President Macron’s intention to recognize a “Palestinian State” in June 2025 raised to a majority of Israelis an indignation thus expressed by their Minister of Foreign Affairs Gideon Sa’ar: “Unilateral recognition of a Fictive Palestinian State […] would only reward terrorism and strengthen Hamas. “The French announcement and the Israeli reaction not only reveal a diplomatic disagreement but also two profoundly different readings of the Near East. These two readings must be understood because the one who prevails will influence the future of our region.
The theory of Emmanuel Macron is that the violence of Hamas, for condemnable it was, stems from a frustration which will be satisfied by the establishment of a Palestinian State. According to this logic, Israel only treats the symptoms of the conflict and not its source by fighting Hamas instead of drying up its appeal. For Israel, conversely, the goal of Hamas is the elimination of Israel and the Jews, and this obsession is nourished by the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is therefore necessary to deny the Islamic ideology the means of its policy by eliminating its military force. Only a victory against the Iranian axis of aggression (cynically named, by the attackers themselves, “axis of resistance”) will make genocidal aspirations against Israel and, therefore, will create the conditions necessary for peace. Establishing a 22nd Arab State in the Hinterland of Israel before the defeat of Iran and its allies will only provide them with a tactical advantage. The facts prove this second reading right.
The Arab nation was divided into arbitrary borders imposed by Europe after the First World War. The British and French mandates were unmanageable multi -planet mosaics. They are today failing and violent states (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq). Palestine, a British colonial creation inspired by Palæstina Romaine (which replaced Judea crushed in 135) and improntable in Arabic (which does not have the “p” consonant), became a discord between Arabs and Jews. Arab leadership dismissed the proposals of territorial compromise in 1937 (Peel Commission) and in 1947 (UN plan). The Soviet Union built its Middle Eastern presence by supporting Arab antibrient nationalism. She established with her Egyptian ally the organization of Liberation of Palestine (OLP) in 1964, and created the myth of a “Palestinian people” hitherto unknown.
The fact that the PLO was established three years before Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is instructive. Soviet propaganda succeeds in making believe that the Israeli presence in these territories is the cause of the conflict when it is the consequence. The Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Empire pushed the OLP to sign the Oslo agreements, agreements that Arafat still considered tactics and temporary – in accordance with the “stages plan” adopted by the PLO in 1974. Corporated in compromise by President Clinton in July 2000, Arafat recourse to war. His successor, Mahmoud Abbas, rejected three proposals which had established a Palestinian State devoid of “right to return” (an euphemism for the dismantling of Israel by demography): that of Ehud Olmert in September 2008; That of John Kerry in February 2014; And that of Jared Kushner in January 2020. The reason is simple: the OLP refuses to abandon its final goal of “Liberation of Palestine.” Hamas either, but he doesn’t hide his game.
President Macron does not just make an error in analysis on the Israeli-Arab conflict. He ignores Israeli society and is mistaken about the international role of France. Israel after October 7 is not, and will never be more, the same country. The Israelis became aware, in tragedy and pain, of what the Jews can lead when it is armed. And they are determined to share the Islamists with the Carthage fate in 146 BC. AD and that of Berlin in 1945. Israel will go to the end of this war, which will only be won with the defeat of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The symbiosis between Israel and the United States for the next four years makes victory possible. By trying to break this dynamic instead of kissing it for the good of France and the free world, President Macron affects the credibility and influence of France.
Emmanuel Macron wants to stand out from the United States but he is not General de Gaulle and he does not have the means of his policy. His theatrical visits to Lebanon and Egypt cannot hide only over -indebted France cannot be measured with American economic power. Like the Franco-Saudi “summit” planned in New York in June 2025 will be a masquerade: only the United States can provide Mohammed Ben Salmane with the security guarantees that he requires against Iran. The desire to hold its rank is all the less credible as France spares the Algerian “power” despite its refusal to release Boualem Sansal. Towards the complicated East, Emmanuel Macron continues to fly with false ideas.
* Professor of international relations at the University of Tel Aviv and researcher at the “Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security” (Jiss). Author of The star and the scepter: Diplomatic history of Israel (Hermann editions, 2022).
.