Hadi bin Hurr
Macron has crossed his Rubicon and now cannot withdraw; he must see this through to the end.
Last year, four Caribbean states coordinated their recognition of Palestine as a sovereign and independent state. Barbados was first on April 19, followed by Jamaica on April 22, Trinidad and Tobago on May 2, and finally the Bahamas on May 7. On May 28 a joint recognition of Palestine by three significant European countries - which understandably attracted much more media attention - followed: Ireland (a member of the EU), Norway (a member of NATO), and Spain (a member of both organizations). Shortly afterwards, encouraged by that series of recognitions, Slovenia acknowledged the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and the establishment of a national state on June 4, while Armenia did the same on June 21.
The main motives of the small Caribbean states for joining the majority club - which by mid-April last year comprised 137 of the United Nations' 193 full members - were frequent calls from that organization and the wider international community to recognize the State of Palestine, together with genuine solidarity with the Palestinians. As for Ireland, Norway and Spain, their recognition of Palestinian statehood came to a large extent as a result of strong public pressure, visibly alarmed by the absolute humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Spanish society as a whole has long been highly critical of what it sees as Israel's arbitrary actions and mass crimes, while at the same time nurturing sympathy for the Palestinian struggle for freedom.
Public opinion in Norway takes pride in the country's mediator role in the Oslo Accords of 1993, and it also regards Israel as the party that sabotaged those efforts and rendered them null - thereby squandering the best chance to achieve a lasting, nonviolent solution to the Palestinian problem. In Ireland, sympathy for the Palestinians - a defiant, small people who bravely persevere in their struggle against Israel, a military power that is technologically far superior and which also enjoys unconditional support from the United States - is often drawn as an inevitable historical parallel to Ireland's own struggle for independence from Great Britain. There is a national consensus in Ireland on Palestinian rights, not only among the public but also in the national parliament. Slovenia's recognition of Palestine resulted both from public pressure and from pressure by coalition partners on Prime Minister Robert Golob's government.
As for Armenia, beyond humanitarian motives it has strong historical and foreign-policy reasons to recognize Palestine. The Armenian people sympathize with the Palestinians because they themselves experienced genocide and have fought for international recognition. Conversely, Israel is clearly perceived in Armenia as a state that supplies Azerbaijan - with which Armenia is hostile - with very modern weaponry. Much of Armenia's border is effectively blocked because of Yerevan's hostile relations with Ankara and Baku, while Iran is not only open to cooperation with Armenia but also provides one of the rare land corridors that are vital for transport, trade and energy. On the international stage, Iran is positioned not only as a major advocate for Palestinian rights but also as a principal adversary of Israel.
Mexico's recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the State of Palestine, which took place in February this year, actually crowns decades of consistent Mexican support for the Palestinian struggle for freedom. Mexico was among the 23 UN member states on 29 November 1947 that did not vote in favour of the UN Partition Plan for Palestine - a plan that Israel later used to declare independence while avoiding a clear definition of its borders. By choosing a long-term policy of neutrality and steady support for UN resolutions, Mexico has for decades demonstrated foreign-policy independence from Washington and a determination never to fall into the geopolitical shadow of its powerful northern neighbor. In June 2023 Mexico formally upgraded the Palestinian Special Delegation office in Mexico City to the rank of an embassy - a move that was already a de facto recognition of Palestinian statehood. In April 2024 the Mexican government announced that it supported international efforts to recognize Palestine as a state, and the concrete details of Mexico's decision were spelled out the previous October. Formal recognition followed on 5 February this year.
The recognitions of Palestine made in recent months share a common calculation among the governments that dared to take that step: the risk of a strong American response is judged to be very low. Former U.S. President Donald Trump's remark that it "doesn't matter" to him that U.S. allies are increasingly recognizing Palestine has underlined that assessment. At the same time, Israel reacted sharply to the recognitions by Ireland, Spain and Norway and also accused Slovenia of directly aiding Hamas by recognizing Palestine; Ljubljana replied calmly and with dignity, explaining its decision on the basis of humanitarian responsibility. Slovenia had already, as a protest against Israel's actions in Gaza, banned arms exports to Israel last year. That step is commendable, but also deeply regrettable in its isolation: at the moment there are still no concrete EU-wide sanctions against Israel. Last year's European recognitions of Palestinian sovereignty and independence were, above all, a major victory for pro-Palestinian activists and for broader public opinion, which could no longer ignore Israel's mass atrocities and the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Without strong public pressure in Ireland, Spain and Norway, it is doubtful whether their political leaders would have moved so quickly to recognize the State of Palestine.
What is likely to follow in September this year is a new wave of recognitions of Palestine, which will probably occur during the 80th session of the UN General Assembly - either at its opening, in opening statements, or during the General Debate from 23 to 29 September. France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia have announced that they will recognize the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and to establish an independent and sovereign state covering Gaza and the West Bank - and perhaps Malta, San Marino and New Zealand will follow. Of all these recognitions, the one from Paris is the most important and the most interesting. First, that recognition now appears almost certain; second, it could prove a historic turning point with far-reaching positive consequences for the Palestinian people's struggle to obtain real freedom and sovereignty over their territories - a goal from which we are currently very far. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated that the United Kingdom could formally recognize Palestine during the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel in the meantime agrees to a lasting ceasefire, allows humanitarian aid into Gaza, abandons planned annexation of the West Bank, and accepts an agreement that would recognize the State of Palestine. It is unlikely that all that will happen in the next few days, which makes British recognition increasingly probable. Official London stresses, however, that establishing formal diplomatic ties at the embassy level would be largely symbolic and emphasizes the importance of ending the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Canada and Australia share positions broadly aligned with London, with no major differences in approach.
The French plan, however, is far more comprehensive and ambitious, and Paris's decision to recognize and support the Palestinian people's right to establish genuine sovereignty in Gaza and across the West Bank is not conditioned on anything whatsoever. France could thus become the first major Western power to take such a step, and its intentions are very serious - but they could trigger clashes not only with Israel (which, unsurprisingly, sharply condemned all announced recognitions of Palestine, calling them a capitulation to terrorism) but even with European partners such as Germany and with the United States. Official Paris frames its now nearly certain recognition of the State of Palestine as a moral and political necessity to halt the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. By standing up for the Palestinian people - who plainly deserve it - France intends to assert itself as a leading power, not only within the EU but across the broader international community. Paris wants to demonstrate that France is not merely a military power but also a moral force and a mediator through whose brokerage major conflicts could be resolved. In short, France seeks to re-emerge on the world stage as a major player whose views will increasingly demand attention. Such momentum could, moreover, have a beneficial effect on the need to remedy certain internal weaknesses, problems and tensions.
On foreign-policy matters Macron has long promoted the idea of European strategic autonomy from Washington. That message also signals that France - firmly convinced it is fully capable of conducting a truly independent foreign policy - is unwilling to be regarded as an American satellite in the future. One of Macron's personal motives for championing this decisive foreign-policy stance is his burning desire for the French to see in him a new, modern De Gaulle - bold sovereigntist who will defend France's interests at any cost. Thus, for the future of Macron's political career, recognizing Palestine could be an excellent opportunity to score important political points domestically and thereby shore up his weakened position. Macron is, of course, aware of how weak and unstable the current French government is, and he has long been pressed by the French left to recognize Palestine; he will finally do so because he has identified the move as a chance to solve several problems at once. Recognition of Palestine could indeed bring Paris significant consolidation of domestic political stability, while on the international stage it would represent a strong sovereigntist manifesto by which France presents itself as a contender for the role of one of the world's key leaders and mediators acting independently of Washington and Brussels. In reality, in Paris - just as last year in Dublin, Oslo and Madrid - the risk of a serious rift with Washington as a consequence of recognizing Palestine has been assessed as low.
So, although the U.S. administration criticized Macron's announcement that France would recognize Palestine, this is not an impulsive burst of courage by the French president or proof of his willingness to sacrifice anything in the name of a "just peace." Rather, it reflects pragmatism and careful calculations about the balance between potential political gain and possible risks. Trump's earlier disregard for a series of recognitions of the State of Palestine was, in fact, nothing more than a demonstration of American power. Washington's unspoken message was that those international recognitions were essentially worthless because they did not change the fact that, by de facto controlling the Palestinian territories, Israel remains able to continue the actions for which it has faced intensifying international criticism. Even if the EU were to recognize Palestine unanimously, Israel would still be able to continue the settlement of Palestinian territory by Jewish settlers and the construction of entire towns with supporting infrastructure for them on territory that officially belongs to the State of Palestine.
Moreover, new recognitions of Palestinian sovereignty and independence in Gaza and the West Bank - and therefore even a French recognition - do not create mechanisms that could serve as leverage to force Israel effectively to allow humanitarian convoys into Palestinian areas or to stop the implementation of genocide against them. Netanyahu's government will agree to cooperate - but even then only superficially and hypocritically - only after the objectives of Israeli reprisal have been met. Meanwhile, the United States, focused on Ukraine and Iran, have chosen to avoid clashing with their European allies who have moved toward full recognition of Palestinian statehood because they neither see any concrete danger to Israel in those steps nor currently prioritize the issue.
That millions of people in Gaza are currently being denied food and medicine, because there still are no effective ways to deliver humanitarian convoys to Palestinians and no prospect of that changing in the near future, may lead some to question the sincerity of France's humanitarian motives and to dismiss them as a marketing ploy, self-promotion, an attempt to improve Paris's international standing, or a way to placate the French public. France is indisputably a major European and global nuclear power, but without Israel's consent - since Israel controls Gaza's land and sea approaches as well as the airspace above it - Macron will not be able to push humanitarian convoys through to the long-suffering Palestinians, and that would be the only concrete benefit, because airdrops have proven completely ineffective. Because Israel does everything it can to hinder delivery of food and medicine to Palestinians, only a negligible portion of aid has been delivered to the Gaza Strip from October 2023 to the present.
Given that the chances of Israel abandoning a policy of genocide against the Palestinians-which, in addition to military force, is being pursued through starvation-are very small, Macron faces an extremely serious dilemma. If he continues to insist on an urgent resolution to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, he almost certainly will not find any willingness on Israel's part to cooperate; and if he then retreats, he would not only humiliate himself personally but would expose France itself to ridicule before the entire world, proving that it is not a global power but rather an American vassal devoid of moral backbone. For Macron, that would amount to political suicide, and the reputation and credibility of France on the world stage would suffer irreparable damage. There is no doubt that all this would badly affect France's domestic stability, provoking unprecedented public anger.
For all these reasons, we must believe that France's decision to recognize Palestine is an unprecedented historic turning point whose possible consequences Macron's administration very carefully studied before undertaking such a serious diplomatic operation. We have no choice but to trust that Paris prepared appropriate responses for every conceivable new situation. It is very unlikely that Macron was unaware his decision to recognize Palestine, and his insistence that ways be found to end the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, would lead directly to a very serious clash with Israel after which nothing would be the same. The French president will have to consider all available options and make some very hard decisions. On France's table are many highly effective instruments to discipline Israel-ranging from a complete break in military cooperation and various kinds of embargoes to the most drastic measures, such as severing diplomatic relations-and Paris will now have to prove that it entered this project well prepared, as befits a global power.
Macron has crossed his Rubicon and now cannot withdraw; he must see this through to the end. However, this could pay off in the long run, because it opens major opportunities for France, especially given Germany's political paralysis. The recent statement by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that Berlin will not recognize the State of Palestine reflects a deep-seated historical sensitivity in Germany, where policy toward Israel is constrained by a collective sense of responsibility for the Holocaust. Although surveys in Germany showed that 66% of its citizens expect pressure on Israel to increase, that alone will certainly not happen. This opens the door wide for France to assume a leadership position within the European Union-an historic opportunity its leadership almost certainly recognizes and will not miss. If France truly enters into a confrontation with Israel determined to go all the way, regardless of possible threats from Washington, it will resonate strongly across the international community and raise France's standing to unimaginable heights. Equally important, it would trigger a wave of new recognitions of Palestine that could eventually leave Israel and the United States internationally isolated. Macron could suddenly become a hero to millions of pro-Palestinian activists and sympathizers not only in Europe but around the world. That could win France sympathy and support it has never previously enjoyed, particularly in the Islamic world, while Moscow and Beijing would watch the rise of a new pole in a multipolar world with great interest, aware that Washington is losing ground.