Why Sweden recognized the Palestinian state

Sweden joins Malta and Cyprus, as the third European nation officially recognizing a Palestinian state.  The British Parliament also voted to recognize the Palestinian state earlier this month, in a symbolic vote. 

(AP Photo/Annika af Klercker)
Sweden's Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom talks during a news conference Thursday Oct. 30, 2014, at the government building Rosenbad, in Stockholm, after Sweden's new government officially recognized a Palestinian state. Wallstrom said the Scandinavian country had decided on the move because the criteria of international law required for such recognition had been fulfilled, "There is a territory, a people and government," she told reporters in Stockholm.

Sweden's new left-leaning government on Thursday recognized a Palestinian state — a move that comes during increased tensions between Arabs and Jews over Israel's plans to build about 1,000 housing units in east Jerusalem.

The EU member became the third Western European nation, after Malta and Cyprus, to do so, reflecting growing international impatience with Israel's nearly half-century control of the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom said Sweden made the move because Palestine had fulfilled the international law criteria required for such recognition.

"There is a territory, a people and government," she told reporters in Stockholm.

Israel was quick to condemn Sweden's announcement, with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman describing it as "a miserable decision that strengthens the extremist elements and Palestinian rejectionism."

"It's a shame that the government of Sweden chose to take a declarative step that only causes harm," he added.

Israel says Palestinians can gain independence only through peace negotiations, and that recognition of Palestine at the U.N. or by individual countries undermines the negotiating process. Palestinians say Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn't serious about the peace negotiations.

The latest round of U.S.-brokered talks collapsed in April. American officials have hinted that Israel's tough negotiating stance hurt the talks, and Netanyahu has continued to settle Israelis in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

More than 550,000 Israelis now live in the two areas, greatly complicating hopes of partitioning the area under a future peace deal. The two territories and the Gaza Strip are claimed by Palestinians for a future state.

While the U.S. and European powers have so far refrained from recognizing Palestinian independence, they have become increasingly critical of Israeli settlement construction. The 28-nation European Union has urged that negotiations to achieve a two-state solution resume as soon as possible.

British lawmakers earlier this month voted in favor of recognizing Palestine as a state. 

Former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren warned the Israeli government it should not discount the significance of the British MPs’ vote, reported The Guardian.

In an interview with the website Ynet, Oren insisted that the “support expressed by Britain for the establishment of the Palestinian state is much more important than the Swedish one, and is being underestimated”.

“Britain is a member of the UN security council. The Palestinians are going to the UN in November and they want at least nine votes in the security council (to force Israel to commit to a timeline for withdrawing from the West Bank). There is a chance America will abstain, but a lot of it is up to us.

“Britain is one of our closest friends and allies, and still 274 parliament members supported the (non-binding) movement, with only 12 objecting.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.