'No alternative' to two-state solution for Israel, Palestinians: French FM
'Only a political, two-state solution will help respond to the legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security. There is no alternative,' French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said at the start of the three-day meeting.
Days before the conference, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that he would formally recognize a State of Palestine in September.
In an interview with French weekly La Tribune Dimanche, Barrot said that other European countries will confirm 'their intention to recognize the State of Palestine' during the conference, without confirming which.
'All states have a responsibility to act now,' said Palestinian prime minister Mohammad Mustafa at the start of the meeting, calling for an international force to help underwrite Palestinian statehood.
'Recognize the state of Palestine without delay.'
France is hoping that Britain will take this step. More than 200 British members of parliament on Friday voiced support for the idea, but Prime Minister Keir Starmer reiterated that recognition of a Palestinian state 'must be part of a wider plan.'
The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at the meeting 'the two-State solution is farther than ever before,' decrying Israel's 'creeping annexation' of the occupied West Bank and 'the wholesale destruction of Gaza.'
According to an AFP database, at least 142 of the 193 UN member states — including France — now recognize the Palestinian state proclaimed by the Palestinian leadership in exile in 1988.
In 1947, a resolution of the UN General Assembly decided on the partition of Palestine, then under a British mandate, into two independent states — one Jewish and the other Arab. The following year, the state of Israel was proclaimed.
For several decades, the vast majority of UN member states have supported the idea of a two-state solution, which would see Israel and a Palestinian state existing side-by-side.
But after more than 21 months of war in Gaza, the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and Israeli officials declaring designs to annex occupied territory, it is feared a Palestinian state could become geographically impossible.
The current war in Gaza started following a deadly attack by Hamas on Israel, which responded with a large-scale military response that has claimed tens of thousands of Palestinian lives and destroyed most basic infrastructure in the enclave.
This week's conference comes at a moment when 'the prospect of a Palestinian state has never been so threatened, or so necessary,' Barrot said.
Jordanian FM: 'stop Israeli unilateral actions'
Beyond facilitating conditions for the recognition of a Palestinian state, the meeting will focus on three other issues — reform of the Palestinian Authority, disarmament of Hamas and its exclusion from Palestinian public life, and normalization of relations with Israel by Arab states.
However, no new normalization deals are expected to be announced at the meeting, according to a French diplomatic source.
On the other hand, 'for the first time, Arab countries will condemn Hamas and call for its disarmament,' Barrot said.
Jordan's Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said 'we've got to act to stop Israeli unilateral actions that undermine the two-state solution, including settlements, land confiscation, encroachments on the holy sites and attempts to change the demographic composition of the West Bank and Gaza.'
Israel and the United States were not taking part in the meeting, amid growing international pressure on Israel to end nearly two years of war in Gaza.
Despite 'tactical pauses' in some military operations announced by Israel, the humanitarian catastrophe in the ravaged coastal territory is expected to dominate speeches by representatives of more than 100 countries as they take the podium.
Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said 'this conference does not promote a solution, but rather deepens the illusion.'
Bruno Stagno, chief advocacy officer at Human Rights Watch, said 'more platitudes about a two-state solution and peace process will do nothing to advance the conference's goals, nor to halt the extermination of Palestinians in Gaza.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leaders
19 minutes ago
- Leaders
Saudi, US Defense Chiefs Discuss Bilateral Ties
The Saudi Defense Minister, Prince Khalid bin Salman, spoke on Wednesday with the US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, reported the Saudi Press Agency (SPA). During a phone call, the two defense chiefs reviewed relations between Saudi Arabia and the US, exploring ways to further strengthen them within the framework of the strategic defense partnership between both countries. Moreover, they discussed efforts to promote regional and international security and stability, as well as many topics of mutual interest. Prince Khalid bin Salman visited the US in February 2025, where he met with Hegseth at the Pentagon. During their meeting, they emphasized the enduring friendship and strategic partnership between the two countries. Both defense officials explored ways to bolster the defense and military partnership between the Kingdom and the US. They also reviewed the latest regional and international developments, and efforts made to promote security and stability. Short link : Post Views: 7 Related Stories
Arab News
19 minutes ago
- Arab News
UK shift on Palestine reinforces a historical fact
The UK recently departed from decades of foreign policy, announcing plans to recognize Palestinian statehood unless Israel takes immediate action to address the crisis in Gaza. This announcement, coming alongside France and Canada's similar moves, marks a growing shift in international support for Palestine as the UN General Assembly approaches in September. The UK's announcement, while following France and Canada's lead, is notably different in its conditional nature. The Starmer government made it clear that it would proceed with recognizing Palestine as a state only if Israel agrees to a series of significant actions. These include a ceasefire in Gaza, a commitment not to annex the West Bank, and a pledge to work toward a credible, long-term peace process aimed at achieving a two-state solution. This move has been welcomed by many in the international community, yet it has also faced significant criticism, particularly given the UK's historical role in shaping the very conditions that have led to the conflict. Before British rule, the region now known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, specifically the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, reorganized in 1872. This area was part of the larger Ottoman province of Syria, but was granted a special administrative status. It was only with the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1920 that the term 'Palestine' began to take on its modern political meaning. Under British administration, the land was known as Mandate Palestine, with Britain trying to balance its dual commitment to both the Zionist movement and the local Arab population. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by the British foreign secretary at the time, expressed 'support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine,' leaving a historical record of British diplomatic recognition of a territory named Palestine. Despite its longstanding presence in the region, Britain has never officially recognized Palestine as a state — until now. This shift is significant, but it comes with a complex legacy. During the First World War, Britain entered into negotiations with Sharif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. In exchange for Arab support, Britain promised Arab independence, a commitment later known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. Though the specific interpretation of Palestine's status in this agreement has been a point of contention, this is another colonial-era record of official British utilization of the term, Palestine. While Arabs saw it as a promise for the independence of Palestine, Britain later argued that Palestine was excluded from this promise due to its strategic importance and other conflicting commitments, such as the Balfour Declaration. These historical British footnotes regarding Palestine statehood have shaped the Palestinian cause just as they have defined the very recognition of the territory itself. During the British Mandate for Palestine, Britain assumed administrative control with the aim of helping the region transition toward self-governance. One of the notable steps taken by the British was the establishment of the Palestinian passport system, which formally recognized Palestinians as residents of the Mandate, though not as a sovereign nation. These passports, issued under the Passports and Immigration Regulations, granted Palestinians some travel and residency rights, but they did not recognize Palestine as a distinct nation-state. In the first decade of the Mandate alone, about 70,000 of these documents were issued. In the context of Palestine's century-long struggle, the issuance of these documents supports one more time British utilization of the term Palestine. While the UK's announcement to recognize Palestine is a significant diplomatic step, it must be understood within the context of Britain's historical involvement in shaping the region's political landscape. Besides, this recognition carries significant geopolitical and diplomatic implications. Both the UK and Canada have tied their recognition of Palestine to specific actions from Israel or the Palestinian Authority, such as halting the expansion of Israeli settlements and agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza. In doing so, they are responding to the urgent need for change in the region, while at the same time pushing for conditions that reflect their vision of a lasting, sustainable two-state solution. The UK's recognition, in particular, carries considerable diplomatic weight as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. If the UK follows through, it will join France, Canada, and several other nations in formally recognizing Palestinian statehood as the world gathers in New York this September. For the Palestinian Authority, this recognition is particularly pertinent as it legitimizes the organization's aspirations for a sovereign state and enhances its standing on the international stage. UK recognition carries considerable diplomatic weight. Zaid M. Belbagi In addition to this diplomatic shift, the UK has committed significant resources to alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The UK government pledged £60 million ($80 million) in humanitarian aid in July 2025 alone, focusing on healthcare, food, water, shelter, and emergency services. This includes funding for UK-Med field hospitals, which have treated over 500,000 people during the conflict. The UK has coupled its recent diplomatic overture with a continued program of humanitarian assistance. However, this diplomatic announcement raises questions about the future of UK-Israel relations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted strongly to the announcement, accusing the UK of rewarding 'Hamas' monstrous terrorism,' which signals potential strain in the longstanding bilateral relationship between the two nations, historically tied by economic, political, and diplomatic agreements. By the end of Q1 2025, total trade between the UK and Israel reached £5.8 billion, with Israeli investment in the UK contributing an additional £1 billion in gross value and creating about 16,000 British jobs. With an updated free trade agreement expected following the launch of talks in 2022, the UK's shift in policy could challenge the foundation of this economic partnership. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made the UK's recognition of Palestine conditional, requiring Israel to take substantive steps to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, allow UN aid, halt annexations in the West Bank, and commit to a sustainable peace process aimed at reviving the two-state solution. The British government has made it clear that recognition will be upheld if these conditions are not met. However, given the current stance of Netanyahu's government, it seems unlikely that these conditions will be accepted, making the recognition of Palestine increasingly probable in the coming months. As such, the UK's recognition of Palestine before September seems all but certain, confirming what has been a historical fact.
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
EXPLAINER: Can Lebanon disarm Hezbollah?
Lebanon's cabinet has told the army to draw up a plan to establish a state monopoly on arms in a challenge to the Iran-backed Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah, which rejects calls to disarm. WHY IS THERE A PUSH TO DISARM HEZBOLLAH NOW? Israel pummelled Hezbollah last year in a war sparked by the conflict in Gaza, killing many of its top brass and 5,000 of its fighters before a November truce brokered by the United States. That deal committed Lebanon to restricting arms to six specific state security forces, and further stipulated that it should confiscate unauthorized weapons and prevent rearmament by non-state groups. In the months since, a new Lebanese government vowed to confine arms across the country to state control, Hezbollah's main arms route was cut when its Syrian ally Bashar Assad was ousted in December and Israel attacked its sponsor Iran in June. The government is facing pressure from Washington and Hezbollah's domestic rivals to act swiftly amid fears that Israel could intensify air strikes on Lebanon. Despite November's ceasefire, Israel has continued to carry out strikes on what it says are Hezbollah arms depots and fighters, mostly in southern Lebanon. HOW IS THE UNITED STATES INVOLVED? In June, US envoy Thomas Barrack proposed a roadmap to Lebanese officials to fully disarm Hezbollah in exchange for Israel halting its strikes on Lebanon and withdrawing its troops from five points they still occupy in southern Lebanon. But Hezbollah and its main Shiite ally the Amal Movement, led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, say the sequencing should be reversed, with Israel withdrawing and halting strikes before any talks on Hezbollah's arms. Washington has grown impatient, demanding the Beirut government make the first move with a formal commitment to disarm Hezbollah. WHY IS HEZBOLLAH SO WELL-ARMED? After Lebanon's 15-year civil war ended in 1990 Hezbollah, founded by Iran's Revolutionary Guards in 1982, was the only group allowed to keep its weapons on the grounds that it was fighting Israel's occupation of the country's south. After Israel withdrew in 2000 the group did not give up its arms, arguing its ability to fight was still a critical element of national defense against future Israeli aggression. A ceasefire agreement after a war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006 was backed by a UN resolution demanding the disarmament of all militant groups — but Hezbollah again kept its weapons, accusing Israel of having violated other parts of the truce deal, which Israel denies. Hezbollah took over parts of Beirut in fighting in 2008, underscoring its dominance. The group exercised decisive sway over state affairs in the following years as its power grew. WHAT DOES HEZBOLLAH SAY AND COULD THERE BE CIVIL STRIFE? Hezbollah has called the government's decision to ask the army to draw up plans to disarm it a 'grave sin' that 'fully serves Israel's interest.' Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem rejected each clause in Barrack's roadmap and when he spoke on Tuesday, dozens of motorcycles with men carrying Hezbollah flags drove around the group's stronghold in Beirut's southern suburbs — a show of its enduring strength. Hovering over any attempt to force Hezbollah to disarm is the spectre of previous bouts of civil unrest, including the 2008 fighting, triggered by the government's attempt to shut down the group's military telecoms network — an important facility for the group, but still less central than its arms. WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL COMPLICATIONS? Lebanon's power-sharing system apportions public sector posts — including in parliament, the cabinet and other roles — to different religious sects according to quotas. The system is meant to ensure no sect is cut out of decision making, but critics say it leads to political paralysis. Shiite representation in both parliament and cabinet is dominated by Hezbollah and its political ally Amal. Two Shiite ministers were traveling during Tuesday's cabinet session, and the other two walked out in the final moments as the decision was being taken. Qassem has said any government decision would require a national consensus and may challenge the legitimacy of cabinet decisions taken without Shiites. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? The cabinet decision gave the army a deadline to submit a disarmament plan to the government by the end of August. Another session scheduled for Thursday will discuss Barrack's proposal. Some Lebanese parties may keep trying to find a workaround that avoids a confrontation between Hezbollah and the state while warding off heavier Israeli strikes.
