A jumble of outrageous statements and arguments has unsettled the political class in France. The current conflict between Israel and Palestine has injected two weeks of low-intensity drama into national discourse. While it stands out on the international stage over the past year for its breadth and its engagement with diverse actors, France plays a secondary role in defusing the latest round of escalation in the Middle East. This shift adds to a sense of international weight loss while at home a polarized political and media debate makes the conflict even more volatile in a multicultural French society.
The final chapter of this turbulent moment in French political life unfolded on Monday afternoon with a heated and sometimes disrespectful debate in Parliament. A centrist lawmaker, Jean-Louis Bourlangues, lamented that the country was becoming the Pavlovian voice of disagreement. The session took place on the eve of the president’s trip the following day to the Hebrew State. President Emmanuel Macron’s visit aimed to project a cautious optimism, with the hope of making real progress toward a humanitarian pause and the possible release of hostages held by Hamas, alongside the delivery of aid to Palestinian civilians.
Israel, the Prime Minister declared at the opening, has the right to security and self-defense. Elisabeth Borne sought a balanced approach, though critics argued her stance was overly formal and limited in impact. She urged that any military action be aligned with international law and called for a humanitarian ceasefire, emphasizing protection under international humanitarian law. This approach aligned with a similar line taken by the Spanish government and reflected France’s position in a UN Security Council vote last week, where Brazil vetoed a resolution supported by the United States.
Differences within macronism
The Prime Minister asserted that she defended France’s distinctive voice, yet her stance drew criticism. Some on the left argued that she was too lenient with the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Conversely, some right-wing and Macronist factions pushed for unconditional support for Israel, following Washington’s lead.
The parliamentary debate followed a weekend visit by Macronist leaders to the Hebrew State. Yaël Braun-Pivet and Eric Ciotti, chair of The Republicans, along with Meyer Habib, a representative of French citizens living in Israel and close to Likud, voiced strong positions. Braun-Pivet asserted unconditional support for the Israeli government, insisting that nothing should prevent Israel from defending itself, even amid the devastating bombings that have claimed thousands of lives. She attributed blame to Hamas, describing the casualties as the consequence of human shield tactics.
Braun-Pivet’s stance signaled a tilt within macronism toward backing the Israeli government’s harsh response after the October 7 attacks. Former president Nicolas Sarkozy’s line on the Atlantic alliance added pressure on French diplomacy, raising concerns at Quai d’Orsay about weakening ties with Arab neighbors. Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna distanced herself from the hawkish camp, while lawmakers like Sylvain Maillard urged a move toward a two-state solution.
“The voice of France is missing”
A centrist deputy, Bourlangues, criticized Israel’s expansionist policies and the continued settlement activity, even as he stumbled in the middle of one of his most pointed speeches, repeatedly interrupted by opposition voices.
Others lamented that France’s voice was not clearly guiding the conversation. Deputies from Rebel France, led by Mathilde Panot, argued that the nation should mourn all victims of the war and condemn all war crimes, while also resisting a simplistic frame that ranked culpability. The discussion within the left, including figures like Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has reflected a broader debate about how to frame support for Palestinian rights and condemnation of violence, and whether to separate Hamas from the broader Palestinian cause.
Disagreements extended to how to describe Hamas and whether to label the organization as a terrorist group. Critics argued for unequivocal condemnation of violence on both sides, while the media spotlight amplified differences within the NUPES coalition’s diverse factions. The debate also focused on how to contextualize the October 7 attacks and the ensuing humanitarian crisis, and how France should respond to the public demonstrations seen across Paris, including large protests in support of the Palestinian people.
The most recent tensions arose after a post by Mélenchon that challenged Braun-Pivet’s remarks and drew comparisons to protests in Paris. The response tied into broader concerns about incitement and the use of charged language, with some commentators warning that the conversation could drift into anti-Semitic territory if not carefully moderated. The discussions underscored a rift between the Gaullo-Mitterrand legacy and more Atlanticist foreign policy visions, a debate that has intensified as the crisis has dragged on for weeks.