Supplementary Questions for Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan following the Ministerial Statement on the Situation in the Middle East, 22 September 2025

Question 1

MP Vikram Nair: Thank you for your clarification on Singapore’s position on recognition of Palestine. I think one of the reasons some of the other countries have changed their position is because they believe some of the actions Israel will be taking now will make it much more difficult to have the two-State solution, including the current Israeli government’s statement that it will not recognise a state of Palestine, as well as expanding settlements in the West Bank. So, what these other governments believe is that recognising a State of Palestine now will help to preserve the hope of that two-State solution. Is this something that Singapore would consider as well, if it feels the actions of the Israeli government may be undermining the two-State solution?

Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: This is a view which I think other Members in this House will also share. Actually, all of us are on the same side. When I say all of us, I also include the other countries which have shifted their position. Let me say why I believe so. We all want peace. We all want an immediate release of all the hostages. We all believe that a two-State solution, as difficult and remote as it is, is the only viable way out of this quagmire. Where we differ, actually, is that every country has its own national circumstances, its own domestic constituencies, its own outlook, and its own leverage or lack thereof, on the key players in the Middle East.

In the case of Singapore, I said just now that we pursue foreign policy in a realist mode, and we do pay attention to objective reality. The first problem, which I tried to outline just now is, who is in charge in Palestine? Are you dealing with Hamas, dealing with the Palestinian Authority, or something inchoate yet to emerge? So, that is the first point – objective reality. The second point is our zero tolerance for terrorism, because of our own circumstances. So, for instance, I cannot fathom or imagine trying to have diplomatic ties with an entity that is still holding hostages, that promises that it will repeat what it had done on the seventh of October, and does not recognise the other’s right to exist. So that is why our position today is – it is not if, but when, to recognise. And we are waiting for that appropriate constellation of factors to be appropriate; in our view, the appropriate configuration.

But having said that, you have also raised the point, and many others have, that the current Israeli government is actually making things worse. The settlement expansion, even the explicit remarks. So, both in terms of what they say and what they do, it is clear that the extremist elements within the Israeli body politic actually are trying to extinguish prospects for a two-State solution. And surely, we cannot give them cover for that.

That is why today, what you have seen is these two announcements. Not if, but when; and we spelt out the factors of when we will recognise. The other is targeted sanctions to reflect our opposition to these violent, extremist attempts to extinguish the two-State solution. And I have also added the caveat that the situation is evolving very rapidly. It is unpredictable, and we will have to monitor. If the situation continues to deteriorate, or if Israel takes further steps to make it well-nigh impossible, we will have to recompute. We are all on the same side. So, the point is to focus actually on the similarities; that we actually are all on the same side. But each country will have a different trigger, different threshold, and a different appreciation of the situation.

Question 2

Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh: The Workers Party’s position on the formal recognition of the State of Palestine is clear in our manifesto, the same manifesto we took to voters before the elections. That has not changed. I note the earlier remarks by Minister, going through what had happened in the past. 37 years ago, Singapore formally welcomed the announcement or the proclamation of the State of Palestine. And an important trigger for that was the explicit recognition by [Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) Chairman] Yasser Arafat that the PLO would reject terrorism. Similarly, with regard to the New York Declaration, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also welcomed the Palestinian Authority’s continued rejection of violence and terrorism.

With that as a preamble, does the Minister not agree that the prospects of having an effective Palestinian government in place, which is a precondition to Singapore recognising the State of Palestine, is not a realistic precondition anymore? Given the statement of the Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] that there will not be a Palestinian State – and one can assume that he will work overtime to make sure that does not happen – and that is separate to the signing of an expanded settlement agreement that would bisect the occupied West Bank.

Secondly, does the Minister not agree that with many of our major trade and defence partners like France, Australia, the UK, and our ASEAN neighbours, and the overwhelming majority of the international community of nations recognising the State of Palestine, does our foreign policy position not risk being seen as anachronistic? And in this regard, what specific principles are we upholding by not recognising the State of Palestine forthwith? Shouldn’t recognising the State of Palestine be in our national interests, and not premised on Israel’s flagrant violations of international law and its commitment to continue doing the same? Would not doing so send a clear message that as a matter of clear principle, Singapore’s foreign policy stands for the foundational role of the United Nations (UN) in maintaining peace and security, and does not stand for breaches of international law, particularly in view of the Government’s public comments on UN Security Council Resolution 242, and separately, 2334?

The third question pertains to the Government’s, and the SAF’s (Singapore Armed Forces’) extensive military-to-military links with the State of Israel. The most recent example of this being the joint development of a surface-to-surface missile, “Blue Spear” by Singapore Technologies and the Israel Aerospace Industries. Has the Government, and this was part of my Parliamentary Question, has the Government reviewed whether close ties with Israel, particularly in the military domain going forward, continue to be in our national interests? And has the Government assessed whether Singapore is relatively over-invested in the Israel-Singapore relationship, and is it not time to diversify in our national interests?

Minister spoke of sanctions and announced that more details would be announced later. Do the sanctions that the Minister is foreseeing have any impact on the current military-to-military relationship with Israel?

Minister Balakrishnan: The first question is about our requirement that there be an effective political entity or government on the other side; is a realistic one. And the Leader of Opposition adds on to say, Israel will do its best to make sure that there is no realistic government. And therefore, by insisting on having an effective government as an objective reality, are we setting the bar too high? Well, that is why I took some pains in my Statement to go through the history of the Palestinian Authority, and the very difficult journey to get both sides to accept a two-State solution. I reminded you that the two-State solution did not begin yesterday. In fact, it goes back to the UN in 1947. Israel took what was on offer; ran with it, and declared independence. The entire constellation of Arab countries said, “No, there will be one state”. You had war. And it was only in 1988 that the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, in its proclamation of a Palestinian State; and even then, only implicitly, recognised Israel’s right to exist and renounced terrorism.

We welcomed that proclamation, because these two elements – recognising that the other exists, and renouncing terrorism, is important for our national interests. It is not just a foreign policy; it is in our national interest. I also then went on to describe the events – [the] Oslo [Accords]; the elections in Gaza; the two decades without elections; the violence between Hamas and Fatah. Again, to point out the lack of an objective reality – it is not all due to one or the other party. They have got to get their own house in order. Will we allow, however, Israel, therefore, to have a veto? And the answer is, we cannot allow them to have a veto, because our consistent, long-held belief is in a two-State solution. And if either one or both says “no”, well, we can’t go along with them on that, right? And that is why I have also caveated that our position is – “not if, but when”. And we have also highlighted that if the situation continues to deteriorate, or if Israel takes further action to extinguish any prospect for the two-State solution, then we have to reconsider our position.

And then you asked whether we are being anachronistic because several – basically European – powers in the last few days have changed their position. And in my answer to Mr Vikram Nair, I tried to remind everyone that actually on the big picture, we all want the same thing. But different countries will have different thresholds, and different triggers to decide when they take certain diplomatic moves.

We, for now, have shifted since May last year, when we said that we are prepared, in principle, to recognise the Palestinian state. Today, I am telling you, we will recognise the Palestinian State when it has an effective government, renounces terrorism, and recognises the State of Israel. It is a shift, but it is also a shift which you have to clear a certain bar – that amongst the Palestinians themselves, they are sorted out themselves politically to be an effective, unified voice that can conduct foreign policy, that can enter into agreements and make agreements stick, and also because of our aversion, our complete aversion to terrorism.

So that is why we have taken the current position. So, I don’t think we are being anachronistic. I think we are being realistic, given the circumstances in which Singapore has to operate in our part of the world.

On defence, I have already said that, yes, it is not a secret that they played a role in our earliest years, for which we are grateful. And they continue to have an invaluable role. But again, that does not mean that we are locked into giving them a free pass. When you have an equal and mutually respectful partnership, when you differ, you must be prepared to say so openly, candidly, and constructively. And we have that kind of relationship. I will not get into operational details of defence. You know that it is the Government’s established, long-standing policy not to publicly divulge details of defence cooperation for national security reasons. So, I am not going to go into that area.

But I give you this assurance – we are not being held hostage. Singapore will not allow itself to be held hostage. Beyond that, I am not going to get into operational details; and as an NSman yourself, I am sure you understand that.

Question 3

MP Charlene Chen: I have two Supplementary Questions. Number one, Singaporeans, including our residents in Tampines, are saddened and anguished by the war in Gaza. They wonder whether the Government can take further actions, including tougher sanctions, to demonstrate Singapore’s objection towards the atrocities. How can the Government better communicate the Government’s approach, and that this approach is the best one for Singapore? And when do we impose these sanctions?

My second supplementary question is, like Gaza, Singapore is a small entity. Small countries like ours rely on international law for survival. How does the Ministry see Singapore’s role in speaking up for other small entities or states when injustice occurs, and what does the erosion of international rules in this conflict signal for the security of small states like ours?

Minister Balakrishnan: On the question of sanctions, this is, in fact the first time we are imposing sanctions. I would ask for time to let us sort out the details and for the announcements. The larger point behind that is that this is an expression of disapproval. This is an expression that is in keeping with our assessment of the situation, that it is wrong and it is inimical to the long-term interests of both Palestinians and Israel, and it is a reflection that we continue to believe a two-State solution is the only viable way forward.

On international law, I think that is very clear, because of our own circumstances, we do have to abide by, and we do need to comply with international law. But it is also equally important for you, for us all, to understand that the difference between international law and domestic law is that you can have a court, in this case [of international law], the International Court of Justice. In our case, we have our own domestic courts. But domestically, the enforcement mechanisms are there. Internationally, enforcement actually depends on consent from all the states involved. I say this so that first, we get a realistic appreciation of the limits of international law, but we also understand why as a small nation, we cannot operate on the basis of might is right, and give in to that every time someone invokes that because that is inimical to our own interests.

But let me just bring the deliberations today back, and also partially refer to what the Leader of Opposition was asking my colleague [Acting Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Assoc Prof Faishal Ibrahim]. Singapore has to start with a realistic appreciation of who we are, which means, in particular – multi-racial, multi-religious in Southeast Asia, in a part of the world which used to be tumultuous and could be if things unravel further. And who we are also means we are exposed to external events and external influence; and that is a reality. So, we start with a realistic appreciation of our circumstances.

Next, we need to guard jealously our national interests. And I have told you, in this case, our national interest is in unity, security, and support for international law – for what it is worth, despite all the limitations that it has. Now, it is easy to state that, but on every issue, we have to triangulate between these three poles. What is in our national interest for security, what is in our national interest for unity, and what is in our national interest to maintain international law. And sometimes there is tension between these three poles, and the way we have to address it, and the way the PAP (People’s Action Party) Government has addressed it, is that when these tensions are evident, we talk about it constructively, openly, delicately. We do not play it up. We do not use it to score domestic political points or to split our society in order to get short-term political points.

So, the larger point I am trying to tell all of us is that the world is messy, and the world has become far, far more dangerous, and it will be increasingly more and more difficult for Singapore to just jealously guard its national interests while keeping everybody together, and we make our decisions in our own national interests. It means we will not always follow the crowd. Many times, we will be in a minority – and we will not be afraid to be in a minority, so long as we understand that we are taking a stand based on principle; we are taking a stand to defend our own people’s welfare and security, and that when we deal with thorny issues, we will discuss it openly, respectfully, and constructively.

The question – is there a risk that all these events outside Singapore can radicalise our own people? Of course, they can, and they have, and we have seen evidence of it. Is this the only source of division and radicalisation and extremism in the world? No, it's not. There are other parts of the world which can also sow division, discord, and extremism in the world. Is this something which we can resolve once and for all with a discussion, a Ministerial Statement, or a debate in Parliament? No, we cannot; this is always going to be work in progress.

On that note, I just want to make this appeal also to the Leader of the Opposition. This is one of those times we need to make common cause. You and I may differ on the timing of recognition, but in the same way I described our position vis-à-vis the other countries, I think we all ultimately want the same thing. We want peace. We do not want terrorism. We want mutual respect between people with complicated histories and identities. And we want to be able to do good where we can, by working with as many parties, as many entities as possible. So, this should be an occasion for unity amidst the difficulty. And we should be very mindful in our conversations, not just in this House, but outside this House, that we secure unity, security, and peace under international law. It is possible. I still want to hold on to that prospect.

You know, when we go to the Middle East, and those of you – Mr Gerald Giam was with me – I could tell the Israelis and even the Arabs, [if] you want a one-State solution, your delegation, your government must look like mine. And everyone nods, and yet, also in their heart of hearts, they know it is not possible. Well, if it is not possible, that is why you need a two-State solution. But on the other hand, we should also be grateful for what we have in Singapore, but also understand it is always at risk, always fragile, and we need to jealously protect it and guard it.

Question 4

MP Yip Hon Weng: I have two clarifications. Singapore’s aid to Gaza demonstrates our compassion for Palestinians. It also signals our values as a principled small state. My first clarification – how effective has Singapore’s humanitarian assistance been in meeting the needs of Gaza? My second clarification is this – the International Association of Genocide Scholars has declared that Israel’s actions in Gaza are consistent with the legal definition of genocide. Will the Government call Israel out for committing genocide?

Minister Balakrishnan: I have outlined our ten tranches of humanitarian assistance, whether by air-drop, or by supplies delivered over land. I cannot attest to what happens once it gets into Gaza, but I take the following attitude. Number one, gratitude to Singaporeans for their generosity, for expressing compassion in a very real way, and the fact that the funds raised were raised in a multi-religious, multi-racial [society]; it is a very Singaporean expression of compassion. That is first.

Number two, I am grateful it was the SAF that played a major role in the delivery. I thank the SAF men and women, and we should not take safety for granted. These were real operations. They were not exercises. So, gratitude to the SAF.

Number three, I am grateful that over six decades, we have built close, respectful, and constructive ties across all the countries in the Middle East. So, we can base our Air Force in Jordan. We can overfly Israel. We can air-drop in Gaza. We can work with our Egyptian partners, whether to hand over money or humanitarian assistance, and right now, as I outlined just now, work with Egyptian hospitals to look after people who need medical care. And we have got, and I mentioned even community policing – well this project, which we are doing together with Japan to train police officers working under the Palestinian Authority to prepare for future statehood. So actually, there is a lot to be grateful for, and to also reflect on the blessings that we have in Singapore. It is a very Singaporean expression of compassion in action.

On genocide, as I said earlier in the Statement, I would leave this to be determined by the International Court of Justice. Proceedings are in place; are underway. I do not think they have fully heard their arguments on merit, and they certainly have not arrived at the verdict. But we will have to wait for that and to act accordingly. I can share with you what I told the Israeli President [Isaac Herzog], and the delegation members who were with me can attest to that. I told him,because we are friends, we also have a duty to be candid. And as I told him, it is true that the world has double standards, and the world expects more of Israel, because Israel was born from the ashes of the Holocaust. If Israel loses its international moral standing and authority, that does untold strategic damage to your long-term prospects. They did not push back on that point because they know it is a sincerely held view from someone who hopes for peace for them and their neighbouring people, who, even in darkest of times, have to hope. They need hope that there is a better way. But again, be grateful for what we have in Singapore.

Question 5

MP Saktiandi Supaat: You shared [about] the shift in position on the targeted sanctions on the settler groups and individuals. In fact, I am thankful for the Minister for sharing that slight change, because if you look at the European Union, the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, and the UK, they also did a similar sort of targeted sanctions back in 2024. So, Singapore shifting in 2025 is, I think in some ways, not taken very lightly and probably a very principled sort of move, especially when Singapore is a financial hub and seen as a financial centre.

But my clarification is: Minister, in a broader perspective, the threshold of taking broader sanctions on Israel or the entity of the country itself. Can you share how Singapore would assess the actions of other countries, going forward, that have imposed financial or economic sanctions on Israel, and whether there is scope for us to consider enhancement measures, similar enhancement measures in a calibrated way, only in a situation where the Gaza situation does not abate? How will we take that into consideration, and how will be our principled assessment be? So, my question is, in fact, about the thresholds, what would be our principled guidelines to shift to a different threshold on broader sanctions?

Minister Balakrishnan: I will be frank.Sanctions are not something we enter into lightly, but let us also not assume or presume that sanctions will make a major difference to facts on the ground. And I say this not just with respect to what we are proposing for the settler groups, but again, the world’s history on sanctions and the effectivity. I would say it is often more a statement of principle and expression of disapproval. I would not bank on that, historically, that any set of sanctions have been decisive in its own way. So, like many things in foreign policy, it is a multivariate equation, and sometimes you need all the different pieces and configuration, to come together in time and space for there to be a stepped change. So, I am not saying that we entered into sanctions lightly. It is for us, a major statement, but I do not want to overstate its impact.

Question 6

MP Christopher de Souza: My clarification is borne out of my understanding of the three Ministerial Statements, that in fact, we do have two levels of agency. The first is diplomacy and accessibility that our MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) has in the region. I think Minister you gained access to the UAE (United Arab Emirates), Egypt, Palestinian Territories, and Israel all in the same visit in 2024, and were able to listen to many different levels of positions in each, that their positions not being homogeneous. And also, the second level of agency, which is our SAF, the Singapore Armed Forces, being able to deploy our C-130s for air-drops, working with the Jordanian Air Force. So, I feel humbly proud, if that is the correct word to use, that we have two excellent institutions with major agency.

And I would like to ask what we, as a small country in this part of the world, is able to do with these two levels of agency, to work together with like-minded countries to bring about dialogue and discussion between two sides in the Middle East conflict, to achieve as best as we can maximum hope for peace and stability, while obviously also having a close eye on what our national interests are. So, how can we use the agencies of diplomacy in the form of MFA, and humanitarian assistance in the form of the SAF, to bring about one step closer to peace in the region?

Minister Balakrishnan: I am always pleasantly surprised or gratified by the access that we have. And my conclusion, after years in this, is people give us access because, number one, they have heard of Singapore. They have heard of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. They hear our Prime Ministers, both what they say domestically and internationally. It travels and is credible. So, they know we are a successful country. They know we are a united country, and united across race, language, and religion. They know we are serious-minded people. They know, as Professor Faishal said just now, that when we say something, we actually take it seriously, we commit to it, and we deliver. They do not expect us to completely echo their positions. In fact, they know that we are serious-minded, we are careful, we are deliberate, and we do not just follow the crowd. And that is precisely why I think we get access, and why we get at least a polite hearing. And where we can make common cause and where we can sign agreements and do things together, we do. And Singapore and Singaporeans are welcome throughout, even [in] troubled spots, because of this reputation.

But at the same time, we also should retain a sense of realism and humility that we cannot solve very difficult, thorny issues all over the world. To the extent that we can extend our friendship, our support, our humanitarian assistance, if they want to use us, sometimes officially or unofficially, as a venue, we are happy to pour tea, but we should never, never overestimate our abilities to deal with very difficult issues globally. So, I am quite content to play a constructive and useful role, but not to be made use of. At the same time, bearing in mind that the moment Singapore fails or is disunited, or that the leaders of Singapore are no longer credible, it is game over. We will be irrelevant.

In other words, it is not so much exactly the details of your decision, but the basis by which we organise ourselves. Arrive at decisions, make commitments, stick to commitments, deliver the goods and behave in a consistent, constructive, law-abiding way. I mean, I do not want to use the word “moral” where states are concerned, but you know what I mean? There is a certain code by which people know Singapore will always behave, and for that, they will accept that we will be different from time to time, but it is respected. And we can do some good. And that is the way I conduct our relations with other countries.

Question 7

MP Nadia Ahmad Samdin: In terms of our interest, it is not just a matter of our national security for us in Singapore, but arguably also a question of national conscience, as many have expressed very strong views. I have two SQs. How do we expect the proposed sanctions to move the needle on peace and desired outcomes, including a two-State solution, given the very extreme views on both sides, as mentioned by Minister, including members of the Israeli government who have rejected the two-State solution – not just political activists or settlers in the West Bank – by vowing to destroy Gaza? You have, in your answer to Mr Saktiandi [Supaat] earlier, mentioned that sanctions have not always proven to be effective, and I seek Minister’s views on how we envision these sanctions could impact Israel and Palestine, as well as other actors, for example, the US.

Second SQ: Minister also mentioned how we have consistently maintained open lines of communication with both ends, and that this is important, not just in times of peace, but also during times of crisis. Would the Government thus consider using these open lines of communication to support, perhaps ceasefire negotiations in some shape or form, more directly beyond the humanitarian assistance?

Minister Balakrishnan: I am grateful for your questions, and I appreciate where you are coming from. But again, I want to urge a sense of realism. Will sanctions from a small city state like Singapore move the needle on its own? No, it won’t. But is it an expression of our views? It is. Will the Israelis notice it? Oh, I am sure they will notice it, precisely because they know that we are careful, deliberative, constructive partners who want the best for their long-term survival and for their neighbours, the Palestinians. So, we should be realistic about what we say and do, and the effect of what we say and do.

Now on ceasefire negotiations, I want to give full credit to our friends in Qatar and Egypt. And in the case of Qatar, even taking, you know – facing danger for being a venue for such negotiations. And we should give them our fullest support and appreciation and respect for doing that. Can Singapore play such a role? I don’t see that in the imminent future. And again, you need to understand the nature of conflicts in diplomacy – that the most effective peacemakers have to be both trusted by both sides and have leverage. Because the world is not short of conference venues where people can meet and have a nice cup of tea. But it needs to be a place where both sides feel that they are safe and that you are not playing games. But very often, to force two sides which are very far apart from each other, and sometimes, to be honest, even having sub-segments of the two sides who are working across purposes, you need leverage.

Now, as far as I am concerned, what the last two years have illustrated is that actually the single superpower with real leverage in the Middle East is the United States of America. Depending on those decisions made in Washington, which will also reflect its own complex domestic political situation, that is where real leverage may or may not be applied to bring at least an interim ceasefire – hopefully a permanent ceasefire – and the release of all hostages.

So again, my key point is: be realistic about what we can do, what we should do – and I accept your point that our words and our actions should reflect what we stand for, and we cannot close our eyes and close our ears and keep silent when things are clearly wrong and unconscionable. And I hope I have made the point that we have not been such a party. So, we are not fair-weather friends. We are all-weather friends, but we are also friends who tell you hard truths. To the extent that we can help, we will help, but we will not push and overstay our welcome, or overestimate our ability to solve problems which have defied solutions for decades, centuries, or sometimes millennia.

Question 8

MP Xie Yao Quan: I have a clarification for the Minister, similar to Mr Saktiandi [Supaat] and Ms Nadia [Ahmad Samdin]. It is a question about sanctions, but I would like to go specifically to the context of the question that I filed, which is regarding Israel’s attack in Qatar. The Ministerial Statements did not quite answer my question, but I know MFA has put out a statement condemning the attack and stating that it is an egregious violation of Qatar’s sovereignty. Given that Singapore has been a staunch supporter of this core principle of respect of the sovereignty of all nations, big and small, not just any piece of international law, but of this very core principle of international law, because it is fundamental to our survival as a small state, and therefore Singapore has also responded robustly to other instances of the violation of sovereignty of other nations by other nations in the past, going beyond verbal condemnation, imposing sanctions. How does Singapore’s response, in this instance, to Israel’s attack in Qatar, compute vis-à-vis our responses to past instances of violation of sovereignty? And can we not consider imposing sanctions as an expression of our disapproval to this, to a violation of this very core principle of international law?

Minister Balakrishnan: We condemned the attack in Doha by Israel, and we said so publicly. And there is no doubt in anybody’s mind where we stand on that. We stand on that because, again, the same question went through my mind, “What if it happened here? What would we do and what would we say?” Having said that, I think you are asking whether we should go further, and I am not inclined to do so, because otherwise you end up having to chase every and every infraction which countries engage in against each other, and us having to respond. So, my preference is to reserve it for the most egregious, the most important issues where we need to make a point.

The larger point I am making to all of us: please have a realistic view of what Singapore can and cannot do. With the Qataris, we were in contact immediately. They know where we stand. They appreciated our stand. But there are some much bigger players who need to resolve the very awkward set of questions that that attack posed. But also, let’s bear in mind that this is a dangerous and unpredictable world. I want to persuade everyone to come back to the zero tolerance for breach of international law and zero tolerance for terrorism, and zero tolerance therefore for even accepting any justifications or pretext for terrorism and harbouring them.

At some risk, I will also tell you that there are offices of terrorist organisations in our region. It is an objective reality. We need to be mindful, and we need to be careful. So, we don’t want to say too much, but there are some things which we need to be aware of, and we need to take appropriate precautions from.

Question 9

MP Gerald Giam: The Minister stated that Singapore will reconsider its position on recognising the Palestinian State if the situation continues to deteriorate, or if Israel takes any further steps to extinguish the two-State solution. Given the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, the Israeli government’s stated policy that “there will be no Palestinian State”, and even the alleged targeting of peace negotiators in Qatar, does the Minister not consider these to be severe enough to trigger a re-evaluation of Singapore’s position now?

Second, the Minister said that Singapore will recognise Palestine when it has an effective government that accepts Israel’s right to exist and categorically renounces terrorism. But the Palestinian Authority (PA) has already made a commitment to renounce terrorism and carry out reforms. What additional steps does the PA need to take in order for Singapore to recognise the State of Palestine?

Minister Balakrishnan: I just made a Ministerial Statement, announced sanctions, announced conditional recognition, [and] you are already jumping and asking me to re-evaluate the position. I would say, let’s watch very, very carefully how things unfold in the days, weeks, and months [ahead]. I have set out for all of us our principal considerations and the variables which we are watching, and we will decide accordingly. I don’t want to jump the gun and enter into excessively hypothetical discussions.

Your second question was, what else is necessary for the Palestinian Authority? I wish they were in charge in Gaza. But you and I know they are not, or certainly not yet. But we continue to work with them. We continue to build up their capacity. We continue to prepare them for eventual statehood and for the time when they can be in charge. I should also add, if you read carefully, all the statements of those who have apparently changed position in the last few days, I very seriously doubt any of them can actually begin the actual process of normalisation, as long as hostages are still held in the tunnels of Gaza. So, you know, I think the best way to understand this is that everyone wants the same end point, but there can be arguments about when and how the route you take to reach the ultimate destination.

Question 10

MP Sharael Taha: I would like to thank Minister Vivian for his clarification that we will recognise the Palestinian State, and it is a question of when, and not if. I appreciate the position has evolved given the deteriorating circumstances. However, many may find it hard to understand the preconditions, and could approach it from a very binary [view] – either we support, or we don’t support – which can lead to a lot of misunderstanding, especially when other countries have had their individual separate reasons for doing so. So, my question to the Minister is, how can we better communicate this position of ours so that there is no misunderstanding within the country and with other countries?

Minister Balakrishnan: Maybe this is a chance for me to iterate the key points, and maybe let me take that opportunity.

We believe both the Israeli state and the Palestinian state deserve to exist. That is why we have always supported the Palestinians right for self-determination and their own homeland. We also acknowledge the historical complexities, and that’s why “from the river to the sea” is not possible for either party. And they have to find the wisdom and the leadership to create a two-State solution where they can live in peace and security.

Whilst we recognise Israel’s right to exist, and we recognise Israel’s need to be strong, there is also wisdom in knowing how to use your strength, and you can win a tactical victory and lose the strategic war. And for what it is worth, this is what we are telling the Israelis, and have been doing so for some time.

Next point, we know that anything Singapore says or does is not going to resolve the situation on the ground in the Middle East. But for what it is worth, we will express a stand which is consistent with our own identity and values as a multi-racial, multi-religious state. And we will do our best to extend humanitarian assistance as a real expression of the collective compassion of Singaporeans. And that is why today we reached this point of conditional recognition for Palestine. We hope and wait and will support and take efforts to hopefully make that an objective reality. And in the meantime, we have targeted sanctions to express our disapproval for further moves to make a two-State solution impossible. So that’s my “TLDR” summary of the last two hours.

Question 11

MP Dennis Tan: Ask the Foreign Minister to explain the rationale behindSingapore voting for the recent UN resolution on 19 September, calling for the participation of Palestine at the opening of the 80^th Session of the UN General Assembly, while still withholding the recognition of a Palestinian State.

Minister Balakrishnan: We voted in favour of the resolution because if you read the resolution in its entirety, you will see that it is actually a comprehensive one, which I would say makes many countries who voted for it; there will be parts of it which they agree, there will be parts of it which they disagree. But it is one of the fewer UN resolutions that actually calls out October 7th as a terrorist act committed by Hamas, that calls for the immediate release of hostages, also calls for immediate ceasefire, and also calls ultimately for a State of Palestine to take its place in the UN. We voted for it because we look at it in totality: this is something which we support or which we want to happen, which we hope will happen, even if, as I said, the objective reality has not yet occurred. Hostages are still being held in tunnels. Hamas is still in power in Gaza. Nevertheless, we voted in favour of it because we think this solution encapsulates the full width of measures needed in the long run for hopefully peace to come to this region. So, hence our vote. I can assure you, our votes at the UN are never performative or cynical. We do so on the basis of principle and of a careful assessment of our national interest.

.     .     .     .     .