Gulf countries welcome France recognition of Palestinian state
Other European Union members have recognized Palestine since the Gaza war erupted in October 2023 but France is the first member of the G7 group of major advanced economies to do so.
Macron said on Thursday that France would formally recognize a Palestinian state during a United Nations meeting in September.
A ministerial-level meeting co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia to discuss a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is planned for later this month.
Qatar, a key mediator in indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas on ending the Gaza war, also welcomed the French move.
Its foreign ministry said the move 'constitutes significant support for the legitimate rights of the brotherly Palestinian people' and 'contributes to advancing prospects for achieving a just and comprehensive peace in the region.'
The Kuwaiti foreign ministry said it 'commended this significant step.'
The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- which also includes the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, both of which have ties with Israel -- also praised the move.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
13 minutes ago
- Arab News
The UN, the Palestinians, Israel and a stalled two-state solution
UNITED NATIONS: Ever since the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states in 1947, the United Nations has been inextricably linked to the fate of Palestinians, with the organization meeting this week hoping to revive the two-state solution. Here is a timeline on the issue: In November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 dividing Palestine — which was then under British mandate — into Jewish and Arab states, with a special international zone for Jerusalem. Zionist leaders accepted the resolution, but it was opposed by Arab states and the Palestinians. Israel declared independence in May 1948, triggering the Arab-Israeli war which was won convincingly by Israel the following year. Around 760,000 Palestinians fled their homes or were expelled — an event known as the 'Nakba,' Arabic for 'catastrophe,' which the United Nations only officially commemorated for the first time in May 2023. In the aftermath of the Six-Day War of 1967, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the conflict, including the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. But linguistic ambiguities between the English and French versions of the resolutions complicated matters, making the scope of the required withdrawal unclear. In November 1974, Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), gave his first speech to the UN General Assembly in New York, saying he carried both 'an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun.' Days later, the UN General Assembly recognized the Palestinians' right to self-determination and independence. It granted UN observer status to the PLO as a representative of the Palestinian people. One of the strongest peace initiatives did not come from the United Nations. In 1993, Israel and the PLO — which in 1988 unilaterally declared an independent State of Palestine — wrapped up months of secret negotiations in Norway's capital Oslo. The two sides signed a 'declaration of principles' on Palestinian autonomy and, in 1994, Arafat returned to the Palestinian territories after a long exile and formed the Palestinian Authority, the governing body for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. UN Security Council decisions on how to treat the Palestinians have always depended on the position of the veto-wielding United States. Since 1972, Washington has used its veto more than 30 times to protect its close ally Israel. But sometimes, it allows key resolutions to advance. In March 2002, the Security Council — at Washington's initiative — adopted Resolution 1397, the first to mention a Palestinian state existing alongside Israel, with secure and recognized borders. In December 2016, for the first time since 1979, the Council called on Israel to stop building settlements in the Palestinian territories — a measure that went through thanks to a US abstention, just before the end of Barack Obama's White House term. And in March 2024, another US abstention — under pressure from the international community — allowed the Security Council to call for an immediate ceasefire amid Israel's offensive on Hamas in Gaza, sparked by the militants' October 7 attack. That measure came after the United States blocked three similar drafts. In 2011, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas initiated the process of requesting membership of the State of Palestine to the UN, which required a positive recommendation from the Security Council, followed by a favorable vote from the General Assembly. In the face of opposition from the United States, the process was halted even before a vote in the Council. The following year, the General Assembly granted the Palestinians a lower status as a 'non-member observer State.' In April 2024, the Palestinians renewed their request to become a full-fledged member state, but the United States vetoed it. If the Palestinian request had cleared the Security Council hurdle, it would have had every chance of being approved by the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly. According to an AFP database, at least 142 of the 193 UN member states unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. In the absence of full membership, the Assembly granted the Palestinians new rights in 2024, seating them in alphabetical order of states, and allowing to submit resolution proposals themselves for the first time.
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
For the sake of peace, America should recognize Palestine
After an unexpected delay due to Israel's unprovoked attack on Iran last month, the UN will finally convene a crucial high-level meeting in New York this week. Scheduled for Monday and Tuesday at the foreign minister level, the meeting aims to discuss the long-promised but still unrealized political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the two-state solution. The idea is not new. It envisions two states — Israel and Palestine — living side by side in peace. While Israel has been recognized by the global community, including Arab nations and the Palestinians themselves, the state of Palestine still lacks full recognition by the UN Security Council. That recognition is a necessary step before Palestine can be admitted as a full UN member. Three permanent members of the UNSC — France, the UK and the US — have so far blocked that recognition. But change is coming. President Emmanuel Macron, whose government is co-chairing the UN conference with Saudi Arabia, has announced that France will recognize Palestine when the UN General Assembly meets this fall. The UK has expressed similar intentions, conditioned on there being a 'wider plan which ultimately results in a two-state solution.' Without a political horizon for Palestinians and a realistic long-term solution, we will only be kicking the can down the road. Both France and the UK understand the urgent need for an end to the Israeli revenge war on Gaza, accomplishing the release of detainees on both sides, followed immediately by an urgent effort to carry out the more important challenge of finding a political solution. Before the end of September, it is expected that 150 of the UN's 193 member states will have recognized the state of Palestine on the June 4, 1967, borders. This leaves the US as the lone major holdout. Leaders from both major American political parties, including President Donald Trump, have supported the idea of a two-state solution. Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, despite his staunch support for Israel, even visited Ramallah last year and met with senior Palestinian leader Hussein Al-Sheikh. Yet, paradoxically, the US has announced that it does not plan to attend the UN meeting on the two-state solution. The reasons remain unclear. One possibility is that Washington is reacting to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fiery rhetoric. After Macron's announcement, Netanyahu claimed that recognizing Palestine would endanger Israeli security. 'A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel,' he said. 'Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel.' Nothing could be further from the truth. If any side is attempting to negate the other, it is Israel seeking to erase Palestine, not the other way round. The current Palestinian leadership, based in Ramallah and led by President Mahmoud Abbas, has consistently opposed the Oct. 7 attacks and Hamas' militaristic approach. This leadership favors diplomacy and has long supported the two-state vision, as outlined in the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence. That declaration explicitly envisioned a Palestinian state next to Israel. If any side is attempting to negate the other, it is Israel seeking to erase Palestine, not the other way round. Daoud Kuttab It is important to recall that Netanyahu himself has historically enabled Hamas, seeing it as a tool to divide and weaken the secular Palestinian national movement. The world now recognizes this cynical strategy for what it is. But Western leaders too often ignore this reality. Recognition of Palestine at the UN is not a 'reward for terror.' It is a recognition of an inalienable right: the right of self-determination. That principle is foundational to the very idea of the UN and the international order it represents. If Washington continues to pay lip service to a two-state solution while boycotting discussions intended to realize it, the implications will be stark. The current position suggests that American leaders — whether consciously or not — are aligning themselves with a vision of Jewish supremacy in the Middle East. That is a dangerous path. It will only prolong the conflict and isolate the US from the global consensus, which is increasingly united against apartheid, occupation and permanent discrimination. Palestinians and Israelis have two — and only two — realistic options: two states for two peoples or one democratic state with equal rights for all. All other ideas mean that America (and any other holdouts on Palestinian recognition) support apartheid by not opposing the current situation. As leading Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem stated in a report back in 2011, Israel has been conducting 'a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid.' In 1948, Israel expelled 750,000 Palestinians and has refused to allow them to return ever since. Many of those refugees ended up in Gaza and we have seen what the absence of justice for Palestinians has produced. Continuing on this path of ignoring the Palestinian reality and denying the political rights of Palestinians under whatever religious or domestic political consideration will never work. Neither will the fantasy of permanently expelling or suppressing the 7 million Palestinians living between the river and the sea ever succeed. On May 15, 1948, within minutes of its declaration as a state, the US recognized Israel. It is high time that America recognized the other half of the two-state solution. The sooner Washington genuinely embraces the two-state solution and joins the world in recognizing the state of Palestine — including the principle of it being an independent, democratic nation living peacefully alongside Israel — the sooner peace in the Middle East can become a reality.
Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
Starmer has chance to right a historical wrong
Feverish debate over recent months has centered on whether the UK and France will recognize the state of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron said in February that recognition was 'not a taboo.' France and Saudi Arabia were due to hold a conference on the two-state solution in New York in June, but it was delayed by Israel's aggression against Iran. Instead, it is being held this week. But the UK's position has been far from clear? Will Prime Minister Keir Starmer agree to join in or will he delay? No country in the world has more of a history of grappling with the issue of Palestine than Britain. It was, after all, the author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which it pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It did not mention a second state in that declaration. London had to grapple with this as the mandatory power all the way up to 1947, when it handed the issue over to the newly formed UN to resolve. In November of that year, the UN General Assembly voted for partition. The UK abstained on that resolution. However, its exit from Palestine was one of the low points of its Middle Eastern colonial era. It made little or no attempt to thwart the war that started even before its troops had left. Palestinians argue that, given all this, Britain has a particular historic responsibility toward Palestine. It should, many argue, be in the vanguard of pushing for the creation of that second state. It was not until the Venice Declaration of 1980 that European powers including the UK committed to acknowledging the Palestinian right to self-government. Even after that, it was many years before Britain had any formal relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Successive governments acted merely as backing vocalists to the US position on most aspects of the Palestinian question. With the Oslo Accords of 1993, the expectation that a peace process would lead to a Palestinian state grew. Britain and other donor states invested heavily in this option and aid to the fledgling Palestinian Authority grew as a result. It was all under the rubric that this would lead to a two-state solution, a secure Israel side by side with a state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders. The Palestinian leadership shifted its strategy after the Second Intifada to pushing for recognition. The UNGA approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in 2012 and the state of Palestine also started applying for membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. In 2014, the UK government's position was outlined by then-Foreign Secretary William Hague, who said that London 'reserves the right to recognize a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.' On Oct. 13, 2014, a debate took place in the House of Commons with a votable motion: 'That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.' The result of the vote was 274 to 12, a majority of 262 in favor of recognition. This was not binding on the government of the time but was a clear signal of parliamentary opinion. The low number of opponents to the motion indicated that few politicians were willing to oppose it in public. Significantly, this motion was backed by the leader of the Labour Party at the time, Ed Miliband. He said that recognition was 'right, just, fair and in line with the values' of his party. This tied Labour to supporting recognition. Contrary to widespread belief, it was not his pro-Palestinian successor, Jeremy Corbyn, who first made this move. Keir Starmer inherited this stance when he became Labour leader after the election defeat in 2019. But he made a significant change in Labour's position prior to the 2024 election. The manifesto committed the party to recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process. It stated: 'We are committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.' The lack of clarity was deliberate. The decision on timing would be in the hands of the prime minister. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. Chris Doyle Debate endured as to whether these positions meant that Israel had veto power. Linking recognition to the state of a peace process, when the official Israel government policy was not to enter into negotiations, meant this was, in effect, exactly the case. Everything changed after Oct. 7, 2023. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. This has included a drive to recognize Palestine. In May 2024, Ireland, Norway and Spain recognized Palestine. Israel withdrew its ambassadors from those states. Larger European states such as the UK rejected the opportunity to join this move. This brings us to the present. Faced with Macron's announcement that France will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the focus returns to Starmer. He is facing considerable pressure to make the move immediately. Cabinet ministers are reported to have lobbied Starmer on recognition. They include Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Foreign Secretary David Lammy is also likely to have been backing this move. Now, 221 members of Parliament from nine parties have written to Starmer expressing their support for such a move. More than 130 of these are his own Labour MPs. Others are backing this letter even now. London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced his support, as did the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. The Financial Times quoted a senior Labour official as stating: 'The block on this is Keir himself as well as his senior advisers. They want to stay close to the US.' Public opinion is more supportive of recognition than opposed. Recent polls indicate a large number of 'don't knows' but, in a June survey, 64 percent of Labour voters said they believe that the UK should recognize Palestine. Only 2 percent of these voters opposed any recognition. This highlights that Starmer would have the backing of the base of his political party if he were to go ahead. What is holding Starmer back? The obvious answer is the US. Starmer is desperately keen to stay on constructive terms with American President Donald Trump. He will pick his battles with him — and it is unlikely one will be over the recognition of Palestine. There is also the issue of the hangover of the Corbyn era, when the Labour Party was swamped by accusations of antisemitism and lost considerable support within the British Jewish community. Starmer and his circle do not wish to relive that experience. Some argue that it is also Starmer's strongly held personal belief. Two arguments seem to hold sway in 10 Downing Street. Firstly, that recognition would not bring peace any closer. The second is the Israeli line that this rewards Hamas and its atrocities. The counterargument is that, far from rewarding Hamas, it is the Palestinian national movement that would be boosted. Is Starmer's position reversible? He has made U-turns on significant domestic policy, so it is possible. One argument is that if Starmer does not do this jointly with France, then in what circumstances would he do it? France would offer diplomatic cover and encourage other states to do the same. On the other hand, Starmer is in many ways already treating Palestine as a state in all but name. Back in May, he met with PA Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa in Downing Street with both flags on display as if Mustafa was head of a state government. Would UK recognition even matter? Israel seems to think so, as does the US. This explains their forthright condemnation of any state that recognizes Palestine. Supporters of the move believe that this matters too. It would mean official recognition — decades too late perhaps — that Palestinians do have a right to self-determination, that they have national rights and that, just like Israelis, they have a right to a state of their own. Acquiring statehood would also have legal benefits for Palestinians. Any UK recognition would be largely symbolic. However, if the UK were to recognize Palestine, it would be recognizing a state under occupation. That matters because it demonstrates that this 58-year-old Israeli occupation has to end — and the failure to do so must have consequences.
