Emmanuel Macron’s pledge to formally recognise the state of Palestine will make France the first G7 country and member of the UN Security Council to do so. The question is whether others will follow suit.
The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, is coming under mounting pressure from many of his MPs and has recalled his cabinet from their summer recess to discuss the situation in Gaza.
Starmer is expected to announce a peace plan for the Middle East this week that will include British recognition of Palestinian statehood. Downing Street sources said recognition was a matter of “when, not if”.
Recognition of statehood is not merely symbolic. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 established several criteria which must apply before an entity can be recognised as a sovereign state.
These are a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government and the ability to conduct international relations.
The process involves the establishment of formal diplomatic relations, including the opening of embassies, the exchange of ambassadors, and the signing of bilateral treaties. Recognition also grants the recognised state access to certain rights in international organisations. For Palestinians, such recognition will strengthen their claim to sovereignty and facilitate greater international support.
Macron’s announcement was met with enthusiasm in many Arab capitals, as well as among Palestinian officials and supporters of the two-state solution. It was also praised by a number of European leaders as well as several journalists and other analysts as a long-overdue step toward a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, the reaction from other major powers was swift and critical. The US called it “a reckless decision” while the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said he “strongly condemned” it. Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, called it “counterproductive”.
Within hours, it was clear that Macron’s announcement had both shifted diplomatic discourse and reignited longstanding divisions.
France’s decision is significant. It signals a departure from the Western consensus, long shaped by the US and the EU, that any recognition of Palestinian statehood must be deferred until after final-status negotiations. The move also highlights growing frustration in parts of Europe with the ongoing violence in Gaza and the failure of peace talks over the past two decades.
Yet questions remain: what does this recognition actually entail? Will it change the conditions on the ground for Palestinians? Or is it largely symbolic?
So far, the French government has offered no details on whether this recognition will be accompanied by concrete measures. There has been no mention of sanctions on Israel, no indication of halting arms exports, and no pledges of increased humanitarian aid or support for Palestinian governance institutions. France remains a key military and economic partner of Israel, and Macron’s announcement does not appear to alter that relationship.
Nor is this the first time a Western country has taken a symbolic stance in support of Palestinian statehood. Sweden recognised the state of Palestine in 2014, becoming the first Western European country to do so. It was followed by Spain in 2024.
However, both moves were largely symbolic and did not significantly alter the political or humanitarian situation on the ground. The risk is that recognition, without action, becomes a gesture that changes little.
Macron’s statement also raised eyebrows for another reason: his emphasis on a “demilitarised Palestinian state” living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. While such language is common in diplomatic discourse, it also reflects a deeper tension.
Palestinians have long argued that their right to self-determination includes the right to defend themselves against occupation. Calls for demilitarisation are often seen by critics as reinforcing the status quo, where security concerns are framed almost exclusively in terms of Israeli needs.
In the absence of a genuine political process, some analysts have warned that recognition of this kind risks formalising a state in name only – a fragmented, non-sovereign entity without control over its borders, resources or defence. Without guarantees of territorial continuity, an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements and freedom of movement, statehood may remain an abstract concept.
What would meaningful support look like?
If France wishes to go beyond symbolism, it has options. It could suspend arms exports to Israel or call for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes. It could use its influence within the EU to push for greater accountability regarding illegal settlements and the blockade of Gaza. It could also support Palestinian institutions directly and engage with Palestinian civil society.
Without such steps, recognition risks being viewed as a political message more than a policy shift. For Palestinians, the daily realities of occupation, displacement and blockade will not change with diplomatic announcements alone. What is needed, many argue, is not just recognition but support for justice, rights and meaningful sovereignty.
France’s recognition of Palestine marks a shift in diplomatic tone and reflects broader unease with the status quo in the Middle East. It has stirred debate at home and abroad, and raised expectations among those hoping for more robust international engagement with the conflict.
Whether this recognition leads to meaningful changes in policy or conditions on the ground remains to be seen. Much will depend on the steps France takes next – both at the United Nations and through its actions on trade, security and aid.
Malak Benslama-Dabdoub is a Lecturer in Law at the Royal Holloway University of London.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
