Palestinians Hold Mixed Views as France Prepares to Recognize State
'We hope it will be implemented, and we hope that most or all countries around the world will follow France's lead in recognizing the Palestinian people's right to an independent state,' said Nabil Abdel Razek, a resident of Ramallah, home to the Palestinian Authority.
Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PA was intended to be a building bloc toward the establishment of a state.
At a newsagent in the central square of the West Bank city, several front-page headlines mentioned President Emmanuel Macron's late Thursday evening announcement.
'All of these decisions not only affirm the rights of the Palestinian people, but also contribute to changing the violent reality in the region and lead to greater stability,' said Ahmed Ghoneim, a political activist, as he headed off to a demonstration in solidarity with Gaza.
Ghoneim said he also hopes France's move will inspire other European countries, given that at least 142 of the 193 UN member states recognize a Palestinian state, according to an AFP tally.
But analysts are more cautious.
'The question for Palestinians is what will France do NOW about Israel starving them in Gaza,' Nour Odeh, a political commentator, wrote on X.
Others also agreed the main issue for Palestinians is Gaza.
'What France should have recognized is the genocide and taken measures to end it and end the occupation,' said Ines Abdel Razek, co-director of the Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy (PIPD).
In an interview with AFP, she said France should cut relations with Israel and impose a trade embargo.
'An example of a brave gesture is the Colombian president asking his army to block boats transporting energy and arms to Israel,' she said.
While saying France's promise is just 'symbolic,' Samer Sinijlawi, another political activist, noted Macron's call for elections in the Palestinian territories and said this 'brings us hope.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
24 minutes ago
- Arab News
Two Palestinian families in Jerusalem self-demolish their homes to avoid Israeli fines
LONDON: Two Palestinian families in occupied East Jerusalem have self-demolished their homes to avoid steep financial penalties imposed by the Israeli municipality for building without a permit on Sunday. Israel denies building permits to Palestinians in Jerusalem in most cases, while it carries out planned expansion of Jewish settlements in the city and the occupied West Bank. From 1991 to 2018, Israeli authorities approved only 16.5 percent of building permits in Palestinian neighborhoods, while the remaining permits were issued for Israeli neighborhoods in West Jerusalem and settlements, according to the organization Peace Now. The Palestinian Authority's Jerusalem Governorate said that the Quraan family was forced to demolish their home in the Jabal al-Mukabbir neighborhood on Sunday. Meanwhile, the Halawanis also demolished their residential building, comprising six housing units, in Beit Hanina, located north of Jerusalem. As a result, around 30 individuals, including children, have been left without homes. In the case that Israeli authorities carry out the destruction, the families will be required to pay for the cost of the demolition, which could vary and may total hundreds of thousands of Shekels. The Jerusalem Governorate said that this is part of an Israeli 'systematic policy of displacing' Palestinians from the city. 'Palestinian families in occupied Jerusalem are frequently denied building permits by Israeli authorities, leaving many with no legal option but to build without authorization,' it added. Human Rights Watch and other groups have criticized Israel's home demolition policy in Jerusalem as 'discriminatory.' Since Israel attacked Gaza in October 2023, authorities in Jerusalem have demolished 623 houses and other commercial facilities belonging to dozens of Palestinian families.
Arab News
36 minutes ago
- Arab News
Starmer has chance to right a historical wrong
Feverish debate over recent months has centered on whether the UK and France will recognize the state of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron said in February that recognition was 'not a taboo.' France and Saudi Arabia were due to hold a conference on the two-state solution in New York in June, but it was delayed by Israel's aggression against Iran. Instead, it is being held this week. But the UK's position has been far from clear? Will Prime Minister Keir Starmer agree to join in or will he delay? No country in the world has more of a history of grappling with the issue of Palestine than Britain. It was, after all, the author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which it pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It did not mention a second state in that declaration. London had to grapple with this as the mandatory power all the way up to 1947, when it handed the issue over to the newly formed UN to resolve. In November of that year, the UN General Assembly voted for partition. The UK abstained on that resolution. However, its exit from Palestine was one of the low points of its Middle Eastern colonial era. It made little or no attempt to thwart the war that started even before its troops had left. Palestinians argue that, given all this, Britain has a particular historic responsibility toward Palestine. It should, many argue, be in the vanguard of pushing for the creation of that second state. It was not until the Venice Declaration of 1980 that European powers including the UK committed to acknowledging the Palestinian right to self-government. Even after that, it was many years before Britain had any formal relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Successive governments acted merely as backing vocalists to the US position on most aspects of the Palestinian question. With the Oslo Accords of 1993, the expectation that a peace process would lead to a Palestinian state grew. Britain and other donor states invested heavily in this option and aid to the fledgling Palestinian Authority grew as a result. It was all under the rubric that this would lead to a two-state solution, a secure Israel side by side with a state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders. The Palestinian leadership shifted its strategy after the Second Intifada to pushing for recognition. The UNGA approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in 2012 and the state of Palestine also started applying for membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. In 2014, the UK government's position was outlined by then-Foreign Secretary William Hague, who said that London 'reserves the right to recognize a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.' On Oct. 13, 2014, a debate took place in the House of Commons with a votable motion: 'That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.' The result of the vote was 274 to 12, a majority of 262 in favor of recognition. This was not binding on the government of the time but was a clear signal of parliamentary opinion. The low number of opponents to the motion indicated that few politicians were willing to oppose it in public. Significantly, this motion was backed by the leader of the Labour Party at the time, Ed Miliband. He said that recognition was 'right, just, fair and in line with the values' of his party. This tied Labour to supporting recognition. Contrary to widespread belief, it was not his pro-Palestinian successor, Jeremy Corbyn, who first made this move. Keir Starmer inherited this stance when he became Labour leader after the election defeat in 2019. But he made a significant change in Labour's position prior to the 2024 election. The manifesto committed the party to recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process. It stated: 'We are committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.' The lack of clarity was deliberate. The decision on timing would be in the hands of the prime minister. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. Chris Doyle Debate endured as to whether these positions meant that Israel had veto power. Linking recognition to the state of a peace process, when the official Israel government policy was not to enter into negotiations, meant this was, in effect, exactly the case. Everything changed after Oct. 7, 2023. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. This has included a drive to recognize Palestine. In May 2024, Ireland, Norway and Spain recognized Palestine. Israel withdrew its ambassadors from those states. Larger European states such as the UK rejected the opportunity to join this move. This brings us to the present. Faced with Macron's announcement that France will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the focus returns to Starmer. He is facing considerable pressure to make the move immediately. Cabinet ministers are reported to have lobbied Starmer on recognition. They include Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Foreign Secretary David Lammy is also likely to have been backing this move. Now, 221 members of Parliament from nine parties have written to Starmer expressing their support for such a move. More than 130 of these are his own Labour MPs. Others are backing this letter even now. London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced his support, as did the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. The Financial Times quoted a senior Labour official as stating: 'The block on this is Keir himself as well as his senior advisers. They want to stay close to the US.' Public opinion is more supportive of recognition than opposed. Recent polls indicate a large number of 'don't knows' but, in a June survey, 64 percent of Labour voters said they believe that the UK should recognize Palestine. Only 2 percent of these voters opposed any recognition. This highlights that Starmer would have the backing of the base of his political party if he were to go ahead. What is holding Starmer back? The obvious answer is the US. Starmer is desperately keen to stay on constructive terms with American President Donald Trump. He will pick his battles with him — and it is unlikely one will be over the recognition of Palestine. There is also the issue of the hangover of the Corbyn era, when the Labour Party was swamped by accusations of antisemitism and lost considerable support within the British Jewish community. Starmer and his circle do not wish to relive that experience. Some argue that it is also Starmer's strongly held personal belief. Two arguments seem to hold sway in 10 Downing Street. Firstly, that recognition would not bring peace any closer. The second is the Israeli line that this rewards Hamas and its atrocities. The counterargument is that, far from rewarding Hamas, it is the Palestinian national movement that would be boosted. Is Starmer's position reversible? He has made U-turns on significant domestic policy, so it is possible. One argument is that if Starmer does not do this jointly with France, then in what circumstances would he do it? France would offer diplomatic cover and encourage other states to do the same. On the other hand, Starmer is in many ways already treating Palestine as a state in all but name. Back in May, he met with PA Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa in Downing Street with both flags on display as if Mustafa was head of a state government. Would UK recognition even matter? Israel seems to think so, as does the US. This explains their forthright condemnation of any state that recognizes Palestine. Supporters of the move believe that this matters too. It would mean official recognition — decades too late perhaps — that Palestinians do have a right to self-determination, that they have national rights and that, just like Israelis, they have a right to a state of their own. Acquiring statehood would also have legal benefits for Palestinians. Any UK recognition would be largely symbolic. However, if the UK were to recognize Palestine, it would be recognizing a state under occupation. That matters because it demonstrates that this 58-year-old Israeli occupation has to end — and the failure to do so must have consequences.
Arab News
36 minutes ago
- Arab News
Gaza famine a death sentence delivered by global inaction
Famine in Gaza is no longer a speculative threat, nor is it merely a rhetorical tool to shame the international community into action. It is now a brutal, undeniable fact. The situation has evolved from a humanitarian crisis into a full-blown catastrophe and the numbers speak for themselves. According to the UN, 96 percent of Gaza's population faces acute food insecurity. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification warns that at least 500,000 people are living under 'catastrophic' conditions — one step before mass starvation. These are not projections. They are the present realities. Gaza, already strangled by an 18-year blockade, is now walking barefoot into famine under the shadow of total siege and relentless bombardment. The current Israeli assault, which began in October 2023, has not only flattened entire neighborhoods and displaced more than 1.7 million people, it has also systematically targeted the infrastructure that makes survival possible: bakeries, food distribution centers, water facilities and even the UNRWA aid warehouses that once formed the backbone of humanitarian relief. Hospitals are collapsing. Children are dying — not only from bombs, but from hunger. Videos and photographs released by health workers in Khan Younis and northern Gaza show toddlers with protruding ribs, skeletal arms and lifeless eyes. Mothers have been filmed weeping as they try to feed their children with boiled grass and stale bread mixed with animal feed. These are not isolated cases — they are the norm in a place where malnutrition is spreading faster than any ceasefire can catch up. In previous conflicts, Gaza's suffering was often buried under the weight of geopolitical calculations and narratives of moral equivalence. This time, the truth has become too grotesque to ignore. The UN has repeatedly stated that Gaza is on the brink of famine. In June, the World Food Programme declared that 100 percent of Gaza's population is 'food insecure' — a statistic unprecedented in modern times. In March, famine was declared in northern Gaza by multiple humanitarian agencies, citing more than 30 children dying of starvation in just two hospitals. The rest of the deaths go undocumented, with bodies buried under rubble or in makeshift graves. To continue treating Gaza's starvation as a 'pressure tactic' used by Palestinian officials or international nongovernmental organizations is to participate in a lie that masks a genocide in progress. What we are witnessing is not a food crisis born of natural disaster or logistical failure. It is manufactured. It is the deliberate denial of food, water and medicine as a weapon of war — what international law classifies as collective punishment and, in some interpretations, genocide. Let us call it what it is: engineered starvation. And it is working. The scenes unfolding in Gaza are reminiscent of the worst famines in modern history: Ethiopia in the 1980s, Sudan's Darfur and the besieged cities of Syria. But there is one critical difference: never has the international community had such real-time access to the suffering — drone footage, eyewitness testimonies, satellite images — and still failed to meaningfully intervene. We cannot say we did not know. We know everything and yet we are doing nothing. Or worse — we are enabling. Standing with Gaza is no longer a political choice or a symbolic gesture — it is an existential test of our humanity. Hani Hazaimeh The Biden administration continued to send military aid to Israel, including bombs and surveillance technologies, despite multiple reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and even former UN officials calling for arms embargoes. European leaders offer lukewarm appeals for 'humanitarian pauses' while failing to impose any meaningful consequences. This is no longer about political alliances, strategic partnerships or counterterrorism narratives. Standing with Gaza is no longer a political choice or a symbolic gesture — it is an existential test of our humanity. In the face of children starving to death on live television, neutrality becomes complicity. Silence becomes endorsement. What is more, supporting Gaza today is not a matter of political affiliation or ideological alignment. It is not reserved for Muslims, Arabs or left-leaning activists. It is a universal moral imperative. Every human being who still believes in dignity, in life, in the right of a child to eat and sleep safely, has a role to play. This is not about Hamas. This is about humanity. The flood has reached its limit. The time for cautious statements and deferred action is over. The international system, including the UN Security Council and major humanitarian agencies, is facing a crisis of legitimacy. If these bodies cannot prevent the slow death of an entire population by hunger, what are they for? What is the value of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if it cannot be applied to Gaza? What purpose does international law serve if starvation tactics are used with impunity? There must be steps taken — now. First, an immediate and unconditional ceasefire is the only way to begin halting the famine. Second, the complete and unrestricted entry of humanitarian aid must be guaranteed by a binding international resolution, not vague promises. Third, accountability must follow. War crimes, including the deliberate starvation of civilians, must be investigated and prosecuted, no matter the perpetrator. Finally, there is a role for all of us as individuals. Speak up. Do not allow this atrocity to continue in your name. History will remember what we did — or did not do — when Gaza cried out not for help but for bread. In 2025, the world is being tested not just by war but by its own conscience. Will we choose humanity or will we rationalize genocide with politics and diplomatic fatigue? Gaza is dying, not in silence but in full view of the world. Let history record that we saw — and that some of us refused to look away.
