🔗 Share this article

When Emmanuel Macron stated the decision to recognise an independent Palestine, it provoked a strong response from Israel and caused a dispute with the US.

Netanyahu sent a message accusing Paris of neglecting to confront rising antisemitism in the country. He argued that the move would only worsen antisemitic sentiments.

Answering back, France’s government condemned Netanyahu’s remarks as “offensive” and reiterated that the nation takes no lessons on how to fight antisemitism.

Charles Kushner, however, backed the Israeli leader in a written statement, claiming that recognising Palestine would endanger Jewish lives in France and encourage radicals.

The French government formally confronted the US envoy, declaring that his comments were “out of line” and violated diplomatic protocols of non-interference.

It is true, antisemitism is a serious issue in France, with a deep legacy of bias and hostile acts. After the October 7 attacks, reports of hostile actions have surged notably.

France has also struggled tackling widespread discrimination, such as acts against people of Muslim faith. Despite frequent appeals for action, no effective systems have been established to combat systemic racism.

However these shortcomings should not undermine the case for supporting sovereign Palestine. Suggesting that criticism of Israel is identical with antisemitism is a distorted claim.

Globally, most UN member states already support an independent Palestine. What makes this decision remarkable is that this represents the first move by an influential country.

In light of the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip, a place where many lost their lives and whole areas were devastated, recognising sovereignty seems an ethical obligation.

The Israeli government, however, continues to expand colonies in occupied territories, flouting global norms. These actions lead to concerns about the feasibility of an eventual sovereign nation.

Macron is scheduled to deliver a declaration at the UN in the coming days. Yet many question: Would it not enact stronger actions, like penalties against the Israeli government?

Regardless of global condemnation and charges of atrocities, Israel still to get defense cooperation and economic privileges from European nations.

France itself is claimed of providing military equipment to the Israeli military, at the same time condemning the violence in the region. Such contradiction weakens the credibility of France’s stance.

The decision additionally raises questions about his motives. After weakening domestic influence, some believe he is looking for a legacy on global politics.

Recognising Palestinian statehood earlier might have made a difference. Acting at this moment, but, feels as a calculated action more than an authentic dedication toward a resolution.