statehood. And last week he said that French President Emmanuel Macron’s similar move was “not going to change anything.”

But Trump, who has heckled Canada for months and suggested it should become the 51st U.S. state, indicated on Thursday that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s similar recognition would become leverage ahead of a deadline he set in trade talks.

“Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine,” Trump said in his Truth Social post. “That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!”

Trump has threatened to impose a 35% tariff on Canada if no deal is reached by Friday, when he’s said he will levy tariffs against goods from dozens of countries if they don’t reach agreements with the United States.

Some imports from Canada are still protected by the 2020 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which is up for renegotiation next year.

Carney’s announcement Wednesday that Canada would recognize a Palestinian state in September comes amid a broader global shift against Israel’s policies in Gaza.

Though Trump this week said he was “not going to take a position” on recognizing a Palestinian state, he later said that such a move would be rewarding Hamas, whose surprise Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel prompted a declaration of war and a massive military retaliation from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump’s new cudgel against Canada comes after he moved to impose steep tariffs on Brazil because it indicted its former president Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally who, like the U.S. president, has faced criminal charges for attempting to overturn the results of his election loss.

Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to impose his threatened 50% tariffs on Brazil, setting a legal rationale that Brazil’s policies and criminal prosecution of Bolsonaro constitute an economic emergency under a 1977 law.

Trump had threatened the tariffs July 9 in a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The legal basis of that threat was an earlier executive order premised on trade imbalances being a threat to the U.S. economy. But the U.S. ran a $6.8-billion trade surplus last year with Brazil, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

A statement by the White House said Brazil’s judiciary had tried to coerce social media companies and block their users, though it did not name the companies involved, X and Rumble.

Trump appears to identify with Bolsonaro, who attempted to overturn the results of his 2022 loss to Lula. Similarly, Trump was indicted in 2023 for his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

The order would apply an additional 40% tariff on the baseline 10% tariff already being levied by Trump. But not all goods imported from Brazil would face the 40% tariff: Civil aircraft and parts, aluminum, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers are among the products being excluded.

The order said the tariffs would go into effect seven days after its signing on Wednesday.

Also Wednesday, Trump’s Treasury Department announced sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes over Bolsonaro’s ongoing trial and alleged suppression of freedom of expression.

Citing a personal grievance in trade talks with Brazil and now Canada’s symbolic announcement on a Palestinian state adds to the jumble of reasons Trump has pointed to for his trade war, such as stopping human trafficking, stopping the flow of fentanyl, balancing the budget and protecting U.S. manufacturing.

Price writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.

Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said warnings that the recognition of a Palestinian state could breach international law are “missing the point”.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced the UK would move towards recognition unless Israel met certain conditions, including agreeing a ceasefire and reviving the prospect of a two-state solution, earlier this week.

However, some of Britain’s most distinguished lawyers have warned that Palestine does not meet the legal requirements for statehood under a 1933 treaty.

Nearly 150 more than 140 of the UN’s 193 members already formally recognise a Palestinian state, with Canada, Germany and Portugal considering recognition.

Under the Montevideo Convention, signed in 1933, the criteria for the recognition of a state under international law are set out as a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

In a letter to the government’s attorney general, Lord Hermer, first reported by the Times, 43 cross-party peers call for him to advise the prime minister against recognition.

The group includes some of the country’s top lawyers, such as former Supreme Court judge Lord Collins of Mapesbury and Lord Pannick KC.

“It is clear that there is no certainty over the borders of Palestine,” they argue, and also that “there is no functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies”.

“The former has failed to hold elections for decades, and the latter is a terrorist organisation, neither of which could enter into relations with other states,” the letter adds.

The UK did not sign the 1933 convention but the lawyers argue that it has “become part of customary law and it would be unwise to depart from it at a time when international law is seen as fragile or, indeed, at any time”.

They add: “You have said that a selective, ‘pick and mix’ approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.

“Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law.”

Lord Hermer has previously insisted that a commitment to international law “goes absolutely to the heart” of the government’s approach to foreign policy.

Jonathan Reynolds defended the plans on BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme and suggested the peers needed to “look at the levers the UK has” to deliver peace.

Asked about the signatories’ concern recognition does not align with the 1933 Montevideo Convention, Reynolds said: “I think to be honest, with respect to those colleagues, that is missing the point somewhat.”

He explained the objective was “not just a ceasefire for the conflict in Gaza but a genuine peace process, and that requires a two-state solution”.

Asked about why conditions had not been placed on Hamas, he said: “Hamas is a terrorist organisation and we don’t put conditions on those, we don’t negotiate with terrorists.

“We’ve been absolutely clear: it’s our longstanding position that the hostages have to be released. It’s also our longstanding position that Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza or any Palestinian state.

“So those are our absolute condition, but we will never be willing to negotiate with Hamas because they are a terrorist organisation.”

The peers’ intervention follows condemnation of Sir Keir’s announcement by Emily Damari, a British-Israeli women who was held captive by Hamas for more than a year, who said Sir Keir is “not standing on the right side of history”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also claimed it “rewards Hamas’s monstrous terrorism”.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country plans to recognise a Palestinian state as part of the two-state solution – that is Israel and Palestine living side-by-side.

Carney said his decision was prompted by the “catastrophe” in Gaza, and because he feared the prospect of a Palestinian state was “receding before our eyes”.

The Palestinian Authority – which runs parts of the occupied West Bank – must commit to “much-needed reform” he said, and Hamas, which controlled Gaza, “can play no part”.

The UK has said it too would recognise a Palestinian state at a UN summit in September unless Israel committed to a ceasefire.

Sir Keir has said the UK will only refrain from recognition if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months.

He also said Hamas must immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and “accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza”.

The question of international law has been repeatedly raised with the prime minister by more than 800 other lawyers, who allege Israel has flouted the Geneva Convention by committing war crimes including genocide in Gaza.

American universities have long feared that the Chinese government will restrict its country’s students from attending institutions that cross Beijing’s sensitive political lines.

Universities still fear that consequence today, but the most immediate threat is no longer posed by the Chinese government. Now, as the latest punishment meted out to the Trump administration’s preeminent academic scapegoat shows, it’s our own government posing the threat.

In a May 22 letter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced she revoked Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, meaning the university’s thousands of international students must transfer immediately or lose their legal status. Harvard can no longer enroll future international students either.

Noem cited Harvard’s failure to hand over international student disciplinary records in response to a prior letter and, disturbingly, the Trump administration’s desire to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism” on campus. Among the most alarming demands in this latest missive was that Harvard supply all video of “any protest activity” by any international student within the last five years.

Harvard immediately sued Noem and her department and other agencies, rightfully calling the revocation “a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” and within hours a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the revocation.

“Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country,” Noem wrote on X about the punishment. And on Tuesday, the administration halted interviews for all new student visas.

This is not how a free country treats its schools — or the international visitors who attend them.

Noem’s warning will, no doubt, be heard loud and clear. That’s because universities — which depend on international students’ tuition dollars — have already had reason to worry that they will lose access to international students for displeasing censorial government officials.

In 2010, Beijing revoked recognition of the University of Calgary’s accreditation in China, meaning Chinese students at the Canadian school suddenly risked paying for a degree worth little at home. The reason? The university’s granting of an honorary degree to the Dalai Lama the year before. “We have offended our Chinese partners by the very fact of bringing in the Dalai Lama, and we have work to resolve that issue,” a spokesperson said.

Beijing restored recognition over a year later, but many Chinese students had already left. Damage done.

Similarly, when UC San Diego hosted the Dalai Lama as commencement speaker in 2017, punishment followed. The China Scholarship Council suspended funding for academics intending to study at UCSD, and an article in the state media outlet Global Times recommended that Chinese authorities “not recognize diplomas or degree certificates issued by the university.”

This kind of direct punishment doesn’t happen very frequently. But the threat always exists, and it creates fear that administrators take into account when deciding how their universities operate.

American universities now must fear that they will suffer this penalty too, but at an even greater scale: revocation of access not just to students from China, but all international students. That’s a huge potential loss. At Harvard, for example, international students make up a whopping 27% of total enrollment.

Whether they publicly acknowledge it or not, university leaders probably are considering whether they need to adjust their behavior to avoid seeing international student tuition funds dry up.

Will our colleges and universities increase censorship and surveillance of international students? Avoid inviting commencement speakers disfavored by the Trump administration? Pressure academic departments against hiring any professors whose social media comments or areas of research will catch the eye of mercurial government officials?

And, equally disturbing, will they be willing to admit that they are now making these calculations at all? Unlike direct punishments by the Trump administration or Beijing, this chilling effect is likely to be largely invisible.

Harvard might be able to survive without international students’ tuition. But a vast number of other universities could not. The nation as a whole would feel their loss too: In the 2023-24 academic year, international students contributed a record-breaking $43.8 billion to the American economy.

And these students — who have uprooted their lives for the promise of what American education offers — are the ones who will suffer the most, as they experience weeks or months of panic and upheaval while being used as pawns in this campaign to punish higher ed.

If the Trump administration is seeking to root out “anti-Americanism,” it can begin by surveying its own behavior in recent months. Freedom of expression is one of our country’s most cherished values. Censorship, surveillance and punishment of government critics do not belong here.

Sarah McLaughlin is senior scholar on global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and author of the forthcoming book “Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech.”