France’s recognition of Palestine encourages terrorism

By recognizing “Palestine”, a new country that has no defined boundaries and claims the entirety of Israel, Macron is setting the region down the road of perpetual war.

Michael Rubin | American Enterprise Institute

‘Pandora’s Box’ Opened: France’s Recognition Of Palestine is a Mistake

France’s Recognition of Palestine Encourages Terrorism, Anti-French Separatism: French President Emmanuel Macron announced on July 24, 2025, that France will unilaterally recognize Palestine as a
state at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

“Consistent with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine,” Macron tweeted.

Macron’s move comes against the backdrop of growing European anger at Israel for its continued military campaign in the Gaza Strip against Hamas.

But while Macron justified France’s move in the desire for peace, his virtue signaling may create perpetual war in the Middle East, encourage terrorism worldwide, and even threaten the unity of France and its territories.

The price of virtue signaling can be very high indeed.

A Historic Mistake

First, Macron does not define Palestine. While the borders of Gaza remain undisputed, Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2005 to allow the Palestinian Authority to take over Gaza, significant disputes hang over the West Bank. While France may consider the West Bank and East Jerusalem occupied, they are disputed as there has never before been a Palestinian state.

Indeed, far from being a native people supplanted by Jewish migrants, a close look at Palestinian origins and censuses suggests most Arabs migrated to Palestine alongside or even after the Jewish immigration.

The founding condition of the Palestinian Authorities’ existence was its rejection of terrorism and its duty to negotiate a final status agreement with Israel to determine the shape and status of any Palestinian state. It did neither. Egyptian Army officer-turned-Palestine Liberation Organization founder Yasser Arafat rejected the deal his negotiators had negotiated at the Camp David II summit.

History repeated eight years later when Arafat’s successor, Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, walked away from an even more generous offer without making a counteroffer.

By recognizing Palestine, a new country that has no defined boundaries and claims the entirety of Israel, Macron is setting the region down the road of perpetual war.

Indeed, he ends any hope of a diplomatic solution by signaling that the same international community that pressured Israel to make concessions ahead of the 1993 Oslo Accords would unilaterally relieve the Palestinians of commitments they made.

Macron’s move fuels terrorism in multiple ways. Those who demand Israel offer a ceasefire for Hamas forget three facts. First, Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023 during a ceasefire, rendering the notion of ceasefires meaningless.

Trouble Ahead…

Second, Macron does not explain what he would like Israel to do: Hamas reconsolidated its control during every previous ceasefire. How would throwing Hamas a lifeline help Palestinians break from the cycle to which its leaders have condemned them?

Macron must also ask if he believed that the international community should have offered the Islamic State ceasefires and provided it with aid. Perhaps Macron just believes Jews are acceptable victims but not Arabs or Kurds?

Some activists rationalize, if not justify, Palestinian terror as necessary in asymmetric conflict. Israel has jet fighters and missiles, so if Hamas wants to confront Israel, it has no choice but to use suicide bombers. Underpinning that logic is an unspoken reality: If Palestine had jet fighters and missiles, it could use them against Israel. If Palestine becomes independent—and acquires jet fighters and missiles—then there will be intra-state warfare. Macron’s move does not resolve conflict, it fuels it.

Rewarding Terror

Third, rewarding Hamas terrorism with independence signals terrorism works and, indeed, is wise. Here, contrast Macron’s enthusiasm for Palestinian independence with his opposition to Armenian independence in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Israeli hostages Kehat Shorr (left) and Andre Spitzer (right) talk to West German officials during at Munich Olympics 1972. The were taken hostage by Arab Palestinian gunmen. Photo: Creative Commons/wikimedia

While Palestinians repeatedly embraced terrorism—hijacking airlines, bombing cafes, and even attacking the 1972 Munich Olympics—the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh organized referenda, held elections, and built a functioning democracy.

Macron stood aside when Azerbaijan attacked Artsakh, seized its leaders, and ethnically cleansed its entire population. Why should peaceful, democratic Artsakh not receive recognition yet Palestine, whose strategy rests on violence, should?

Inherent in Europe’s arrogance is the belief that it can dictate policy and redefine law without suffering consequences for the precedents it sets. For centuries, France has colonized Corsica. Why should other countries not arm Corsica to fight for its freedom? Perhaps Israel should unilaterally recognize the island nation.

Azerbaijan has already declared its intention not only to support New Caledonia’s independence from France, but also to free the “colonized” people of Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Saint-Martin.

Macron’s unilateralism opens the door for Israel to support Azerbaijan’s initiative to decolonize French territories and possessions.

The Consequences

Macron’s ends-justify-the-means philosophy also opens the door to aspirants in these French territories to target French airlines, French-owned hotels, and even French cafes and schoolchildren in Paris. Make no mistake: Such terrorism would be as wrong as Hamas terror, but Macron and his successors will have a far harder time making that case without sounding like hypocrites.

Macron may say he wants peace, but he just opened Pandora’s Box. The fire he unleased will burn not only the Middle East but France itself for decades to come.

Michael Rubin is a former Pentagon official whose major research areas are the Middle East, Turkey, Iran and diplomacy. He is author of “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter, 2014). He is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute AEI. His major research area is the Middle East, with special focus on Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Kurdish society.

The article first published at aei.org

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.