France under pressure over new date for UN Palestinian recognition summit
French President Emmanuel Macron must move swiftly to set a new date for a UN conference on Palestinian statehood after the Iran-Israel war derailed plans to hold it on Tuesday, activists have told The National.
Mr Macron had said he may recognise a Palestinian state during the conference co-chaired with Saudi Arabia, raising some hope European countries would follow suit and increase diplomatic pressure on Israel to accept the proposal.
The Iranian-Israeli conflict and track is itself part of the wider sort of issue emanating from the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict
John Lyndon,
Allmep executive director
The French President has vowed to push on with diplomatic efforts to achieve a two-state solution despite the delay, which he justified by saying that neither Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas nor Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman could fly to New York after Israel bombed Iran on Friday. The attack has triggered retaliatory attacks and the closure of the airspace of several countries in the region.
Peace organisations who came to Paris for a conference on Friday on the two-state solution will be campaigning to ensure he delivers on his promise, said Brussels-based activist Dan Sobovitz, who took part in the meeting that was organised to contribute to this week's conference in New York.
About 400 participants in Friday's conference were invited to the Elysee Palace to talk to the President, who reportedly told them he remained focused on supporting Palestinian statehood. "His main message was: you can count on me," Mr Sobovitz told The National. "He should commit to a date." The next UN General Assembly meeting is scheduled for September.
In a closed-door meeting with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, the organisers of Friday's conference, the Alliance for Middle East Peace (Allmep), a network of 170 civil society organisations, highlighted concerns that the Palestinian issue would be sidelined by the latest Iran-Israel escalation. At least 15 Palestinians were killed on Sunday by Israeli fire near an aid centre in Gaza, bringing the total number of Palestinians killed in the enclave since October 2023 to more than 55,200.
"The number one priority has to be ending Gaza's war," said John Lyndon, Allmep's executive director. "The situation between Iran and Israel is deeply concerning. It's incredibly destabilising for the region, but the Iranian-Israeli conflict and track is itself part of the wider sort of issue emanating from the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
France may reorganise the conference in the "coming weeks", Mr Barrot said, without giving a date. "The momentum is unstoppable," he told TV network Public Senat.
Israel's ally
For now, most French politicians, including Mr Macron, have rallied behind Israeli claims that the bombing was justified because of its right to defend itself in the face of Iran's nuclear programme. Some have called on President to remain focused on Palestine.
The French government views Iran's nuclear programme as an existential threat for Europe and Israel, and Paris's relations with Tehran have become increasingly tense over Iran's three-year long detention of two French citizens in conditions "akin to torture". Last week, the UN nuclear watchdog's 35-nation board of governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years.
"France must take Iran's threats against Israel seriously, while at the same time pushing for a solution to the Palestinian problem," Raphael Glucksmann, a leading socialist politician, said in an interview with national broadcaster TF1 on Monday.
Some French analysts suggest Mr Macron had been struggling to gain momentum for the New York conference. Delaying it may give him more time to rally international support after a US campaign to discourage states from taking part.
The President's initial hope of a "mutual recognition process" involving more Arab countries establishing ties with Israel, alongside other western countries, faced difficulties as Gaza ceasefire talks broke down.
"It's catastrophic that once again, the decade-old Israeli-Palestinian question is pushed aside and taken hostage by war," said international affairs commentator Pierre Haski.
"Postponing the conference is also a way of not exposing oneself to failure, though comments made both by Mr Macron and Mr Barrot show they're strongly committed to the idea of holding the conference considering the amount of energy and political capital they've invested in it," Mr Haski told The National.
Shaddad Al Attili, head of the Palestine Liberation Organisation's negotiation unit, welcomed the delay, saying the Iran-Israel war would have overshadowed any announcements. "In these conditions, it's best to wait," he said.
No empty gestures
Yet the latest war has left many peace activists – both Palestinian and Israeli – wondering what comes next, as concerns mount over regional instability. One Palestinian NGO worker, who asked to remain anonymous due to online threats to participants of Friday's conference, said the postponement was understandable given that Palestinian cities including Ramallah and Jericho had been closed by Israel because of the Iranian attacks.
"It's a horrible time," they said, speaking from Ramallah after returning from Paris via Jordan. "The bombings are not just on Tel Aviv, they're also near us." About 224 people in Iran, including senior officials and nuclear scientists, have been killed in Israeli bombing since Friday, and 24 in Israel have died in Iranian missile attacks.
In Israel, Mr Macron's two-state solution initiative has been rejected by the government and viewed by many as a hostile move.
Many Israeli peace activists who took part in Friday's conference were left stranded in Paris by the closure of Israeli airspace, which remains in place. "Recognition is too important to be offered as an empty gesture. It needs to be done at a time when people can give priority to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict," Israeli analyst Gil Murciano told The National. "It should be used as a tool to promote a two-state solution. Right now, people care about whether they'll be alive tomorrow."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
42 minutes ago
- The National
Iran's history points to the direction the country could take
Israel's attacks on Iran last week sent the two countries to war, marking a turning point in each of their histories. It is Iran's first major war since 1988, when its eight-year-long conflict with Iraq came to an end. Israel's shock-and-awe campaign has targeted not just Iran's nuclear programme, the main casus belli, but also the political and military leadership of the Islamic Republic. Israeli and American leaders, meanwhile, have engaged in doublespeak on the question of whether they seek regime change. Regardless of their war aims, the possibility of a seismic political shift has been starkly posed in Iran. This is particular so because of the many years of economic hardship and social upheaval that have exerted tremendous pressures on the current establishment. Many are now wondering about the political consequences of the war for the Islamic Republic and the rule of its 86-year-old leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In trying to understand the present moment, historians inevitably turn to the past. Iran's centuries-long history provides many examples of upheavals and regime change. Which historical moments are most suitable to give us a sense of where the country is at today? One inescapable point of comparison is the 1979 revolution, which replaced Mohammad Reza Pahlavi – known more widely then as the Shah of Iran – with the current establishment. But as the Islamic Republic faces one of the biggest challenges in its 46-year history, what is the likelihood that Iranians will once again rise up for the reasons noted above? Any comparison between 2025 and 1979 quickly shows why a similar revolution is much less likely to happen today. In 1979, the Shah's opponents had an overarching leader to rally behind. Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pulled together a diverse coalition of nationalists, Marxists and Islamists to support him as an alternative. Although he was a dyed-in-wool Islamist, Khomeini was careful not to dispel other groups, particularly in the early days. Any comparison between 2025 and 1979 quickly shows why a radical change in the country's power structure is much less likely today He had in his team more veterans from within Iran's nationalist movement than fellow clerics. Khomeini also used the broad network of mosques inside the country to organise. Other opposition groups also had extensive and disciplined networks across Iran. By contrast, the opponents of the Islamic Republic today are bitterly divided, lack networks inside the country and don't have any credible organisations either inside or abroad. Reza Pahlavi, the 64-year-old son of the Shah who is currently living in exile, has attempted to pitch himself as the singular leader of the opposition. But he lacks broad-based support or organisation, without either of which it is impossible to stage an uprising that seriously challenges the Islamic Republic. Even a spontaneous movement – such as the ones in 2017-19 and 2022-23 – is unlikely to go far without organised leadership. Rather than change being imposed from the outside, it is much likelier to happen from within the establishment. Again, Iranian history has a number of examples of military figures taking up the reins of their country during moments of acute crises. The best-known example in modern times is the one mounted by Mr Pahlavi's eponymous grandfather – and the father of the deposed Shah – who rose from a lowly military position to lead a British-backed coup in 1921. Reza Pahlavi appointed himself prime minister and, after considering the idea of establishing a republic, abolished the Qajar dynasty in 1925 and created a new monarchical dynasty. The Qajars, who had run Iran since the late 1700s, had become enfeebled by the early 20th century creating the conditions necessary for change. It is conceivable that figures from inside the Islamic Republic's establishment will similarly rise to assume power. It is also possible that instead of a typical military coup, a broadly representative committee consisting of politicians and military figures takes over. Iran also experienced regime change in 1941 and 1953, both of which took place with extensive support from foreign powers. In 1941, the Soviet Union and Britain invaded the country during the Second World War before deposing Reza Pahlavi and replacing him with his son, the Shah. Twelve years later, the CIA and MI6 helped bring down the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and reinstated the Shah, who had been reduced to a mere figurehead, as the country's ruler. It's worth pointing out that, while the British aided Reza Pahlavi during the 1921 coup, the support had been limited and the operation very much led from within. By contrast, the 1953 coup was planned and carried out by Washington and London, albeit with local support from Iran's armed forces. It's extremely unlikely that the US and its allies can carry out a similar operation today, since they lack the level of political penetration the West had in 1953. The US remains the only foreign power capable of mounting a ground invasion of Iran, but the American public has little appetite for such an intervention – particularly after the misguided invasion and occupation of Iraq two decades earlier. While it is possible for some to imagine the US and Israel deposing Mr Khamenei, this scenario also remains unlikely. For without boots on the ground, any transition process will be chaotic, unwieldy and perhaps even met with resistance from several quarters. There is also little guarantee that a more friendly government will emerge from this process. By comparing the current moment to what happened in 1921, 1941, 1953 and 1979, we can conclude that, if there was to be a change, something akin to the 1921 coup is perhaps the most relevant model. A primarily Iranian-led power usurpation is more likely than a popular revolution (1979), a foreign-organised coup (1953) or change as a consequence of foreign occupation (1941). It remains to be seen whether there are elements inside Iran's armed forces or political establishment who would make such an ambitious dash for power, given all the risks that it will involve. It certainly appears that the Islamic Republic is on the cusp of change, given the many pressures emanating from within and beyond Iran's boundaries today. Time will tell what that change actually entails.
Arabian Business
an hour ago
- Arabian Business
UAE announces major government changes
The UAE has announced major government changes, including the introduction of a new ministry. Following consultations and approval of President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Ruler of Dubai, announced the changes to the UAE government. A new Ministry of Foreign trade will be established and the Ministry of Economy will be renamed as part of the update. UAE Government changes Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid said: 'Following consultations with my brother, His Highness the President, and with his approval, we announce today changes to the UAE government as follows: Establishment of a Ministry of Foreign Trade in the UAE government and appointment of Dr. Thani Al Zeyoudi as Minister of Foreign Trade Renaming the Ministry of Economy to Ministry of Economy and Tourism led by Abdullah bin Touq Al Marri 'We also announce that the National Artificial Intelligence System will be adopted as an advisory member in the Council of Ministers, the Ministerial Development Council, and all boards of federal entities and government companies starting from January 2026 to support decision-making in these councils, conduct real-time analyses of their decisions, provide technical advice, and enhance the efficiency of government policies adopted by these councils across all sectors'. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid added: 'The world is undergoing a comprehensive transformation phase… scientifically… economically… and socially… our goal is to prepare today for the coming decades… our goal is to ensure continued prosperity and dignified life for future generations.' الإخوة والأخوات .. بعد التشاور مع أخي رئيس الدولة حفظه الله واعتماده .. نعلن اليوم عن بعض التغييرات في حكومة دولة الإمارات كالتالي : إنشاء وزارة للتجارة الخارجية في حكومة الإمارات وتعيين الدكتور ثاني الزيودي وزيراً للتجارة الخارجية، وتغيير اسم وزارة الاقتصاد لتكون وزارة… — HH Sheikh Mohammed (@HHShkMohd) June 20, 2025
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
