He nevertheless had the gall to accuse the Prime Minister of Ireland of being a bigot, closing the Israeli embassy in Dublin on the grounds that he views virtually all Irish people as racists. Hmm. There must be a word for when you negatively stereotype an entire people…

Likely the move came in response to Ireland’s recent decision to join in South Africa’s complaint against Israel for genocide with the International Court of Justice. Even more dangerous for the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and Gideon Saar, Ireland is seeking a more practicable definition of genocide. Current international legislation puts too much emphasis on intent and sets the bar for finding genocide so high it is almost impossible to meet.

Deputy Prime Minister Micheál Martin complained, “a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes genocide leads to a culture of impunity in which the protection of civilians is minimised.” He said the Irish view of the genocide convention is “broader” and prioritizes “the protection of civilian life.”

Some things about Saar should be remembered. In his youth he was a member of the far right Tehiya Party and he actively protested the 1982 Israeli withdrawal from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula as a result of the Camp David peace accords. In other words, Saar has all his life held anti-Arab views and he wants to occupy and colonize the lands of his neighbors. The United Nations Charter, to which Israel is a signatory, forbids acquiring the territory of neighbors through aggressive war, but that was what Israel did in 1967 when it launched an invasion of Egypt, which had not militarily attacked it.

As Interior Minister, Saar rounded up African migrants in Israel and put them in a detention camp. He defended it and wanted to expand it. The camp was just for Africans. Hmm. There must be a word for when you target a particular racial group for collective punishment …

Saar opposed then President Trump’s “Deal of the Century” because it implied some form of a Palestinian state. Saar says Israel must remain the only state “from the river to the sea” (alert American university presidents, who seem to think this diction is racist). He firmly rejects any state for a Palestinian, insisting that they must remain stateless and under Israeli control forever. He says there can never be “two states for two peoples.” He wants to annex much of the Palestinian West Bank, a violation of international law. He considers Hebron (al-Khalil), a major Palestinian city in the Palestinian West Bank, to be part of Israel.

He said that Gaza “must be smaller” after the war, another advocacy of a war crime.

Let’s just imagine an American politician who wanted to occupy Manitoba or Tijuana militarily, who rounded up migrants and put them in camps, and who declared that there can be only one sovereign country in North America and it must be White. Those would be the US equivalents of Saar’s politics. Those politics, in our context, would be forthrightly characterized by everyone as racist.

It is one of the great ironies of our time that a man with these views can have the temerity to brand Irish President Michael D Higgins and Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Simon Harris racist bigots who are prejudiced against Jews.

Higgins gave as good as he got, saying “I think it’s very important to express, as president of Ireland, to say that the Irish people are antisemitic is a deep slander. To suggest because one criticises Prime Minister Netanyahu that one is antisemitic is such a gross defamation and slander.”

Juan Cole, “Pot’o’Gold,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v. 3, 2024

Higgins came to the same realization as everyone else who has been gaslighted by right-wing Zionists with their phony (and cynical) charges of Jew-hatred whenever anyone objects to Israeli war crimes:

“Originally… I put it down to lack of experience but I saw later that it was part of a pattern to damage Ireland.”

It is sort of like if families of victims murdered by mid-twentieth-century Vegas hit man Bugsy Siegel were accused of only complaining because they didn’t like Jews.

Higgins insisted that Ireland “cannot be knocked off our principle[d] support of international law.” He pointed out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the one who has broken international law. [The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.]

The Irish president pointed out that the Israeli government is currently violating “the sovereignty of three of his neighbours.” That would be Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. If Saar had his way it would be four, and would include Egypt.

Higgins made the remarks as he accepted the credentials of the new Palestinian ambassador to Ireland. Ireland, Spain and Norway reacted to Israel’s Gaza genocide by recognizing the state of Palestine last May.

The Irish equivalent of The Onion, WW News, made up some amusing reactions. They had one person, asked about the departure of the Israeli embassy from Dublin, say, “Is this the first time the Israeli government has actually given up property?”

Another joke: “Since the embassy will be going spare, we can probably let Palestinian refugees move in?”*

—–

*Revised.

Spain is Europe’s champion at producing solar power, because some of its regions are especially sunny — think Seville. The Global Energy Monitor puts it this way: “The country has more utility-scale solar capacity in operation (29.5 GW) than any other European nation, and more capacity under construction (7.8 GW), and in early stages of development (106.1 GW) than the next three European countries combined.” They have 100 gigawatts of solar in development! That is all the solar capacity the US has now, and it is a much bigger and wealthier country.

Germany comes in second in Europe with 24.6 gigawatts of industrial-scale solar.

So far this year, renewables account for 57.5 percent of electricity in Spain, which is remarkable for an industrial democracy. Renewables only make 26% of American electricity, so Spain is doing twice as well as we are. Spain wants to get 74% of its electricity from renewables by 2030.

Wind power provides 22.4 percent of Spain’s electricity, while solar is at 18.3 percent. Solar, however, is rapidly building out.

Spain has already produced more renewable energy by November this year than it did in the full 12 months of 2023, and production is up 13%. And, this is the second year in a row that renewables produced more electricity for Spain than did fossil fuels.

All this is not an accident. The Socialist government of Pedro Sánchez has an industrial policy when it comes to green energy. He credits outgoing Minister for the Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge (MITECO), Teresa Ribera Rodríguez, as having spearheaded the expansion of renewables since 2018, leading to some of Europe’s lowest electricity prices for consumers. Sunlight and wind are free, so once you have built the means to capture them, electricity generation is low-cost. This is especially true at a time when the Ukraine War has caused fossil gas prices to increase substantially, hurting countries dependent on it. Ribera is on her way to Brussels to serve on the European Commission, with portfolios in competitive practices and the environment.

In contrast, when they were in power Spain’s conservatives actually put a punitive tax on rooftop solar to benefit the fossil fuel corporations to which they are close.

All the research demonstrates that Socialist democracies make people happier than other systems, and now it turns out they are better for the health of the earth, as well.

Elections matter. But so do civil society initiatives. People are forming cooperatives to share the output of solar installations. Even football (soccer) teams have done this with solar panels at their stadiums.

Spanish utilities are increasingly creating hybrid solar parks that incorporate wind turbines and batteries, as well, to ensure steady power once the sun goes down. Spain has about 1 gigawatt worth of battery storage projects under review, and has a goal of 22.4 gigawatts of battery capacity by 2030 — a deadline that some experts believe the country will easily beat.

—-

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

TRT World: “60% of electricity in Spain comes from renewable energy”

(The Conversation) – The EU has stood in solidarity with Israel since the start of the war with Hamas, and has been consistent in saying the country has the right to defend itself. But the EU has always said that this has to be done in line with international law, which Israel has been accused of breaching.

In July 2024 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advised that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories was unlawful. Then, in October, Israel’s parliament voted to ban the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency (Unrwa) from operating in Israel – and therefore Gaza. This ruling will only mean further suffering for the Palestinian people.

One month later, on November 21, the International Criminal Court (ICC) decided to issue arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant, as well as Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif.

Netanyahu and Gallant are wanted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the war in Gaza. And Deif is wanted on the same charges for crimes committed both in Israel and Palestine from October 7 onwards.

More women and children have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli military since the start of the war than in any other conflict of an equivalent period over the past two decades. Israel’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon are gradually causing some EU states to change their stance.

Shifting towards condemnation

Only five EU states – Belgium, Latvia, France, Estonia and Cyprus – were in favour of a resolution adopted by the UN general assembly in September that demanded Israel end “its unlawful presence” in the occupied territories of Palestine within 12 months. Bulgaria, Austria, Sweden, Italy and Germany abstained.

There has been a notable shift in the position of EU leaders since then. When Israeli forces fired on a UN peacekeeping position in Lebanon in October, Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, denounced the incident as “unjustifiable”.

The EU’s foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, then condemned the Israeli attacks and reiterated calls for sanctions against those responsible for Israeli settlers in the West Bank, including two members of Netanyahu’s government, finance minister Bezalel Smotrich and security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

“EU v. Israel,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland, 2024.

The UK, while not an EU state, is also considering sanctions on these two individuals over what Prime Minister Keir Starmer called “obviously abhorrent comments” they made about Palestinians in August. Smotrich said starving civilians in Gaza might be justified and Ben Gvir called perpetrators of settler violence in the West Bank “heroes”.

Some European states such as France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and the UK have reduced arms sales to Israel. But despite these policies, there is no EU arms ban on Israel. In fact, Germany provides one-third of Israel’s arms, and has even increased these exports in the second half of 2024.

Yet in July 2024, the court said that states are “under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. This should arguably not only involve an EU ban on arms sales to Israel, but also a suspension of the EU’s trade agreement with Israel. Ireland and Spain have been pushing for the latter, but no decision has yet been taken.

The EU has the economic clout to hurt Israel’s economy. While Israel is only the EU’s 25th largest trading partner, the EU is Israel’s largest, and accounts for almost one-third of its trade in goods.

But EU sanctions look a way off at present. Austria, Hungary, Germany and the Czech Republic are Israel’s closest allies in the EU, and it is very unlikely that they would vote in favour of sanctions.

That said, the recent arrest warrants are likely to have a powerful indirect effect. In May 2024, UN experts said that “the transfer of weapons and ammunition to Israel may constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws and risk state complicity in international crimes”. So, EU states that continue to provide arms to Israel are arguably complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And even if the EU government itself does not ban arms sales, citizens can ask their own courts to enforce such a ban. This type of case is already occuring in the Netherlands.

The issue of arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant also make it possible for the EU to establish a travel ban and impose financial sanctions against them. All EU member states are party to the ICC, and support the court’s work. On November 21, Borrell said the ICC warrants are “not political and the court decision should be respected and implemented”.

EU states are firmly in agreement that only a two-state solution will increase the chances of security and peace in the region. To make this a realistic prospect, more EU countries need to recognise the state of Palestine.

In the 1980s, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic all recognised Palestinian statehood. Sweden did in 2014, and Ireland, Spain and non-EU member Norway followed in 2024.

The EU’s responsibility for discussing these policies is all the more salient given Donald Trump’s return to the White House. His ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has previously said that Israel has a rightful claim to the West Bank.

Many Palestinians in the West Bank believe the US election result will “make Israel even stronger”, with the prospect of a Palestinian state soon to be “off the table”.

Catherine Gegout, Associate Professor in International Relations, University of Nottingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“France is committed to international justice and its independence,” Barrot said in an interview for France 3 TV channel.

“We have been saying from the very beginning that Israel has the right to defend itself within the framework of respect for international law.”

“Each time Israel violates international law, blocking access to aid, bombing civilians, forcibly displacing them, establishing colonies in the West Bank.”

He added they “strongly” condemn these actions.

Asked if he supported the ICC’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu, Barrot said: “I cannot put myself in the position of the court in any circumstance.”

Barrot argued that the ICC’s arrest warrant amounted to “the formalization of the accusation against certain politicians.”

Regarding the question of whether Netanyahu would be arrested if he visited France, Barrot said: “France will always apply international law.”

The ICC, in a landmark move on Thursday, issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel has launched a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip following a cross-border attack by the Palestinian group Hamas in October last year, killing more than 44,000 people, most of them women and children.

It has also engaged in cross-border warfare with Lebanon, launching an air campaign in late September against what it claims are Hezbollah targets.

Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on Gaza.

Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

——

Bonus Video Added by Informed Comment:

Al Jazeera English: “ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. What’s next? | The Take”

The two guards were tasked with securing the area ahead of a scheduled visit by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot. This move reflects Israel’s insistence on continuing its actions that violate the historical and legal status quo in occupied Jerusalem, stressing that Israel has no sovereignty over it.

The official spokesperson for the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Sufyan Qudah, stressed in a statement the Kingdom’s absolute rejection of all Israeli measures aimed at changing the identity and character of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, and changing the historical and legal status quo in Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian holy sites.

He also reiterated the Kingdom’s support for France and its position against the attacks of the Israeli occupation forces.

Via Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

WION: “French FM Refuses To Enter Holy Site In Jerusalem In Protest | World News | WION”

All in all, 59% of German electricity, almost six tenths, has come from renewables this year, with hydro the main source aside from wind and solar. In 2023, renewables only accounted for 52% of Germany electricity, so there has been a substantial advance. Half of that advance came from new solar installations, Ember says.

An amazing 11 gigawatts of new solar capacity has been added this year. As of mid-summer, Germany had 92 gigawatts of installed solar capacity, exceeding its 2024 goal of 88 GW.

Through the end of July, fossil fuel electricity generation plummeted 14.5% from the same period in 2024, reaching the lowest levels on record. The consumption of coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, fell by 39% through September of this year compared to the same months in 2023.

Germany’s carbon emissions dropped by 10% in 2023 compared to the previous year, and are expected to fall again this year. If all industrialized countries met Germany’s performance, the climate crisis would be less severe. Energy-related carbon emissions in the US. fell last year, but only by 3%.

The rapid advance of solar, Ember explains, is the result of government policy changes, including the reduction in bureaucracy and easier permitting and “simplified grid connection for small PV systems,” as well as better remuneration for consumers who sell their electricity back into the grid.

“German Solar,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Wind installations kept pace with those of the previous year, at 2.3 gigawatts. Wind-generated electricity was up 7% this year. Although wind’s progress was not as spectacular as that of solar, it still did make impressive advances, and there is a lot of capacity in the pipeline. Germany won’t quite meet its goals for total wind installations of 80 gigawatts this year, but those goals are the most ambitious in the European Union.

Winds have been anemic in the summer and fall, but are expected to pick up in the last two months of the year. Wind has had to be replaced with expensive fossil gas for the moment. Emissions will likely still fall, since electricity demand is lower. Wind plus battery will smooth out some of these fluctuations in the future.

There are also legal reasons for which wind will advance even more in future. Ember writes, “The German government has declared renewables to be in the overriding public interest, a privileged legal status which unlocks faster permitting and simplified procedures. Furthermore, German states are now required to allocate around 2% of their land for wind turbines.”

Ember doesn’t say so, but battery capacity is also rapidly increasing in Germany, where battery storage reached 9.9 gigawatts so far in 2024. Reuters reports that grid battery capacity in the country is up by 1/3 in 2024, an incredible advance. In the next two years, through the end of 2026, battery storage in Germany is set to increase five-fold, according to Clean Energy Wire. Battery storage allows solar energy to be captured during daylight and released at night.

CEW adds that “more than 80 percent of smaller photovoltaic rooftop systems are already being installed in combination with battery storage systems.” That combination is not nearly as common in the United States, but it should be.

Two big issues loom over Germany’s energy situation. One is the closure of the country’s nuclear plants at the insistence of the Green Party, which has been in government off and on (it is part of the present shaky coalition). Despite predictions of gloom and doom, the transition to wind, solar and battery has gone well.

Clean Energy Wire observes, “Decades of debates came to an end in April 2023, when Germany finally shuttered its last nuclear power plants after the energy crisis. One year on, predictions of supply risks, price hikes and dirty coal replacing carbon-free nuclear power have not materialised. Instead, Germany saw a record output of renewable power, the lowest use of coal in 60 years, falling energy prices across the board and a major drop in emissions.”

The other issue is the Ukraine War and Germany’s attempt to wean itself off Russian fossil gas. Germany cut its natural gas imports by nearly a third last year, and is pressing the EU to end imports of gas from Russia, still 20% of Europe’s usage. There isn’t any doubt that replacing both nuclear and fossil gas with wind, water, solar and battery is saving Germany money and allowing it energy independence from Russia.

In 2025, as Trump comes back into office, Americans should remember the cost savings offered by renewables, the environmental benefits of reducing carbon emissions and avoiding climate catastrophes, and the significance of energy independence for the US and its allies. Germany has overtaken Japan to become the world’s third largest economy.

(The Conversation) – In the last few days, a seasonal weather system known in Spain as the “cold drop” or DANA (an acronym of depresión aislada en niveles altos: isolated depression at high levels) has caused heavy rain and flooding across Spain’s Mediterranean coast and in Andalusia, especially in the Valencian Community, Castilla-La Mancha and the Balearic Islands. The storm has left hundreds dead and many more missing, with immense damage in the affected areas.

50 years ago, a DANA occurred every three or four years, typically in November. Today, they can happen all year round.

How does a DANA form?

These storms are formed in the same way as Atlantic hurricanes or typhoons in China. The difference is that the Mediterranean is smaller than these areas, and so storms have a shorter path, and store less energy and water vapour.

Decades ago, warm sea surfaces at the end of summer would cause water to evaporate into the atmosphere. Today, the sea surface is warm all year, constantly sending massive amounts of water vapour up into the atmosphere.

The poles are also much warmer now than they were 50 years ago. As a result, the polar jet stream – the air current that surrounds the Earth at about 11,000 metres above sea level – is weakened and, like any slowly flowing current, has meanders. These bring cold air, usually from Greenland, into the high atmosphere over Spain.

The evaporated water rising off the sea meets this very cold air and condenses. The Earth’s rotation causes the rising air to rotate counterclockwise, and the resulting condensation releases huge quantities of water.

This combination of factors causes torrential, concentrated rains to fall on Spain, specifically on the Balearic Islands and the Mediterranean coast, sometimes reaching as far inland as the Sierra de Segura mountains in Andalucia and the Serrania de Cuenca mountains in Castilla la Mancha and Aragón. These storms can move in very fast, and are extremely violent.

On occasions, this Mediterranean water vapour has moved as far as the Alps, crossing its western point and causing downpours in Central Europe.

Warming oceans, warming poles

Many years ago, humans discovered a gigantic source of energy: 30 million years worth of the sun’s energy, stored under the ground by plants and animals. Today, we are burning through this resource fast.

This fossilised energy source is made up of carbon compounds: coal, hydrocarbons and natural gas. By burning them, we release polyatomic molecules such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and other compounds. Once released into the atmosphere, these trap some of the heat radiating from the earth’s soil and seas, returning it to the planet’s surface.

This process is what causes climate change, and it can occur naturally. When these molecules, especially methane, are stored in continental ocean slopes, the water cools and the carbon dioxide captured by the waves is trapped inside. As the planet cools and sea levels fall, methane is eventually released into the atmosphere. The atmosphere warms up, warming the sea, and the sea releases CO₂ which amplifies the effect of the methane. The planet then gets warmer and warmer, causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise.

This alternation of cold and hot has occurred eight times over the last million years.

No end in sight for fossil fuels

Today we are forcing this process by emitting huge quantities of polyatomic gases ourselves. The question is whether we can limit these emissions. So far, this has been impossible.

To this we can add the fact that by 2050 there will be about two billion more human beings on the planet, who will also need food, housing and transport. This means more chemical fertilisers, cement, petrol, diesel and natural gas will be consumed, leading to further polyatomic gases being released.

Various measures to limit the burning of carbon compounds are falling short, or developing very slowly. Hopes for electric cars, for example, have been greatly diminished in recent years.

In Europe progress is being made in solar and wind energy, but electricity only makes up around a third of the energy consumed. Europe is also the only region making real progress on alternative electricity generation – much of China’s progress is being offset by its continued construction of coal-fired power plants.

Despite some large, high-profile projects, the reality is that we will continue to burn carbon compounds for many decades to come. This means the concentration of polyatomic gases in the atmosphere will increase over the next century, and with it the temperature of the planet, leading to more DANAs, hurricanes, typhoons and floods.

Climate adaptation is vital

What we are left with is adaptation, which is much more manageable as it does not require international agreements.

In Spain, for instance, we can control flooding through massive reforestation in inland mountainous areas, and through rainwater harvesting systems – building small wetlands or reservoirs on hillsides. This would slow the amount of water reaching the ramblas and barrancos, the gorges and channels that funnel rainwater through Spain’s towns and prevent them from flooding. At the same time, this would mean water can be captured by the soil, where it can then be gradually returned to the rivers and reservoirs.

Not only is this feasible, it is cost-effective, generates many jobs, and could save hundreds, if not thousands of lives.

Antonio Ruiz de Elvira Serra, Catedrático de Física Aplicada, Universidad de Alcalá

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

—–

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

AP: “Climate change is making extreme downpours in Spain heavier and more likely, scientists say”

( Foreign Policy in Focus ) – It took nearly a year for French President Emmanuel Macron to confront the uncomfortable truth: the path to peace in Gaza cannot be paved with more weapons to Israel. His recent remarks, sharp and unapologetic, reflected the urgency of shifting away from military escalation. “I think that today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering weapons to fight in Gaza,” Macron declared, laying bare his stance. He was unequivocal in his message, adding, “If you call for a ceasefire, it’s only consistent that you do not supply weapons of war.”

Although Macron clarified that France does not supply Israel with offensive arms, his pointed comments seemed aimed at the United States, which remains Israel’s primary arms provider. Washington and other European countries, despite acknowledging that these weapons have been used against civilians, continues to send shipments, fueling a conflict in Gaza that has already claimed more than 42,000 lives. Macron’s statement contributes to an ongoing shift in Europe’s approach that challenges the long-standing, uncritical support for Israel’s military actions.

Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, visibly agitated by Macron’s remarks, fired back with a familiar rhetoric of defense, invoking Israel’s right to self-protection. “As Israel fights the forces of barbarism led by Iran, all civilized nations should stand by us,” Netanyahu declared, calling Macron’s stance “a disgrace.” In a video addressed directly to the French president, Netanyahu doubled down, stating, “Israel will win with or without their support. But their shame will linger long after this war is over.”

His remarks underscore the widening rift between Israel and some of its traditional Western allies as the conflict escalates. Yet, the undercurrent of this diplomatic quarrel suggests something far more significant than a routine policy disagreement. Macron’s hesitation to unconditionally support Israel—despite the West’s long-standing alignment with its security needs—indicates a growing recognition among European leaders that Israel’s operations have surpassed legitimate self-defense and entered the realm of excessive, unchecked aggression.

As the violence grinds on, Macron’s call for a political solution reflects an emerging European discomfort with the status quo. The question now is whether Macron’s bluntness will push other leaders, especially in the United States and Germany, to reconsider their own complicity in fueling this relentless cycle of violence. For years, European nations have trod lightly around Israel’s military actions, particularly in its volatile engagements with Palestinian territories. But more European capitals are now witnessing massive protests against Israel, indicating increasingly discomfort in Europe with Netanyahu’s expansionist approach to the conflict, which is designed to shore up his domestic political survival rather than achieve long-term security.

“J’accuse,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Netanyahu’s heated response to Macron is particularly notable for its timing: October 7. The anniversary of the devastating violence that ignited yet another round of suffering for both Israelis and Palestinians should be a day of solemn reflection, yet Netanyahu has used it to double down on his military offensives on all sides of Israeli borders. Instead of working toward a resolution, his government has opted for broader assaults, widening the conflict, and targeting civilian infrastructure in a way that has drawn mounting international condemnation.

At the heart of Netanyahu’s strategy lies a grim reality: his political survival hinges on perpetuating conflict. Under intense scrutiny for his domestic failures and facing an increasingly fractured political landscape at home, Netanyahu has leaned into a hawkish narrative to rally support from his far-right base. By stoking fear and framing Israel as under siege, Netanyahu has stifled criticism from within his own country while marginalizing voices calling for a peaceful resolution.

Netanyahu’s war is not about elections or the protection of Israeli citizens. It is about staying in power. Expanding the conflict offers him a chance to maintain his political grip, even as international sentiment shifts uneasily away from unconditional support for Israel. Netanyahu’s actions have raised serious concerns about war crimes, particularly in light of Israel’s reported strikes on civilian areas and humanitarian corridors. Although Israel claims its right to target Hamas militants, the disproportionate toll on Palestinian civilians has been impossible to ignore. Hospitals, schools, and densely populated neighborhoods have been devastated, with little regard for international law or the principles of proportionality.

European nations, including France, have historically turned a blind eye to such violations, framing them as unfortunate but necessary casualties of war. But as the conflict drags on, Macron’s diplomatic distancing could mark the beginning of a broader shift in Europe’s stance toward Israel’s military campaigns. As the death toll rises in Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon and the international community grows more aware of the scale of the destruction, Netanyahu’s gamble may yet backfire. His attempt to expand the conflict for personal gain could result in the very political isolation he is desperate to avoid.

Foreign Policy in Focus

BFMTV reported that he said, “I think that today the priority is to return to a political solution, and that we must halt the delivery of arms for pursuing combat against Gaza. France will not deliver them.”

He clarified that France would continue to export defensive materiel, such as parts for the Israeli Iron Dome anti-missile defense system.

The station notes that President Joe Biden has often called for the avoidance of civilian casualties but has steadfastly declined to use his leverage with Israel, given its dependence on US weaponry and ammunition, to pressure it. In Britain, the Labour government of PM Keir Starmer has halted 10 out of 350 weapons licenses on the grounds that those ten weapons would likely be used by Israel against civilians.

Macron is the first leader of a major European country to argue for an embargo of offensive weapons to Israel in response to its total war on Gaza.

The French president has been heavily criticized by former French diplomats and other public figures for not showing the spine toward the Israeli Right that his predecessors such as François Mitterand and Jacques Chirac had. He had also come under fire from NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Oxfam. Last April, 115 French parliamentarians on the left demanded that he announce an arms embargo on Israel. The left more or less won the subsequent elections this summer, which the center-right Macron refused to recognize, appointing a right wing prime minister — which has also embroiled him in controversy.

A solid majority of French Muslims who vote have swung to the leftist Insoumise [Rebellion] Party. About 9% of the French are Muslim, though a large number of them, like the French in general, say they have no religion. Religious “nones” are at least 40% of the French population. France is close to many countries in the Arab world, who will have been filling the Quai D’orsay’s ears with bitter complaints about the Israeli genocide. The French Left and its Muslim component are furious about Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and Macron has been feeling the heat.

Macron underlined his continued commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself. He objected, however, “One does not fight terrorism and against terrorism by sacrificing the civilian population.” He did not, however, express any optimism about the prospects of a ceasefire any time soon. “I think,” he said, “that we are not heard.”

He views the policies of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “a mistake, including for the security of Israel.” He said that both French public opinion and that of the Middle Eastern public is full of resentment toward Israel’s wars, and that it is nurturing hatred.

Unlike the clueless Biden administration “blob,” which is blithely oblivious to the passions that are roiling the Middle Eastern public, the French diplomatic corps and intelligence agencies are full of old Arab hands who know exactly how furious everyone in the Arab world is with not only Israel but its Western backers over the Israeli slaughter of tens of thousands of women and children and its destruction of entire neighborhoods in Gaza — a process it has now begun in Lebanon with its attacks on Dahiyeh in East Beirut.

Macron said it was his priority to avoid an escalation in Lebanon. “The Lebanese people,” he affirmed, “cannot in turn by sacrificed, and Lebanon cannot become a new Gaza.”

There are already indications that the techniques of total war and indiscriminate bombardment deployed by Israel so extensively in Gaza are beginning to be applied to Lebanon.

In a later interview with BMFTV , Macron clarified his position. He was asked by the anchor about his call for an arms embargo, “to whom are you addressing this message?” He wanted to know if Macron was trying to reach President Biden.

The anchor followed up, inquiring whether Macron could be sure that defensive weapons sent by France to Israel weren’t being repurposed for strikes on Gaza or Lebanon.

Macron dismissed the second question, saying “this is absolutely not the case.”

It is true that if France is supplying components for the Iron Dome anti-missile system, they aren’t such that they could be used against Gaza or Lebanon offensively.

Macron pointed out that he has been extremely supportive of Israel in the wake of the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, and that he has hosted the families of Israeli hostages, the release of whom is a firm French demand.

He continued, “Nevertheless, we also strive to be consistent, and when we call for a ceasefire, it applies to Gaza. This was also true for Lebanon last week. So, we strive not to call for a ceasefire while continuing to deliver weapons for war. And I think this is simply a matter of coherence.”

Macron’s logic here is impeccable, and his mere statement of the case shows up how hypocritical and self-contradictory the policies of the Biden administration are toward this issue.

He reiterated his demand for a ceasefire in Gaza and “the resumption of full-scale humanitarian actions,” as well as diplomatic progress toward a two-state solution.

He added, “As for Lebanon, we also call for a ceasefire. I furthermore note that last week in New York, President Biden and I endorsed a ceasefire text, and thus the United States of America was favorable towards Lebanon. This text was discussed with both the Lebanese and Israel, who were urged to adopt it.”

Lebanon was created by the French when they militarily occupied Syria in 1920, since it was a part of Syria along the Mediterranean coast that had a Christian majority, which made it easier for Western, Christian rule to be accepted. Muslim-majority Syria staged a significant revolt in the late 1930s, and by 1945 it had gained independence legally (de facto independence came in 1946 with the French withdrawal). France continues to view Lebanon and Syria as its spheres of influence. Macron rescued then Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri from Saudi Arabia when Mohamed Bin Salman kidnapped him in 2017.

Macron blasted Netanyahu for rejecting the Franco-American call for a ceasefire in Lebanon.

He seemed to target Biden when he said, “So yes, if we call for a ceasefire, coherence means not supplying the weapons for war. I believe that those who provide them cannot call each day alongside us for a ceasefire.”

He pledged to hold an international conference soon on Lebanon, for the provision of humanitarian aid.

He said that “It will also provide support elements to the Lebanese Armed Forces to secure, particularly, southern Lebanon.” With Hezbollah badly hurt, the Lebanese Army may have to finally assert itself in the Shiite South, and it could come into conflict with the Israeli army. Lebanese soldiers have already been killed by Israel. So Macron’s ambition of shoring up the country’s national army wasn’t exactly music to Netanyahu’s ears.

—-

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

BFMTV: “Qu’on cesse de livrer des armes” à Israël pour Gaza: Emmanuel Macron maintient sa position”