“True to the historic commitment of my country to the Middle East, to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, this is why I declare today, France recognises the state of Palestine.” So stated President Emmanuel Macron to more than 140 leaders in attendance at the United Nations General Assembly on September 22. He further declared that “we must do everything in our power to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution”.
On September 21, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Portugal had similarly recognised Palestinian statehood. The intention was clear: to resuscitate the moribund two-state solution, long confined to diplomacy’s morticians. For UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, the decision had been prompted, to a large degree, by, “The Israeli government’s relentless and increasing bombardment of Gaza, the offensive of recent weeks” and continued starvation and devastation.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had high hopes for his country’s gesture. “Canada recognises the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel.”
A joint statement from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong reiterated the country’s “longstanding commitment to a two-state solution, which has always been the only path to enduring peace and security for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.”
While most countries in Africa, Asia and South America recognise a Palestinian state, Western states, for the most part, have gone slow on the issue, holding to the long-standing assumption that Palestinians should patiently wait their turn once Israel gave consent. The attacks of October 7, 2023 by Hamas on Israel, and the retributive, vengeful war of annihilation being waged in Gaza, turned matters. Recognising Palestine became a matter of considered calculation, a potential incentive to convince Israel about the merits of a ceasefire and a return to talks that would lead to conditions of tolerable co-existence. But conditions would also be imposed on Palestinian statehood. The habits of former colonial powers resurfaced: a Palestinian state would be declared, but only on their terms.
Central to the new rollcall of states recognising Palestine are various undertakings, some of them more realistic than others. The Palestinian Authority, for instance, has given assurances that elections will be held in a timely fashion, and reforms made to a worn and corrupt administration in the West Bank. The assurance given by the Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas, on ensuring the disarming of the militants and the demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip is something he is in no position to give, seeing that any such decision will lie with Hamas.
Abbas, in his video address (his travel visa to the US had been revoked), again performed the necessary rites of sorrow and condemnation involving the “killing and detention of civilians, including Hamas’ actions on October 7, 2023.” He warned that “peaceful, popular resistance of this brutal occupation” would continue till it was defeated. He advertised the fact that local elections and elections for institutions, federations and unions had been conducted, with tepid acknowledgement of “a specialised committee to develop the justice sector in Palestine.” As for holding “democratic general elections,” that was a matter for Israel, blamed for obstructing and preventing them from taking place in East Jerusalem.
The antics of recognition have done nothing to halt the methodical destruction of Gaza City, nor restore regular channels of humanitarian aid. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds to the idea that Palestinian statehood must never be allowed to eventuate. “It will not happen,” he thundered, arguing that recognising such an entity was a gift to terrorism. “A Palestinian state will not be established west of the Jordan River.” In keeping with previous isolated states in history – apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy – he hopes that Israel can develop an economy with “autarkic characteristics” and become a “super Sparta”.
Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid is less sure. While condemning unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state as undue reward for terroristic acts, he is convinced that sober and sensible diplomacy could have averted the issue. “The government that brought upon us the worst security disaster in our history is now also bringing upon us the most severe diplomatic crisis,” he opined in a seething post on X.
Unfortunately for the Palestinian cause, what is left in Gaza City is being levelled even as the diplomats and politicians congratulate themselves in New York. Israel’s odious ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, is partially right in calling the recent clutch of declarations “empty” in character. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich captures the sneering mood: “The days when Britain and other countries would determine our future are over, the mandate is over, and the only answer to the anti-Israeli move is sovereignty over the homeland in Judea and Samaria and removing the foolish idea of a Palestinian state from the agenda forever.”