Last week, the French foreign minister announced that if his country’s latest attempt to restart the peace process fails to yield results, France will unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. Besides the fact that this declaration blames Israel preemptively for the failure of future negotiations, writes Alan Baker, unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would also violate France’s own commitments under the Oslo Accords, of which it is a signatory:

The commitments, set down in [the Oslo] agreement, to negotiate the permanent status of the territories as well as other central issues such as Jerusalem, borders, settlements, and refugees, are solemn Palestinian and Israeli obligations which France, together with its EU partners, as well as the United States, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and Norway are obligated to honor after placing their signatures on the agreement as witnesses. . . .

[I]n threatening to recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally and arbitrarily, France is clearly prejudging the issue of the permanent status of the territory. . . . In this context, France and its European colleagues cannot and should not act to undermine the Palestinian obligation set out in . . . the agreement, according to which no step will be taken to “change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent-status negotiations.” . . .

In imposing its ultimatum and threat to recognize unilaterally a Palestinian state if France’s efforts to “make happen the solution of two states” should fail, France is, in effect, granting the Palestinian side the prerogative not to engage in any bona-fide negotiations with Israel, knowing that, [regardless of the outcome], France will unilaterally grant the Palestinians what they are demanding.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.