On September 22, 2025, Emmanuel Macron officially recognizes the Palestinian State. This takes place in New York before the UN General Assembly. He acts on behalf of France. This gesture is welcomed by the Palestinian Authority but contested by Israel. Several European allies follow suit, while Italy remains hesitant. On the ground, Gaza continues to endure strikes and a severe humanitarian crisis.
A Solemn Decision at the UN, Intended to Revive the Two-State Solution
"The time for peace has come," declared Emmanuel Macron from the UN podium, by recognizing the State of Palestine on behalf of France on September 22, 2025. Paris frames this choice within a strategy meant to reactivate the prospect of two states. Israel and Palestine must live side by side in security. The announcement is part of a renewed European diplomatic movement since 2024. At that time, Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Slovenia had formalized recognition. Until then, this recognition was mainly supported by countries in the South.
Around France, among the countries recognizing Palestine, several formalized their recognition that very weekend. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Portugal are among them. Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, and Andorra confirmed theirs in New York. Belgium, on the other hand, chose a two-step recognition, politically enacted but legally conditioned on the release of all hostages and a reform of Palestinian governance. In Paris, the executive presents the initiative as the cornerstone of an ambitious global plan. This plan includes security guarantees for Israel and a reform of the Palestinian Authority. Additionally, it involves the deployment of international support for the reconstruction of Gaza.
A Mixed Reception: "Historic Act" for Ramallah, "Reward for Terrorism" for Jerusalem
On the Palestinian side, the Authority hails the decision as "historic and courageous," seeing it as a return to international law and a way to break Ramallah‘s sterile standoff with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. In Jerusalem, the reaction is diametrically opposed. The Israeli Prime Minister denounces it as a "reward for terrorism" and promises retaliatory measures. Furthermore, he threatens additional annexations in the West Bank.
In Paris, the Israeli ambassador, Joshua Zarka, criticizes France for becoming, in his view, a "destabilizing agent" in the Middle East. This hardline stance is supported by part of the ruling coalition in Tel Aviv. It illustrates the political deadlock with an Israeli executive refusing any Palestinian sovereignty. Moreover, the international community has become favorable to the two-state option.
A Europe with Varied Stances: Rome Hesitates, London Accelerates
The French recognition exposes fault lines in Europe. London has aligned with Paris. Rome, however, refuses to follow immediately: the head of government Giorgia Meloni considers it "counterproductive" to recognize a state before its effective consolidation; her foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, conditions any recognition on formal reciprocity and security guarantees. The Italian position, mindful of internal balances and its relations with Washington, highlights the difficulty of a common position within the EU.
Beyond the Union, Arab countries support the movement. They hope to break the erosion of a peace process stalled for over a decade. But the United States remains hostile to recognition without direct negotiation, arguing that it risks weakening the parties’ incentives to converge towards a comprehensive agreement.
Gaza, the Test of Reality: Bombings, Overwhelmed Hospitals, Displaced Populations
On the ground, the Gaza Strip presents a brutal counterpoint to the diplomatic agenda. On September 23, the Palestinian agency Wafa reports at least 18 deaths since dawn following Israeli strikes. The hospitals still open report fuel shortages and service interruptions. UN agencies warn of a survival crisis. There is a lack of energy, drinking water, and medicines. Additionally, there are humanitarian access difficulties and massive population displacements. This worsens as the ground offensive resumes in the city of Gaza.
The diplomatic recognition does not change anything, in the short term, regarding humanitarian realities: civilian security, the release of hostages, and the cessation of hostilities remain the preconditions for tangible improvement. This is the paradox pointed out by several humanitarian actors: a strong political signal at the very moment when vital needs are worsening.
A French Sequence Marked by Domestic Politics and Tensions in City Halls
In France, the presidential decision comes after months of debate. On the left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Fabien Roussel, and the Socialist Party welcome the step taken. However, they demand concrete actions in favor of international law and humanitarian aid.
On the right, Bruno Retailleau and other figures highlight the risks of a "misinterpreted signal." In the National Rally, Louis Aliot worries about an importation of the conflict into French society.
The controversy has reached city halls: despite a directive from the Ministry of the Interior asking prefects to oppose flag-raising, nearly ninety city halls raised the Palestinian flag on September 22 as a sign of solidarity. Paris, Lyon, Nantes, and Saint-Denis saw symbolic gestures flourish. Administrative justice could decide on a case-by-case basis, in the name of the principle of neutrality of public service.
What Changes – and What Doesn’t – with Recognition?
Recognizing the State of Palestine does not equate to setting borders, nor to granting UN membership. It also does not mean dismantling settlements in the West Bank. The gesture is legal-political: it asserts that Palestine exists in international law and obliges French diplomacy to act consistently – including in multilateral forums, sanction regimes, and cooperation. It leaves open weighty questions: Jerusalem, refugees, the security of both peoples, the demilitarization of Gaza, and the reform of the Palestinian Authority.
For its supporters, the intended effect is twofold: isolate the extremes – Hamas on one side, Israeli ultranationalists on the other. Then, it aims to provide a compass for negotiations absent for years.
For its opponents, recognition freezes the illusion of a state without territorial control. Moreover, it rewards violence and weakens deterrence against Tehran and its regional allies.
What Paris Puts on the Table: Guarantees, Reform, and Stabilization
The French presidency proposes avenues to make the gesture operational. First, security guarantees for Israel, including the release of all hostages and the prohibition of armament to Hamas. Then, a reform of the Palestinian Authority: budget transparency, reform of security services, elections when conditions allow, and accountability to the population. Finally, an international stabilization mechanism in Gaza is necessary.
Thus, a UN-mandated presence to secure the delivery of aid is envisaged. It would support reconstruction and accompany the transition to a unified and representative Palestinian governance.
In this framework, France calls upon the UN framework and Arab partners to move beyond the Washington-Tel Aviv tête-à-tête. The roadmap remains fragile: without a ceasefire and without a political agreement, no stabilization mechanism can be deployed sustainably.
Short and Medium-Term Scenarios
In the short term, an increase in diplomatic tensions between Paris and Jerusalem is likely. Thus, symbolic measures such as ambassador recalls and a limitation of visits could be implemented. Furthermore, a hardened rhetoric is expected from the Israeli side. In Brussels, the discussion on potential European measures could resurface. For example, trade clauses or targeted embargoes on products from settlements could be considered. However, there is no unanimous guarantee.
In the medium term, recognition could lead to a gradual opening: international mission for Gaza, reopening of an expanded Palestinian delegation in Paris, and increased coordination with Arab donor countries.
Conversely, a sustained hardening in Israel and the continuation of the offensive would weaken the Palestinian Authority. Thus, the French gesture would become ineffective. Everything will depend on the actors’ ability to turn a political signal into a process.