France petition against bee-killing pesticide tops two million backers
The legislation was adopted on July 8, but without a proper debate to bypass gridlock in a bitterly divided parliament.
On July 10, a 23-year-old master's student launched a petition urging the French government to drop the law allowing the reintroduction of acetamiprid, a pesticide that is harmful to ecosystems but popular with many farmers in Europe.
Banned in France since 2018, the chemical remains legal in the European Union.
The insecticide is particularly sought after by beet and hazelnut growers, who say they have no alternative against pests and face unfair competition.
The petition on France's lower-house National Assembly's website had garnered more than 2,009,000 signatures on Monday morning.
Backers at the height of summer include 400 people from the culinary world, including Michelin-starred chefs, who have criticized the 'blindness of our politicians.'
According to a poll published in La Tribune Dimanche on Sunday, 64 percent of people surveyed hope Macron will not sign the bill into law but will instead submit it to a new debate in parliament.
Macron has said he is waiting to hear the verdict of the Constitutional Council, which is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the law on August 7.
The contested legislation is dubbed the Duplomb law, after its author, Laurent Duplomb, a senator for the right-wing Republicans party.
The petition reached 500,000 signatures last weekend, a threshold after which the lower house may choose to hold a public debate, but that would be limited to the content of the petition — not the law itself.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
15 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
EU Report Finds Little Aid Is Getting into Gaza
The European Union has concluded that little aid is flowing into Gaza despite an understanding reached between Brussels and Israel last month, according to a report by the 27-nation bloc's foreign service. Although roughly 5,000 trucks entered Gaza during the 'limited lifting of the blockade by Israel,' there are still 'significant operational and bureaucratic constraints' on aid delivery, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Associated Press on Friday. Since May 19, an average of 36 trucks a day has entered Gaza, laden with food, nutrition supplements, medical supplies and chlorine, but 90% was looted once in Gaza, the report says. The EU had reached an agreement with Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar to increase humanitarian aid into Gaza, but officials have not been able to confirm any improvements for themselves. Israel has blocked an EU monitoring team from entering Gaza because they were not humanitarian aid providers, said Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, a European Commission spokesperson, at a press conference in Brussels on Thursday.
Arab News
a day ago
- Arab News
Statehood offers a brighter future for Palestinians — and Israelis
Western countries' recognition of Palestinian statehood is like a London bus — you wait ages for one and then three come along at once. It still baffles me why this has taken 45 years since the now nearly forgotten Venice Declaration of 1980, in which the nine member states of the European Community, the forerunner of the EU, recognized the right of Palestinian self-determination, and then an horrific war during which, slowly and with hesitant steps, a number of member states have taken this step. The most recent change of heart has seen France, the UK, Malta, and Portugal, in addition to Canada, expressing their intention to recognize a Palestinian state. Historically, they are very much behind the curve, as by now 147 out of the 193 members of the UN have already recognized Palestinian statehood. But this is better late than never, especially as France, the UK, and Canada are the first G7 members to do so. In the case of the first two, they are also permanent members of the UN Security Council, leaving the US isolated in its rejection of such a move. This makes it more than just a symbolic gesture, but a significant message from major international powers, especially if it signals proactive involvement in advancing a peace process. The question that should be asked is not why more countries are currently recognizing Palestinians statehood, but why it has taken them so long, lagging behind the rest of the world? Long before the horrific events of the past 22 months, the process of bringing peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on a two-state solution was stuck, a complete and utter stalemate. Since the US Secretary of State John Kerry's peace initiative collapsed in 2014, almost every single development has been detrimental to ending the conflict, and it now needs a game-changer to prompt new thinking on how to restart negotiations that will conclude a deal on a two-state solution. Most of the world, including those who have not recognized a Palestinian state, agrees that the only viable solution to this never-ending conflict is of two states, Israel and Palestine, coexisting peacefully side by side. Since the Madrid process in 1991 and the Oslo Accords two years later, the working assumption was that recognition of a Palestinian state would be the outcome of successful peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians that were supposed to be completed after an interim period of five years. However, this has never materialized. Instead, in the intervening years, what has emerged, by design and by default, are conditions unfavorable to such an outcome, while those who oppose it have gained the upper hand, mainly by using coercion. The international community increasingly took a bystander's position regarding this conflict and, tragically, let it slide to where it is at this moment in time. Recognizing a Palestinian state now means reversing the order of, first, resolving all the outstanding issues between the two sides, including borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, security arrangements, and other bilateral and multilateral issues, and then international recognition of a Palestinian state. What was supposed to become an incentive to successfully conclude peace negotiations has become an obstacle. It has underlined the asymmetry in the power relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and their utter mutual distrust, leading to unrealistic expectations on both sides. On the Israeli side, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously, too many decision-makers have not entirely come to terms with accepting a Palestinian state next door, whether for ideological or security reasons; on the Palestinian side, on the rare occasions that Israeli leaders have been ready to accept a Palestinian state, they have felt short-changed by the terms of the agreement, or have got cold feet. The question that should be asked is not why more countries are currently recognizing Palestinians statehood, but why it has taken them so long, lagging behind the rest of the world? Yossi Mekelberg International recognition of a Palestinian state is not the silver bullet for achieving the two-state solution, but it is an important step for the international community to reiterate that this is a conflict between two sovereign entities, albeit one still not fully formed, that have equal rights to self-determination, but also equal responsibility to bring to an end the conflict between them. It would have had more impact if the decision to recognize Palestinian statehood by France, UK, and Canada had been announced jointly. Nevertheless, events have still generated a certain momentum that could see more countries following them between now and the actual declaration of recognition due to take place at the General Assembly in New York in September. Additionally, declaring such a recognition from the podium of the General Assembly provides it with the highest level of legitimacy short of ultimate recognition by the Security Council, something that is still being blocked by Washington. However, the regrettable lack of enthusiasm for this move, or the fear of a US response, has somehow led the UK and Canada to diverge from France's approach of unconditionally recognizing Palestinian statehood. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that the UK will recognize a Palestinian state in September, unless Israel 'takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agrees to a ceasefire and commits 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 that there will be no annexations in the West Bank. It was obvious that Israel would not accept these conditions; however, it put a negative twist on the issue by presenting recognition as some sort of punishment of Israel, not as a positive and necessary decision to change the dynamic between the two antagonists. Canada's Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has said that his country's recognition depends on democratic reforms of the Palestinian Authority and on elections being held next year without Hamas. The timeline is somewhat problematic, as this can hardly be done in a meaningful manner in a matter of few weeks. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately rebuked the suggestion, as one would expect, and claimed that to recognize Palestine as a state was to reward Hamas and terrorism. This argument does not hold water, as the Arab League has also called for the disarming of Hamas. This is about empowering the moderates of both sides to work together for a brighter future for Israelis and Palestinians. Netanyahu would have responded in the very same way had this recognition taken place before Oct. 7, with his constant unsubstantiated whinging that any criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians' right to self-determination is anti-Israeli and antisemitic, and hence should not be taken seriously. However, recognition is not the 'be all and end all' for solving this conflict, but one important step toward peace in the Middle East which, if followed through with a concerted international commitment to initiate a meaningful peace with clear objectives and deadlines, might just change the course of the history of this conflict. • Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
Arab News
a day ago
- Arab News
Recognition of Palestine: a strategic recalibration of the global conscience
As the world confronts the moral collapse unfolding in Gaza and the dangerous entrenchment of unilateralism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the international community is beginning to coalesce around a long-delayed imperative: formal recognition of the state of Palestine. What was once considered a diplomatic outlier — recognition of Palestinian statehood outside the framework of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations — is now gaining legitimacy as a necessary corrective to decades of political stagnation and asymmetry. July's international conference on the two-state solution, co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France at the UN headquarters in New York, was a critical inflection point in the global approach to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Countries such as France, Malta, Spain, Ireland and even the UK have either formally recognized a Palestinian state or declared their readiness to do so. Such actions are not merely symbolic gestures, they are a collective geopolitical recalibration, an assertion that the Israeli strategy of permanent occupation and settlement expansion is incompatible with international law, regional stability and basic morality. It is no longer tenable to continue placating Israeli defiance by treating Palestinian sovereignty as a negotiable commodity. For years, Western powers, led by the US, have clung to the illusion that statehood must be the end product of bilateral negotiations — a formula that effectively handed Israel the power of veto over the very existence of Palestine. In practice, this posture enabled Israel to construct an irreversible reality on the ground: the annexation of land, building of settlements, and fragmentation of Palestinian society. But a growing number of countries are now rejecting that logic. They understand that Palestinian self-determination is not a gift to be granted, it is a legal and moral right enshrined in the UN Charter and countless international resolutions. Recognition of Palestinian statehood is therefore not a reward to be handed out for good behavior or used as a bargaining chip; it is an act to rectify historical injustice and realign global diplomacy with its own professed principles. The momentum building in Europe is particularly instructive. France, traditionally cautious on the issue, is now at the forefront of this diplomatic shift. Ireland and Spain, longtime advocates for Palestinian rights, have already shifted from rhetoric to action. Malta has followed suit, and the British Parliament has witnessed growing calls for recognition of Palestine, with many MPs now urging the government to match its verbal commitment to a two-state solution with a concrete policy to achieve it. This surge in recognition efforts also carries real strategic weight. It signals a broader divergence from a decades-old transatlantic consensus, dominated by Washington, that has consistently blocked the admission of Palestine to the UN as a full member (it currently has observer status), and shielded Israeli authorities from accountability at the International Criminal Court for their actions. By recognizing the State of Palestine without Israeli consent, these nations are not only challenging an obsolete consensus, they are actively reshaping it. Indeed, the cumulative effect of these recognitions could transform the diplomatic landscape; they help strengthen the Palestinian Authority's claim to full sovereignty, and enable greater Palestinian participation in multilateral institutions. Enhanced status at the UN and other international organizations would empower Palestinians to bring legal claims against Israeli authorities for their actions, including those related to settlement expansion, war crimes and the blockade on Gaza. This would subject Israel's conduct to international scrutiny in ways it has long sought to avoid. By recognizing the State of Palestine without Israeli consent, these nations are not only challenging an obsolete consensus, they are actively reshaping it. Hani Hazaimeh Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have all stepped forward to provide aid to Gaza, distinguishing themselves as regional powers committed not only to humanitarian relief but to a recentering of the Palestinian issue in global discourse. This Arab engagement is not peripheral, it is foundational to any long-term regional solution. But the central question remains: Will Israel and the US bow to this evolving international consensus? All the signs suggest they will continue to resist, at least in the short term. The Netanyahu government, propped up by a coalition of ultranationalists and religious extremists, continues to treat Palestinian statehood as an existential threat rather than a diplomatic necessity. Its response to international recognition efforts has been to double down on its own maximalist policies: expansion of settlements, tightening of its grip on East Jerusalem, and now the expansion of its unrelenting military campaign in Gaza that has shocked even its closest allies. The Trump administration, for its part, remains hesitant to act. Washington's reluctance to endorse recognition stems in part from domestic political considerations, and in part from its historical alignment with Israel's security narrative. However, the erosion of America's credibility as an 'honest broker' is accelerating. As more democracies recognize Palestine, the US risks diplomatic isolation on an issue where it once claimed moral leadership. There is, nonetheless, a growing awareness within Washington that the status quo is unsustainable. Younger Americans, progressives and diaspora communities — particularly Arab Americans and those Jewish Americans critical of Israeli policies — are demanding a shift in US policy. The Democratic Party itself is increasingly divided on how to respond to the actions of Israel. These internal pressures, combined with external diplomatic shifts, might eventually compel the US to reevaluate its rigid stance on the issue. Ultimately, recognition of Palestinian statehood is about more than diplomatic titles or UN votes. It is about whether the international community will continue to tolerate a world order in which might trumps right, or it will reclaim the moral clarity that animated the institutions it built in the aftermath of the Second World War. It is about affirming the fact that sovereignty, dignity and self-determination are not rights reserved for the powerful and the privileged, but the inalienable rights of all peoples, Palestinians included. The cascade of recognition of Palestinian statehood is a critical juncture. If it is sustained, the momentum could break the paralysis that has defined Middle East peace efforts for generations. It could force Israel back to the negotiating table with clear parameters grounded in international law. And it could restore a measure of credibility to global diplomacy, which has too often failed the Palestinian people. The recognition of Palestine will not, on its own, end the occupation or resolve all dimensions of the conflict. But it is a necessary first step; a recalibration of the global conscience, a diplomatic counterweight to decades of impunity, and perhaps the last viable path toward a just and durable peace in the Middle East. • Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh
