Macron was right about strategic autonomy
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
11 hours ago
- ITV News
Hamas videos of emaciated Israeli hostages spark international condemnation
World leaders and international aid groups have joined Israel in condemning Hamas' release of videos showing two hostages in emaciated states. The videos sparked outrage in Israel and piled pressure on the government to secure the release of the hostages by any means necessary. Tens of thousands of protesters joined a rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening – some holding placards reading 'Stop the war' and 'Leave no one behind' – as they called for Netanyahu to strike a deal that would free the Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. Videos released by the militant groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad last week showed hostages Evyatar David and Rom Braslavski in a visibly fragile state. Mr David's family have given permission for the media to use the video of him being held by Hamas. On Sunday, the International Red Cross (ICRC) in Israel and the Occupied Territories said that it was 'appalled' by the videos and urged that the 'dire situation must come to an end.' Several world leaders also condemned the videos of the Israeli hostages, with French President Emmanuel Macron describing them as 'unbearable' and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz saying the images 'show that Hamas should have no role in Gaza's future.' UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: "The images of hostages being paraded for propaganda are sickening."Every hostage must be released unconditionally. Hamas must disarm and have no control over Gaza." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Hamas of not wanting a ceasefire deal and requested that the ICRC bring food and medical care to hostages held in Gaza, after public fury ignited over propaganda videos showing two emaciated Israeli captives. Netanyahu's office said on Sunday that the prime minister spoke with Julien Lerisson, the head of the Red Cross delegation in the region, to request 'his involvement in the immediate provision of food and medical care for the hostages.' The office also repeated Netanyahu's denial that starvation was rife in the enclave, despite a UN-backed food security agency's warning this week that 'the worst-case scenario of famine' is unfolding in Gaza. Hamas has said it is prepared to 'deal positively' with any Red Cross request to deliver food and medicine to hostages, but only on the condition that humanitarian corridors are opened up in Gaza. The militant group claims that the hostages' emaciated state is a reflection of worsening conditions in the strip. However, other hostages who have been freed in the past have similarly appeared gaunt and frail at the time of their release and described malnourishment while in captivity. Abu Obeida, a spokesman for Hamas' military wing, al-Qassam Brigades, said this weekend that the group does not intentionally starve the hostages, and that they eat the same food that Hamas fighters and the general Gaza population eat. 'They will not receive any special privileges amid the crime of starvation and siege,' he added. A member of Hamas' political bureau, Izzat Al-Rashiq, described the images as 'the definitive response to all who deny the existence of famine in Gaza.' Malnutrition-related deaths in Gaza spiked in July, the latest sign of a worsening hunger crisis, the World Health Organisation warned last week. The agency said the enclave's malnutrition rates reached 'alarming levels,' with more than 5,000 children under five admitted for outpatient treatment of malnutrition in just the first two weeks of July. Palestinians also face lethal danger when attempting to collect aid from distribution sites, where violent clashes can erupt. On Sunday, a shooting incident near an aid site in northern Gaza killed at least 13 people and left dozens wounded, according to the Emergency and Medical Services in Gaza. Allowing Red Cross access would be a shift for Hamas, which has previously opposed any access to the hostages by the humanitarian group. The ICRC, which has only facilitated previous releases of hostages throughout the war, said in March that it was 'hugely disappointing' to have not yet been able to visit any hostages so far, emphasising that it was not for lack of trying. Recent ceasefire talks have borne little fruit, with Israeli and US negotiators recalled from negotiations last month. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff at the time blamed Hamas for poor coordination and 'lack of desire to reach a ceasefire,' saying the US would consider 'alternative options.' On Sunday, Netanyahu cited the latest images of Hamas captives as evidence of bad faith. 'When I see this, I understand exactly what Hamas wants. They don't want a deal. They want to break us with these horrifying videos, with the false horror propaganda they're spreading around the world,' he said. The Israeli leader is now 'pushing for the freeing of the hostages through military defeat (of Hamas),' one Israeli official told CNN on Sunday – a route that the hostages' families have repeatedly warned against. As Israel's war in Gaza grinds on, it has faced increasing resistance from the Israeli public, whose frustration over the fates of the remaining hostages has intensified. According to polling released by the Israel Democracy Institute during a ceasefire period in March, more than 70% of Israelis supported negotiating with Hamas for an end to the fighting and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in exchange for the release of the remaining hostages. Fifty hostages remain in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive. The hostages' families have repeatedly urged Netanyahu to strike a deal, warning that Red Cross assistance alone will not be enough, and that further expansion of the fighting in Gaza could endanger the remaining hostages' lives. 'Netanyahu is preparing the greatest deception of all. The repeated claims of freeing hostages through military victory are a lie and a public fraud,' Israel's Hostages and Missing Families Forum said in a statement on Sunday. The group also condemned Hamas, saying it 'cannot hide the fact that we are dealing with an evil terrorist organisation that has been holding innocent people in impossible conditions for over 660 days.' Hamas publicly insists that it remains committed to hostage release talks – but only if conditions in Gaza improve first.
The Guardian
15 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Shining: my trip to the G7 horror show with Emmanuel Macron
Deeply unpopular in France, President Macron relishes the international stage, where he projects himself as the leader best placed to handle Trump. Seven years after our last encounter, I joined him as he prepared for battle By Emmanuel Carrère. Read by David Sibley
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
If Britain recognises a Palestinian state, it will be a gesture. That doesn't mean it is pointless
The idea that if you really, really believe something you can make it happen seems to be the best explanation for Britain and France's recent statements that they will recognise a Palestinianstate. No matter how fervent Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are, their fervour will not make an impossible thing happen. There is no Palestinian state, and there certainly won't be one by September. For mostly domestic political reasons, they have decided to set aside that fact. Recognition is an understandable gesture, but it will do nothing to solve the current famine, and is doomed in the short term because there is no real state to recognise. But there's also a clear reason why some sort of action – even if it's purely symbolic – is needed. The situation in Gaza is appalling. If Starmer and Macron proceed with recognition, how can we manage the short-term disappointment of recognising a state that does not exist, while moving towards a two-state solution in the long term? In 1933, the Montevideo convention, a treaty signed in the Uruguayan capital by 19 states, all from the Americas, set out criteria that had to be fulfilled when recognising a new state. The criteria were agreed at the international conference of American states but are applied by the whole international community. Although not formal legal requirements, they provide a useful framework when considering whether or not to recognise a state. The three most important are 'people', 'territory' and 'governance'. Is there a permanent population? Does that population occupy a defined territory whose borders it controls? And does it have a single recognised government? The international community has recognised the distinctiveness of the Palestinian people since the 1970s. That's the main reason why 78 countries recognised the state of Palestine within months of the Palestine National Council's declaration of independence in November 1988. But the Palestinians have never controlled their territory. The Oslo accords in 1993 gave full security control to the Palestinians in 18% of the West Bank. Over time, that area was supposed to enlarge. That never happened. And in 2007, Hamas took control of Gaza. The Palestinian Authority (PA), under the control of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), remained in charge in the West Bank, while Hamas controlled Gaza. Two rival Palestinian administrations remain in place. Widespread international recognition of Palestine has made no difference to the lives of ordinary Palestinians. So far, 147 UN member states have recognised Palestine, including China and Russia. When Ireland, Norway and Spain recognised Palestinian statehood last year, all four governments claimed that recognition sent a signal that couldn't be ignored. But it hasn't helped the Palestinian people one jot. Israel (and the US) barely noticed, beyond saying disobliging things about rewarding a 'death cult'. They didn't change their policy. UK and French action will probably be treated with the same contempt in Jerusalem and Washington. But, despite Israeli denigration of their action, London and Paris won't be able to agree effective measures to penalise Israel, such as sanctions. Both governments still believe in Israel and its right to defend itself. Both still abhor what happened on 7 October 2023, and still see manifest shortcomings in the way the PA is run. Both the UK and France as part of the EU proscribe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. In fact, British and French recognition may make matters worse. Hamas may see advantages in sweeping away the corrupt gerontocracy in Ramallah; it is more popular than the PA in the West Bank these days. Benjamin Netanyahu, who doesn't subscribe to a two-state solution, may step up operations in both Gaza and the West Bank to underline who's in charge, and send a rather more effective message to Britain and France than they send to him. A two-state solution remains the only way to achieve long-term peace, but right now conditions for one could not be more hostile. For that reason, Britain and France recognising Palestine is an empty gesture. But the recognition boat seems to have sailed. Both Britain and France have made forward-leaning statements; governments find it hard to ignore incessant public demands. And public opinion is responding to what Israel is doing in Gaza. Collective punishment is unlawful. What Israel is doing to the population of Gaza because Hamas refuses to hand over 50 hostages (about 20 living and 30 dead) and dismantle its leadership amounts to collective punishment. Israel is not doing nearly enough to prevent starvation. By September, Israel won't have fulfilled the conditions that Starmer has set out to avert recognition. And Israel (and its supporters) will say that's no fault of Israel's. The British government will still have freedom of manoeuvre either to recognise the state of Palestine or postpone recognition. But at that point failing to recognise would look just as weak as I believe recognising looks right now. What to do? The government could recognise Palestine while acknowledging the weakness of doing so. Ministers should go easy on rhetoric claiming it's a historic moment, and focus instead on basic principles and the future. The only way for two peoples to live side by side in peace is for each to have its own state. Israel did not fulfil the criteria for statehood when it was first created. But Israel's friends overlooked its shortcomings, while its foes (such as Stalin) argued that the Jews were not even a people. The unique complexity of Israel/Palestine's history and geography will mean that the state of Palestine, when it's real, is likely to look different from any of the other 193 members of the UN. It might not have an army. It might not have exclusive control over its borders. But it will still be worth it. The Palestinian people deserve better than the fate they have suffered for decades, a fate which has deteriorated horribly since the ceasefire broke down in March this year. We must not forget them. Perhaps the best option in September would be for Britain to embrace the fact that it's making a gesture, and not pretend that gesture had immediate, far-reaching consequences. It would make the gesture recognising that time, hard work and imagination were still needed to reach the ultimate goal of a two-state solution, but that, at this desperate time, such a gesture was the last best hope to keep that solution alive. In diplomacy, it is vital not to mistake activity for effective action. But sometimes activity is all we have to offer. Lord McDonald of Salford was the British ambassador to Israel from 2003 to 2006, and permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020. He is now a crossbench peer
