Why France wants to recognize a Palestinian state

OPINION:

The governments of Britain, France and Canada did not mince their words as they jointly admonished Israel for its recent blockade — now ended — of Gaza. And the French foreign minister was quick to add on May 20 that his country is “determined” to recognize a Palestinian state in the immediate future.

The move was greeted with predictable commentary about oppression and justice. But while the language of international law and humanitarian concern plays well in press releases, it conceals a far more cynical domestic calculation.

The real issue driving this policy shift is not Palestinian self-determination. It’s not human rights. It’s not even about siding with the Palestinians against Israel. And it’s certainly not about rewarding the Palestinians for Oct. 7, 2023. 

It’s about political survival in the age of refugee fatigue. These countries are looking for a way to shut the doors on future waves of refugees without appearing cruel or xenophobic. And recognizing a “Palestine” is just one piece of that geopolitical maneuver.

To understand this strategy, let’s review the scale of the issue. Since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011 — and as instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and elsewhere continued — millions of refugees poured into Europe and Canada. For a time, there was political and public tolerance, even sympathy. But that window has slammed shut. Now, immigration is a central issue in almost every national election.

Right-wing parties are unambiguous in their solution: Shut the borders, stop the boats, deport the illegals. That message is resonating with more and more voters, and it is reflected in the growing support for parties like Marine Le Pen’s National Rally. Mainstream center-right parties have also hardened their stance, knowing that the public mood has shifted.

But the left and center-left, which traditionally champion humanitarian values and open societies, find themselves in a bind. They cannot openly reject refugees without losing their justice and equality creds. At the same time, they cannot keep welcoming thousands more without losing elections. The result is political duplicity: public gestures of solidarity, private desperation to stem the flow.

What’s the solution? Find a way to send people home that sounds just and equitable. Take Syria, for example. In recent weeks, the international community has been ramping up efforts to rehabilitate the country’s new president, former al-Qaida terrorist Ahmed al-Sharaa. The official line is always about “supporting reconstruction,” “preventing radicalization” or “creating safe zones.” But the unspoken goal is simpler: Make Syria stable enough to claim that Syrian refugees no longer qualify for asylum status.

Denmark has already moved in this direction, revoking residency permits for some Syrian refugees on the grounds that Damascus and its surroundings are now “safe.” Other countries are watching closely. The humanitarian concern is not so much for Syria, but for domestic politics back home. The refugee door needs to close, and the only legal and ostensibly moral way to do it is to make the countries they came from appear safe again.

The Palestinian issue fits into the same calculus. Palestinians have long been a special case in the world of refugees. Unlike most refugee populations, they bequeath their refugee status through the generations. There are still millions of Palestinian “refugees” today, even though many of them have never lived a day in what was once British Mandate Palestine.

With mounting pressure from President Trump to absorb Gazan refugees, these countries need an alternative route. Recognition of a Palestinian state, even one that exists only on paper, is a political tool. If Palestine is a “real” nation state, then Palestinian refugees can be told to stay put. Because they will no longer be refugees.

So when France pushes to recognize Palestine, it’s not about justice or peace. It’s about managing demographics, neutralizing political threats from the right and cleaning house without looking heartless.

And yet, who’s singled out as the bad guy? Who’s offered up on the altar of human rights? Israel. While deep down these opportunistic countries might not be driven by anti-Israel sentiment, their actions must be called out. Because they are using Israel as a scapegoat. And they are effectively rewarding the Palestinians for Oct. 7, regardless of their true motivations.

• Daniel Friedman is a professor of political science at Touro University.