The UK and France, the two countries most responsible for Israel’s creation, are set to punish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government for their abuses in Gaza by recognizing a Palestinian State. Would it make a blind bit of difference to suffering in the Strip, or bring the creation of a Palestinian state any closer? Probably not.
These decisions are not as they are being sold. They are not considered foreign policy measures, crafted to push Israel’s government to end the war, flood Gaza with food and medical aid, and kickstart a political process that would give hope for a future settlement. Suspending military aid to Israel might possibly help with that. Threatening to recognize a state of Palestine would not.
First, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron acted primarily for domestic political reasons. As Pierre Lellouche, a former Cabinet minister in right-of-center French governments, wrote recently in an op-ed for Le Figaro, Macron is a lame duck leader desperate for relevance. He acted in response to a strong pro-Palestinian movement at home and a need to be seen as a player on the global stage.
Starmer was facing rumbles of revolt within the Labour Party that he leads and the makings of a Gaza-fueled insurgency to his left, in the form of a new party created by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Each poses significant political threats to Starmer and his government, and Palestinian recognition is one way to counter them.
As if to redress some of the criticism, Macron on Tuesday joined 14 other countries at the UN — including Canada and Australia — in calling for Palestinian recognition. The preamble hammered Hamas and tried to address some of the obvious obstacles to Israeli agreement. None of those wishes included a means for implementation.
The UK was not a signatory, but unlike Macron, Starmer could say that he gave his decision teeth by making recognition of a Palestinian state contingent: He said he would not take the step if Israel agrees to a ceasefire in Gaza by September. That sounds smart; it uses the threat of recognition as potential leverage to secure a ceasefire and relief for Gaza. However, the UK’s conditions place leverage in the wrong hands.
Hamas has an equal say in any ceasefire. Indeed, it just rejected another deal. And thanks to Starmer, Hamas now has an incentive to make sure there is no truce before September, even if Netanyahu decides to accept one. At that point, Hamas’ refusal to lay down its arms, go into exile or hand over remaining hostages would, indeed, be rewarded — with recognition. A terrorist organization at risk of losing its popular support base, after it deliberately provoked Israel into an invasion that has had only disastrous consequences for Gazans, would be able to point to a political win.
So why not just focus on Hamas instead? Why not offer it British recognition of a Palestinian state if — and only if — it agrees to a ceasefire, and gives up its hostages, weapons and control over Gaza? The reason is that this threat would not solve Starmer’s problem at home, where Israel is seen as the guilty party in need of pressure and punishment. Plus, Hamas does not actually want a two-state solution. Its goal is to eliminate the Jewish state and establish Islamic rule across all of Palestine. Nor does it care about continued civilian suffering, which it has instrumentalized for its jihad.
The bottom line is that recognition would remain little more than gesture politics until the leaders of the Jewish-Israeli and Arab-Palestinian populations negotiate to create the prerequisites of Palestinian statehood. Those are set out by a 1933 convention as defined borders, a permanent population, a government and the ability transact with other states. Palestine does not yet have these. There are already more than 140 countries that recognize it as a state, and there is little cause to think adding a few more would suddenly make that statehood real.
There are, of course, reasons for all the sound and fury. While Europe’s faded empires might not be great powers anymore, the UK and France do carry outsized diplomatic significance for the Levant.
Both countries are traditional allies of Israel and members of the G7, and they are two of just five states that can wield a veto at the UN Security Council. Equally important is that they were the architects of the modern Middle East and its conflicts. The borders of Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine and Syria were all largely the products of British and French mapmakers, as they carved up this part of the collapsing Ottoman Empire between them toward the end of World War I.
In addition, the restoration of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was primarily the work of British statesmen, including then-British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour, who set out the principle in a 1917 declaration. The UK went on to run Palestine and hold the ring for Jewish immigration from 1920 to Israel’s formation in 1948.
Even so, what today’s British and French leaders are doing, beyond solving their own domestic political issues, is punishing Netanyahu. There is no doubt he deserves it: He has continued the bloodshed and destruction in Gaza long after it could be legally or morally justified, strategically explained or publicly supported. However, if he does now agree to a ceasefire, it would be despite these threats of recognition, not because of them.
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS