One is about enforcing the safety of French people doing what they want. The other is about a more offensive stance. This is much easier to sell
You’re absolutely right — Fair point. The perspective of “diplomacy” does change things — I hadn’t thought of that.
Signals less Palestinian Solidarity and more nationalism, then though. But still a net helpful notion I agree. Albeit it weaker than “I’ll bring food to Gaza and aim at Israelis if I have to.”
without saying he will pay for [the aid]
If it’s about political expediency of signalling cost aversion is aid the big cost factor?
I would assume the expensive part of escorting aid is the cost of the military deployment, no?
I get your point about the Overton window, but I also see a flipside to it: the risk is sheepdogging revolutionary sentiment into the liberal electoral system.
The overton window becomes a carve out in the liberal accepted framework (even though it stays inconsequential in terms of action) which could be a way of releasing tension in the rebellious climate of french politics right now
I wish it were credible
His phrasing is a pretty clear indication that he’s not going to do anything.
escort citizen flottilas
That’s a very weird choice in a scenario where you have a state at your hand that can escort it’s own aid shipments at much higher scale.
This smells like he wants to weasel out, pointing at some irrelevant nominal change that Israel did which flipped the conditional “if necessary” false or something like that
You’re right I flipped. I doubted if he was willing to do that but OP swayed me.
Melenchon is not saying “I’ll help Gaza” (my argument was that he could’ve done so in easier ways if he really wanted to)
…but “I protect my citizens even if they want to help Gaza”. Weaker morally, but doesn’t come across as an evil trick anymore (but as a good trick)