Why France might recognise a Palestinian state
10:19 Share

Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year.

But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to. It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs, innovation, and growth. Only President Trump and congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America.

and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse.

Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. Today with me, Tom Noonan and Laura Cook. As Israel's offensive in Gaza against Hamas continues, next week New York will play host to a major international summit about the future of the Palestinian people.

It'll be co-chaired by France with Saudi Arabia and it's gained attention because of speculation it could spark a major shift in French policy to recognise a Palestinian state.

It was reported Emmanuel Macron would go so far as to recognise an independent state for Palestinians, although French officials have poured cold water on that, saying it's not on the agenda. So why is there this to-ing and fro-ing? And ultimately, why might France recognise a Palestinian state? To discuss that, our guest today is Michel Duclos, a former French ambassador in the Middle East who now works with the Institut Montaigne think tank in Paris.

Michel, there have been all these reports about Macron leading efforts for France and for other countries to recognise a Palestinian state. Are they true? It's more ambiguous than what you are saying, actually. Probably we understand that this matter of recognising a state of Palestine, it's not, for the time being, the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is

would be to solve the terrible humanitarian situation in Gaza, to rescue the people who are under severe attacks by Israel, also to try to free the hostages. So in a way, there is a gap between the situation on the ground and the diplomatic activities around Gaza

the recognition of Palestine. But it's one of the very few leverages we have in our hands. So in that respect, it was considered as necessary to use this leverage. After months and months of hesitations about this issue,

If, as you say, it is more complicated than just recognising a Palestinian state, why has this speculation come to a head ahead of next week's summit? The more we were approaching this important meeting, the more we realised

started to be convinced that we have to bring something to the table if we want to be credible. And that something can only be the recognition of a state for Palestine. We would prefer to do it with other important partners, such as UK and Canada. And if we do it, it's not a matter of principle.

It's a matter of trying to influence others. So it's a leverage to get some moves on other issues. Why is potentially recognising a Palestinian state useful leverage? What does it help to achieve?

I think there are two things in your question. One objective is to get the Arab states to move into the direction of recognition of the state of Israel. If they do that, or to convince them to do that, we have to show the example ourselves. And so we have to move and recognize also a state of Palestine.

The trouble with that line of reasoning is that in the current circumstances, it's of course very difficult, if not impossible, for Arab states to recognize the state of Israel.

A second line of reasoning is to say we can recognize a state of Palestine, but of course it would be meaningful only if there are more elements of a state, that is to say, that needs reforms of Palestinian authority. It would need a solution to the

extraordinarily bad situation in Gaza, so some road map and reconstruction, so that there is really a chance of having a state for the Palestinians. And maybe in the current situation,

It's also about the perception of the global south. It's not only about Palestine and Israel. It is to find an answer to the accusation of double standards.

made by a lot of countries in the world. If we want to be credible, we have to do something. And once again, recognition of the state of Palestine is one of the very rare options at our disposal. And would recognising a Palestinian state increase France's influence in the region, or is there a risk it would undermine it? Very difficult to say, actually.

In my view, but this is a personal assessment, of course, if we don't do it, we would lose some credibility in the Arab world. Because now that we have started talking about it, we simply have to do it. Of course, Israel says, it's of course a propaganda argument,

They say that it's a reward for Hamas. Our governments actually have to make the point that it's exactly the opposite. That is to say, if we want to deprive Hamas of any legitimacy, we have to show that there is an alternative way to what they are doing.

As we mentioned at the start of the episode, Michel, French officials are now briefing that recognising a Palestinian state is not on the cards for the meeting next week. What do you think the impact of that back and forth is? I mean, is it damaging? Let me clear. For me, it's a personal opinion. If France doesn't do it now or next week, we would lose a lot of ground in terms of credibility.

in the Arab world and probably in the global south. Having said that, the real issue is about the modalities or the wording, I'm sorry, I'm a professional diplomat, the wording of the recognition. That is to say, it seems clear to me that the president

will not simply say, we recognize the state of Palestine. He will have to say, we recognize the state of Palestine with a number of objectives. That's what will make a difference between a proper and useful move or something which will not be understood neither in Israel nor in the rest of the world.

How do you think Netanyahu would respond to this? Would recognising a Palestinian state or the suggestion France and others might recognise one have any impact on his decision-making? No doubt that Netanyahu...

Not only will he be upset, maybe as he threatens he will have some kind of retaliation by annexing, for instance, more portions of the West Bank and things like that. But in the same time, Netanyahu will not be here forever.

You have to admit that the Israeli public opinion in general, not only people who are supporting the current government, but many other Israeli people, they don't see anymore the Palestinians as potential partners. For them, a kind of page has been turned.

for obvious reasons and for reasons that everybody can understand. But our duty as friends of Israel, we have to show them that there is another path than a perpetual war with the Palestinians.

OK, Michel, thank you. That's former French Ambassador Michel Duclos. As Michel said, this discussion about a Palestinian state is in some ways quite removed from the realities on the ground in Gaza. There is, of course, a major diplomatic row about the distribution of aid to Palestinians who are in dire straits and how to get that aid to them in a way that Israel thinks is acceptable and that doesn't help Hamas. But

Back in May, we looked at the problems, though, with Israel's alternative aid plan and its impact on the UN's reputation. It's called Why Israel's Gaza Aid Plan is Failing Amid Chaos. Do go back and have a listen. That's it from us. Thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times. See you tomorrow.

Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year.

But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to.

It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs, innovation, and growth. Only President Trump and congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse.