France’s Recognition of Palestine Encourages Terrorism, Anti-French Separatism: French President Emmanuel Macron announced on July 24, 2025, that France will unilaterally recognize Palestine as a state at the United Nations General Assembly in September.
“Consistent with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine,” Macron tweeted.
Macron’s move comes against the backdrop of growing European anger at Israel for its continued military campaign in the Gaza Strip against Hamas.
But while Macron justified France’s move in the desire for peace, his virtue signaling may create perpetual war in the Middle East, encourage terrorism worldwide, and even threaten the unity of France and its territories.
The price of virtue signaling can be very high indeed.
A Historic Mistake
First, Macron does not define Palestine. While the borders of Gaza remain undisputed, Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2005 to allow the Palestinian Authority to take over Gaza, significant disputes hang over the West Bank. While France may consider the West Bank and East Jerusalem occupied, they are disputed as there has never before been a Palestinian state.
Indeed, far from being a native people supplanted by Jewish migrants, a close look at Palestinian origins and censuses suggests most Arabs migrated to Palestine alongside or even after the Jewish immigration. The founding condition of the Palestinian Authorities’ existence was its rejection of terrorism and its duty to negotiate a final status agreement with Israel to determine the shape and status of any Palestinian state.
It did neither. Egyptian Army officer-turned-Palestine Liberation Organization founder Yasser Arafat rejected the deal his negotiators had negotiated at the Camp David II summit. History repeated eight years later when Arafat’s successor, Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, walked away from an even more generous offer without making a counteroffer.
By recognizing Palestine, a new country that has no defined boundaries and claims the entirety of Israel, Macron is setting the region down the road of perpetual war. Indeed, he ends any hope of a diplomatic solution by signaling that the same international community that pressured Israel to make concessions ahead of the 1993 Oslo Accords would unilaterally relieve the Palestinians of commitments they made.
Macron’s move fuels terrorism in multiple ways. Those who demand Israel offer a ceasefire for Hamas forget three facts. First, Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023 during a ceasefire, rendering the notion of ceasefires meaningless.
Trouble Ahead…
Second, Macron does not explain what he would like Israel to do: Hamas reconsolidated its control during every previous ceasefire. How would throwing Hamas a lifeline help Palestinians break from the cycle to which its leaders have condemned them?
Macron must also ask if he believed that the international community should have offered the Islamic State ceasefires and provided it with aid. Perhaps Macron just believes Jews are acceptable victims but not Arabs or Kurds?
Some activists rationalize, if not justify, Palestinian terror as necessary in asymmetric conflict. Israel has jet fighters and missiles, so if Hamas wants to confront Israel, it has no choice but to use suicide bombers. Underpinning that logic is an unspoken reality: If Palestine had jet fighters and missiles, it could use them against Israel. If Palestine becomes independent—and acquires jet fighters and missiles—then there will be intra-state warfare. Macron’s move does not resolve conflict, it fuels it.
Rewarding Terror
Third, rewarding Hamas terrorism with independence signals terrorism works and, indeed, is wise. Here, contrast Macron’s enthusiasm for Palestinian independence with his opposition to Armenian independence in Nagorno-Karabakh. While Palestinians repeatedly embraced terrorism—hijacking airlines, bombing cafes, and even attacking the 1972 Munich Olympics—the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh organized referenda, held elections, and built a functioning democracy.
Macron stood aside when Azerbaijan attacked Artsakh, seized its leaders, and ethnically cleansed its entire population. Why should peaceful, democratic Artsakh not receive recognition yet Palestine, whose strategy rests on violence, should?
Inherent in Europe’s arrogance is the belief that it can dictate policy and redefine law without suffering consequences for the precedents it sets. For centuries, France has colonized Corsica. Why should other countries not arm Corsica to fight for its freedom? Perhaps Israel should unilaterally recognize the island nation.
Azerbaijan has already declared its intention not only to support New Caledonia’s independence from France, but also to free the “colonized” people of Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Saint-Martin.
Macron’s unilateralism opens the door for Israel to support Azerbaijan’s initiative to decolonize French territories and possessions.
The Consequences
Macron’s ends-justify-the-means philosophy also opens the door to aspirants in these French territories to target French airlines, French-owned hotels, and even French cafes and schoolchildren in Paris. Make no mistake: Such terrorism would be as wrong as Hamas terror, but Macron and his successors will have a far harder time making that case without sounding like hypocrites.
Macron may say he wants peace, but he just opened Pandora’s Box. The fire he unleased will burn not only the Middle East but France itself for decades to come.
About the Author: Dr. Michael Rubin
Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum. The opinions and views expressed are his own. A former Pentagon official, Dr. Rubin has lived in post-revolution Iran, Yemen, and both pre- and postwar Iraq. He also spent time with the Taliban before 9/11. For more than a decade, he taught classes at sea about the Horn of Africa and Middle East conflicts, culture, and terrorism, to deployed US Navy and Marine units. The views expressed are the author’s own.
Jim
July 26, 2025 at 4:47 pm
Looking at the plight of Gazans, and the tragedy unfolding, it’s hard to understand why Hamas insists on continuing the fight, but they do.
Macron’s proposal is the result of internal French politics because Frenchmen disapprove of Israels actions in Gaza.
This is not unique to the French, it’s a feeling spreading across Europe and in the United States, too.
Israel should not disregard this growing political disapproval of their policies as disproportional… and questionable moral standing.
I take a dim view of organizations which fail to take into account the welfare of the people they claim to represent. Hamas’ (a terrorist organization) actions have been disastrous to the population of Gaza.
Most people acknowledge Israel’s right to defend itself. What concerns many is that the response is disproportional (much larger) to (than) the original offense in terms of death & destruction Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, as it says, is an expression of proportionality when responding to acts of violence and responding in a reasonable & justifiable way (the idea of proportionality starts with the individual and works its way up to whole nation-states).
Most people object to women & children getting caught up in the cross fire as Israel fights to defeat Hamas.
Most people object to seeing starving children.
These are the sights & sounds which turn people against Israeli policy in Gaza… in turn their political leaders, Macron in France’s case, respond to their domestic pressure.
“…ends-justify-the-means philosophy…”
You know that sounds like the policy Netanyahu’s coalition is pursuing in Gaza.
And as people in various countries object with sufficient and increasing pressure their political leaders will respond accordingly.
Israeli leaders and its supporters should be conscious of these dynamics as a result of their actions in Gaza.