Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I heard a number of comments that surprised me a bit, including that Palestine would not be entitled to international recognition since it has no control over its people. However, I have had the opportunity to visit Palestine and Israel a few times, particularly in the early 2000s, and I saw that Israel was systematically working to destroy police stations and port and airport facilities—so all the infrastructure that would allow for effective control over the territory—rather than attacking what seems to be its objective, terrorist movements.
I heard Mr. Kontorovich say that the recognition of Palestine by a number of states around the world didn't change anything. Has the occupation since 1967 resulted in peace and security in the region? The answer is obvious. It has actually only fuelled resentment and despair, as I believe the ongoing destruction operations in Gaza are doing. Even if Israel succeeds in eradicating Hamas, Israel feeds the idea of Hamas by creating resentment among the Palestinian population.
I have two questions.
There is insistence that no recognition can take place without an agreement at the end of direct negotiations. Yet, on the one hand, there are no negotiations, and on the other hand, Israel is saying that it doesn't want to negotiate at all.
However, it is claimed that recognizing the state of Palestine would encourage Hamas, which does not want a two-state solution.
How do we reconcile these contradictory statements, to say the least?