Live updates: Follow the latest on Israel-Gaza
France is more likely than not to formally recognise a Palestinian state, with expectations that the UK, Canada and other western nations could follow in a co-ordinated diplomatic move, experts say.
The potential shift comes amid heightened diplomatic efforts to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though the exact terms of recognition remain under negotiation.
French officials have said President Emmanuel Macron is leaning towards recognising a Palestinian state ahead of a UN conference that France and Saudi Arabia are co-hosting from June 17 to 20.
Mr Macron has said he is “determined” to recognise a Palestinian state, but also set out several conditions, including the “demilitarisation” of Hamas.
“It is unclear whether it will be an outright recognition, or a time-bound, staged one contingent on certain conditions, such as holding Palestinian elections within a year and the disarming of Hamas,” Rym Momtaz, editor in chief of Carnegie Europe's blog Strategic Europe told The National.
“The negotiations on this will go down to the wire and intensify when leaders meet in person at the G7 summit in Canada at the beginning of the week.”
Ms Momtaz noted that “extreme reactions” from parts of the Israeli government indicate that France’s potential recognition carries significant weight and an action Arab partners require and want. France would be the most prominent western power to recognise Palestinian statehood.
“Emmanuel Macron has leverage and has been the main engine for this conference. But undoubtedly, it is US President Donald Trump who is the game-changer,” said Ms Momtaz.
European governments are increasingly doubtful that Israel intends to relax its control over the Palestinians, and they view formal recognition of a Palestinian state as a potential tool to pressure Israeli officials.
After almost a year of pressure to take action against Israel’s most extreme government members, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway imposed sanctions on Tuesday on two far-right Israeli cabinet ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, accusing them of repeatedly inciting violence againstPalestinians in the West Bank.
Mr Macron’s position has been described by Karim Bitar, associate research fellow at the Institute for International and Strategic Affairs in Paris (IRIS), as “extremely difficult” because Israel-Palestine is no longer merely a foreign policy issue.
“It has become a domestic political question in France with a deeply polarised public opinion,” Mr Bitar told The National.
“France thinks that the time has come for a paradigm shift, and France is trying to leverage its excellent relations with Gulf countries in order to at least open a pathway towards a Palestinian state,” he said. “[Macron] would like to show the Israeli government that it has to change its antics without completely burning all the bridges with Netanyahu.”
Robert Danin, whose career as a diplomat and Middle East scholar included more than 20 years working on the region at the State Department and White House, said the timing of the conference is “unfortunate … because you can't expect to focus on a long-term diplomatic objective in the middle of a war”.
Mr Danin criticised Mr Macron’s approach, saying that he “demonstrated in Lebanon and elsewhere this tendency to sort of come in, want to fix everything in 24-48 hours, and then not see anything through. And this looks like another such effort to do something quick and flashy.”
In a phone interview with The National, Yossi Beilin, former Israeli minister, peace negotiator, and crucial figure in the Oslo Accords, argued that the priority should be getting both sides back to the negotiating table to talk about a two-state solution.
Recognising a Palestinian state without Israel’s involvement is “not a big deal”, he said. “It is a gesture which I don't denounce … but the big deal should be for the Europeans and other leaders to come to the region, meet with Netanyahu, meet with Abu Mazen, talk with them very seriously about what can be done and … this is not what is happening.”
In an open letter to Mr Macron, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a group of former senior UN diplomats called The Elders, urged world leaders to “fulfil their stated commitment to recognise the State of Palestine without condition or delay”.
“Israel does not have the right to veto Palestinian self-determination or statehood,” they said. “Nor should recognition be linked to governance reform, or the form that a sovereign, unified Palestinian state will take. These are separate issues from statehood itself.”
Meanwhile, US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told Bloomberg on Tuesday that an independent Palestinian state no longer appears to be a goal of US foreign policy. He also suggested that if such a state were to be established, it would not be located in the occupied West Bank.
“Unless there are some significant things that happen that change the culture, there’s no room for it,” Mr Huckabee said, adding that such changes were unlikely to occur “in our lifetime.”
Max Rodenbeck, the International Crisis Group’s Israel-Palestine director, voiced concerns about the upcoming UN conference on Palestinian statehood, describing it as hastily arranged, disorganised, and lacking clear objectives.
Speaking after a month-long visit to the region, Mr Rodenbeck said there was a widespread sense of uncertainty among stakeholders.
“The conference is happening rather hastily, and there is a bit of disorder. No one quite knows what's going to happen,” he said.
While he downplayed the likelihood of widespread recognition of Palestine by several countries at the UN next week, he acknowledged that such a move would send a “strong signal”.
“There's a shift in world opinion as well that's reflected at the UN and, there's a wide global recognition that this war really has to stop,” Mr Rodenbeck said.
He added that the reality on the ground shows that “there is not much left of any Palestine to create a state with” and Israel’s war in Gaza is “not achieving much” militarily or strategically, leading to growing dissent within Israel.
According to Mr Rodenbeck, opposition to the conflict is not driven by an inherent rejection of the war or a desire for peace at any cost, but rather by the belief that the current campaign is yielding diminishing returns.
“I would point out that over time, Israel has won every war … but Israel has lost almost every peace afterwards.”
