France recognises Palestine

[PaxAeterna]

A big deal.
Macron said

The urgent thing today is that the war in Gaza stops and the civil population is saved

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/24/macron-anuncia-que-franca-ira-reconhecer-estado-da-palestina

It's too much garbage to debunk at once, so let's do this one at a time.

The Jewish leadership that accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan was not from the US, it was the Yishuv leadership in Mandatory Palestine, i.e. the actual Jewish community living in Palestine. The Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion and representing the Jews of the Mandate, was heavily involved in the UN process and formally accepted the plan on behalf of the Jewish population in Palestine. This is a matter of historical record. Their acceptance was announced publicly and submitted to the UN.

The Arab Higher Committee, the official representative of Palestinian Arabs at the time, boycotted the UN Special Committee - they werent uninvited, they refused to participate in the discussions, and declared the plan illegitimate before it was even finalised.

Also, the British did not “draw up the partition”, they referred the issue to the United Nations, which appointed an independent international committee to investigate and propose a solution. The partition plan was not created by Britain or “US Jewish leaders”, it was drafted and voted on by the UN General Assembly.

Where do you get this stuff from??? Just fact check yourself!

I can't even be bothered to read the rest, it's just crazy that you double down on things that are so easy to verify. Why do it?

““The U.S. blocked recognition of Palestine for 20 years” ... what????
There was nothing to recognised!!!! Between 1948 and the late 1980s, no Arab country established a Palestinian state, even when they controlled the territory.”

As I said, and history has recorded, Jordan and Egypt held West Bank and Gaza as conservators until the UN would establish a democratic Palestinian state that guaranteed the equal rights of all inhabitants on the land set aside by the UN for a Palestinian State. They never wanted to annex it, in fact a movement of Palestinians from West Bank asked the King of Jordan to annex the West Bank and Jordan refused.

As far as ‘nothing to recognise’ there was the exact same documents upon which Israel was recognised in 1948- the UN resolution with the partition.

Yet repeated motions by the UNGA to establish a Palestinian state were rejected at the UNSC by the USA from 1948 to 1967 when Israel pre-emptively attacked and seized the territories.

On 7th October Hamas and others set out to provoke Netenyahu into seriously weakening Israel.

They are succeeding.

They've succeeded, its just that many don't see it yet.

Oh sod it, hubby is reading anyway so I might as well do this one by one.

Very odd for the Nakba to have started a full 6 months prior to the start of the Arab war if it was a result. The Nakba was a cause of the 1948 Arab war, this is well documented historical fact.

No. It isn't a suprise that the nakba started 6 months before the 1948 war began, because there was a full-blown civil war between Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine that began immediately after the UN Partition Plan was passed on 29 November 1947, a full six months before Israel declared independence and before the Arab states formally invaded.

Arab irregulars and Palestinian militias launched attacks on Jewish convoys, farms, and urban centres.Jewish militias responded with defence operations and counterattacks.

Hundreds of civilians were killed on both sides, and entire villages became battlegrounds. This is when much of the initial Palestinian flight and displacement occurred, months before any Arab army crossed the border.

Citation: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war?

They didn’t want to destroy Israel.

Again, fiction.

The reasons for the 1948 war, I think they were clear at the time:

As youve already cited Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha, maybe you missed it when he announced in October 1947 that a war against the emerging Jewish state would be "a war of extermination and momentous massacre, spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”.

King Abdullah of Jordan declared: “Our army has one goal: to destroy Zionism and crush the Jewish state.”

There was never even a plan to create a Palestinian state! Each Arab army pursued its own interests, Jordan grabbed the West Bank, Egypt took Gaza, and neither allowed Palestinian independence for the next 19 years they had control!!!!

Their armies had orders to NOT encroach on any land set aside for Israel and they stayed only in the areas partitioned for the Palestinian state.

Well they didn't follow those orders you've probably just invented. On May 15, 1948, the day after Israel declared independence, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq all invaded. Their troops crossed into territory explicitly assigned to the Jewish state under the UN Partition Plan.

Egyptian forces invaded from the south and attacked Jewish towns like Yad Mordechai and Beersheba, deep inside the area allocated to Israel.

Syrian forces crossed into the Galilee, again territory assigned to Israel.

Iraqi forces entered via the Jordan Valley, also targeting Israeli territory.

The Jordanian Arab Legion attacked Jewish areas of Jerusalem, including the Old City - not part of the Arab state under the partition.

That is how and why Israel ended up in 1948 with more land than the UN partition gave them.

The fact that Israel ended up with more land than in the UN plan is the outcome of that war. Thats whats happens when you start wars and lose them. The winner doesn't give you things back with a pat on the back.

I am not even reading the rest of the world salad you've tossed out. Just open up Grok or something, paste your post into it and ask it to fact check for you. Whatever websites you're on are fiction.

“it was drafted and voted on by the UN General Assembly.”

The plan for a partition was drawn up by the Peel Commission in 1937 headed by Lord Peel while Britain was ruling the Palestine Mandate. The idea was British. It was rejected in 1938. But then The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion had convinced the Zionist Congress to approve equivocally the Peel recommendations as a basis for more negotiation so it therefore became the basis of the 1947 partition later passed by the UNGA The revised Peel partition was not drafted by the UNGA, but the UNSCOP, which was given it by the Zionist Congress composed of mostly American and British Jewish Zionists.

“The Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion and representing the Jews of the Mandate, was heavily involved in the UN process and formally accepted the plan on behalf of the Jewish population in Palestine.”

His acceptance was meaningless because he had no vote and was not part of the UNSCOP. He also did not represent all the Jewish leaders in the Mandate as there was no consensus on agreeing to the partition - there were multiple Zionist parties at the time and his opposition was against the partition. The UNSCOP consisted of: Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. There was zero representation of anyone from Palestine. Ben Gurion had agreed with Lord Peel back in 1937, he had then resurrected the Peel partition by going to the US for four years to convince the Zionist Congress of it. Ben Gurion and Weizmann were also a British Army veterans of WWI and British citizens so clearly were biased towards British opinion/views.

The UNSCOP committee was also heavily influenced by US Zionist Jewish leaders who they visited and consulted in the States as part of their process.

No. Jordan and Egypt did not act as “conservators” for a future Palestinian state.

Jordan annexed the West Bank unilaterally and illegally under international law. Only two countries recognised the annexation: Britain and Pakistan. The rest of the Arab League opposed it.

Jordan didn’t hold the territory “in trust” for Palestiniana, it absorbed it, gave Palestinians Jordanian citizenship, and suppressed any independent Palestinian national movement.

Egypt militarily occupied Gaza, but never made any move toward creating a Palestinian state. In fact, it denied Gazans Egyptian citizenship and ruled the Strip by martial law. Gazans were actually liberated and under muvh better conditions after Israel took the Strip.

If either Egypt or Jordan genuinely intended to “hold” these lands for a future democratic Palestine, they had 19 years to do something, and did nothing.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) envisioned both a Jewish and Arab state, yes. But here's the key difference:

The Jews accepted it and built a functioning government-in-waiting (the Jewish Agency, a provisional government, a military, courts). The Arab side rejected it, both locally (the Arab Higher Committee) and regionally (the Arab League).

As a result, there was no Palestinian Arab government, no declarations of statehood, and no administrative body to recognise. The UN partition plan itself was voided by Arab rejection and war. You can’t demand recognition of a state that your own side chose not to create.

Israel’s declaration of independence in May 1948 was backed by functioning state institutions, and within hours it was recognised by multiple sovereign nations, including the USA and USSR.

Palestine never made such a declaration in 1948. The PLO only declared statehood in 1988, and that’s when recognitions began. (Hence why most countries recognising Palestine cite 1988, not 1947.)

Between 1948 and 1967, no Arab country tried to establish a Palestinian state on the land they controlled. That was a conscious political choice.

"Yet repeated motions by the UNGA to establish a Palestinian state were rejected at the UNSC by the USA from 1948 to 1967 when Israel pre-emptively attacked and seized the territories"

Fiction.

There were no Security Council votes to establish a Palestinian state during this period. There was nothing for the US to veto. The first US veto in the Security Council wasn’t until 1970, and the first time Palestinian statehood became a regular UN issue was after 1967, and seriously only after 1988 when the PLO declared statehood.

And your claim that Israel “pre-emptively” attacked in 1967 is also misleading.

In June 1967, Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran (against international law), expelled UN peacekeepers, massed troops along Israel’s border and declared war was imminent.

Israel struck first, yes - but in response to a clear, coordinated threat. That’s self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

“As youve already cited Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha, maybe you missed it when he announced in October 1947 that a war against the emerging Jewish state would be "a war of extermination and momentous massacre, spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”.
King Abdullah of Jordan declared: “Our army has one goal: to destroy Zionism and crush the Jewish state.”

Source of these alleged comments?
(you should know that Golda Meir’s memoirs tell a completely different story about King Abdullah I and his support of Israel.)

Sorry, but I think your sources are heavily biased and full of omissions.

It’s not my claim that Israel started the 1967 war with a pre-emptive strike. That is a historical fact. No historian calls it “self defence”.

Egypt did not declare war was imminent. They signed a mutual defence pact with Jordan and Syria after Israel had bombed Jordan and Syria…

”In November 1966 an Israeli strike on the village of Al-Samūʿ in the Jordanian West Bank left 18 dead and 54 wounded, and, during an air battle with Syria in April 1967, the Israeli Air Force shot down six Syrian MiG fighter jets. In addition, Soviet intelligence reports in May indicated that Israel was planning a campaign against Syria, and, although inaccurate, the information further heightened tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors.” - Encylopedia Britannica

”Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac. A similar air assault incapacitated the Syrian air force. Without cover from the air, the Egyptian army was left vulnerable to attack. Within three days the Israelis had achieved an overwhelming victory on the ground, capturing the Gaza Strip and all of the Sinai Peninsula up to the east bank of the Suez Canal.” - Encyclopedia Britannica

You can’t demand recognition of a state that your own side chose not to create.
? States are created by recognition of the UNSC. You can’t create a state without recognition.

Bloody hell. Why are you doing this?

Claim: The UN partition plan was just a rebranded British Peel Commission plan.

False.

The Peel Commission's partition plan was rejected outright by the Arab leadership, and never implemented. The UN Partition Plan of 1947 was different, based on a completely new investigation by UNSCOP. UNSCOP was an independent committee, not British-controlled. Its members were deliberately drawn from neutral or less-involved countries (e.g., Sweden, Uruguay, India, etc.) precisely to avoid British or Soviet bias.

Claim: UNSCOP was controlled by US and British Zionists.
False.

UNSCOP didn’t include the US, Britain, or the USSR they were excluded precisely to avoid superpower pressure.

It’s true that UNSCOP visited Jewish communities (in Palestine and the U.S.) and heard their case. Bloody sensible. But Palestinian Arabs chose not to participate in UNSCOP and refused to give testimony, which is why they weren’t "represented." That was their choice!!!!!!

Claim: Ben-Gurion’s acceptance was meaningless because he had no vote.

False

He was the head of the Jewish Agency, which was recognised by the British and the UN as the official representative of the Jews in Palestine.

The 1947 plan’s legitimacy comes from international consensus and a UN General Assembly vote, not British or Zionist influence. But I'm unsuprised you think Jews control governments. Had they done so, perhaps the British would have supported them during the war, but they didn't.

The more you try to rewrite history, the clearer it becomes. What i dont get is why youre doing it? It can't be accidental now, it must be deliberate sharing of disinformation. So why?

“There were no Security Council votes to establish a Palestinian state during this period.”

Er yeah there were. The ceasefire brokering done by the UNSC all revised UNGA motions to remove the establishment of a Palestinian state repeatedly. And that hasn’t stopped.

But I'm unsuprised you think Jews control governments.

But you are implying that by insisting that the partition was all Ben Guiron’s idea and he not only accepted it on behalf of all Jews in the Palestine Mandate (controlling Israel) but also the rest of the UN fell right in line with his control.

I am saying, no, the partition was a British idea, proposed by Lord Peel and the Peel Commission that Ben Guiron and Chaim Weizmann,,.being British citizens and WWI veterans adopted and marketed it as the basis for the 1947 partition plan.

If anything, I am saying that British Imperialism is a cause of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Just like it caused India/Pakistan.,,

It can't be accidental now, it must be deliberate sharing of disinformation.

Quoting Encyclopdia Britannica is apparently rewriting history and deliberate sharing of disinformation!

images.app.goo.gl/qy3Rjav8pHDDtcMx9

He was the head of the Jewish Agency, which was recognised by the British and the UN as the official representative of the Jews in Palestine.

The British recognised him because he agreed with them…with Lord Peel. They didn’t recognise the other Jewish leaders that did not agree with them, classic imperial tactic.

Had they done so, perhaps the British would have supported them during the war, but they didn't.

The British pursued only their own interests during the Arab-Israeli war. (See screenshot)
https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/attachments/jps-articles/britain.pdf

Wasn’t Trans Jordan part of the Partition Plan for an Arab state in the British Mandate for Palestine.

73% of the region became an Arab state now known as Jordan.

How can anyone genuinely argue the division of land was unfair or disproportionate?

There was no Palestinian ‘cause’ in pre 1948 as Arabs were Arabs.

That only started in 1964 with the Egyptian, Arafat, establishing the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (with Russia) while the West Bank was illegally occupied by JORDAN, and Gaza by EGYPT.

Egypt and Jordan who don’t seem to want to admit vulnerable Gazan women, children and elderly for refuge in the hellish war zone they’re been apparently genocided and starved in for almost two years.

Isn’t there a theme there?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azzam_Pasha_quotation

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=teXFDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA64&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Oh I reject your strawman claims, please don’t put in bold things I haven’t said.

This is just a short list of stuff I can remember that you've posted that is false:

Claimed Palestinian Jewish leaders rejected the UN Partition Plan, false, the Jewish Agency in Palestine accepted it.

Claimed only US Jews were involved in the UN process, false, the Jewish Agency was based in Palestine and led negotiations.

Claimed the Nakba caused the 1948 war, false, the war and refugee crisis began after Arab rejection of the partition and armed attacks.

Claimed Arab armies stayed out of Israeli territory in 1948, false, they invaded multiple areas allocated to Israel.

Claimed Jordan and Egypt held land in trust for a future Palestinian state, false, Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt ruled Gaza militarily.

Claimed the US blocked Palestinian statehood repeatedly from 1948–1967, false, no such votes occurred and the first US veto was in 1970.

Claimed the 1947 UN plan was just the Peel Commission plan reused, false, it was independently drafted by UNSCOP.

Claimed UNSCOP was influenced by US and British Zionists, false, neither country was on the committee and it iincluded deliberately selected neutral states.

Claimed Ben-Gurion’s acceptance of partition was meaningless, false, he led the Jewish Agency, the recognised representative body of Jews in Palestine.

If you genuinely got this from the Encyclopedia Brittanica can you please give me details of which volume or links to the articles as I'd seriously like to write in and complain to them.

No, no, no.

The Jewish Agency wasn’t recognised because it “agreed” with the British. Disagreement with British policy was constant, Ben-Gurion clashed with them over immigration, White Papers... yada yada yada.

it was recognised because it was the largest, most established governing body representing Jews in Mandatory Palestine. It was made up of elected delegates from across the Zionist movement and had real governing responsibilities: schools, hospitals, welfare, immigration, and defence. It wasn’t just a political club - it was the functioning proto-government of the Jewish community. It was formally recognised in the League of Nations Mandate and later by the UN because it actually governed.

the Jewish Agency was also democratically representative, built on a functioning electoral system that reflected the political will of the Jewish population in Palestine, not appointed by Britain or imposed from abroad.

Bold text is used for emphasis, to draw the reader’s attention to key words, phrases, or ideas. In structured or argumentative writing, it helps make important points stand out.

A strawman is when you misrepresent or distort someone’s actual position. That's not what's happened, you've just misinterpreted my use of bold text.

Actually, it’s the other way around: recognition acknowledges a state that already exists.

It doesn’t magically create one out of thin air.

A state must first declare itself, and demonstrate the basic elements of statehood under international law. That requires...

A permanent population
A defined territory
A government
The capacity to enter into relations with other states

Once those are in place, recognition by other states can follow, but it’s not required for a state to exist.

For example:

Israel declared statehood in 1948, then secured recognition from other states.

Palestinian leadership rejected statehood in 1947, and never declared a state during 1948 to 1967 when they could have.

You can’t retroactively demand recognition for a state you chose not to declare, didn’t build institutions for, and refused to accept when offered.

Or actually you can, and Macron will oblige.

You're quoting from a passage published by the institute of Palestine studies, which is openly partisan but regardless, you're right, they were.

The British government had long-standing strategic and economic interests in the Arab world, particularly with oil-rich states. Britain’s priority during the final years of the Mandate was to protect its imperial assets and avoid antagonising the wider Arab world, not to support Jewish statehood.

That’s why Britain abstained from the 1947 UN Partition Plan vote, despite its role in creating the Mandate system in the first place.

Secondly, British forces remained actively hostile to the Jewish defence force throughout the end of the Mandate, while often turning a blind eye to Arab attacks on Jewish civilians. In several documented cases, British troops intervened militarily to prevent Jewish convoys from reaching besieged areas like Jerusalem, and even confiscated weapons from the Jews while allowing Arab militias to operate freely.

Moreover, the British trained and armed the Arab Legion of Transjordan. British officers not only led the Arab Legion but were accused of relaying intelligence to Arab commanders.

So no, Ben-Gurion was not in control of the British. British actions reflected an agenda of damage control to preserve British interests, not moral commitment to Jewish self-determination.

If anything, their actions made Jewish survival harder, not easier. And not much has changed.