The Paris International Peace Conference Is a Crucial Test for France
The Paris conference for peace in the Middle East, slated for June, may be an excellent opportunity relaunch a genuine and credible international effort to end the Arab-Israeli conflict
The Middle East peace conference scheduled to be hosted by Paris this June must become a game-changer—one that benefits all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including, of course, Palestinians and Israelis. It represents the best opportunity to relaunch a vital effort to revive the peace process in the Middle East before it is too late.
During a recent visit to Cairo, French President Emmanuel Macron said that France would announce its recognition of a Palestinian state during the June conference. His intention is presumably to improve the prospects of a two-state solution, which some considered irrelevant after the attacks of October 7, 2023, and their devastating aftermath.
Macron’s statement was not the first of its kind. Over dinner in 2013, a senior diplomat from the French Embassy in Tel Aviv told me that France was eager to recognize a Palestinian state. He believed it was time to take such a step, noting that nothing was progressing on the peace track and that the Middle East “shouldn’t be left to the radicals to define its future when reasonable leaders still exist to take the correct path.”
The Obama administration made persistent efforts to rescue the stalled peace process, which had been paralyzed since 2010. Frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s foot-dragging, then–US Secretary of State John Kerry saw France’s potential recognition of Palestine as leverage to jump-start serious talks. He hoped that if Israel endorsed the American peace plan, it would discourage France from going ahead with recognition.
At the time, both Israel and the US were concerned that a French move would trigger a domino effect across Europe, with other EU nations following suit. Kerry invested considerable political capital trying to persuade France—and through it, the rest of Europe—to hold off. All he asked for was nine months to formulate a peace plan. He was granted a year. It did not work.
In a 2014 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Kerry explained why his mission failed. He blamed Israel for refusing to freeze settlement activity in the occupied West Bank and for failing to release Palestinian prisoners who had been detained prior to the 1993 Oslo Accords—both of which had been agreed upon earlier with Netanyahu.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
“The prisoners were not released by Israel on the day they were supposed to be released, and then another day passed and another day, and then 700 units were approved in Jerusalem,” Kerry said.
He cited a third obstacle: the difficulty of forming a Palestinian unity government acceptable to both Fatah and Hamas. That government collapsed within two years and was replaced in 2019 by a new cabinet led by Mohammad Shtayyeh, a member of Fatah’s Central Committee.
It’s a pity that Kerry’s efforts failed. It was a strategic mistake for the EU to defer to Washington. Why? Because the two-state solution, endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 2012, remains the foundation of any future peace deal or final status agreement between Israel and the PLO. Had Kerry succeeded, those foundations could have been reinforced. Concrete steps should have been taken to implement the newly recognized state (albeit without UN membership), instead of allowing the process to float aimlessly, unresolved.
France was not deterred by Kerry’s failure. In 2015, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared that France would recognize Palestine if diplomatic efforts stalled. What followed was neither outright failure nor success—only stagnation. As time passed, France saw little reason to act. The recognition idea was shelved, although occasionally revisited, perhaps to keep it simmering until the timing was right.
With leadership changes in both the White House and the Élysée Palace in 2017, the momentum France had started dissipated. Out of concern over straining ties with an unpredictable US administration, France distanced itself from the issue of recognition.
Good news sometimes comes after a disastrous event. That’s what happened following the renewed focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the urgency of solving it—not someday, but now. Any sustainable solution for Gaza after the war will depend on a complete separation between occupier and occupied. Palestinians need this no less than Israelis do, although voices on both sides still disrupt the path toward a political resolution.
After over 18 months of war in Gaza, neither side seems to have achieved its goals—assuming they were clear to begin with. Hamas promised liberation, freedom, and victory. The reality has been nearly 70,000 deaths, including thousands still buried under rubble, the displacement of at least 1.5 million Palestinians, and destruction so vast it has sent Gaza back to the Stone Age.
Netanyahu, for his part, has promised “complete victory”—a pledge that remains unfulfilled. Just last Saturday, he repeated the claim. Meanwhile, numerous military experts and senior officers insist that Israel is nowhere near achieving the kind of victory Netanyahu keeps describing.
Conversations with Israeli friends and acquaintances have made me more certain that many Israelis—just like most Palestinians—are weary of endless war and want a political solution. They still believe in the two-state solution, regardless of whether they personally support or oppose it. When leaders on either side cannot or will not move forward, the international community must step in. It must act boldly and decisively to deliver a workable settlement to both Palestinians and Israelis.
Hopefully, that is what will happen this summer in Paris.
