3

News is that the UNGA has voted again demanding immediate ceasefire in Gaza: 153-10-23.

OTOH, even a EP (non-binding) resolution (voted 500-21) said that "Hamas needs to be eliminated".

So which countries have simultaneously called for the elimination of Hamas and an immediate ceasefire?

For the purpose of this Q, assume that a declaration by a head of state, foreign minister, or their UN rep is convincing enough as the official position of that country's government.


Clarifications, in response to comments:

  • Yes, I want to know even if the same gov't representative has said both things even 2 months apart. To me this is not trivial. A comment suggested Macron said that. A quick search finds Macron said something more like: the elimination of Hamas would take 10 years. The nuance is not trivial, to me. Possibly Macron made other statements at different times. Answers can cover that.
  • I'm also interested if the statements were made by different gov't reps in the narrow scope that I defined that notion, above.
  • I'm not suggesting the EP is a government [rep]. I'm merely quoting them to show it was other people besides the US gov't that approved of this goal of eliminating Hamas. Whether the non-binding resolution goal was also reproduced by some EU gov't reps--as I then more narrowly defined that notion--is part of the question.
  • The Q scope is not limited to Europe, but I only know of the EP having said something approving in re elimination of Hamas, which is why I didn't give other examples.

There's also this quote from Dec 10:

Briefing his cabinet, Netanyahu said he had told the leaders of France, Germany and other countries: "You cannot on the one hand support the elimination of Hamas and on other pressure us to end the war, which would prevent the elimination of Hamas".

It more directly lists Germany besides France, so I'm curious if a similar answer/situation a Roger's answer describes for France applies to Germany too.

6
  • 2
    The question is unanswerable (or trivially answerable) without a clear definition of simultaneity. Do you mean the governments/politicians which first threw their support behind Israel, but then called for a ceasefire (like Macron)? Or do you mean the countries where the president said one thing, but the foreign minister said the other in the same day (which is then more related to the internal politics, than specifically to the AI conflict.)
    – Roger V.
    Dec 13, 2023 at 8:27
  • 2
    Voting to close - Q needs more details as it isn't clear what you are asking for. The European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution that (1) condemns Hamas as terrorists and (2) seeks a humanitarian pause of the conflict. EP is European but members are grouped by political affiliation, not by nationality in EP. The UNGA resolution is by the UN of which every country is a member - members in UN are identified by nationality. So your question is currently very confusing.
    – sfxedit
    Dec 13, 2023 at 8:39
  • (cotd.) The Political groups of the European Parliament. The 500-21 in EP is vote of the Members of EP. The 153-10-23 is vote of member countries in UN (for - against - abstained).
    – sfxedit
    Dec 13, 2023 at 8:40
  • 1
    The EP is not a set of countries. This question may be ill defined. Dec 13, 2023 at 10:47
  • 1
    Seems like a solid Q. There is a bit of a disconnect between wishing Hamas' removal from power and asking for a ceasefire, absent some additional conditions on that ceasefire. So who engages in it and under what circumstances? Dec 16, 2023 at 20:11

1 Answer 1

6

One example is Emmanuel Macron of France, who initially threw his full support behind Israel, but later moderated his position - bringing it more in line with the traditional policies of Quai d'Orsay (the French equivalent of the Foggy Bottom.)

A report from October 12 says:

Macron said in an address to the nation that Israel had the right to defend itself "by eliminating terrorist groups, including Hamas, with targeted actions but preserving the civilian population"," adding that the "only response to terrorism is one that is... strong but fair."

During his visit of support to Israel Macron compared Hamas to ISIS and suggested adding Hamas to the targets list of the anti-ISIS coalition:

After Macron’s comments, an Elysee Palace official said that France is available “to beef up what we are doing in the coalition against ISIS. We are available to include Hamas in [being targeted by] the coalition against ISIS depending on what Israel will ask us to deliver.”

Macron later moderated his position, becoming the strongest supporter of the immediate ceasefire (report from November 13):

After hosting a humanitarian conference for Gaza last week, France's President Emmanuel Macron is now calling for a ceasefire, making him an outlier among G7 nations.

As the OP has pointed out, Macron also downplays now the possibility of eliminating Hamas:

French President Emmanuel Macron said Israel “must more precisely define” what it seeks to accomplish in its war on Hamas as the full elimination of the Palestinian militant group would take a decade.

“We are at a moment when Israeli authorities must more precisely define their objectives and their final goal: the total destruction of Hamas — does anyone think it is possible? If this is the case, the war will last 10 years,” Macron said on Saturday.

5
  • Note that eliminating Hamas can mean many things. Rooting the movement itself out would be near impossible (absent an equitable 2 solution). But eliminating Hamas from being Gaza's government is a very different thing. With H. remaining in power, does Israel have a choice throttling Gaza's economy? I am deeply cynical of anything good coming out of a post-Hamas-removal solution for Gaza - I don't think the West will push nearly hard enough on Israel - but with H. running Gaza, I. will remain paranoid and there will be no support to "reward" H. by granting Palestinians concessions. Dec 13, 2023 at 18:17
  • 2
    @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica in my opinion, after 7/10 Israel didn't have much choice, but to remove Hamas (I agree that there are some caveats about what this means exactly.) It will not bring paradise to Gaza, just like it didn't happen in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. It also doesn't bring peace any closer. But there might be a rew years of calm - which is good for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
    – Roger V.
    Dec 13, 2023 at 19:11
  • In an alternate universe, one could see tying support for Israel booting out Hamas now coming with a price tag of "Getting Oslo done!". I am not sure day to day life in Gaza, even before these last 2 months, give Gazans much to lose, so just buying a few years of pre-10/7 Gaza "peace" is not ambitious enough. Israel is caught in a tension between its democracy - peace thru concessions is not a vote-winner, esp with a growing loony fringe. And the reality that no concession condemns them to an endless cycle of violence and ever-shrinking global support. Bibi is the epitome of that mess. Dec 13, 2023 at 19:32
  • 2
    @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I doubt that either side has much appetite for coexistence now... I wonder however, whether living conditions of Palestinians were better before the peace process, intifadas, counter-terrorism, etc. or if it was always fighting like this. Could be a question.
    – Roger V.
    Dec 13, 2023 at 19:39
  • Judging by images to compare now and when, it seems that westerners greatly underestimate how high the living standards were, and how low they become. Palestinian propaganda worked hard, so everyone thinks it was low and remained low. However, Palestinians themselves now learn how low can it go.
    – dEmigOd
    Dec 28, 2023 at 6:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .