Published in the Jerusalem Post, 4 August 2025
“True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” posted France’s President Emmanuel Macron on his X account on July 24, “I have decided that France will recognize the state of Palestine. I will make this solemn announcement at the United Nations General Assembly next September.”
With that statement France became the first major Western and G7 country to go beyond merely proposing the two-state solution as the only way of resolving the perennial Israel-Palestine dispute. Macron’s move is intended to signal support for some kind of renewed peace process leading to that result. It was also aimed at encouraging other nations to follow suit.
Three decided to do so, two of
them G7 nations – the UK and Canada.
Malta, the third, declared its intention unequivocally, but the UK
announcement was framed in the form of a disingenuous ultimatum to Israel. Treating recognition as a sort of punishment
for non-compliance, Starmer announced that it would take place unless Israel fulfilled
a range of demands framed so that they could not possibly be met in the course
of a few weeks.
What were the demands? That “the Israeli government take substantive
steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit
to a long‑term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two‑state solution.
And this includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, and making
clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank.”
Starmer imposed no conditions on
Hamas. He merely demanded, with no means
of enforcing his demands, that “they must immediately release all the hostages,
sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the
government of Gaza.”
Of course exactly the opposite
occurred. Starmer’s announcement was taken by Hamas as a sign that
ceasefire negotiations were no longer necessary. It broke them off
at once, ensuring that at least one of Starmer's demands on the Israeli
government could not possibly be met.
Canada’s announcement was hedged
with conditions imposed on the PA. Prime
Minister Mark Carney declared that
recognition would be conditional on the PA undertaking democratic reforms, agreeing
to elections in 2026 excluding Hamas, and demilitarization. Whether this meant that Canadian recognition
would not go ahead if these demands were not accepted by the PA was left
unclear.
The UK’s announcement has not gone unchallenged. On July 31 no less than 40 peers in the House of Lords, many of them senior legal figures, wrote to the UK’s Attorney General, Lord Hermer.
The letter, referring to Lord
Hermer’s own statements on the importance of upholding international law,
continues: “You have said that a selective, ‘pick and mix’ approach to
international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set
out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political
expedience. Accordingly, we expect you
to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government
that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing
recognition of states in international law.”
Lord Hermer is unlikely to
disclose the rationale behind his advice to the prime minister. If he did, it is likely to run along these
lines: Legal recognition of a state de
jure would mean accepting that it meets the Montevideo Convention conditions
of statehood, while political recognition de facto, which could be
described as symbolic, reflects support for a cause or a political resolution
rather than a legal fact. Most recognitions of Palestine – and some 140 nations
have done so – are not legal affirmations of full statehood under international
law, but political support for Palestinian self-determination and a two-state
solution. Palestine is perceived by
many, perhaps most, as a state in waiting for a future partner to resolve the dispute
once and for all.
An elephant dominates this room. All those many nations insistent that the only
practicable way forward is the two-state solution – many even postulating that
this has long been the supreme aim of many Palestinians, denied them by an
intransigent Israel – are deliberately blind to the fact that the Palestinian
Fatah leadership has rejected specific two-state offers on multiple occasions, while
Hamas, its followers, and a majority of Palestinian opinion according to the
latest poll, explicitly oppose the concept altogether.
Among the opportunities missed were the UN Partition Plan of 1947, accepted by the Jewish leadership, rejected by the Arab High Command. Some Arab opinion, including PA President Mahmoud Abbas himself, regards that rejection as a major miscalculation. In 2011, during a TV interview, he said: “It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole..."
In man-to-man talks with Abbas in
2008, then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert offered 94% of the West Bank,
land swaps, shared Jerusalem, and even an international trusteeship over holy
sites. Abbas did not accept.
US Secretary of State John Kerry
led talks in 2014 on a two-state plan based on 4 June 1967 boundaries. Abbas walked away.
As for Hamas and its followers, a
two-state solution is entirely rejected.
Hamas’s 2017 revised charter, while accepting a Palestinian state within
1967 borders as a “national consensus,” still refuses to recognize Israel or
renounce armed struggle. To quote: "Hamas
rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from
the river to the sea."
Given all this, the conundrum is
what France, the UK and Canada believe can be achieved from a symbolic
recognition of the non-state of Palestine, and how their relentless advocacy of
a two-state solution rejected by most Palestinian opinion is intended to
advance matters.
Published in the Jerusalem Post, and the Jerusalem Post online titled: "Palestinian statehood: what does recognition mean?", 4 August 2025:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-863083
No comments:
Post a Comment