Shortly before his death Pope Francis wrote: "Peace-making requires courage, much more so than warfare." These are not words that are frequently cited in his obituary. Not everybody wants peace.

Peace is not only about the territory but also about beliefs and loyalties. The land sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims has known endless wars. It is a land where the cycle of violence is repeating itself, leaving behind a long trace of mistrust, fear and broken promises. It will take an extraordinary effort to move out of this latest cycle of violence that started with Oct 7. Since then both people suffered some of the worst traumas. Peace also needs a solid and reliable framework to guide actions. This is where the UN, the Arab states, Europe and the US come in.

Israelis and Palestinians both wish for peace, but they cannot agree on a common version. The international community provides the space for both sides to negotiate a ceasefire, a hostage exchange and eventually peace talks. There are no quick fixes, and whoever steps forward has a massive responsibility to shoulder. If they cannot do their part in this process well and fail to deliver on their commitments, how are Israelis and Palestinians expected to keep theirs? 

There are many pathways towards peace. This round has been kicked off with the two plans for the reconstruction of Gaza. Both plans see no role for Hamas post-war in Gaza but have very different implications for the Palestinians there. Israel’s government banks on Donald Trump’s real estate idea for Gaza that involves evacuating its people before reconstructing and with a prospect that they may never return. The Israeli government is currently applying maximum pressure, and is withholding food and water to create a desire for people to leave. The second plan out there is from Egypt, backed by the Arab league and the Europeans that would leave the people on their land in Gaza during ongoing reconstruction. Will any of the two be the path towards peace? 

We will see what will happen to Trump’s plan when he visits Saudi Arabia next week. The Saudis made the prospect of a two-state solution a condition to normalise their relations with Israel. Together with the EU and Norway, the Saudis created the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, a diplomatic format in which more than 80 states met several times since it was created in September last year. There are initiatives also by the Israeli-Palestinian civil society and by single actor states like France.

When Emmanuel Macron came back from Egypt on April 9 he announced that France could recognise the state of Palestine by June. France would be first G7 state and member of the UN security council to do so. Macron explained that France wants to prompt other nations to recognise the state of Palestine and Israel if they have not already done so. 

There are currently 29 mainly Muslim UN member states that do not recognise Israel and there are 46 UN member states that do not recognise the state of Palestine. If France and Saudi Arabia, the two co-hosts of the conference for recognition in June, were to get the numbers up on both sides, that would be a major achievement indeed. 

There is a logic to putting the recognition of statehood at the beginning of the peace process rather than the end, as it was the case under the Oslo Accord. It is to honour the equal rights of existence for both people at the negotiation table unequivocally and to put an end to the extremists’ fantasies on both sides to impose their version of peace. But will it enable a successful peace process? Recognition alone cannot be a path towards a peace process. The recent recognition of Palestine by Spain, Norway and Ireland hardly did anything to bring forward negotiations or to stop the rise in settlements in the West Bank. But if France, and eventually also the UK, were to recognise Palestine, that would be two members of the UN security council.

But recognition is not an end to itself, it needs to be backed up by further action. Recognition needs to lead to the peace process rather than prevent it. One of Macron’s advisers said last week that for France to recognise a Palestinian state, the hostages in Gaza must first be released, the war in Gaza must end and Hamas must no longer be in control of the Gaza Strip. According to these criteria, a roadmap alone without Israel agreeing to it would not be enough. And they only have less than two months to achieve all this. 

France wants to change the parameters for the peace talks through recognition. But this better not be one of Macron’s political stunts. It is a serious commitment to a long process that needs constant and continuous diplomatic follow-up. It needs perseverance and resources. To succeed, it eventually needs the backing from the US and Israel. 

There is a non-negligible risk that France reaches a dead-end if Trump decides not to back their initiative. What then? Postponing recognition until further notice? Would this not derail the process towards a two-state solution? Macron could then end up losing the momentum for recognition, and for the EU countries to agree a common position. Such an outcome would damage the credibility of France, in particular in the Muslim world. For a president of a country with the largest Muslim population in Europe, Macron is taking a big political risk. 

Macron has been a daring president, though his bets in the past often lacked careful diplomacy. His courage is often divisive. Not all EU member states will join him. And he still has to convince Israel that there is no better alternative.