Recognition of Palestine now is too late and too lukewarm. Too lukewarm because it is not accompanied by stronger forms of pressure from the European states themselves and from the EU. Recognition of Palestine would have a completely different meaning if it were part of a structured strategy that also included an embargo on military exports, the suspension of trade agreements, and targeted sanctions against government representatives who support the annexation of Palestinian territories.
By Le Monde
“It is difficult, in such a chain, to see an involuntary repetition of mistakes and not to notice an intention to kill indiscriminately”. With these clear and strong words, the President of Italy, Sergio Mattarella, condemns the crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. Mattarella’s voice joins the renewed debate in Europe on the recognition of the state of Palestine. The French President, Emmanuel Macron, has declared that France will recognize Palestine during the plenary session of the UN General Assembly in September.
This announcement from Paris has increased political pressure on London, prompting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to move in the same direction, declaring that the United Kingdom will also recognize Palestine in that case, unless a ceasefire is achieved, humanitarian conditions in Gaza are significantly improved and a real prospect of a two-state solution opens up. It is clear that these conditions will not be met.
How should we interpret, then, the announcements by France, Britain and Malta, which follow the recognitions made last year by Spain, Ireland, Norway and Slovenia? The recognition of the State of Palestine is an act in line with the position of all European states, as well as the vast majority of countries in the international system, according to which the only solution that can guarantee rights and security for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples is that of two states on the basis of the 1967 borders. The recognition of Palestine could now also represent a form of pressure, however symbolic, on the Israeli government, whose genocidal war in Gaza, its declared intentions for the mass expulsion of Palestinians and the annexation of the West Bank clearly go in the opposite direction.
LACK OF A PEACE PROCESS
At the same time, the recognition of Palestine is now too late and too lukewarm. Too lukewarm because it is not accompanied by stronger forms of pressure from the European states themselves and from the EU. The recognition of Palestine would have a completely different meaning if it were part of a structured strategy that would also include an embargo on military exports, the suspension of trade agreements, and targeted sanctions against government representatives who support the annexation of Palestinian territories, against organizations that promote the expansion of settlements, and against those responsible for war crimes in Gaza. But not only is this not happening, the lack of action is also evident on other fronts.
The European Commission has proposed the partial suspension of Israel’s participation in the Horizon Europe scientific research program, aiming to ensure that European public funds no longer end up in the hands of Israeli entities and companies, especially those working on civilian and military dual-use projects.
A qualified majority of the 27 member states is required for this measure to be approved, but due to opposition from several governments, including Germany and Italy, two of the countries with the greatest demographic and voting weight, even this minimal step has not been taken. The Commission’s proposal followed an internal report documenting war crimes committed by Israel, placing the state in breach of its association agreement with the EU. This report was followed by an agreement between Brussels and Tel Aviv aimed at increasing humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza.
With the number of casualties in the Gaza Strip increasing by hundreds every day, on the one hand from the Israeli army and on the other due to starvation as a result of the blockade on humanitarian aid, it is needless to say that this agreement has been treated by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government as worthless paper.
LAST NEGOTIATIONS, MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO
Recognition of Palestine also comes too late. The dominant position historically has been that recognition of a Palestinian state should come at the end of the peace process. A politically reasonable position as long as there was a peace process. But the last negotiations that had a real prospect of success date back to Camp David and Taba, in 2000 and 2001, almost a quarter of a century ago. Stretching this reasoning a bit further, we could also mention the Annapolis negotiations of 2007, or perhaps those of 2013, when, under the mediation of then-US Secretary of State John Kerry, the Israelis and Palestinians resumed talks, although no progress was made.
Since then, there has been no more than a shadow of a peace process. And that is because Israel has long rejected the idea of a Palestinian state and talks with the Palestinian National Authority. For more than a decade, not moving forward with the recognition of Palestine in anticipation of a peace process that does not exist is, to say the least, absurd.
One might think: okay, it’s a little late, but better than nothing. Yes, and no. Recognizing Palestine is a necessary act, but only if it doesn’t become a way to wash our conscience and continue silent collaboration.
An Israeli plan is underway to ensure not only that Palestine ceases to exist, but that Palestinians cease to exist. This week, two prominent Israeli human rights NGOs joined the chorus of accusations of genocide: B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights – Israel. Recognition of Palestine only makes sense if it is accompanied by concrete, not merely symbolic, measures to stop the ongoing war crimes. Otherwise, it risks becoming an empty, if not grotesque, act.