Macron's 'recognition' of a Palestinian state is a way to punish Israel - opinion

Instead of pushback against the increasingly genocidal Palestinian national movement, we get more perilous pablum about the “urgency” of Palestinian statehood.

 FRENCH PRESIDENT Emmanuel Macron visits Vietnam this week. The scent coming from Macron and his ilk is antipathy toward Israel; they simply cannot stomach a strong Israel, the writer charges.  (photo credit: CHALINEE THIRASUPA/REUTERS)
FRENCH PRESIDENT Emmanuel Macron visits Vietnam this week. The scent coming from Macron and his ilk is antipathy toward Israel; they simply cannot stomach a strong Israel, the writer charges.
(photo credit: CHALINEE THIRASUPA/REUTERS)

French President Emmanuel Macron is currently threatening to unilaterally “recognize” Palestinian statehood, in order to punish Israel for its war of self-defense in Gaza and pressure it to withdraw from all “Palestinian territories.” In response, Israeli leaders have threatened to apply Israeli sovereignty to parts or all of Judea and Samaria.

Macron needs to be slapped down. (His wife can show us how.) Recognizing ersatz Palestinian “statehood” at this time is an unforgivable offense. But the Israeli counter-threat is a mistake for two reasons. It will not deter Macron and other hostile Western leaders from pursuing their nefarious agenda, and it is the wrong way to rightfully apply sovereignty.

Macron and others are convening a “High-Level Two-State Solution Conference” at the UN three weeks from now to “build consensus” around political recognition of a pseudo “State of Palestine.” “Irreversible and concrete measures are necessary to maintain the prospect of a Palestinian state,” the French president has imperiously declared.

The fact that previous such resolutions and proclamations have only bolstered Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist – and have been interpreted by Palestinians as an international green light for the use of terror to destroy Israel – does not frighten Macron.

Nor is he dissuaded by the fact that blabbering at this moment about Palestinian statehood is the very essence of victory for Hamas terrorism and incentivizes more acts of massacre. Merely discussing Palestinian statehood now gives Hamas more sway in Palestinian politics than it ever had, especially in Judea and Samaria (known as “the West Bank”).

 ISRAEL MUST not be allowed to win so much, Western diplomatic discourse says, according to the writer, because this would be bad for American and Western interests. President Macron of France said  that Israel ‘has the right to defend itself, but within proportion.’ (credit: Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters)
ISRAEL MUST not be allowed to win so much, Western diplomatic discourse says, according to the writer, because this would be bad for American and Western interests. President Macron of France said that Israel ‘has the right to defend itself, but within proportion.’ (credit: Gonzalo Fuentes/Reuters)

Don’t confuse Paris with facts – like the support of three-quarters of Palestinians in the West Bank for the October 7 Hamas-led massacre, or the support of governors in the Palestinian Authority for terrorism and the active participation of its Fatah Party in the wave of terror attacks threatening central Israel.

INSTEAD OF pushback against the increasingly genocidal Palestinian national movement, we get more perilous pablum about the “urgency” of Palestinian statehood. Instead of action to retaliate and truly deter Hamas from ever raising a hand against a hostage again, we get diplomatic rewards for Palestinian intransigence and violence.

International wags should ask themselves: Is their effort to bolster Palestinians with “recognition” of faux statehood – and with more and more aid money – helping Palestinians mature? Or is it merely deepening Palestinian dependency, perpetuating Palestinian victim-refugee-martyrdom identity, prolonging the campaign to demonize Israel as a genocidal monster, and in the end, just plainly and unabashedly weakening Israel?

In fact, one suspects that the latter motivation, tinged with a smidgen of deep-seated antisemitism, is the main impulse.

The scent coming from Macron and his ilk is antipathy toward Israel. They simply cannot stomach a strong Israel. In their view, Israel is a global problem because it has grown too strong, too “hegemonic” in its ambitions, too “aggressive” in its military actions, too “dominant” in resetting the regional strategic situation; too successful in defending itself, and too effective in crushing the holy Palestinian campaign to force Israeli withdrawals.

And also, too threatening against Iran, which soon may sign another nuclear bamboozle with Washington that leaves Tehran in pole position towards an atomic bomb while claiming otherwise; a phony “achievement” that Macron will surely welcome.

Therefore, in the French president’s view, Israel must be restrained, constrained, hemmed-in, humbled. Brought to heel, under a responsible Western thumb. Compelled to accept a cancerous Palestinian “state” which, alas, will be an elevated platform for continuing the war against Israel.

HAVE ANY of Israel’s critics dared to ask themselves why Israelis today are overwhelmingly unwilling to even contemplate establishment of a Palestinian state, at least not for a generation or two or three? Have Israel’s critics any gumption for telling Palestinians: “No, there will be no Palestinian statehood ‘from the river to the sea,’” which means erasure of Israel? Have any of Israel’s critics dared to ask themselves what type of Palestinian state they are seeking to create?

And have Israel’s “friends” like Macron bothered to contemplate the bigger picture – the annihilationist, pernicious narrative against which Israel is contending? Have they thought about pushing back against the relentless equation of Israel and Zionism with the evils of current discourse – imperialism, colonialism, apartheid, white supremacy, and genocide?

Why are good people pretending Palestinian attacks on Israel are legitimate?

It is so exasperating that otherwise good people pretend that Palestinian assaults on Israel’s sovereignty and security have anything to do with legitimate demands for humanitarian aid or with a “two-state solution.” They profess to be concerned for Palestinian rights yet ignore the murderous intentions of Palestinians against Israel. They disregard Palestinian antisemitic discourse and the Fatah/Hamas record of dictatorship and human rights abuse.

Instead, they complain that Israel is restricting supply convoys into Gaza during the current fighting and worry aloud that Hamas will not get kid-gloves treatment after the fighting ends (including the provision of cement and steel to “rehabilitate” Gaza, which would also mean the rebuilding of military capacity against Israel).

And, instead, they tolerate Palestinian “Days of Rage,” “Nakba Day” riots, and missile barrage eruptions as expected behavior. As if the Palestinians cannot help themselves from throwing a tantrum. As if responsible and reasonable behavior – such as negotiation, democratic and peaceful discourse, and normative state-building – cannot be demanded of the Palestinians.

This is the soft bigotry of low expectations of the Palestinians, which is the counterpart of hard bigotry of unreasonable demands on Israel.

IT IS high time that Palestinian leadership be showered with the “tough love” that is usually, uniquely reserved for Israel – especially after October 7.

Why continue to fund a corrupt and Hamas-penetrated UN agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), with more than a billion dollars every year, feeding the Palestinian claim to a “right of return” to all of Israel: the delusion that Israel can be overwhelmed and wiped out?

Why not tell the Palestinians to grow up, and choose leaders who don’t endlessly run around the world peddling lies about Israeli war crimes?

For Macron and others to scurry about without pressing on the Palestinians the inevitability of compromise with Israel is mischievous; to be overly solicitous of the Palestinians especially now, and crushingly censorious of Israel especially now, is malicious. Dishing out some tough love and dialing down Palestinian expectations would be much more constructive.

In short, the Macron-ian campaign to unilaterally, “urgently,” and immediately recognize synthetic Palestinian “statehood” is destructive: an unforgivable offense.

AT THE same time, the counter-threat to apply Israeli sovereignty to parts or all of Judea and Samaria, issued by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and other Israeli ministers in response to Macron’s muckraking, is a mistake. Aside from the fact that it will not deter Macron, it is the wrong way for Israel to rightfully apply sovereignty.

Israel should unequivocally realize its historic and legal sovereign rights in Judea and Samaria. Its hesitancy to do so over the past 50 years only has strengthened Palestinian claims that the areas are “Palestinian territory,” helping to establish a fiction that has been willingly accepted within the international community.

But doing so should not be the function of a momentary need to slap Macron on the cheek, or in response to any particular act of Palestinian terror. It should come, soon, as an essential part of a well thought out, broader Israeli strategic plan to reassert this country’s rights and security needs and to restructure relations with regional and international partners.

Sovereignty assertion must be an up-front and forward-looking move, a central and proud plank in a major Israeli party platform, perhaps ratified in an election campaign. It should not be a backhanded rejoinder to the spasms of spent European politicians who are peddling hackneyed “solutions” and beating up on Israel because they know of nothing else to do.

There are other just, punitive measures that Israel can and should take against countries that diplomatically assault it in the way that Macron is planning, such as closing their consulates in Jerusalem that function as “embassies” to “Palestine.” And there are other forward-looking, Zionist moves that Israel can and should make in the immediate term, like strengthening Israeli cities and towns in Judea and Samaria – defiantly so.

The writer is managing senior fellow at the Jerusalem-based Misgav Institute for National Security & Zionist Strategy. The views expressed here are his own. His diplomatic, defense, political, and Jewish world columns over the past 28 years are at davidmweinberg.com.