French official tells paper Arab countries will condemn Hamas, trying to get Palestinian statehood recognized
In an exclusive interview with French weekly Le Journal du Dimanche, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Jean-Noel Barrot said the move was part of a long-planned initiative between France and Saudi Arabia.
"For the first time, Arab countries will condemn Hamas and call for its disarmament, which will seal its definitive isolation. European countries will in turn confirm their intention to recognize the State of Palestine. Half of European countries have done so, all others are considering it," Barrot told the JDD.
"The British Prime Minister has stated his intention to do so. Germany is considering it at a later stage. We will launch an appeal in New York for other countries to join us in order to set in motion an even more ambitious and demanding process that will culminate on September 21," Barrot added.
On Thursday French President Emmanuel Macron announced France would formally recognize the state of Palestine at the U.N. General Assembly on September 21, drawing condemnation from the U.S. and Israel.
Earlier on Saturday Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni called it counterproductive to recognise a Palestinian state before it is established.
On Friday a German government spokesperson said there were no plans to recognise a Palestinian state in the short term.
At the upcoming United Nations event on Monday and Tuesday, France and Saudi Arabia plan to lay out a proposed post-war roadmap leading to a two-state solution covering security, reconstruction and governance, which will be compatible with the Abraham Accords negotiated by U.S. President Trump, Barrot said.
The French minister added that in coming weeks the European Commission would take a tougher stance on Israel and demand a stop on building of any new settlement projects in the West Bank, and also an end to militarized policing of humanitarian aid distribution.
Barrot also called on fellow European countries to demand a removal of the financial blockade on the Palestinian authority so it can receive 2 billion euros he said it is owed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former senior Shin Bet official: 'This is the only way Israel can bring the hostages back'
In an interview with Maariv, former Shin Bet official, Yossi Amrusi, criticizes Israel's current negotiation strategy and lays out his own plan to bring the hostages home. As negotiations to release the hostages continue to stall and intelligence reports warn of a prolonged deadlock, Yossi Amrusi, a former senior Shin Bet official, voiced strong criticism of Israel's current strategy toward Hamas in a recent interview with Maariv. 'Israel needs to declare that it is no longer willing to conduct negotiations in this way,' Amrusi stated, calling for a strategic shift in Israel's negotiation tactics. According to Amrusi, Hamas benefits from stalling: 'A clever Persian trader once told me in the market: 'You'll win the deal when you're willing to lose it.' And why? For several reasons. One, Hamas benefits from dragging things out. It continues to hold the key to its survival, and in the meantime, who knows what could happen? European pressure, a false starvation campaign, Trump might flip on Israel, internal pressure on the government. All of these, and each on its own, are good for them.' Amrusi also expressed doubt regarding the effectiveness of the mediators working with Hamas, 'I'm not sure that Qatar, the mediator, even has the ability to decide anything. And it's not even certain they have communication with Hamas's internal leadership for consultations and decision-making." "It's important to ask: is there anyone in Hamas' Gaza who can make decisions? Who has control over those holding the hostages? Doe they even know where they are and what condition they're in? After all, some of the hostages aren't even in their hands…' 'I've always said Hamas will release the hostages when we force them to release them," he went on to argue, "but we don't know how to do that. Military pressure isn't being applied to its full extent, and our soldiers' hands are pretty tied. We're bringing in humanitarian aid that gives Hamas life – oxygen, fuel, and money.' 'Government constraints and fears are holding back the opening of immigration offices and the establishment of humanitarian zones. We simply don't know how to win,' he warned. Amrusi's twofold solution According to Amrusi, the solution lies in two parallel actions: 'Today, in my estimation, Israel must declare that it is no longer willing to negotiate as it has been. Then, it must do two things simultaneously." "First, push as much as it can for separating Gazans from Hamas through designated humanitarian zones. That will also lead to control over humanitarian aid, so that it doesn't reach Hamas. And second, since it is estimated that hostage locations are known – we must conduct local negotiations with those holding the hostages. Offer money and their lives in exchange for the hostages.' Solve the daily Crossword
Fast Company
17 minutes ago
- Fast Company
The coming battle among YIMBYs
The YIMBY ('yes in my backyard') movement has achieved remarkable growth in the past few years, uniting people across the political spectrum who share a common belief: It should be easy to build more housing. You can find shared interests among unlikely alliances when you step out of political tribes. People who label themselves as socialists and capitalists are standing at town hall podiums to support and promote abundant housing. High fives! Hooray for unity, right? Insert record scratch. Socialists and capitalists have economic worldviews that are incompatible with each other. There's definitely consensus about the ends (plenty of homes), but the means will be hotly debated. The clash was inevitable, and the recent book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance, has keyboard warriors starting to realize there are a host of competing opinions on how to get past the gatekeepers who would have homes remain scarce. You might think something as apolitical as a townhouse wouldn't be a lightning rod for a populist left-versus-right debate. The reason is economics. Considering the surge in populism in recent years, it's worth understanding why economics, not 'neighborhood character,' is at the heart of the argument. The Socialist YIMBY Socialist YIMBY advocates believe housing should be universally accessible, treated fundamentally as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Prominent democratic socialists, like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, argue for 'decommodifying' housing, where the government would guarantee homes. Market forces are not part of the equation. A socialist YIMBY is going to want state-managed housing solutions, price controls, rent freezes, and strict regulations on private ownership. Mamdani even said he'd be open to the abolition of private property if it meant getting people places to live. Socialist YIMBYs build their case on fairness, social justice, and community stability. They argue that a free market creates disparities, displaces vulnerable populations, and commodifies essential human needs. The belief here is that removing profit motives from housing reduces speculation, stabilizes communities, and ensures housing stability and equity, prioritizing human dignity and communal well-being above private gain. The Capitalist YIMBY Capitalist YIMBY advocates believe in leveraging market mechanisms. To them, the root cause of housing shortages lies in artificial restrictions imposed by zoning laws, burdensome permitting processes, and other bureaucratic interference. Their economic rationale hinges on the concept of supply and demand, and prices as crucial signals. Capitalist YIMBYs argue that when the price of a type of home goes up in an area, it signals to developers, investors, and builders that demand is high and supply low. Rather than suppressing these signals through artificial price controls, they propose getting rid of laws that prohibit housing and streamline approval processes in order to spur rapid and flexible housing production. They argue that robust competition among builders and investors inherently leads to diverse housing options, lower overall costs, and more innovation in housing solutions. The Perplexed YIMBY A person is standing at the philosophical crossroads to abundant housing and two fellow YIMBYs are giving conflicting directions: 'We have to go left.' 'No, we have to go right.' Socialists look at capitalist solutions as inherently exploitative, always creating more inequalities, and they believe profit motives are what make homes too expensive. Capitalists look at socialist solutions as inevitably leading to inefficiencies, housing shortages, and stagnation. When I've asked people about their take on this conflict, a common response is something like 'We'll have enough homes for everyone if building regulations are relaxed and the government is in charge of low-income housing.' I believe that's wishful thinking, since it brings us right back to the fundamental disagreement on economics. A capitalist will say, 'There is a market for small and modest housing, so get the government out of the way.' The socialist will say, 'We don't believe you.' I truly believe that populists on the left and the right want there to be enough homes for everyone. But it's also clear that the populist left and right will forever treat each other like they're living in a cartoon or comic book. 'I'm the good guy and you're the bad guy.' In spite of their shared interest in abundant housing, the socialist YIMBYs and capitalist YIMBYs are never going to agree on the means to the end. The best first step is something both sides claim to support: getting rid of the local regulatory barriers that are preventing anyone from building a granny flat, a townhouse, a duplex, etc.
New York Times
18 minutes ago
- New York Times
Europe Cuts a Trade Deal With Trump, Worried About Other Global Issues
Survive and advance. That phrase, favored by sports teams in big tournaments, sums up Europe's approach to the trade negotiations it just wrapped with the Trump administration. For Europe, surviving in the first year of President Trump's second term means reaching an agreement on a trade deal that almost certainly won't help the continental economy — but isn't as bad as it could have been. Advancing means keeping Mr. Trump engaged in the foreign policy issues that have preoccupied many European leaders more this summer than their own domestic economic struggles. Those issues include the fate of the Iranian nuclear program, the conflict and humanitarian crisis in Gaza and, most important, Ukraine's ongoing war against Russia's invasion. The trade deal is centered on a tariff of 15 percent on most goods imposed by the United States on imports from the European Union. It reflects a sort of risk aversion from leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission; Friedrich Merz, the chancellor of Germany; and Emmanuel Macron, the president of France. Those leaders were not willing to risk escalating a trade war that could have hurt European companies more than Mr. Trump's tariffs already have. And they were not willing to risk deepening a diplomatic rift with the United States, the country Europeans have repeatedly cast as a crucial peace broker. 'It will bring stability,' Ms. von der Leyen said at a news conference with Mr. Trump in Scotland on Sunday. 'It will bring predictability. That's very important for our businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.' Europe could have fought Mr. Trump longer, hoping for better terms. E.U. members had already agreed to a set of retaliatory tariffs on about $100 billion in American exports to Europe, which they could have decided to trigger if Mr. Trump had followed through on his threat to tax European exports at 30 percent starting on Aug. 1. Mr. Trump had pushed similar deadlines back before. In recent days, statements from German, French and other officials suggested members of the bloc were moving closer together on the questions of whether to actually retaliate, and when. They had reasons to do that. The European Union could use more economic growth. Economists outside the Trump administration have generally warned that tariffs hurt growth instead of boosting it. (In their models, tariffs on imports hurt American growth, too.) Europe's leaders generally agree with those economists. 'These tariffs, regardless of their long-term level, harm us all,' Mr. Merz told reporters this month, before the deal was struck. 'Not just us Europeans, but, in my firm conviction, also harm the American economy in the longer term.' But a moment later, Mr. Merz sounded resigned to a big tariff increase no matter what deal was struck. 'President Trump repeatedly emphasizes that he loves tariffs,' he said. 'This means we will have to accept that the American government will act this way, at least as long as the trade deficit persists from their perspective.' In a news release on Sunday, Mr. Merz cheered the deal but added, almost wistfully, 'I would have certainly welcomed further facilitation of trans-Atlantic trade.' The chancellor and his counterparts across Europe have expressed no such resignation when it comes to Mr. Trump and Ukraine. In phone calls and text messages, on treks to the White House and in summit meetings in Canada and the Netherlands, they have pushed him to shake off his friendliness with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and to back Kyiv in its war effort. The Europeans have flattered Mr. Trump. They have exhorted him. And they have refused to back down from their grand hope that American support for Ukraine could force Mr. Putin into peace talks and bring an end to the conflict. Sunday's deal reduces the chances that trade tensions will complicate that or other foreign policy appeals to Mr. Trump. But it does not eliminate them. Canada and Mexico illustrate why. They renegotiated their trade agreement with the United States in Mr. Trump's first term — only to find themselves back in talks now. 'We'd caution strongly against taking the announced deals as the final word,' researchers from Pantheon Macroeconomics, a research firm that focuses on the global economy, warned this week, citing court challenges and other uncertainty. Many European officials privately say the same is true of Mr. Trump's pledges of support for Ukraine or his commitment to the defense of NATO allies should they come under attack. They know his positions can change. His mood can shift. The terms of his deals are always subject to renegotiation. That's the thing about surviving and advancing with Mr. Trump. Every day brings another game.
