Decide Spain, Norway and Ireland Recognition of an independent Palestinian state reflects growing anger among Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, even among traditional friends, toward Israel and signals that international pressure on him will intensify.
But this does not mean that other European powers will follow suit. This year, French President Emmanuel Macron said such recognition was “not a taboo” and France’s foreign ministry reiterated that stance on Wednesday. In February this year, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron said that such recognition “cannot happen at the beginning of the process, but it does not have to happen at the end of the process”.
These are small steps that, while going beyond anything they have said before, fall far short of recognition of a Palestinian state itself. If Europe unified and major countries joined in recognition, while the United States stood alone and refused to do so, there could be a greater impact, but we are far from that stage yet.
“This decision must be useful, that is, a decisive step at the political level,” French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné said in a statement about the possible recognition. “France believes that, so far, this decision has not met the conditions to have a real impact on this process.”
France, in other words, will wait. So will Germany, whose support for Israel is second only to that of the United States and is rooted in atonement for the Holocaust. The decisions of Spain, Norway and Ireland show one thing: Europe will not agree on recognizing a Palestinian state before it is actually established, at least not on the timing.
There will be no agreement between the transatlantic allies. Like Israel, the United States still insists that recognition of the Palestinian state must be achieved through negotiations between the two sides. Otherwise, simply recognizing the Palestinian state will not change the status quo, and the situation in Palestine is getting worse day by day.
Mr. Netanyahu’s life’s work has been largely centered around avoiding a two-state deal, even to the point of supporting Hamas in the past in an effort to prevent that outcome. That seems unlikely to change unless the United States can somehow triangulate Saudi-Israeli normalization, Israel’s vague commitment to a two-state process, and an end to the Gaza war.
“For any prime minister other than Netanyahu, the U.S. offer would be very attractive,” said Itamar Rabinovich, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States. He pointed out that the Gaza war It will inevitably end with a formal inquiry into responsibility for the events of October 17. 7 disaster and face Mr Netanyahu’s accusations of fraud and corruption against him. “But for his own personal reasons, he was unwilling to play any significant role in the governance of Gaza in post-war Palestine.”
The leaders of the three European countries that recognize Palestine said they were determined to keep the two-state solution alive. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said: “We will not allow the possibility of a two-state solution to be destroyed by force.”
The words were stirring. At a time of terrible suffering amid the ruins of Gaza and widespread perception that the Palestinian Authority is ineffective and corrupt in the West Bank, the recognition could provide a moral boost for Palestinians pursuing their right to self-determination.
But the reality is that, for some time now, a divided Europe has had little real leverage over the conflict.
Since the Oslo Accords were reached during the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks in the early 1990s, Israel has been on the edge. Today, the only voice Israel is willing to listen to is that of the United States—and Netanyahu has shown defiance recently.
“The Europeans really have no influence,” Mr. Rabinovich said. “Recognition of a Palestinian state is purely symbolic and will not change anything. If they sent 30,000 European troops to Gaza to end the war, it would be different, but we know that if 10 of them were killed, they would all leave immediately.”
A week ago, the ICC chief prosecutor requested arrest warrants for Mr Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Galant, on suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, while he also sought arrest warrants for Hamas leaders. The requests are still subject to approval by the court’s judges.
The United States called the ICC prosecutor’s decision “shameful,” while France said it “supports the ICC, its independence and the fight against impunity in all cases” — potentially another sign of disunity among allies as the war intensifies. But Foreign Minister Serjounet later said the warrants “cannot in any way establish parity between Hamas, which he called a terrorist organization, and Israel.”
In response to the case brought by South Africa, the International Court of Justice, which hears cases between states rather than individuals, has ordered Israel to prevent its troops from committing or inciting genocide.
In other words, the pressure on Israel is growing. So is its isolation. Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to delay the war and refuse to lay out a future plan for Gaza, with his own political and judicial fate at stake, has cost him dearly.
A fundamental question remains: Will all these condemnations change Israel’s firm position that the war against Hamas must be won, including in the Rafah war? Or will this position be consolidated as discontent grows within Israel that Hamas terrorists and the Israeli democratic state are inexcusably morally equivalent to European morality?
As Mr Netanyahu’s far-right coalition dwindles in Israeli constituencies, some of Mr Netanyahu’s fierce opponents express concern over the ICC prosecutor’s appearance of pitting the Israeli leader against the leader of Hamas in Gaza. Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the Japanese attacks, was among those who were furious. , they felt the need to unite with the Israeli leadership.
Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz responded harshly to the three countries’ recognition of Palestinian statehood, saying: “Today’s decision sends a message to the Palestinians and the world: terrorism has a price,” adding that there will be consequences.
There is no doubt that the Palestinian cause, which had been dormant until the horrific violence of October 7, is now once again front and center in Western capitals and beyond.
The attack on Israel, and Israel’s devastating bombing of Gaza in response, has shaken the world out of its insensitivity to an intractable conflict. The Biden administration and European powers have made little mention of the two-state outcome over the past few years, arguing that the Palestinian issue can be resolved through a broader normalization of relations with Israel in the Middle East.
It turns out this was just wishful thinking.
Two peoples, Israel and Palestine, fighting for the same narrow strip of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, remain the indivisible core of the conflict. Neither will go away; each believes its claim is irrefutable. Now, as the possibility of a wider regional confrontation emerges, the race to revive the two-state idea is on the horizon, even though the conditions seem more unfavorable than ever.
Spain, Norway and Israel’s recognition of a Palestinian state is part of the fight, but may come too late. It reflects a widespread feeling that “enough is enough.” This is part of a global outrage that could help push forward if many things change, not least a change in the current leadership of Israel and Palestine, an end to the war, and the establishment of some unrelated governing body in Gaza. momentum. Do it with Hamas.
