In recognizing the State of Palestine on September, 22, French President Emmanuel Macron sought to allow France to regain its former aura among a large part of international opinion, particularly Arab opinion. Macron’s aim, as his speech at the UN and subsequent statements to the press laid bare, was to restore France’s reputation as the “country of human rights and universal human values.” This quest for maintaining or restoring France’s presumed aura of moral grandeur is eerily reminiscent of General de Gaulle who, despite the Americans’ decisive contribution to the liberation of France during the Second World War, insisted on walking down the Champs Elysées in victory without the Americans. Like Macron today, de Gaulle’s bid was to reaffirm French pride and the independence of his country.
In that sense, the decision to recognize the state of Palestine is also reminiscent of Jacques Chirac’s firm stance and his opposition to the Iraq War in 2003. Similarly, his eventful stay in Israel during his official visit in October 1996, when he gave his firm support to the Palestinian cause. De Gaulle and Chirac were not fundamentally anti-American. They simply wanted to defend France’s interests and its autonomy of action, while strengthening efficient multipolar international diplomacy.
Paris-Tel Aviv relations have always been rocky
Israel, which France has greatly assisted since its inception with sophisticated weaponry and substantial political support, has never forgotten either the former’s statement of de Gaulle after the Six-Day War in 1967, describing Jews as a “self-confident and domineering elite people,” or Chirac’s sincere closeness to the Palestinian cause.
Macron, for his part, is not anti-Israeli, quite the contrary. However, his initiative to recognize the statehood of Palestine is the result of an observation: the dangerous drift of the Israeli government in the region and the deliberate genocide underway in Gaza. Through this gesture towards Palestine, Paris is expressing its usual independent positions in foreign policy.
The genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel’s announced annexation of the West Bank were decisive factors in Paris’s recognition of the State of Palestine. France also fears that the war could escalate in the region, putting its allies and interests at risk. Despite the internal difficulties France has been experiencing since the dissolution of parliament in 2024, an intensive pro-Israeli had long lobbied to dissuade it from taking such a decision. But Macron fully assumed his responsibility as president to take a decision that proved not only right, but also bold.
This recognition of the State of Palestine cannot be seen as an anti-Israel stance, as it is strictly in line with international law. However, since the birth of the Jewish state in 1948, relations between Paris and Tel Aviv have been rocky. From the outset, France voted against the partition of Palestine when the UN was first established.
It was only after strong pressure from the United States, which was promoting the Marshall Plan, that Paris joined the majority in recognizing the new state, despite the reluctance of some of the 57 UN-members at the time, and on the condition that Palestine be established alongside it.
It was from Paris, where he was staying, that Moshe Shertok, Foreign Minister of the Provisional Government of Israel, sent his famous letter of 29 November 1948 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It was undoubtedly on the recommendation of his French friends that he declared that the new state would respect all the obligations of the UN Charter. He wrote: “On 14 May 1948, the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish People in Palestine, in accordance with the international and historical right of the Jewish people to independence in their own independent and sovereign state, pursuant to the resolution of 29 November 1947 of the General Assembly.”
Shertok added: “On behalf of the State of Israel, I, Moshe Sherlock, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, accept without reservation the obligations set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and undertake to honor them from the day Israel becomes a member of the Organization.”
Israel’s failure to fulfil its international obligations
At the United Nations headquarters in New York, France was already fighting to ensure that the new state would respect its obligations to the international community in the future. There were fears that the birth of a country ex nihilo in the Middle East could jeopardize regional stability.
Thus, in the preamble to General Assembly Resolution 273, the Assembly emphasized the opinion issued by the Security Council, which noted that Israel is a peaceful state. The General Assembly also took note of Moshe Shertok’s declaration that the new state willingly and unreservedly accepts the obligations arising from the United Nations Charter.
Similarly, this resolution reiterates in another paragraph that Israel undertakes to observe these obligations on the day it becomes a full member of the Organization. All these repeated insinuations were premonitory signs of what would later happen in the region. Strengthened by its ties with the West, and with the United States in particular, Israel has never respected the UN Charter or its obligations towards the international community.
It was Israel’s failure to fulfil its international obligations, which it had voluntarily accepted, that prompted France to join other nations in recognizing the State of Palestine. In reality, Macron resigned himself to doing so, and certainly with regret, by adopting this position in the face of the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Palestine and observing the headlong rush of Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist government. The latter, with a sophisticated American military arsenal and an effective intelligence service at his disposal, has attacked several countries in the region, including Qatar, Paris’s other ally, where negotiations to free the hostages were taking place.
One wonders how Macron was able to resist and stand up to the pro-Israel lobby, which tried everything to dissuade him from taking such a decision. Several media commentators, journalists, intellectuals and politicians were mobilized to discourage him and advise him against such an initiative. The argument put forward was that his gesture was merely a reward for Hamas for its actions on 7 October. As this argument was unconvincing, the lobby moved on to the next phase, which consisted of conditioning the French initiative with coercive arrangements to render it meaningless.
Read also: ‘Unprecedented Disaster’: Macron Slams Israel’s Plan to Occupy Gaza
Thus, in a long letter addressed on 24 July to Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, Macron repeatedly reiterated the commitments made by the Palestinian leader, as if the Palestinians were the aggressors and responsible for this tragedy that has been ongoing since 1948. These inappropriate reminders have stripped the French initiative of its humanitarian substance. The letter contains phrases such as: “You have informed France and Saudi Arabia of the Palestinian Authority’s willingness to end the war. Or: ‘You condemned the attack on 7 October, called for the release of hostages held by Hamas, and advocated for its disarmament and withdrawal from the governance of Gaza.
The word commitment was repeated many times in this letter: “You have expressed your commitment to assume full sovereign functions in all Palestinian territories, including Gaza. And to carry out in-depth reforms and organize presidential elections in 2026, in order to strengthen the legitimacy of the future Palestinian state, which you assume will not be militarized, Macron writes.” He then repeats the same demand several times: “In light of your commitments, I welcome your commitments, taking note of your commitments, before concluding: with my confidence and my commitments for the good and security of all.”
This two-page letter stands in stark contrast to the brief and concise missive sent by British Prime Minister Keir Stermer to his Palestinian counterpart announcing the recognition of the State of Palestine. “I am aware,” he writes, “of the role that the United Kingdom has played in the Middle East. In 1917, it encouraged the principle of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people, insisting that nothing should be done to prejudice the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. In taking this decision today, I reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to the State of Palestine and to the Palestinian people, as well as our support for the two-state solution, in which Palestine and Israel live side by side in peace and security.”
These are therefore two different approaches, one demanding but cautious and the other humane and redemptive, but both aiming at the same goal. That of finally recognizing a Palestinian state where the people who have lived there since time immemorial simply aspire to return to the land of their ancestors. With these belated Western recognitions of the State of Palestine, the path to deliverance for the entire Middle East remains far out of reach as long as the United States continues to defend the indefensible and to support Israel unconditionally, instead of bringing it back to the path of reason and peace.