France Recognition of Palestine: Symbolic, Without Substance
France's decision to recognize Palestine in principle while withholding all forms of material resistance to its destruction is to perform solidarity without consequence
“Neutrality in the face of injustice is not neutrality. It is complicity.” — Desmond Tutu
On July 25, France declared its intent to formally recognize the State of Palestine, becoming the first G7 country to take such a step. For many, the move might appear courageous, even historic. But viewed against the backdrop of a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where entire neighborhoods have been flattened and over 58,000 lives lost, it is clear that this announcement offers more symbolism than substance. France has issued a promise, not a protection. It has endorsed an ideal, not a people.
To recognize Palestine in principle while withholding all forms of material resistance to its destruction is to perform solidarity without consequence. The recognition arrives as the strip faces mass starvation, siege, and the calculated dismantling of civil life. It is difficult not to read this gesture as one of political utility, conveniently timed and carefully phrased, rather than an act of moral courage.
The Language of Recognition and the Silence of Action
The political philosopher Hannah Arendt once wrote that the right to have rights is predicated upon the existence of a political community that guarantees them. Palestine, as it stands today, has no such community. The territory is fractured, the institutions are weak, and the people are either displaced or under military siege. To recognize a state that exists only in theory is to extend an empty hand.
President Emmanuel Macron’s statement contained language about the future, about a demilitarized state, and about a negotiated peace. It did not contain any reference to immediate material assistance or legal intervention. There was no mention of the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures, which found that Israel’s actions in Gaza constituted a plausible risk of genocide under international law.
Legal Duties, Political Convenience
France is a party to the Genocide Convention and therefore has a binding obligation to prevent genocide, not merely to observe it. In January 2024, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to halt any acts that could constitute genocide and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid. That judgment created legal obligations not only for Israel but also for all other signatory states, who must ensure they are not complicit.
France has failed this test. Despite the mounting evidence of war crimes and the use of starvation as a method of warfare, it has continued its arms trade with Israel. It has not joined the genocide case at the ICJ. It has not sanctioned Israeli officials or suspended bilateral agreements. It has condemned, at best, while continuing to enable.
Recognition without rupture is recognition without meaning.
Starvation is Not a Natural Disaster
On July 24, journalists from AFP, Reuters, AP, and the BBC issued a rare joint statement describing the imminent starvation of their staff and families inside Gaza. These are civilians, not militants. Their hunger is not accidental. It is policy.
The use of starvation as a method of warfare is prohibited under international law. Article 54 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions expressly forbids the starvation of civilians as a means of combat. And yet, humanitarian agencies, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), have warned that Gaza is experiencing famine-like conditions due to the systematic obstruction of aid.
One Israeli minister went so far as to declare that Gaza should be made unlivable to force its population out. Statements of this nature are not rhetorical flourishes. They constitute evidence of genocidal intent. Under the legal framework set forth in cases such as Bosnia v. Serbia, such expressions of intent satisfy the mental element necessary to prove genocide.
Recognition, in this context, becomes not only insufficient but grotesque. It creates the appearance of progress while bodies continue to accumulate in silence.
The Illusion of the Two-State Solution
France’s recognition is tied to the two-state paradigm. That framework, however, is no longer anchored in material reality. What exists today is not two states in conflict. It is one occupying power and a stateless, besieged, and dismembered population. There is no parity of arms, no equality of suffering, and no reciprocity of rights.
International jurist Richard Falk has described the situation in Gaza as one of apartheid, occupation, and slow-motion genocide. These are not terms of exaggeration. They are the conclusions of decades of documentation by human rights observers, legal scholars, and international institutions.
To offer recognition within the logic of an obsolete diplomatic framework is to misunderstand both the urgency and the asymmetry of the present moment.
What Accountability Actually Requires
If France, or any other country, wishes to honor the principles it invokes, it must act in accordance with international law and basic human decency. Recognition must be accompanied by structural and material commitments. These include:
- An immediate and complete arms embargo on Israel, as required by the European Union’s arms export criteria.
- Suspension of all military and surveillance cooperation, particularly that which supports the occupation infrastructure.
- Public and legal support for the genocide case brought by South Africa before the ICJ.
- Active cooperation with the International Criminal Court’s investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity in the occupied Palestinian territories.
- Emergency airlifts or convoys of humanitarian aid, coordinated through neutral agencies with guaranteed access.
Anything less is performance.
A Global Failure to Protect
The international community has long failed the Palestinian people. The Oslo Accords promised statehood. The Quartet issued roadmaps. The United Nations passed dozens of resolutions. None of this has stopped the expansion of settlements, the destruction of homes, the mass arrests, or the siege of Gaza. Each symbolic gesture has been matched by a material betrayal.
We are witnessing the erosion of the international legal order in real time. If genocide can proceed in full view of the world, under the scrutiny of satellites, live streams, and forensic investigations, then what use are laws? What meaning do institutions hold?
To recognize a state that exists in name while doing nothing to stop its people from being erased is to abandon the very notion of recognition.
Conclusion: Recognition Without Resistance Is Complicity
France’s decision is not a landmark. It is a placeholder. It fills a void with rhetoric. It does not change the material conditions on the ground, nor does it offer any protection to the lives at risk. It allows states to claim moral alignment without paying political costs.
In Gaza today, people are not only being killed by bombs. They are dying from thirst, from hunger, from displacement, and from a world that has grown used to their suffering.
Recognition, if it is to mean anything at all, must interrupt violence. It must create consequences. Otherwise, it is nothing more than diplomacy speaking over the sound of falling buildings.
[The writer, Shariq Us Sabah, is an author, poet, and columnist with a background in Human Rights Law. His writing focuses on violence, justice, and political memory, with a regional emphasis on South Asia and the Middle East. His forthcoming poetry collection, Fragments, explores themes of longing, loss, and language.]
Follow ummid.com WhatsApp Channel for all the latest updates.
Select Language To Read in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic.
For all the latest News, Opinions and Views, download ummid.com App.
Post Comments