Emmanuel Macron has often positioned himself as a centrist champion of diplomacy and multilateralism, keen to restore France’s global voice in an increasingly polarised world. But when it comes to the question of Palestinian statehood — a longstanding issue where France historically held a balanced, if cautious, position — Macron has failed to match rhetoric with resolve.
Despite periodic declarations in favour of recognising Palestine as a state, the French president repeatedly walks back his stance under international pressure and domestic political calculation. This inconsistency reflects not pragmatism, but a troubling mixture of political cowardice and susceptibility to pro-Israel lobbying.
France has long advocated a two-state solution. As recently as April, Macron reiterated that France “must move toward recognition, and we will do so in the coming months.”
Yet, he has consistently refused to take the concrete step of unilaterally recognising a Palestinian state, despite the growing number of countries doing so in response to the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza and the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Just on Tuesday, during his state visit to the United Kingdom, President Macron urged British leaders to recognise a Palestinian state and support an immediate ceasefire, describing it as “the only path to peace.”
By calling on the UK, Macron may be presenting himself as a peace advocate without having to take the political risk himself. It allows him to appear proactive while maintaining the status quo, avoiding a direct clash with Israel or pro-Israeli lobbies in France.
He also may be floating the recognition idea again to gauge international and domestic reactions, especially among key allies like the UK. By pushing others to act, he deflects the pressure off France while testing how far Western states are willing to move on the issue.
The contradiction between Macron’s words and France’s inaction has become increasingly glaring, however, particularly as international outrage mounts over the Israeli government's hard-line policies under Benjamin Netanyahu.
So why the hesitation?
First, Macron’s reticence cannot be understood outside the context of France’s deepening strategic and economic ties with Israel. Since 2017, defence cooperation, intelligence sharing and joint technological ventures between the two countries have increased.
Macron has also courted pro-Israel constituencies within France, where the influence of lobbying organisations sympathetic to the Israeli government has grown significantly. French Jewish institutions such as the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) exert considerable political sway, and Macron, ever attentive to maintaining domestic harmony, has shown little appetite to challenge their views — despite vocal opposition to the Israeli government within broader French civil society.
Secondly, Macron’s position reflects the influence of broader Western political currents, especially the legacy of Donald Trump’s presidency. Trump’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognise the city as Israel’s capital marked a dramatic shift in the international consensus.
Macron condemned the move at the time, but his failure to counterbalance it through decisive European action — such as recognising Palestine — speaks volumes. Instead of asserting France’s independence on the global stage, Macron appears to have internalised Washington’s priorities, continuing the pattern of aligning more closely with US and Israeli policy in practice, if not in rhetoric.
Moreover, Macron is keenly aware of the polarised debates around antisemitism and anti-Zionism in France. His administration has equated some forms of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, a move widely condemned by human rights groups and Palestinian solidarity networks.
France’s internal crackdown on Palestine solidarity
In this climate, taking a bold pro-Palestinian stance is framed as a security risk or a social provocation. Macron, who casts himself as the guardian of France’s republican values, appears unwilling to challenge this narrative for fear of destabilising his fragile centrist coalition.
Since October 2023, under President Macron’s orders, the French government has systematically repressed Palestine solidarity on French soil. Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin issued nationwide bans on pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
In Paris, police deployed tear gas and water cannons against crowds voicing solidarity with Gaza — measures upheld even by France’s highest administrative court. By punishing peaceful humanitarian dissent rather than defending the activists, Macron has further exposed the fragile limits of his proclaimed solidarity with Palestine.
This contradiction extends to Macron’s handling of the recent Gaza aid flotilla and Palestinian-French MEP Rima Hassan. In June 2025, Hassan joined the Madleen freedom flotilla — alongside activists like Greta Thunberg — in a humanitarian effort to break Gaza’s blockade.
Israeli forces intercepted the vessel in international waters, detaining her and other French nationals. Macron publicly urged that the detained French citizens be allowed to return swiftly, but refrained from questioning the legality of the interception or condemning Israel’s actions.
Meanwhile, Rima Hassan was vilified by Macron’s political allies and faced legal scrutiny, including a summons over alleged “glorification of terrorism,” despite broad consensus that her mission was nonviolent.
But statesmanship demands moral clarity. France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, cannot claim global leadership while remaining paralysed on one of the world’s most pressing injustices.
Macron’s fence-sitting does not signal diplomatic sophistication; it signals moral retreat. If he truly believes in a two-state solution, he must take the first step — recognising Palestine — as an act of principle, not as a calculated afterthought.
Oman Alyahyai is a writer and journalist based in Paris.
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.