The recognition of the State of Palestine by a growing number of countries represents a crucial turning point in the geopolitics of the Middle East and contemporary diplomatic history.

This act of validation not only grants international political legitimacy to Palestine but also fully supports its right to self-determination, sovereignty, and its right to participate as a full-fledged actor in multilateral organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In these forums, Palestine has the opportunity to denounce war crimes and fight for the protection of the human rights of its population, which is frequently subjected to conflict and humanitarian crises.

Currently, around 146 UN member states officially recognize the Palestinian state, a number that has continued to grow since its formal proclamation of independence in 1988 during a session of the Palestinian National Council in Algeria.

Over the past two years, this support has significantly strengthened with the addition of European countries such as Spain, Norway, Ireland, Slovenia, Armenia, and, most recently, France’s pledge to officially join in 2025.

These nations, which in the past maintained more neutral or European bloc-aligned positions, are now advancing a different narrative based on humanitarian urgency and political justice.

Historical Context: The Deep Roots of the Conflict

To understand the current significance of these recognitions, it is necessary to analyze the complex history surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

From the 19th century until the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the region known as Palestine was predominantly inhabited by an Arab-Palestinian population, primarily Muslim and Christian, with a Jewish minority that did not exceed 5%.

However, the rise of Zionism in Europe in the late 19th century promoted the migration and land purchases by European Jews with the support of international organizations, a dynamic that would generate increasing tensions between the two communities.

In 1917, the Balfour Declaration, issued by the United Kingdom, was a decisive element that marked a dramatic shift. In this document, the UK expressed its support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, a decision with profound political consequences that disregarded the aspirations of the majority Arab-Palestinian population.

This initiated a period marked by mass Jewish migration to Palestine and the creation of paramilitary movements like the Haganah in response to Palestinian protests and uprisings during 1929 and 1936-1939.

In 1947, the UN proposed the partition of Palestine through Resolution 181, seeking to divide the territory into two states: one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under a special international regime.

The proposal allocated 55% of the land to Israel and 45% to Palestine. However, this solution was rejected by Arab representatives, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the creation of the State of Israel, and the so-called Nakba, which resulted in the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Despite securing Israel’s survival, the conflict did not disappear. Over the decades, successive wars, military occupations, and Palestinian uprisings, such as the First (1987-1993) and Second Intifada (2000), have shaped the region.

The international community has repeatedly insisted, through resolutions like UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), on the need for a two-state solution and Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, but peace remains an unfinished task.

The Importance of the Two-State Solution and Lasting Peace Recent recognitions should not be seen as an end in themselves but as a step toward building a real and viable solution.

The Palestinian National Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, has emphasized that the true goal is the creation of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, based on the 1967 borders.

Meanwhile, Palestinian communities directly affected by the conflict in Gaza and the West Bank lament that recognitions must be accompanied by immediate measures allowing humanitarian aid, an effective end to the Israeli occupation, and real protection of human rights and the dignity of the Palestinian people.

Diplomatic Victory, Human Reality

The recognition of the Palestinian State by a growing number of countries constitutes a historic milestone of great political and moral relevance on the international stage.

This support reinforces the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause and highlights the humanitarian and political crisis faced by its population.

However, to achieve lasting and just peace, these recognitions must be accompanied by meaningful dialogue between the parties and concrete commitments toward the creation of two states coexisting in peace and mutual respect.

Only through political will, respect for human rights, and international collaboration can a future be built where Palestinians live with justice, security, and dignity.

Sudan’s civil war has entered a more volatile and fragmented phase following the announcement by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) of a rival government headquartered in Nyala, South Darfur.

The declaration, which came after closed-door meetings with allied groups, includes the formation of a 15-member Presidential Council led by RSF commander Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as Hemedti. Alongside him, Abdelaziz al-Hilu of the SPLM-N has been named deputy, while Mohamed Hassan al-Taishi has been appointed prime minister to lead what they call a transitional administration.

This development has prompted widespread condemnation. Sudan’s Foreign Ministry was quick to denounce the parallel government as illegitimate, warning foreign powers against engaging with the RSF-led administration.

The statement labeled the move a flagrant attempt at seizing power through armed force and accused the RSF of exploiting the suffering of civilians to consolidate authority in Darfur and beyond. It also painted the new governing body as a vehicle for personal ambition and divisive ideology.

The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), which continue to control key areas including Port Sudan and parts of Khartoum, echoed the government’s denunciation.

A military spokesperson described the RSF’s announcement as a desperate maneuver intended to bestow legitimacy on what he called a “criminal project.” He emphasized that the Dagalo family, particularly Hemedti, sought to rule Sudan for self-serving reasons, suggesting that the plan promotes racial division and undermines national unity.

The Arab League added its voice to the chorus of alarm, referring to the RSF’s declaration as a “blatant challenge to the will of the Sudanese people.” In a formal statement, the League urged all parties implicated in the initiative to cease unilateral actions that threaten the cohesion of the state. It also emphasized the importance of re-engaging in the Jeddah peace process and adhering to international humanitarian law to facilitate relief aid for civilians trapped in the conflict.

Sudan’s conflict, which erupted in April 2023, has displaced millions and left large swaths of the country under fractured governance.

The RSF currently maintains control over much of Darfur, Kordofan, and the south, while the SAF dominates the central and eastern regions. Recent fighting has intensified along these fault lines, deepening the country’s humanitarian emergency and complicating peace negotiations.

The RSF’s declaration of a transitional government is viewed by many analysts as a strategic bid to legitimize its territorial control and political influence ahead of anticipated international mediation.

By installing a presidential council and prime minister, it signals an intent to present itself as a viable alternative to the SAF-led government in Port Sudan, despite lacking international recognition or popular mandate.

Civil society groups in Sudan have reacted with concern, arguing that the move undermines possibilities for a unified civilian-led transition.

Many have warned that institutionalizing a parallel government could entrench Sudan’s de facto partition and pave the way for long-term instability. Voices from inside Darfur suggest that the RSF is using both force and selective negotiation to impose governance structures in regions under its control, bypassing traditional leadership and sidelining democratic norms.

The implications of this announcement stretch beyond Sudan’s borders. Regional actors, including neighboring South Sudan and Ethiopia, worry that a fully splintered Sudanese state could fuel cross-border violence, disrupt refugee flows, and jeopardize efforts to combat extremism in the Sahel and Horn of Africa. The international community, particularly the African Union and UN, face mounting pressure to address Sudan’s descent into factional rule.

As Sudanese communities brace for further upheaval, the prospects for a negotiated settlement grow more tenuous.

With competing administrations now laying claim to national legitimacy and international attention divided by global crises, Sudan risks becoming a cautionary tale of how internal conflict, if left unchecked, can morph into enduring state fragmentation. For many, the announcement in Nyala represents not just a political gambit, but a deepening of the nation’s trauma.

Russia supports the peace process, but without renouncing its obligation to guarantee its national interests. On Tuesday, Russian presidential spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that the special military operation in Ukraine would continue, despite an ultimatum issued by U.S. President Donald Trump, who shortened the timeline for a peaceful resolution of the conflict to 10–12 days.

“We took note of the statements made yesterday by President Trump. The special military operation continues,” Peskov said during his daily press briefing. He did not comment on Trump’s apparent disinterest in speaking again with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has held six phone calls since January.

“I would prefer not to make any assessment. I repeat, we are taking note of Trump’s statements,” Peskov reiterated, adding that a summit between the two leaders is not on the agenda.

The Kremlin spokesperson emphasized that Russia still supports the peace process to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, but without renouncing its obligation to “guarantee its national interests.”

Peskov also acknowledged a “slowdown” in the process of diplomatic normalization between the two countries, as bilateral meetings have been suspended since mid-June.

On Monday, Trump announced that he was reducing the timeline for resolving the Ukraine conflict “to 10 or 12 days,” arguing that Russia is not committed to finding a solution. He also renewed threats against Moscow, warning of new sanctions and secondary tariffs.

“There’s no reason to wait. We’re not seeing any progress,” Trump said, adding that he is “disappointed” with Putin for continuing to launch rockets at Ukraine.

On Monday night, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev harshly criticized Trump’s stance, reminding him that Russia does not yield to pressure.

“Trump is playing the ultimatum game with Russia. Fifty or ten days, he should remember two things. First, Russia is neither Israel nor even Iran. Second, every new ultimatum is one step closer to war—not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don’t go down the Sleepy Joe road!” he said.

Two weeks ago, when Trump issued his initial 50-day ultimatum, Medvedev—who serves as deputy chair of the Security Council—said Russia “does not care” about such threats.

Russia and Ukraine resumed peace negotiations on July 23 in Istanbul after more than seven weeks of delay, but once again failed to reach any concrete political agreement, as was the case in two previous rounds in May and June.