Why is France recognising Palestinian statehood and who else has?
Below are some details about Mr Macron's announcement, driven by a rising global outcry over starvation and devastation in Gaza amid Israel's war against Hamas militants, as well as other nations' position on having Palestinian statehood recognised.
What did Macron say?
Mr Macron published a letter sent to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas confirming France's intention to press ahead with recognition and work to convince other partners to do the same.
He said he would make a formal announcement at the United Nations General Assembly next month.
France is now the first major Western country to shift its diplomatic stance on a Palestinian state, after Spain, Ireland, and Norway officially recognised one last year.
Why is this significant?
The decision to recognise Palestinian statehood is mostly symbolic, with Israel occupying the territories where the Palestinians have long aimed to establish that state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital.
But the move by France, which is home to Europe's largest Jewish and Muslim communities, could fuel a movement so far dominated by smaller nations generally more critical of Israel.
It also makes Israel appear more isolated on the international stage over the war in Gaza, which is suffering from a wave of hunger that the World Health Organization's chief said this week amounts to man-made mass starvation.
Israel said it is committed to allowing aid into Gaza, but must control it to prevent it being diverted by militants.
It said it has let enough food into Gaza during the war and blames Hamas for the suffering of Gaza's 2.2 million people.
Why did Macron do this?
Mr Macron had been leaning towards the move for months as part of a bid to keep the idea of a two-state solution alive, despite the pressure not to do so.
He decided to do it ahead of a UN conference co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia on the matter next week to try to sway other countries considering that step, or those that are wavering.
What impact could it have on French ties with Israel
Ahead of Mr Macron's announcement, Israeli officials had spent months lobbying to prevent what some had called "a nuclear bomb" for bilateral relations.
Sources familiar with the matter say Israel's warnings to France had ranged from scaling back intelligence-sharing to complicating Paris' regional initiatives - even hinting at possible annexation of parts of the West Bank.
Who could be next?
France's decision may put pressure on major countries like Britain, Germany, Australia, Canada and Japan to take the same path. In the immediate term, Malta and Belgium could be the next countries within the European Union to do so.
A British cabinet minister said today that Britain supports eventual recognition of a Palestinian state, but the immediate priority should be alleviating the suffering in Gaza and securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
Germany said today it was not planning to recognise Palestinian statehood in the short term, rather its priority was to make "long-overdue progress" towards a two-state solution – Israel and a Palestinian state co-existing in peace.
Who else has recognised Palestinian statehood?
Last year, Ireland, Norway and Spain recognised a Palestinian state with its borders to be demarcated as they were prior to the 1967 Middle East war, when Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
However, they also recognised that those borders may change in any eventual talks to reach a final settlement, and that their decisions did not diminish their belief in Israel's fundamental right to exist in peace and security.
About 144 of the 193 member states of the United Nations recognise Palestine as a state, including most of the global south as well as Russia, China and India. But only a handful of the 27 European Union members do so, mostly former Communist countries as well as Sweden and Cyprus.
The UN General Assembly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in November 2012 by upgrading its observer status at the world body to "non-member state" from "entity".
How did the United States, Israel, and Palestinians react?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the decision by France, one of Israel's closest allies and a G7 member, saying such a move "rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy".
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz described it as "a disgrace and a surrender to terrorism".
He added that Israel would not allow the establishment of a "Palestinian entity that would harm our security, endanger our existence".
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United States "strongly rejects (Mr Macron's) plan to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly".
"This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace," Mr Rubio posted on X. "It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th" - a reference to Hamas' 2023 cross-border attack on Israel that set off the Gaza war.
Thanking France, the Palestinian Authority's Vice President Hussein Al Sheikh said Mr Macron's decision reflected "France's commitment to international law and its support for the Palestinian people's rights to self-determination and the establishment of our independent state".
The Palestine Liberation Organization recognised Israel's right to exist in peace at the start of the US-backed peace process in 1993 that set up the Palestinian Authority in what Palestinians hoped would be a stepping stone towards statehood.
But Hamas and other Palestinian Islamist militants who have long dominated Gaza and frequently clash with Israeli forces in the West Bank reject recognition of Israel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
2 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Slovenia introduces ban on imports from Israeli-occupied territories
Slovenia on Wednesday introduced a ban on imports of goods produced in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and approved an additional aid package for Palestinians in Gaza, the government said in a statement. "The government today banned the import of goods originating from settlements in the occupied territories, including a ban on circumventing the ban on these imports," the statement on the government website said. The statement did not specify whether the ban refers to all goods produced in the territories or just Israeli goods. The government also instructed the competent ministries to consider banning the export of goods from Slovenia intended for these Israeli-occupied settlements. "Israeli government's actions, including the construction of illegal settlements, expropriations, the forced displacement of the Palestinian population, the destruction of their serious and repeated violations of international humanitarian law," Prime Minister Robert Golob said in statement quoted by the STA news agency. "These actions not only threaten the lives and dignity of the Palestinian population, but also the foundations of the international order." The news agency said the volume of goods affected is extremely low at under €2,000 in 2023. Most of the international community considers the settlements illegal. The Israeli government deems settlements legal under its own laws, while some so-called "outposts" are illegal but often tolerated and sometimes later legalised. The government also said on Wednesday it would provide material assistance in the form of food and blankets, estimated to be worth up to 879,490 euros, to the Palestinians affected by the war between Israel and the militant group Hamas in Gaza. Slovenia recognised a Palestinian state in June last year, following Spain, Ireland and Norway. It last week imposed an embargo on exports, imports and the transit of arms to Israel, two weeks after it declared Israeli ministers persona non grata. Reuters
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Who was the real Daniel O'Connell?
Analysis: from a fierce passion for civil rights and huge energy to anger, ego and vanity, an assessment of the Emancipator's strengths and flaws There's no doubt that The Great Emancipator had a trailblazing life. The Daniel O'Connell: Forgotten King Of Ireland documentary, directed by Alan Gilsenan and presented by Olivia O'Leary, re-assessed the life and times of O'Connell by travelling from Kerry to Glasnevin to Rome, to look at the contemporary legacy of O'Connell, the man that King George IV of England grudgingly called "the uncrowned king of Ireland". O'Leary was joined by various guests, including Prof Patrick Geoghegan, Professor in Modern History at TCD. In these edited excerpts from interviews for the series, Geoghegan discusses O'Connell's views on slavery, his approach to civil rights, his flaws, his tendencies to be a bully and what motivated him. Because he was so central to Catholic emancipation, that's the victory that stuck with him, but he had a sense of civil rights that went much wider that that. "Really it was a great civil rights victory because what he was doing was giving the vast majority of the people equal rights in the country. He believed in Jewish emancipation and he fought for Jewish rights in the British parliament. He believed in the emancipation of of African Americans who are being held in slavery in the United States and became one of the greatest champions of freedom for those people in the 19th century. From RTÉ One, Olivia O'Leary and Sinn Finn's Eoin Ó Broin debate the legacy of O'Connell "Many people disapproved of O'Connell's stance on slavery. Archbishops in America wrote to him. It wasn't that they were in favour of slavery, but they didn't believe that it was appropriate for an Irish politician to be lecturing the Americans on how they should run their own country. It was seen as inappropriate interfering "Some of the language O'Connell used was harsh and uncompromising. He said that George Washington was a hypocrite because he owned slaves and he said that he would never set foot on American soil because it was a contaminated country and he believed that slavery was a great sin and will have to be removed. "O'Connell's feeling on the slavery issue was personal. He had an empathy there that many other white abolitionists didn't have. He understood what it was like to grow up in a sense of feeling a sense of inferiority, feeling humiliated, feeling like you weren't equal in your own country. "The Irish condition wasn't as bad as the slave condition, but he knew what it was like to grow up with that humiliation and so he empathised with the slave mother, with the slave father, with slave children. He would move his audiences to tears when he would speak at anti-slavery rallies in the United Kingdom and in Ireland." From RTÉ Radio 1's Today With Miriam O'Callaghan, Olivia O'Leary on why the memory of O'Connell has been left to gather dust in a forgotten corner of Irish history When Frederick Douglass came to Ireland in 1845, he saw similarities with the plight of his own people "Yes, especially the horrible conditions of the peasants and of course this was a country about to go into a terrible famine, I suppose the big difference is that American slaves could be sold at any time and children be taken off their parents. That's the main difference with the peasantry in Ireland. "When O'Connell anointed Douglass as the black O'Connell of the United States, it was his way of saying that America needed a champion of freedom. It was his way of passing on that torch and was something Douglass never forgot. "Douglass mourned the fact that when O'Connell died, the Irish nationalist movement was taken over by people who supported slavery and who had expressed their ambition to go over and own a plantation with slaves, like John Mitchell. Whereas O'Connell was someone who made the walls shake when he denounced the slaveowners. O'Connell was someone who influenced the great men and women who campaigned for abolition of slavery." From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, Myles Dungan on how a 1844 spell in prison did wonders for Daniel O'Connell's health and political reputation What were O'Connell's flaws? "He had a lot of flaws. I think part of the problem with O'Connell and the way he's remembered is that it's been very much a one-dimensional portrait of either the hero of Ireland, the saint who won Catholic emancipation or else the coward who bottled it at Clontarf. "The reality is that he was a much more complex figure. He was aggressive, he was aggressive in his language, he shocked his family, he shocked his friends, he shocked his opponents. Sometimes they'd have to intercept the newspapers so that his uncle Maurice wouldn't find out what he was saying in speeches. "But on the other hand, that was necessary to shake the Irish people out of their apathy and show that this was someone who was fighting for them. Sometimes it could extend over into bullying when it came to his own friends and supporters and there wasn't a close associate who he hadn't fallen out with at some point or another. "He had a huge ego and his vanity was legendary. When he would travel around the country in the 1830s, he would ask school children if they knew who he was and if they didn't, he'd say 'I'm the person who won your freedom'. When journalists would ask him who was the greatest person in Irish history he would say 'myself'. "He was terrible with money, he was always borrowing money and he was never saving money. He also wanted people to think he was the great chieftain living in the great house with the great carriage with the great estate in Kerry, the best clothes. "He couldn't afford these things at the time, his wife was furious about the carriage, Merrion Square. He couldn't tell the difference between public funds for his organisations, so there were always questions about whether he was using public funds for his own private dinners. "He could be a bully, liked things done his own way, insisted that his followers gave him complete allegiance. If there was ever a difference of opinion, he could fly into a furious rage. But very often, he would forgive people and give them a hug. I think he would have been a nightmare to work with because things could only be done one way and that was his." "I think he was just someone who was really one of these figures who only comes around once in a 200 or 300 year period" What do you think motivated him? Would he have been as energetic a character in a totally different situation? "I think sometimes you meet these figures who just seem to have boundless energy, I think he loved what he was doing and I think when you love what you're doing it doesn't seem like work. So he loved getting up at five in the morning and taking a shower - he installed this shower contraption in his house in Merrion Square. "But he loved going to the law courts and running rings around opposing counsels and intimidating judges. And he loved going to public meetings and campaigning for the civil rights and I think he he got so much energy out of the love and and welcome of the crowd. "O'Connell once said that whatever job you were given to do, you should always make sure you did it to the best of your ability. He used to boast 'if I was breaking rocks, I'd be the best breaker of rocks that ever lived', so he believed in doing a job to the best of his ability. "I think he was just someone who was really one of these figures who only comes around once in a 200 or 300 year period. Someone who has an incredible vision and energy and drive, some of it is driven by his own anger. The anger motivated him, that sense of humiliation, the anger at the way Catholics were being treated. "Some of it was the ego motivating him, but he had this incredible drive and determination. I think the depression in the later years was probably to do with the death of his wife and probably a despair about how things were going in Ireland."
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Israel's military chief opposes Gaza war expansion
Israel 's military chief has pushed back against Binyamin Netanyahu 's plans to seize areas of Gaza it doesn't already control, three Israeli officials said, as the prime minister faces increasing pressure over the war both at home and abroad. During a tense, three-hour meeting on Tuesday, Eyal Zamir, the military chief of staff, warned the prime minister that taking the rest of Gaza could trap the military in the territory, which it withdrew from two decades ago, and could lead to harm to the hostages being held there, the sources briefed on the meeting said. The Israeli military says it already controls 75 per cent of Gaza after nearly two years of war, which began when militant group Hamas attacked southern Israeli communities in October 2023. It has repeatedly opposed imposing military rule, annexing the territory and rebuilding Jewish settlements there – policies advocated by some government members. Mr Netanyahu is under intense international pressure to reach a ceasefire in the coastal enclave, which has been reduced to rubble in the fighting. Most of the population of about two million has been displaced multiple times and aid groups say residents are on the verge of famine. The UN has called reports about a possible expansion of Israel's military operations in Gaza 'deeply alarming' if true. READ MORE The military, which accuses Hamas of operating among civilians, has at times avoided areas where intelligence suggested hostages were held and former captives have said their captors threatened to kill them if Israeli forces approached. Mr Netanyahu told Mr Zamir that so far the military had failed to bring about the release of the hostages, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Most of those freed so far came about as a result of diplomatic negotiations. Israel's military chief Eyal Zamir pushed back against Binyamin Netanyahu's plans to seize areas of Gaza it doesn't already control. Photograph: Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images Defence minister Israel Katz wrote on X Wednesday that the military chief has both the right and the duty to voice his opinion, but said that the military would carry out the government's decisions until all war objectives are achieved. The prime minister's office confirmed the meeting with Mr Zamir on Tuesday but declined to comment further and the military did not respond to a request for comment. The prime minister is scheduled to discuss military plans for Gaza with other ministers on Thursday. A fourth source said Mr Netanyahu wants to expand military operations in Gaza to put pressure on Hamas. Mr Netanyahu, who in May said that Israel would control all of Gaza, leads the most right-wing coalition government in Israel's history and some of his key partners have in the past threatened to quit if the government ended the war. [ Analysis: Resignation of army chief over Gaza occupation would further divide Israel Opens in new window ] Following a 40-minute meeting with the prime minister on Wednesday, opposition leader Yair Lapid told reporters he had advised Mr Netanyahu that the public was not interested in continuing the war and that a full military takeover would be a very bad idea. A public poll last month by Israel's Channel 12 also showed support for a diplomatic deal that would end the war and secure the release of the hostages. There are 50 hostages still being held in Gaza, of whom at least 20 are believed to be alive. Videos released by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another militant group in Gaza, last week of two extremely emaciated captives triggered international condemnation. Close to 200 Palestinians have died of starvation in Gaza since the war began, about half of them children, according to Gaza's health ministry. More than 20 died on Wednesday when a truck believed to be carrying food overturned as it was swarmed by a desperate crowd, according to local health authorities. The latest ceasefire talks in Qatar broke down last month. Hamas insists any deal must lead to a permanent end to the war, while Israel accuses the group of lacking sincerity about giving up power afterwards and says it must be defeated. An expansion of the military offensive in heavily populated areas would likely be devastating. 'Where will we go?' said Tamer Al-Burai, a displaced Palestinian living at the edge of Deir Al Balah in central Gaza. 'Should people jump into the sea if the tanks rolled in, or wait to die under the rubble of their houses? We want an end to this war, it is enough, enough,' he told Reuters by phone. [ Gaza is also a war on the human instinct for compassion Opens in new window ] The war in Gaza has also overextended Israel's military, which has a small standing army and has had to repeatedly mobilise reservists. It is not clear if more reservists would be needed to expand operations and take more territory. The military continued to carry out air strikes across Gaza on Wednesday, killing at least 135 people in the past 24 hours, the Gaza health ministry said, with the death toll since the beginning of the conflict now at more than 61,000, mostly civilians, it says. About 1,200 people were killed, including more than 700 civilians, and 251 hostages taken to Gaza after the Hamas attack on Israel, according to Israeli tallies. – Reuters
