• Tweet.
• This article is originally by Middle East Monitor, Republished here under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced that his country plans to recognise the State of Palestine at the United Nations.

In a Friday post on X, Carney stated: “Canada supports a two-state solution which guarantees peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.” He added that Ottawa “will work intensively in all fora to further that end, including through the participation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the UN High-Level Conference on a Two-State Solution in New York next week.

The Prime Minister also said that Canada condemns the Israeli government’s failure to prevent the rapid deterioration of the humanitarian adisaster in the Gaza Strip.

Earlier, French President Emmanuel Macron declared his intention to recognise the State of Palestine in September 2025.

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly condemned the move, saying that the establishment of a Palestinian state would pose a threat to Israel’s security.

Meanwhile, the Hamas movement welcomed Macron’s intention to recognise Palestine during the UN General Assembly in September.

Hamas described the move as a positive step in the right direction towards justice for the oppressed Palestinian people and support for their legitimate right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on all of its occupied territory, with Jerusalem as its capital.

That’s not a new stance, and doesn’t amount to recognition on any schedule.

Yes it is, Canada has only ever recognised PA (Palestine authority) which is an Israeli organisation that represents Palestine on behalf of Israel. Here they are very clearly talking about the State of Palestine which is the most recognised in the United nations general Assembly.

Look, I’m just explaining the position as I understand it. I’ll also note that there are a great many advocates for a one-state, equal-rights solution that most certainly do know what they’re talking about.

I think the issue people are having is that this tweet from the PM does not appear to represent any kind of change in policy.

In fact just yesterday, Reuters reported that Canada and the UK were asked by Macron to join France in recognising Palestinian statehood but refused: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/frustration-gaza-alarm-drove-macron-go-it-alone-palestine-recognition-2025-07-26/

Canada has wanted a two-state solution for a very long time. Probably with the PA in charge (which is not Israeli, just Israeli backed in a very lukewarm sense), but it’s not usually specified.

Who? If you could even just point to someone describing how this would work, that would be helpful. But I’ve never seen anyone actually explain how this would actually work. The only one state solutions offered is Netanyahu wanting to annex territories or nutjobs that want to ethnically cleanse (or worse) Jews from the region.

Just look at the population numbers… A one state solution would have Jewish majority. Do pro-Palestinian radicals really want a one state solution with Palestinians being a minority in a state that’s majority is Jewish? There’s a lot of dark intentions of those that want a one state solution. Or they just don’t know what they’re talking about.

There’s a meeting happening next week that Canada has pledged to support Palestine as a state. We’ll see next week what comes of it.

Okay, so there’s an upcoming conference at the UN about officially recognising the state of Palestine that has been proposed by France. Yes France was unable to get the UK and Canada to cosponsor the proposal but that is not the same as rejecting it. We will only know the official stance after the conference. However, this tweet by the Canadian government is referring to this proposal by France. In the tweet he stated that “Canada supports a two state solution” and that “Ottawa “will work intensively in all fora to further that end, including through the participation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the UN High-Level Conference on a Two-State Solution in New York next week.” Together it seems likely that Canada is intent on supporting the proposal, again we will only know after the conference.

Iran hasn’t said that Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth? One quick google says otherwise: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran

He had to ruin a forceful message to Israel by adding the “aLL SiDeS”

“Ottawa “will work intensively in all fora to further that end, including through the participation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the UN High-Level Conference on a Two-State Solution in New York next week”

Yes, I read that part. You clearly didn’t. Nothing in there is an immediate commitment to recognize Palestine as a state. At best “work towards a two state solution” means “someday maybe Palestine might get to become a state if we’re all feeling really generous.”

If so, great! I remain skeptical given our PM’s recent use of phrases like “Zionist Palestine”, an inability to use the word ‘genocide’ to describe the ongoing genocide, and the lack of any meaningful action thus far.

Even the sanctions placed on two Israeli politicians in June don’t have real teeth; a previous update (Feb 2025) to Canada’s sanctions rules actually allows the foreign affairs minister to issue permits overriding restrictions. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/sanctions/esv-vec.aspx?lang=eng

As I said in my other reply though, I genuinely hope you’re right - but I don’t see it as a foregone conclusion yet. Important to keep the pressure on our MPs.

I managed to get the office manager at my local constituency office on the phone on Friday, and was assured that I’ll get a call back from my MP tomorrow. If I do, I’ll ask directly what the plan is, and push for this to happen!

The recognition vote in the UN is upcoming. How are they supposed to make their stance before the conference.

Well, words would be the usual method. Like, you know, spoken, or written, either is good. That’s the usual method of conveying your stance on something. Not really sure what other answer you would be expecting there.

Someone explain this to me: https://iris.org.il/images/israel-and-arab-world.gif

All the countries in yellow are Arab.

The little tiny slice in the middle in blue is Jewish and in that blue even the West Bank and Gaza are part of that blue island and are mostly occupied by the Arabs.

And these Arab nations believe that the Israel should not belong to the Jews and some (strongly) believe they should be wiped off the earth.

Why? Why is not the 99% of that land that belongs to the Arabs not enough for them?

Where are the Jews supposed to go?

Uhhhh… Like in a tweet?

What was your exit strategy from this reply?

Because if I said “Yes” then your next step is to quote the part of the tweet that you think backs up your assertion. Only, you already did that. And I already pointed out that it doesn’t say what you think it says. So in what possible way did you imagine that this line of argument was going to end up with you looking good?