France Recognizes Palestine
Responding to tragedy with farce.
NYT (“France Will Recognize Palestinian Statehood, Macron Says“):
President Emmanuel Macron announced late Thursday that France would recognize the state of Palestine as part of “its historical commitment to a just and durable peace in the Middle East.”
In a surprise statement on X that followed months of hints and hesitations over possible French recognition of a Palestinian state, he said that he would make a formal announcement to that effect at the United Nations General Assembly in September in New York.
“Today the most urgent thing is that the war in Gaza cease and the civilian population be helped,” Mr. Macron said. His statement came as anger mounted across the world over the continued Israeli military operation in Gaza and growing starvation there.
France would become the first of the Group of 7 major industrialized nations — also including the United States, Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan and Italy — to recognize a Palestinian state. The decision appeared likely to irk the Trump administration as it stands behind Israel and pursues its own attempts to end the war in Gaza.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, reacted angrily to the French move. He said in a statement that “we strongly condemn Mr. Macron’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state next to Tel Aviv in the wake of the Oct. 7 massacre” of 2023, adding that a Palestinian state could become “a launchpad to annihilate Israel.”
Israel has consistently opposed French recognition of Palestinian statehood, saying it would reward Hamas terrorism and accusing Mr. Macron of leading “a crusade against the Jewish state.” Relations between the two countries have become strained and now appear certain to worsen.
Netanyahu’s histrionics aside, this is just unhelpful. However much one sympathizes with the desire of the Palestinian people for self-determination, it simply is not a state. By pretty much every definition, a state must have recognized borders over which it exercises sovereignty. Palestine has neither of those characteristics.
Writing before Macron’s announcement, The Atlantic’s Yair Rosenberg (“The Worst-Kept Secret of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict“) states the obvious:
One of the more poorly kept secrets of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that many of those involved would prefer to take all the land and have the other side disappear. A 2011 poll found that two-thirds of Palestinians believed that their real goal should not be a two-state solution, but rather using that arrangement as a prelude to establishing “one Palestinian state.” A 2016 survey found that nearly half of Israeli Jews agreed that “Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel.” A poll in 2000, conducted during negotiations toward a two-state solution, found that only 47 percent of Israelis and 10 percent of Palestinians supported a school curriculum that would educate students to “give up aspirations for parts of the ‘homeland’ which are in the other state.”
These stark statistics illustrate why the conflict has proved so intractable: Palestinians and Israelis subscribe to dueling national movements with deeply held and mutually exclusive historical and religious claims to the same land. After a century of violence and dispossession, it should not be surprising that many would happily wish the other side away, if such an option existed. The current American administration, though, is the first to reinforce those ambitions, rather than curtail them.
Aside from the efforts of beleaguered moderates, what restrains the region’s worst impulses is not principle, but practicality. Neither side can fully vanquish the other without unending bloodshed, and the international community has long refused to countenance an outcome in which one group simply routs the other. Instead, successive American presidents—with the notable exception of Donald Trump—have insisted that Israelis and Palestinians resolve their differences bilaterally at the negotiating table.
Even if we replaced the Israeli government with one totally out of step with its Jewish population and they recognized the autonomy of Gaza and the West Bank, withdrawing all troops and Jewish settlers—a complete fantasy, of course—we would still have the rather huge problem that very few Palestinians would be satisfied with that outcome. We would almost certainly still not have peace.
We have two peoples who want all of the same piece of territory. One of them has international recognition and membership in the United Nations; the other is recognized by a handful of the worst dictators on the planet and France. One has far and away the most powerful military in the region; the other is reduced to terrorist attacks. Given mutually exclusive aims, I’m betting on the former.
I said it a year and a half ago, I can only see two solutions to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: An independent Palestine (combined with the dismantling of the settlements); or, two, a Greater Israel with full citizenship rights to the Palestinians. I exclude as a solution any extermination, forced migration, or imprisoning of Palestinians.
I can’t see any other path.
It would likely be significantly easier for Israel if Palestine was actually fully recognized as a state. than there would be a government that would/could surrender. Instead they have to deal with Hamas who won’t and can’t.
I wonder how much of this is about French domestic politics. Hoping someone with more knowledge than me comes along.
@Scott:
The only way a Palestinian state ever gets off the ground is with massive Saudi/UAE backing, financial and diplomatic and perhaps military as well. Someone with a fairly heavy hand would be needed to keep Hamas and the PA from going to war. I don’t think KSA or UAE has much in the way of ground forces, so presumably we’d be looking to the Turks, the Egyptians or the Jordanians, who already have their own Palestinian problem. Would the Israelis tolerate Turkish or Egyptian armed forces on the West Bank? Hard to imagine. And hard to imagine any country signing up to pacify the West Bank, because that has quagmire with a capital Q written all over it.
There is no 2-state solution after the Oct.7 events, the Israeli public does not trust the adversaries enough after Oct 7 to agree to such a thing.
It’s main purpose is France putting down a marker to Israel:
“Some of your politicians may harbour ambitions about expulsions and Greater Israel. They will not be permitted to attain those ambitions.”
It may just be France now; it is not likely to remain so.
@charontwo:
Well, it’s either a two-state solution or full rights for Palestinians.
The third option is a state that – either because of entrenched apartheid or genocidal actions long past their sell-by date – has no long-term moral right to exist.
Is that really what Israelis want? Them + Trump against the world?
In that case, they fully deserve what they’re getting themselves into.
Related to my previous comment, here is a recent Pew survey covering 24 countries:
Some highlights:
I think we can all see where this is heading.
@James Joyner
We’re not likely to have peace without addressing the Palestinian purgatory on earth. I have been observing and fretting over this issue for nearly 6 decades, thinking about possible workarounds. And it seems that if enough “will” existed, especially in the larger Arab world, there would be a way to “scratch out” a defined Palestinian state, incorporating some old and some new. A generous payout/buyout would need to be forthcoming for acquisition of some of the real estate. And then a demilitarized, peacekeeping enforced buffer zone would need to be established.
Take your military background, apply your understanding of PTD to an entire population (on both sides) and understand this ongoing violence perpetuates generational blood feud in perpetuity.
The only hope for change is to engineer a solution aimed at some level of maximum acceptance. But the other Arab states need to get “skin in the game” for a negotiated settlement, and quit feeding off the animus of this conflict for their own internal political benefit.
France may be a lone voice, but someone needs to raise the issue to a level of international dialogue. Because this status quo, is “the crazy train.” And today’s crazy makes tomorrow’s terrorists.
@JohnSF:
Agree. It’s a middle finger to Netanyahu and his Likud government, nothing more.
@Rob1:
I think it’s illusory to imagine that a Palestinian state solves everything. Who runs Palestine? What happens when civil war breaks out? What happens when the most militant faction supports its credibility by firing missiles into Israel? Is there any reason at all to imagine that a Palestinian state would respect individual rights? Women? Gays? Non-Muslims? How do you unite WB and a Gaza exclave? Will Palestine be able to defend itself against radical settlers? What about the economics of a place with no employment prospects other than working in Israel? What will be the reaction if Israel decides, ‘cool, now we have a location for our troublesome Arab population, get a move on?’
@drj:
Graph out international support for Israel – a downward slope. And a second line for the growth of Israeli power – an upward trend. And a third for GDP – also an upward trend. Now a line showing the intensity of Arab passion for Palestine – a downward slope.
Post hoc isn’t always propter hoc, but it doesn’t really seem that Israel relies much on being loved, especially as the once burning hot hatred from Israel’s actual neighbors seems to have cooled quite a lot.
@drj:
I was merely describing reality. Reality does not care what I think or what you think or what France thinks or what MR thinks or what the world thinks..
@Michael Reynolds:
Considering, in particular, both the current and past US-Israel relationship, this is an astoundingly naive comment.
I don’t think Bibi and his cabinet of deplorables would react with unhinged histrionics to something that doesn’t matter or makes no difference.
BTW, what delivery systems does Israel have for its nukes?
@Michael Reynolds:
If established, a Palestinian state would be responsible for its own internal affairs, mores, laws, etc.
Regarding further outbreaks of violence towards Israel, (assuming international peacekeeping buffer was ineffective), this is where the complete physical separation of the two communities would come into play. If statehood Palestine attacked Israel, it could expect accountability in the court of nations, and little restraint from Israel. But, I would expect any “grand agreement” for Palestinian statehood would include security assurances for Israel from Arab nations.
It is important to point out, that the current situation is not identical to an imagined Palestinian state that may or may not be at war.
Gaza has been thoroughly dependent and controlled by Israel. It has not functioned as fully independent, economically viable entity. Once the totality of the weight of self determination rests on the state of Palestinian, there is less incentive and resources to engage in belligerence. Israel was providing funding to Hamas.
There has always been this sense of wisdom in encouraging a person to have ownership in their own home, and the responsibilities that come with it. And with ownership of real property comes all kinds of levers for exerting conformity.
@Michael Reynolds:
A good assessment. Add in an upward slope of European and American youth supporting Palestinian issues as a result of increased social engagement by younger generations. This was unheard of 30 years ago. But the real puzzler is the downward slope of support from Arab nations. That deserves some deep parsing.
Yeah, nobody has ever talked about Palestinians and their views on Israel and if they accept the existence of the state of Israel. That’s one poorly kept secret all right, which no one has ever dialed down on before ad infinitum to justify decades of oppression and land theft.
And I’m sorry, come on:
These stark statistics illustrate why the conflict has proved so intractable: Palestinians and Israelis subscribe to dueling national movements with deeply held and mutually exclusive historical and religious claims to the same land.
The Palestinian claim is the right one. Zionists stole the land. There’s no debate over this. Israel merely claims it was okay to take the land. That’s not a dueling claim. It’s might makes right. If you believe Israel has the right to occupy what isn’t theirs, then fine, you believe that Palestinians have no rights and they can be oppressed, starved, and subject to genocide. This is the harsh truth of what most Jewish Israelis believe, and it’s the essence of what’s taught about Israel to Jewish people outside Israel.
If you believe that, say it. Don’t hide behind this dueling claim nonsense.
@drj:
Hey no fair mentioning reality and the endless whining about the word genocide and Looney Tunes operations like Canary Mission working with the DOJ to lock up college students writing op-eds.
@Rob1:
I mean, most of the Arab governments are authoritarian regimes. Is it to the discredit of the Palestinians that Saudi Arabia no longer pays as much lip service to their rights as they used to? On the real downward slope is the neoliberal fantasy of democracy, capitalism, and Israel defeating the evil forces of totalitarianism. Nobody cares at all about what they used to pretend to care about.awing its dissidents.
@Rob1:
Israel has power and wealth, and has grown in both, while for the Arabs the future does not look promising. Oil power is not what it used to be, and the Saudis and Emiratis know they’re sitting on a declining financial base, so they’re looking to attract tech. Can’t attract capital to a country that appears hostile or unstable.
The Arabs need to get along with Israel. The Arabs also know the US is backing slowly away. They need someone to act as the hegemon because they need stability and the US is quitting. Israel is that power. Egypt and Jordan are both hostile to the Palestinians because they don’t want to import radicals that might threaten their regimes. They need Israel to contain the problem.
Iraq has apparently started to put distance between itself and the Iranian regime. Hezbollah and Hamas are both fucked, at least for the near future. The new Syrian government is being pretty quiet about Israelis hitting targets there. You add all that to the complete absence of the once-vaunted ‘Arab Street,’ and you have a picture of a region that wishes the Palestinians would just go away.
Hamas made a catastrophic error on October 7. It’s fair to make a comparison to the Jews in early Nazi Germany. A ‘problem’ everyone wished would just go away.
@Michael Reynolds:
This is such a bullshit argument. How respected are the individual rights of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, bombing and imposed famine?
Israel isn’t civilizing the savage Palestinians to teach them to respect others, they are subjugating them, starving them, killing them, and stealing their land.
I’m honestly wondering whether recognizing Palestine, and Israel as an occupying force, as a state triggers specific policies under French laws.
If the US called the “sparkling mass slaughter of an ethnic minority by a state actor” in Israel as “genocide,” it would trigger an automatic stoppage of arms shipments, IIRC.
ETA: And it’s not like anyone is doing anything helpful…
@drj:
Israel feeling increasingly pressured to quickly act to create an end state that makes the Palestinian issue no longer a problem for them, once and for all?
(I really had to torture that sentence to avoid a reference to the Final Solution (no solving, no final, no solution…) — I don’t think we’re there yet, as Israel is merely committing Petit Genocide, rather than Grande Genocide)
@Michael Reynolds:
@charontwo:
@Gustopher:
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.
Israel may have the US as a primary military partner; but Europe has also supplied a lot of arms.
And Europe is absolutely vital to the Israeli economy.
Over a third of all Israeli imports and exports are with Europe (including UK).
Compared to about 20% of exports and 9% of imports from the US.
If Europe imposed economic sanctions on Israel its economy would collapse.
Especially if it’s trying to run a high state of war mobilization at the same time.
If Israel tries for a resolution based upon mass ethnic expulsion, sanctions will follow as surely as night follows day.
Even Germany would not put up with that.
If Israel insted opts for incremental seizure of the entire West Bank, the consequences will likewise be slower to ensue, but are pretty certain nonetheless.
One more indicator: today more than a third of UK MP’s presented a joint letter to the government calling for recognition of a Palestinian state.
Given the politics, it’s reasonable bet that more than half are privately in favour.
Starmer’s response:
“… to turn the ceasefire so desperately needed, into a lasting peace…
Recognition of a Palestinian state has to be one of those steps. I am unequivocal about that.”
The pattern of European politics and policy re Israel is shifting quite rapidly, and quite profoundly.
@Gustopher:
It has no specific legal implications, afaiaa.
Incidentally, Spain, Ireland and Norway have already formally recognised Palestine as a state.
It makes little difference in itself, but it shows how opinion, politics and policy is trending in Europe.
@Rob1:
@Michael Reynolds:
The two mian bases of state-level Arab antagonism for Israel, Nasserite/Baathist “pan-Arab nationalism” and Sunni Islamic fundamentalism, and their crossovers, have collapsed.
And much of the vaunted “Arab street” was actually the creation of state agit-prop.
The current Arab states, have zero interest in a “war of redemption” against Israel; and neither do their people desire to suffer and die for the Palestinian cause.
Still less, for anything beneficial to Iran.
However, there remain limits, both for the states and, related, regarding public opinion.
(Monarchies and autocracies are often not indiffrent to considerations of popular sentiment. See much of European history in this regard.)
The Saudis have made it quite plain that unless the Israelis reach some sort of acceptable conditions re both Gaza, and longer term the West Bank, the “Abraham Accords” are going nowhere.
Their problem is that current Israeli policies are NOT promoting stability, much as they are quietly rather pleased that Iran has been cut off at the knees.
Nor would they regret the extirpation of Hamas; but not if that comes at the price of the extirpation of the population of Gaza.
Realpolitik is real; but it has its limitations.
Always has done.
@dazedandconfused:
Oh, it’s rather more than that.
France does does not do such things purely upon a whim.
Though Bibi pissing off Macron personally surely did not help.
But the decision will have been processed through the government and the foreign ministry.
And calculating the French Assembly votes to support against any censure motion.
Israel has now lost one the key European states in regard to its prefrence for non-recognition. The UK is increasingly likely to follow suit.
And that will leave Germany, the bulwark of European support for Israel, rather exposed.
German popular opinion is already shifting; eventually government policy is likely to follow.
Imho, Netanyahu has miscalculated.
Like many US Republicans/MAGA, he’s inclined to be dismissive of the “euro-weenies”.
But in the longer term, betting everything on, not just the US, but on the GOP, is a high-stakes roll that neglects some basic realities of the Israeli position.
Relative military superiority is fine to have.
But for a state short of being a continental-scale Power, assuming that is a permanent reality, and ignoring other factors, is reckless in the extreme.
@JohnSF: Yes and no. It’s a middle finger prompted by the fall of the US as a nation being willing to stand up for some level of morality, but lacking any action behind it, that’s essentially all it is at the moment.
When Bibi first tried to starve the Gazans, remember Biden’s pier? It was not a viable way to feed a couple million people, it was a middle finger that clearly stated to Bibi that the US would not stand idly by for a mass starvation of civilians.
There was no particular need for the Euros to make a statement when the US had a moral core, but as the US no longer has one of those, they feel compelled to at least start stepping up.
@dazedandconfused:
As I said earlier, imo it’s a marker.
A warning.
To act decisively, Europe, as ever, requires consensus.
For which the key actors now are the UK (even though it’s outside the EU) and decisively, Germany.
I cannot emphaise too much how crucial German support for Israel has been in recent European international policy.
If that dam breaks, Israel is looking at a fundamentally diffrent relationship with Europe-as-a-collective.
Another aspect is, that previously US support for an international policy was usually a net positive in European politics.
(Even in France)
It is increasingly becoming a net negative.
(Even in the UK and Germany)
@JohnSF:
Incidentally, re financial sanctions: a lot of Americans seem to assume:
“That’s our prerogative. We can cut a country out of the SWIFT system. No one else can.”
Except: the SWIFT system is actually European.
Belgian based, to be precise.
Oopsie.
I’m sorry but that’s nonsense. The State of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign nation by 147 countries, representing 75 percent of UN members.
@Gustopher:
No, that’s a bullshit argument. Will Palestinians be better off under the utterly corrupt PA or Hamas? There is only one place in the ME where an Arab can cast a meaningful vote, and it’s Israel. WTF is the point of a war where the people end up worse off?
People have been hearing ‘two state solution’ for so long its become an article of faith. Like it’s some sort of solution. It’s not , it’s just rearranging deck chairs. It’s a fantasy.
@JohnSF:
It’s not just Israel that doesn’t care about Europe, it’s the Saudis et al as well. Europe didn’t humble Iran, gut Hezbollah and massacre Hamas, that was Israel and the Arabs are quite content to see it all happen. No one is even pretending to challenge Israeli power now, the days of Egypt and Syria threatening Israel are long gone.
What is Europe going to do? Refuse to sell Israel arms? South Korea won’t be part of that, or Japan, or Russia. China makes some pretty good toys nowadays and they’d no doubt love a powerful friend in the ME. If China wants to secure its oil supply line the one regional power that can fuck with them is Israel. If the West abandons Israel and I’m Xi, I’m seeing opportunity to make a friend of the only serious military power in the region.
Walk the plot forward. What does Israel do if Europe turns on them? Give up? If I’m playing Netanyahu’s hand I use that as an excuse to present the world with a fait accompli.
@Modulo Myself:
The whole history of the region is one of conquest followed by conquest followed by conquest. Romans forced the Jews out. Arabs forced the Romans out. Jews slowly migrated back, and then in waves. The Brits and the UN created a two-state solution with a neutral Jerusalem. The Arabs tried to conquer the whole thing, failed, and got conquered instead.
We’re now 77 years from that date. The international community has long recognized Israel’s right to exist. Most of its Arab neighbors have as well.
And, of course, most countries on earth were created by conquest. Certainly, the UK and the US were.
@Michael Reynolds:
All-out European economic sanctions would collapse the Israeli economy.
Simple as that.
@JohnSF:
Like Russia has collapsed? There’s a long list of countries that have survived sanctions, and a much shorter list of cases where sanctions worked.
And then what, anyway? The settlers change their minds about Greater Israel? Israelis decide well, I guess we’ll just get used to missiles landing here? Israel, a country raised on Megiddo, allows its future to be dictated by the same countries whose weakness and cowardice and cruelty made Israel necessary in the first place? And no one will point out the hypocrisy of Europeans doing business with China and Cuba and Saudi Arabia?
@James Joyner:
So what? That history is terrible does not give one a moral right to be terrible. We did x against you and you did x against us are not dueling claims about what’s happened, which is what I was pointing out. Whining that everyone does it when you’re caught is childish.
And if Israel and its defenders wants to point to the United States’ treatment of Native Americans as justification, they should do it. Settler Colonialism is a hot topic.
@Michael Reynolds:
Russia is rather less trade exposed than Israel.
Trade as percentage of Israeli GDP is about 60%.
Russia: 40%.
Its also rather different in nature: Russian exports are predominantly hydrocarbons, minerals, metals, grain, timber.
Israel: primarily manufactured goods.
I certainly would not expect Israel to tolerate ongoing attacks of any nature without response.
Or the return of Iranian proxies to ascendancy in any neighbouring state.
Nor is it likely to accept, ever again, any Palestinian entity ruled by Hamas.
As for the West Bank settlers: that is Israel’s problem, which it will need to resolve, eventually.
Israel is entitled to point a historical finger at European failings and culpabilities.
(And will doubtless do so, whether justified or not. Just as do Arabs and Muaslims, various.)
Or those of the US, for that matter.
It’s unlikely to make much difference in practice, though.
Gemany has been inclined to almost unconditional support of Israel, for historic reasons.
Other countries, not so much.
Few Brits, for example, are much inclined to feel much culpability for any events that made Israel necessary.
@Modulo Myself:
So, pointing at US or other Western “settler colonialism” and crying something along the lines of “imperialist, capitalist colonialist, racist, FASCIST!” is somehow going to compel the Israelis to capitulate and evacuate not just the West Bank, but the entirety of Israel?
Or to persuade a consensus of Western public opinion to expatiate their presumed “legacy of guilt” by sacrificing Israel?
Both seem highly unlikely.
Preventing Israel from carrying out mass killing and “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza and/or the West Bank, if necessary by coercive measures, is one thing.
The effective destruction of Israel, which would itself rapidly entail mass killing and expulsion of Israelis, is quite another.
Neither of those outcomes is acceptable.
@JohnSF:
Perhaps.
I think we are getting lost in the two-state weeds though. IMO Macron did this as a warning rattle over the starvation of the Gazans, that is the issue at hand. The Euros seem to be bracing themselves for an action to check that, if necessary. Unlikely Bibi is crazy enough to order the IDF to fight a Euro operation to ship food in there, not anymore than he would if the US was doing it, and Israel should be treated as any other country trying to do such a thing would be.
@JohnSF:
I don’t really understand what you are replying to.
@Modulo Myself:
Your statement about “Settler Colonialism”.
A basic tenet of a lot of Palestinian “resistance” ideology is that the entirety of Israel is a “Western imperialist settler colonial project” and therefore must be entirely abolished for there to be “justice” for the Palestinians.
Hence “from the River to the Sea” and all that.
The chances of the Israelis accepting peace on those terms, or a resolution that leaves it open for a Palestinian state to pursue such ends, are zero.
It may be possible, and I’d argue necessary, to persuade/coerce Israel into halting their current “subjugation by starvation” de facto policy in Gaza.
And less urgently, but also necessary, to abandon the settler-right goal of annexing the West Bank and either expelling the Palestinian population, or reducing them to a marginalised and subjugated “underclass” that will somehow disappear and trouble them no more.
However, the other side of the deal has to be, as it was in the 1990 peace proposals: the Palestinans must also give up any hopes of a recovery of Jerusalem, of a “right of return”, and above all the fantasy that somehow “rejection and resistance” can make Israel vanish in order to achieve “justice”.
The entire Hamas agenda (and that of the PLO before them, for a long time).
It ain’t gonna happen.
The sooner both parties are obliged to deal on the basis of what is reasonable, instead of the rather insane maximalist ambitions of both parties radicals, the better.