Rubio slams Macron's plan to recognize Palestinian state
'The United States strongly rejects @EmmanuelMacron's plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the @UN general assembly,' Rubio said in a Thursday evening statement on X. 'This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th.'
Macron said the decision is part of a commitment to a 'just and lasting peace' in the Middle East and that he will make the announcement before the United Nations General Assembly in September.
'The French people want peace in the Middle East. It is our responsibility — as French citizens, alongside Israelis, Palestinians, and our European and international partners — to prove that peace is possible,' Macron said.
So far, 146 countries have recognized the Palestinian state. France became the first member of the Group of Seven (G7) to do so.
Macron's announcement came the same day as the discussion between Israel and Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, about forging a ceasefire and releasing the hostages fell apart. Steve Witkoff, President Trump's Middle East envoy, hammered Hamas, saying the group lacks the 'desire' to reach a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza,' Witkoff said in a statement. 'It is a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza.'
On Thursday, as part of the announcement, Macron called for an immediate ceasefire in the war-torn enclave, for all of the hostages held by Hamas to be freed and for the aid flowing into Gaza to increase.
Israel has pushed against the international recognition of the Palestinian state, especially at the UN.
Marcon, who said he got unnamed commitments from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that made the announcement possible, was also criticized by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
'Such a move rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became,' Netanyahu said Thursday on X. 'A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel — not to live in peace beside it. Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
an hour ago
- News24
‘We become more and more divided': Gaza war setting Israel friends and families against each other
Israel and Hamas have been battling in Gaza for nearly two years. Attitudes in Israel have shifted from the start of the war. The country has become more polarised. As it grinds on well into its twenty-second month, Israel's war in Gaza has set friends and families against one another and sharpened existing political and cultural divides. Hostage families and peace activists want Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to secure a ceasefire with Hamas and free the remaining captives abducted during the October 2023 Hamas attacks. Right-wing members of Netanyahu's cabinet, meanwhile, want to seize the moment to occupy and annex more Palestinian land, at the risk of sparking further international criticism. The debate has divided the country and strained private relationships, undermining national unity at Israel's moment of greatest need in the midst of its longest war. 'As the war continues we become more and more divided,' said Emanuel Yitzchak Levi, a 29-year-old poet, schoolteacher and peace activist from Israel's religious left who attended a peace meeting at Tel Aviv's Dizengoff Square. 'It's really hard to keep being a friend, or family, a good son, a good brother to someone that's - from your point of view - supporting crimes against humanity,' he told AFP. 'And I think it's also hard for them to support me if they think I betrayed my own country.' As if to underline this point, a tall, dark-haired cyclist angered by the gathering pulled up his bike to shout 'traitors' at the attendees and to accuse activists of playing into Hamas' hands. Khames Alrefi/Anadolu via Getty Images Dvir Berko, a 36-year-old worker at one of the city's many IT startups, paused his scooter journey across downtown Tel Aviv to share a more reasoned critique of the peace activists' call for a ceasefire. Berko and others accused international bodies of exaggerating the threat of starvation in Gaza, and he told AFP that Israel should withhold aid until the remaining 49 hostages are freed. 'The Palestinian people, they're controlled by Hamas. Hamas takes their food. Hamas starts this war and, in every war that happens, bad things are going to happen. You're not going to send the other side flowers,' he argued. 'So, if they open a war, they should realise and understand what's going to happen after they open the war.' The raised voices in Tel Aviv reflect a deepening polarisation in Israeli society since Hamas' October 2023 attacks left 1 219 people dead, independent journalist Meron Rapoport told AFP. Rapoport, a former senior editor at liberal daily Haaretz, noted that Israel had been divided before the latest conflict, and had even seen huge anti-corruption protests against Netanyahu and perceived threats to judicial independence. Mostafa Alkharouf/Anadolu via Getty Images Hamas' attack initially triggered a wave of national unity, but as the conflict has dragged on and Israel's conduct has come under international criticism, attitudes on the right and left have diverged and hardened. 'The moment Hamas acted there was a coming together,' Rapoport said. 'Nearly everyone saw it as a just war. 'As the war went on it has made people come to the conclusion that the central motivations are not military reasons but political ones.' According to a survey conducted between 24 and 28 July by the Institute for National Security Studies, with 803 Jewish and 151 Arab respondents, Israelis narrowly see Hamas as primarily to blame for the delay in reaching a deal on freeing the hostages. Mahmoud Issa/Anadolu via Getty Images Only 24% of Israeli Jews are distressed or 'very distressed' by the humanitarian situation in Gaza - where, according to UN-mandated reports, 'a famine is unfolding' and Palestinian civilians are often killed while seeking food. But there is support for the families of the Israeli hostages, many of whom have accused Netanyahu of prolonging the war artificially to strengthen his own political position. 'In Israel there's a mandatory army service,' said Mika Almog, 50, an author and peace activist with the It's Time Coalition. So these soldiers are our children and they are being sent to die in a false criminal war that is still going on for nothing other than political reasons. Mika Almog In an open letter published Monday, 550 former top diplomats, military officers and spy chiefs urged US President Donald Trump to tell Netanyahu that the military stage of the war was already won and he must now focus on a hostage deal. 'At first this war was a just war, a defensive war, but when we achieved all military objectives, this war ceased to be a just war,' said Ami Ayalon, former director of the Shin Bet security service. The conflict 'is leading the State of Israel to lose its security and identity', he warned in a video released to accompany the letter. This declaration by the security officers - those who until recently prosecuted Israel's overt and clandestine wars - echoed the views of the veteran peace activists that have long protested against them. Ahmed Sayed/Anadolu via Getty Images Biblical archaeologist and kibbutz resident Avi Ofer is 70 years old and has long campaigned for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. He and fellow activists wore yellow ribbons with the length in days of the war written on it: '667'. The rangy historian was close to tears as he told AFP: 'This is the most awful period in my life.' 'Yes, Hamas are war criminals. We know what they do. The war was justified at first. At the beginning it was not a genocide,' he said. Not many Israelis use the term 'genocide', but they are aware that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is considering whether to rule on a complaint that the country has breached the Genocide Convention. While only a few are anguished about the threat of starvation and violence hanging over their neighbours, many are worried that Israel may become an international pariah - and that their conscript sons and daughters be treated like war crimes suspects when abroad. Israel and Netanyahu - with support from the US - have denounced the case in The Hague.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
What Is the World Going to Do About Iran's Uranium?
The US spent billions of dollars accounting for gram levels of uranium around the world since the end of the Cold War. It paid for UN monitoring and security summits while directly repatriating some 7,000 kilograms of the radioactive material from 47 countries to minimize the possibility that it could ever be used in a weapon. But on June 13, those decades of international effort were rolled back overnight. Even as Israeli attacks dealt grave damage to Iran's capacity to make new nuclear fuel, it eliminated monitoring of the Islamic Republic's vast inventory of enriched uranium. Iran's 409 kg of highly-enriched uranium could be stored in 16 transport cylinders At last count, Iran possessed 409 kg of near-bomb-grade material, along with 8,000 kg of uranium enriched to lower levels. The whereabouts of that stockpile hasn't been verified since the attacks began. Iran had warned it would take the material to a secure location if attacked. With the UN nuclear watchdog prohibited from inspecting for the first time since Iran began making fuel in the early 2000s, there's now the possibility that Tehran has taken its stockpile to a clandestine facility. By failing to account for or destroy the nuclear-fuel inventory, Israel and the US have provided Iran with 'strategic ambiguity' it didn't have before the war began — a bargaining chip in any potential negotiations over what happens next. The dilemma is how to respond. Here's a set of scenarios and options the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency could take in their approach to handling the situation. Click on the options below to see how events might unfold. Cold War Legacy The concept of strategic ambiguity was developed during the Cold War, most notably by Nobel Laureate economist Thomas Schelling, to manage uncertainty at the onset of the nuclear age. Effectively a measure of risk or threat, it allowed some level of guess work over capacity and intentions that was meant to prevent a slide toward all-out war. Israel, for example, uses it to manage perception of its own nuclear stockpile, neither denying nor confirming its existence. While intelligence agencies may be able to reduce ambiguity by using spies and analyzing satellite imagery, eliminating it altogether requires diplomacy or force. That's because nuclear material needs some level of physical verification to ensure it hasn't been diverted for military use. Less than 25 kg of highly enriched uranium is needed to construct a bomb. At last count, Iran possesses uranium enriched to various levels, which taken together is enough feedstock for two dozen weapons. Iran's Main Nuclear Fuel Making Sites After Israeli and US bombed three sites in June, governments are attempting to detect Iranian efforts to reconstitute activities The amount of ambiguity the US and Israel can tolerate is set to play a decisive role in their actions through the end of the year. How much of Iran's nuclear inventory are they willing to leave to chance? That's the question facing decision makers. Given the Trump administration insists it has obliterated Iran's nuclear program, the US and Israel may choose no further action. In such a scenario, actors would have to be highly tolerant of ambiguity, not least because the cache of uranium last seen in Iran's possession will be weapons-usable for thousands of years. Another possibility is that the US and Israel have low tolerance for ambiguity, and that they are willing to go all in on compelling Iran to verify the state and location of its uranium. In the absence of an Iranian capitulation, they will need to enforce compliance, potentially with boots on the ground for verification. Even with the most powerful weapons at their disposal, air strikes alone cannot eliminate ambiguity over Iran's fuel inventory status. Mutually acceptable, or negotiated ambiguity, is another potential outcome. A combination of remote-sensing, statistical methods and physical on-the-ground verification is used to account for material. That's what UN nuclear inspectors were doing before the attack, publishing the results every three months. Methodology This simulation applies game theory to test potential pathways. Key decision points correspond to real-world events including IAEA and UN General Assembly meetings in September, as well as the deadline to reimpose Security Council sanctions before they expire on Oct. 18. It also weighs the length of time required by diplomats and legislators to implement certain decisions. The first set of scenarios involves resolving 'ambiguity' over the location of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium: • In our 'high ambiguity' scenario, sides take a low cost wait-and-see approach that doesn't include physical verification of the uranium inventory. • In our 'mutually acceptable ambiguity' scenario, sides opt for negotiations. They include physical verification of Iran's uranium inventory at the cost of allowing some enrichment. • In our 'zero ambiguity' scenario, the option is for escalation through military confrontation to force Iran to allow physical verification of its uranium inventory. We also look at potential outcomes and costs of the strategies used by Iran and the US. Scenarios were repeated in mixed-strategy simulations to test how the dynamics between Iran and the US may evolve. Key assumptions include: • Iran is 100% committed to retaining at least some enrichment capacity because not doing so would in practice result in additional capitulation. • The US needs to be at least 50% committed to enforcing a zero-enrichment strategy to involve troops on the ground. • The scenarios are constructed around the decision points in September and October and take into account the approximate diplomatic timelines required to convene meetings, draft resolutions and vote on the decisions.
Epoch Times
3 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Court Clears Pro-Palestine Rally for Sydney Harbour Bridge
A planned pro-Palestinian protest march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge has been cleared to proceed after the New South Wales (NSW) Supreme Court dismissed a police request to block the rally. Justice Belinda Rigg ruled on Aug. 2 that anticipated disruption to traffic was not a sufficient reason to prevent the demonstration.
