France Maintains Tough Stand on Israel Despite Pause in Gaza War
The Israeli government has made 'first commitments that have not been fulfilled yet,' Barrot said on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday. 'We expect the Israeli government to stop the operations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation that has caused a bloodbath in humanitarian help distribution lines in Gaza.'
Barrot was referring to the US-backed foundation that Israel set up after sidelining the United Nations relief network in Gaza. The operation has been dogged by allegations, including by the UN, that Palestinian aid seekers have been shot and killed near distribution points — incidents for which the agency and Israel deny responsibility.
Tensions rose after President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday that France would recognize a Palestinian state in September. That triggered a backlash from the US and Israel, which argues its offensive in Gaza is necessary to topple and disarm the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which the US and the European Union have designated a terrorist organization.
On Sunday, the Israeli army suspended some military operations against Hamas to facilitate the movement of UN relief convoys into Gaza, and restored electricity to a desalination plant for the first time since March.
Macron's move complements President Donald Trump's strategy for the region, Barrot said. He argued that recognizing Palestinian statehood will create the conditions for ending hostilities, releasing Israeli hostages and bringing Arab countries to call for the disarmament of Hamas.
French and Saudi officials are expected to lead a conference to discuss Palestinian statehood in New York this week, he said.
France and the EU expect the Israeli government 'to pay the €2 billion they owe to the Palestinian Authority and to lift the financial blockage that is now preventing the Palestinian Authority to implement its most basic missions,' Barrot said.
He also called on Israel to abandon its latest plan to establish additional 3,400 housing units in the West Bank, saying it would split the occupied Palestinian territory in two and prevent the emergence of a viable Palestinian state.
France would be the first Group of Seven country to recognize Palestine as a state. Other Western countries that recognize Palestine include Spain, Ireland and Norway.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
26 minutes ago
- First Post
Amid rising outrage over starvation in Gaza, Netanyahu discusses annexation & blockade
Even as Israel's condemnation over the starvation in the Gaza Strip is rising by the day in the international community, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has discussed annexing the Palestinian enclave and blockading the area yet again, according to reports in the Israeli media. read more Even as Israel's condemnation is rising by the day over the starvation in the Gaza Strip, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has held discussions about the annexation of the Palestinian enclave and blockading it yet again, according to Israeli media reports. Such discussions go in sharp contrast to the public statement by Netanyahu's office that admitted that the 'situation in Gaza is difficult' and said the government was working to ensure the flow of large quantities of aid into Gaza. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Netanyahu held a Cabinet meeting on Monday on Gaza in which the military presented a new plan for the 'siege' of Gaza, according to the Kan broadcaster. Separately, other Hebrew-language outlets reported that Netanyahu and his Cabinet discussed the complete occupation or annexation of Gaza. Unlike occupation, which is temporary control of an area, annexation means the permanent absorption of a territory by another country and asserting sovereignty over it, such as the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. Despite decades of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories of West Bank and Gaza (until 2005), Israel has not annexed these territories. Annexation would amount to the most extreme step that Israel did not take even during decades of Gaza's occupation. Netanyahu discusses annexation & blockade of Gaza Under the new plan presented by the military, Israel would again cut off all humanitarian aid to Gaza, according to the Kan broadcaster. Other outlets reported that, if Hamas would continue to reject Israel's terms to end the war, Israel could completely occupy or annex entire Gaza. However, these reports said that Israel would give negotiations a chance before considering these actions. The Kan broadcaster reported that, under the plan presented by the military, Israel would dramatically 'expand' its ground operations in Gaza, including to areas where it has not yet operated, to 'tighten' pressure on Hamas. So far, Israel has expanded the control to around 75 per cent of Gaza. Separately, Maariv reported that Israel would start annexing parts of Gaza if Hamas would reject efforts for deal for a ceasefire and the release of hostages. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In another report, Haaretz newspaper reported that Israel would first annex areas in the 'buffer zone' along the Israel-Gaza border and then annex areas in northern Gaza near the Israeli cities of Sderot and Ashkelon and gradually continue the annexation until the annexation of the most or all of the strip. The newspaper further reported that the annexation of Gaza was part of Netanyahu's attempt to keep extremist ministers Bezalel Smotrich and his party in his ruling coalition. Netanyahu's Likud party does not have a majority of its own in the party and relies on support from far-right parties of the likes of Financial Minister Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Armed Forces decided when, where, how': PM Modi on Operation Sindoor; takes swipe at Oppn - ‘those who can't see…'
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who addressed the Lok Sabha on the debate on Operation Sindoor, informed that during the targeted attack on Pakistan in response to the Pahalgam terror attack, 'Armed Forced were given a free hand' and they were told to decide 'when to attack, where to attack and how to attack'. PM Modi said he was travelling abroad and returned immediately when he was informed about the Pahalgam terror attack. 'And immediately after coming back, I called a meeting and we gave clear instructions that a befitting reply has to be given to terrorism and this is our national resolve,' he said. 'Armed Forces were given a free hand. They were told to decide the when, where and are proud that terrorists were punished, and it was such a punishment that the terrorist masterminds have sleepless nights even to this day,' PM Modi said to the thumping of the benches. The prime minister said, 'Our armed forces avenged 22nd April within 22 minutes with precision attacks.' 'Right after Pahalgam terrorist attack, Pakistan Forces had this idea that India would indeed take a major action…Pakistan could not do anything. Our armed forces avenged 22nd April within 22 minutes with precision attacks.' Speaking of the Pahalgam terror attack, PM Modi said it was a 'well-thought-out attempt to throw India into the fire of violence. This was a conspiracy to spread riots in India.' Taking a jibe at the Opposition, the prime minister said, 'I am standing before this gathering with victory in mind, to present India's position with strength and clarity. And to those who fail to see India's side [referring to Opposition leaders], I am here to hold up a mirror.' Replying to Opposition questions on which country condemned Pakistan for Pahalgam terror attack, PM Modi said only three countries spoke in favour of Pakistan at the UN. 'India got support of the entire world, but it is unfortunate that Congress did not support the valour of our soldiers,' he said. Terror attacks were launched earlier; masterminds of attacks knew nothing would happen, but now they know India will come for them. Our operations range from Sindoor to Sindhu (Indus); Pakistan knows they have to pay huge price for any misadventure, the prime minister said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump's New Trade Order Is Fragile
President Trump has achieved the remarkable: raising tariffs by more than the notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, while—it appears—avoiding the destructive trade war that followed. Including the deal struck over the weekend with the European Union, the U.S. will impose an effective tariff rate of about 15% on its trading partners, by far the highest since the 1930s, according to JPMorgan Chase. Japan and the EU have together committed to investing $1.15 trillion in the U.S. Europe also agreed to energy and military purchases. And what did the U.S. give up in return? Nothing. So Trump has hit his goals, for now. But these deals don't yet represent a new trade order. They are sort of a way station, more fragile and with less legitimacy than the system they have supplanted. The formula for this achievement was distinctively Trumpian. The president calculated that others had more to lose from a trade war than the U.S. He picked off each trading partner in turn with the prospect that failure to strike a deal on his terms would result in worse treatment later. Among American allies, only the EU has the heft to inflict enough pain on American companies to change Trump's calculus. But despite drawing up plans for retaliation, it never pulled the trigger. Along with the economic pain of a trade war, Europe feared Trump would abandon Ukraine and perhaps NATO altogether. A one-sided deal was the price of keeping, for now, Trump committed to the trans-Atlantic security alliance. Of the major trading partners yet to strike deals, South Korea, Mexico and Canada can likely expect, like the U.K., Japan and the EU, to give up plenty and get nothing in return. China, the only country to have broadly retaliated, might fare differently. Trump has avoided a trade war, but it remains to be seen if the trade peace will last. Trade peace, for now Since the 1980s, Trump has believed that other countries have ripped off the U.S., producing deep trade deficits. His solution: charge for access to the U.S. market and the protection of its military. Others have now accepted his terms for access to the market, while NATO partners have agreed to boost defense spending to 5% of GDP. This seems to have softened Trump's prior antipathy toward the alliance and Ukraine. On Monday, he shortened the deadline for Russia to agree to a cease-fire with Ukraine or face sanctions. It might be too soon to announce 'mission accomplished,' but it certainly looks like Trump has begun rebalancing the relationship between the U.S. and its allies. 'The two concerns Trump had about Europe is that they were free riding on the U.S. security umbrella and their trade was unbalanced, with their market a fortress,' said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group, a consultancy. 'On both, Trump has implemented a shakedown.' The 15% baseline tariff and 5% military commitment represent Trump wins that put the trans-Atlantic alliance on a 'slightly more solid' basis than in February, he said. Whether tariffs achieve Trump's economic goals remains to be seen. In a recent speech, Trump's trade ambassador, Jamieson Greer, set three benchmarks: first, reduce the goods trade deficit; second, raise after-inflation incomes; and third, boost manufacturing's share of gross domestic product. The incentives in these deals to reshore production and purchase American goods should help meet these relatively low bars. As for how much of the tariffs consumers will ultimately bear, the jury is still out. From 1947 through 2012, the U.S. presided over a steady fall in trade barriers and growing economic integration. It came through painstakingly negotiated pacts. Everyone gained something and gave something up and were thus invested in the pacts' success. Such pacts 'require Congress to approve them, are deep and substantive, take a long time to negotiate, and last a long time,' said Doug Irwin, a trade historian at Dartmouth College. 'They are a binding commitment on the U.S.' By contrast, Irwin said, these latest agreements are 'handshake deals' with a president who isn't legally bound to adhere to the terms. Trump is at liberty to threaten higher tariffs again for any reason, from wresting Greenland from Denmark to protecting U.S. tech companies from European taxes or censorship. Europe, having foresworn retaliation, has few chips with which to bargain tariffs down, under this or a future president. Trump acted entirely without Congress. Indeed, one court has already ruled his use of a sanctions law to impose across-the-board tariffs was illegal. Should an appeals court uphold that finding, the legality of those deals would come into doubt. (Trump could turn to a different law that limits tariffs to 15%, for 150 days.) The one-sided nature of these deals also makes them more fragile. Other countries will be less willing to comply with something they don't think is in their economic interest, especially with so many details unsettled. Already, Japan has cast doubt on Trump's interpretation of its $550 billion investment commitment, and the Europeans' $600 billion pledge seems similarly vague. Deals made under duress are politically unpopular and thus less durable. Especially noteworthy was the negative reaction of far-right populist leaders who are already hostile to the EU and trade deals. Marine Le Pen, a leader of France's populist right-wing National Rally, which is slightly favored to win the presidential election in 2027, called the EU deal a 'political, economic and moral fiasco.' Alice Weidel, leader of Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany, wrote on X, 'The EU has let itself be brutally ripped off.' Trump got his deals because of the leverage other countries' deep economic and security ties gave to the U.S. In coming years, that leverage will wane as those countries cultivate markets elsewhere and build up their own militaries. The resulting international system will be less dependent on the U.S.—and less stable. Write to Greg Ip at
