Recognizing Palestinian statehood, Emmanuel Macron once again reveals himself a master of bad timing
Unlike his role model Charles de Gaulle, the French prime minister always chooses the wrong moment to act
Emmanuel Macron during a news conference in Berlin. Photo by Getty Images
Robert Zaretsky July 29, 2025
Upon his election to the office of the presidency of France in 2017, Emmanuel Macron believed that, like his exemplar Charles de Gaulle, he was not just riding the wave of history, but that he was in fact mastering it. Imposing himself upon a political system in which he was an outsider; describing himself as someone who belonged neither to the Right nor Left and stood above the sound and fury of politics, and believing himself the maître des horloges, or master of clocks who set the political agenda, Macron seemed to be the man of the hour for an increasingly divided nation.
But it soon became clear that this confident, even cocky 39-year-old financial whiz, still a neophyte to politics, did not control the political clock. In fact, he could not even keep up with the ticking of time. Whether it was the explosion in 2018 of the violent gilets jaunes uprising — named after the protesters who sported the high-visibility yellow vests carried by French motorists in case of car trouble — or with the thud of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Macron was caught unaware and unprepared. His responses were at first hesitant, then heavy-handed. Rather than trying to reset the clock, he waited then frantically took a hammer to it.
At times, however, Macron has not bothered to think before he swings. This was the case when, following his party’s miserable showing in the European parliamentary elections last year, he did not wait to ponder his next move. Instead, he pulverized his presidency by hastily calling a snap French parliamentary election. This resulted in a three-way tie among political parties and coalitions incapable of compromise, leading to a legislative paralysis which has crippled France politics and tied his own hands ever since.
Nevertheless, running behind rather than ahead of the clock remains Macron’s mode d’emploi. This tragic habit of picking the wrong moment to act was most recently exemplified in his decision, announced last week in a message to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestine Authority, that France would officially recognize the Palestinian state this fall.
But this instance of poor timing is not because it was a hasty decision, one made before the time was ripe, as most American Jewish institutions and most French Jewish organizations immediately made clear. Though using more diplomatic language, their criticism echoed the predictable response of Israel’s government of wild-eyed fanatics and blinkered opportunists, ranging from the prime minister’s declaration that Macron’s decision “rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy” to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s gratitude to Macron “for providing yet another compelling reason to finally apply Israeli sovereignty over the historic regions of Judea and Samaria.”
Of course, Macron has not been silent over Israel’s merciless razing of Gaza and killing of Palestinian civilians. As early as December 2023, just months after Hamas’ surprise attack and massacre of Israelis, Macron publicly criticized Israel’s massive military response. “We share Israel’s shock and pain just as we acknowledge their right to defeat terrorism,” he declared. But other civilians are now paying a terrible price, he continued. “Babies, women, and the elderly are being bombed and killed. There is absolutely no justification or legitimacy for this.”
Macron’s criticism of the Israeli government’s actions continued through 2024 and spilled into 2025. Shortly after Israel’s government shattered its short cease-fire with Hamas earlier this year, and relaunched its air and ground campaign, the French president denounced these moves as “shameful.” In an interview in which he described himself as “shaken,” he went on to say that Israel’s shutting down of humanitarian aid to Gaza fell completely outside the bounds of international law. “It’s terrible. There is no water, there are no medications, the wounded cannot be evacuated,” he declared. Looking at the camera as though facing Netanyahu, Macron was blunt: “What you are doing is a crime.”
For nearly two years, Macron’s words have been justified: What the Netanyahu government was doing, and continues to do, is a crime. Whether it amounts to a war crime, a crime against humanity, or the crime of genocide hardly matters at this point. What does matter in diplomacy, as in most matters, is whether the words are accompanied by acts. And yet, as the civilian death in Gaza continued to mount, the substance to Macron’s words continued to melt. This was a décalage, or lag, between style and substance that Macron’s hero, Charles de Gaulle, would have scorned.
Had Macron announced the official recognition of the Palestinian state while civilian deaths in Gaza continued to mount over the course of 2024, the impact would have been far greater. Even had he made this declaration earlier this year when Israel abruptly exited the cease-fire agreement, it would have had greater effect. Yet, he instead persisted in his “en même temps” or “all at once” approach to politics, which has increasingly appeared less a deliberate policy than mere dithering.
Finally, now that Macron has acted in his recognition of the Palestine state, does it matter? His stated reason for withholding official recognition — namely, that it would reward a two-state treaty between Palestinians and Israelis —was undermined by Hamas’ massacre of Israeli citizens and Israel’s greater massacre of Palestinian civilians. Yet even though it might be too late to salvage the two-state solution, as a recent Le Monde editorial pointed out, if Macron were to wait any longer “there will soon be nothing at all left to recognize.”
This may well be true, just as it may be true that an earlier announcement by Macron would not have changed Israel’s actions. But what it would have perhaps changed is the deepening impression that the man who would be de Gaulle cannot even be dependable.
