• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Joseph Bahout"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East",
    "Europe"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Israel",
    "Palestine",
    "Western Europe",
    "France",
    "Levant",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

The French Initiative on Palestine: Posturing, or Trying to Break the Deadlock?

A new French initiative at the United Nations aims to break the deadlock and accelerate progress toward a lasting solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Link Copied
By Joseph Bahout
Published on May 26, 2015
Program mobile hero image

Program

Middle East

The Middle East Program in Washington combines in-depth regional knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to provide deeply informed recommendations. With expertise in the Gulf, North Africa, Iran, and Israel/Palestine, we examine crosscutting themes of political, economic, and social change in both English and Arabic.

Learn More
Program mobile hero image

Program

Europe

The Europe Program in Washington explores the political and security developments within Europe, transatlantic relations, and Europe’s global role. Working in coordination with Carnegie Europe in Brussels, the program brings together U.S. and European policymakers and experts on strategic issues facing Europe.

Learn More

Source: Mark News

Of all contemporary conflicts, the Israeli–Palestinian one is probably the most enduring and resistant to any resolution attempt. The conflict, more than a century old, started well before World War I and weighed heavily on international relations in a heated and dangerous manner several times after World War II and during the Cold War. It has remained a thorn in the side of international diplomatic life to this day.

All diplomatic formats have been tried, from public bilateral talks under brokerage, to secret direct negotiations between the two parties, to multilateral conferences with a strong United Nations input. More than 12 international resolutions have been passed, providing the legal framework for a solution. An exhaustive list of creative ideas has been put forward to bring about solutions to an ever-complicated equation – one that is growing more entangled with the passing of time.

Specialists and practitioners of what has become known as a “peace processing business” acknowledge that they now know what it will take to terminate the conflict: the right of both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples to live in dignity and security side by side in two states; a land-for-peace deal, which will require inventive quid pro quo negotiations to square off the difficult question of territory and space; and reparation and mutual recognition.

While it’s clear what the contours of a satisfactory, realistic, and lasting solution are, what is lacking is a true political will from both parties to jump into a deal, display the required leadership, and pay the price needed for achieving and implementing the solution.

It is in this context of incredible stagnation, where further regression threatens to ignite new fires in the Middle East, that France ­– an important yet so far lateral partner in the permanent “peace processing industry” – has put forward a bold initiative that aims to break the deadlock and accelerate progress towards the acknowledged solution.

A draft of a French UN Security Council resolution was published in a French newspaper on May 20. In it, France proposes formally recognizing an independent and definitive Palestinian State. The proposal sets an 18-month deadline for a bargained settlement that establishes a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with required land swaps, and recognizes Jerusalem as the common capital of both states. France’s plan also suggests holding an international peace conference that would crown the process before it begins.

France is trying to reverse the entire game and place the result ahead of the process. French diplomats are using classic negotiation techniques, putting players under time constraints by imposing a deadline on a process that could otherwise drag on with endless bickering.

Paris aims to break the cycle of unsuccessful face-to-face negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, as well as remove the tired and ideas-dried American broker from the equation. It also seeks to place the ball in the UN Security Council’s court in hopes that “imposed peace” will be a game changer.

Other European countries, such as the U.K., Germany, Spain, and Italy, will likely follow France’s lead, which would create a new international momentum. The United States, however, does not yet appear to be on board.

France submitted a similar draft to the UN Security Council in December, and the United States opposed it, arguing that it was bad timing as it was just before the Israeli elections.

It is understandable that the United States might be reluctant to accept France’s proposal: With this move, France appears to be stripping the United States of its longstanding role as the conflict’s main broker. However, Paris knows that U.S. acceptance is more than necessary. It seeks to provide exhausted U.S. diplomacy with a tool for division of labor: The proposed process could help the American broker convince Israel to take a bold step towards full-fledged peace, while Europe can do the same on the side of the Palestinian party.

This initiative also comes at a time when Washington, striving to conclude a nuclear deal with Iran, is eager to reassure Israel of its security. American diplomats perceive France’s move as an additional and dispensable fear factor for an already paranoid Israeli government. France may, however, be well aware of this risk: Perhaps it’s attempting to draw the world’s attention away from the current conflicts with Iran, the Gulf, and the Islamic State, using its Palestine initiative to nudge attention again towards a conflict that many still consider the mother of all others.

This article was originally published by the Mark News. 

About the Author

Joseph Bahout

Former Nonresident Fellow, Middle East Program

Joseph Bahout was a nonresident fellow in Carnegie’s Middle East Program. His research focuses on political developments in Lebanon and Syria, regional spillover from the Syrian crisis, and identity politics across the region.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    In Between Life and Death

      Joseph Bahout

  • Commentary
    Donald Trump Has Announced a U.S. Withdrawal From Northeastern Syria

      Joseph Bahout

Joseph Bahout
Former Nonresident Fellow, Middle East Program
Joseph Bahout
SecurityForeign PolicyMiddle EastIsraelPalestineWestern EuropeFranceLevantIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Article
    EU Integration Without Ratification?

    Countries face several hurdles in joining the EU, including the final stage of ratifying their accession treaties. Procedural reforms and substantive adjustments could help move the process forward.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Sada
    Syria on the Brink of Water Scarcity: Climate Change, Drought, and Threats to Food Security

    Syria’s worsening drought is no longer a seasonal crisis. This report explains what climate change is doing to rainfall, groundwater, and food security, and what solutions experts say are still possible.

      Milia Esper

  • Line of flags from all different countries and nations
    Paper
    Methods of National Power Analysis: Pitfalls and Best Practices

    Power assessments shape our perceptions of the limits of the possible, but quantitative rankings and dashboards can provide false confidence.

      Nicholas Kitchen

  • Article
    Governing AI in the Shadow of Giants: Korea’s Strategic Response to Great Power AI Competition

    In its version of an AI middle power strategy, Seoul is pursuing alignment with the United States not as an endpoint but as a strategy to build industrial and geopolitical leverage. Whether this balance holds remains an open question.

      Darcie Draudt-Véjares, Seungjoo Lee

  • Article
    Smuggling and Civil Peace on Lebanon’s Border: The Case of Summaqiyyeh

    The Lebanese authorities’ clampdown on illicit cross-border activity threatens to leave inhabitants of the historically neglected village, and the wider Akkar region, in an economically precarious position.

      Mohanad Hage Ali

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.