At a time when the Jewish State is waging a tough battle against Islamist Hamas and defending itself alone against threats of war from Iran, voices are being raised in Europe for the official recognition of a Palestinian state. The president of the Spanish Government, Pedro Sanchez, says he has agreed with the leaders of Ireland, Malta, and Slovenia to take “the first steps towards the recognition of statehood in the West Bank and Gaza Strip occupied by Israel.” The former head of French diplomacy, Jean-Yves Le Drian, warmly approves of the approach and affirms: “We must take actions of this type because we cannot continue like this.” French President Emmanuel Macron had already asserted that the recognition of a Palestinian state was “not a taboo.”
One hundred thirty-nine states have already recognized the statehood of Palestine within international bodies, but unilateral recognition adopted at the UN General Assembly is not binding. To this day, the G7 (Germany, Canada, the United States, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union) are pleading for mutual recognition by Israelis and Palestinians of two states living in peace side by side, but refuse to grant unilateral recognition, de jure and de facto.
Acts of recognition of a Palestinian state within the pre-June 1967 lines represent no significance other than an expression of political opinion. These actions and declarations contradict United Nations Security Council resolutions in favor of “secure and recognized” borders freely negotiated between the parties in a peace process sponsored by the international community and in accordance with Resolution 242, adopted on November 22, 1967, just after the Six Day War.
Since the terrible attack of October 7, 2023, we have witnessed a virulent campaign against Israel in the streets, in the media, and on social networks. During Ramadan, the world’s Muslim leaders influenced Westerners to put the Palestinian cause back on the international agenda. They intimidated and exerted intense pressure so that the Palestinians could obtain a state even before the outcome of the final status negotiations, a requirement of the still valid Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995. And yet, all these diplomatic activities and steps do not meet the legal, historical, and political criteria since there is no Palestinian state.
The norms and requirements set out in the UN Charter clearly determine the attributes of the status of each state:
The State within the framework of International Law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) a government; d) the ability to enter into relations with other States.
The Palestinians are not meeting these stated demands. It is, therefore, absurd to recognize a virtual state for a people led by terrorist leaders. We advise rereading the speeches of Hamas leaders who do not recognize the very existence of the State of Israel or even the power of the Palestinian Authority. Wasn’t the objective of the October 7, 2023 attack to conquer all of Palestine, from the river to the sea?
France has long advocated the creation of a Palestinian state. On November 22, 1974, it voted in favor of recognizing the PLO within the UN as an official observer, reaffirming the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.” Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and Jacques Chirac opened a PLO diplomatic office in Paris. François Mitterrand was the first French president to express the objective of creating a Palestinian state before the Knesset in 1982. In 2010, France upgraded the status of the General Delegation of Palestine in France, which became the Mission of Palestine, headed by an ambassador. France voted in favor of Palestine’s non-member observer state status at the United Nations in November 2012, and in favor of the flying of the Palestinian flag at the UN in September 2015. Paris considers that Jerusalem must become the capital of the two states, Israel and the future state of Palestine.
How is it possible for France to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state when, since 1948, France has refused to officially recognize Jerusalem as the historic and legitimate capital of Israel and the Jewish people? How can one describe this monstrous anomaly? Deception? Hypocrisy?
During the “Donors’ Conference” held in Paris following the Oslo Accords signing in 1993, France expressed its firm political and financial support for Mahmoud Abbas, and donors transferred nearly $7.7 billion. France wondered about the management of affairs and whether everything was transparent, conducted through channels, and in accordance with democratic values. What did Mahmoud Abbas do with all the billions of dollars he received from the international community? As for the leaders of Hamas, we have all seen the opulent ways they spend these enormous sums of aid in luxury hotels in Qatar.
The Consequences of Recognizing Palestine
The recognition of virtual Palestine is a victory for Iran’s ayatollahs and a reward for Islamist terrorism. A scourge controlled by the Iranian regime, which will soon have a nuclear arsenal, translates into a terrible calamity that will befall all the nations of Europe tomorrow.
In this tragic context, an official French confirmation to unilaterally recognize the State of Palestine will also confirm that France is no longer Israel’s ally and undoubtedly not a friendly country.
Biden’s America has the capability of preventing the creation of an Islamist terrorist state. The United States should stop publicly berating Israeli strategy and intervening in Israel’s political affairs. The American president should support Israel in its legitimate and existential fight against Hamas and Hizbullah and avoid, by all means, the creation of a Palestinian satellite of the ayatollahs in the heart of the Middle East.
Otherwise, the support of the United States for the European Palestine initiative will go down in the annals of modern political history as a great debacle of the West and a disgraceful cowardice about the Jewish State. It proves once again that Israel must rely only on itself and act according to its own national security interests.
