Recognising Palestine

Emmanuel Macron has announced that in September, France will officially recognize Palestine. France thus joins the company of 147 other countries, including several European ones. It may soon be joined by the United Kingdom, Canada, and others, who have accompanied their announcements with explicit conditions regarding a ceasefire by Israel, the release of hostages, and the disarmament of Hamas.

Macron's announcement, however, has sparked considerable criticism in the West; partly because this is the first decision of its kind by a European country that is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Criticism has also been strong internally, reflecting the challenges posed by the Palestinian issue in a country that is home to both the largest Jewish community in Europe and one of the largest Muslim communities, whose relationship is increasingly strained. Macron and the other governments that have expressed intentions or willingness to recognise Palestine have been harshly criticised by the Israeli government, which accuses them of playing into Hamas' hands.

If there is a constant in the European - and until recently also American - position on the Palestinian question, it has always been to indicate the "two peoples, two states" solution as the only possible outcome. This is not the place to recount the often tragic events of this story, the dashed hopes, or the broadly shared responsibilities among the main actors. However, the push for formal recognition of Palestine has never before manifested with such intensity.

What has changed? Three important things. First, the current Israeli government not only openly rejects the two-state solution, but there is a legitimate suspicion that its actions in Gaza and the West Bank aim to make that solution effectively impossible. What is the goal? Netanyahu does not elaborate, limiting himself to stating the need to eliminate Hamas entirely, but it is not unreasonable to suspect that the real goal is annexation, with the partial or total expulsion of the Palestinian population. Other members of his government are more explicit. Moreover, the willingness to listen to allies - including the most important one, the United States - which existed in past crises, seems to have disappeared. It almost seems as if Netanyahu believes he can manipulate Trump at will - an assumption that could prove dangerously misguided.

Second, despite the unpredictability of Trump, the two-state solution no longer seems to be a priority objective for the United States.

Third, the credibility of the Palestinian Authority has declined, allowing Hamas to present itself as the only visible actor. This does not justify the claim that "all Palestinians" want the destruction of Israel, but it does undermine the feasibility of a Palestinian state.

In the current situation, recognition can only have symbolic value due to the aforementioned absence of a credible interlocutor who could embody the sovereignty of this new state. All European governments are, however, under increasing public pressure, particularly because of the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. It is impossible to deny the tragic reality of the situation, even considering a degree of disinformation by Hamas.

Recognition of Palestine thus fulfills an understandable ethical need - but what is its political justification? The main argument in favour is that it increases international pressure on Israel. However, it is unlikely that this move will have any real effect on Israeli policy in the short term. What remains, therefore, is the symbolic aspect, accompanied by the Europeans' desire to emerge from the marginal role in which they find themselves. Multiplying humanitarian aid initiatives, however useful, only reinforces the feeling of powerlessness. This desire to "exist," while understandable, is also dangerous. On the international stage, it risks making us appear naïve or inconsistent, and could be seen as a concession to the accusation of hypocrisy-providing limited support for the Palestinian cause while offering unconditional support to Ukraine. This is a doubly unacceptable accusation that must be firmly rejected. It comes from countries that wield ethics as a pretext to hide a clear political position: indifference to Ukraine's sovereignty and implicit acceptance of the aberrant notion that Israel is merely a product of European colonialism.

Domestically, the lack of concrete results may produce the opposite effect from what Macron likely seeks; it could further radicalise public opinion and fuel already growing antisemitism. This likely explains, in part, the hesitation of governments like those of Germany and Italy. The crude remark by Trump that Macron "is a nice guy, but what he's doing changes nothing," reflects the vulgarity of the person, but not a lack of realism.

Thus, the formal recognition of Palestine is not a matter of principle, but of assessing whether it helps promote or facilitate a positive process. The future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, beyond developments within Israel, depends on two factors. First are the United States, the indispensable guarantor of Israel's security, and thus truly able to influence Israeli policy. The second are the main Arab countries, the only ones capable of relaunching the Abraham Accords on new foundations, ensuring the neutralisation of Hamas, taking responsibility for governing Gaza under conditions acceptable to Israel, and fostering the emergence of a credible Palestinian interlocutor - all essential conditions for restoring credibility to the two-state solution.

Netanyahu currently seems to take Arab inaction or incapacity for granted. From the European perspective, especially given the shift in the American position, the only hope of keeping the two-state solution alive is to support an Arab initiative-something we can endorse but not generate.

Under these conditions, what lends credibility to Macron's announcement is the recent international conference on the future of Palestine held in New York, promoted and co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia. The conference was boycotted by Israel and the United States. Despite the ambiguities inherent in such forums, the outcome was interesting in that it revived broad international consensus on the two-state solution, accompanied by clear signals regarding Israel's security, the disarmament of Hamas, and the need to reform the Palestinian Authority. Most notably, it revealed a renewed willingness among Arab nations to take the initiative.

However, the indications that emerged from two days of diplomatic discussions in New York risk being purely declarative unless quickly translated into concrete initiatives - developments that alone could influence the American stance and, consequently, Israeli policy. The New York conference, while lending legitimacy to Macron's and others' announcements about recognizing Palestine, also ties their appropriateness to how the situation evolves. Unilateral decisions in the absence of tangible progress would lose much of their credibility. In essence, it's about returning to what has always been the position of the majority of Europeans: the formal recognition of Palestine must be part of a process, not its starting point.

Visit also the Telos website.