Many European democracies are rather different than the one in the US, though. They harbour the possibility for more than two relevant parties. The Democrats hold such a varied spectrum of opinions and views that it could consitute of three or four parties in itself, but they communicate as one. So I think it is difficult to really make assumptions from US politics that could be easily copy-pasted on most of the political systems in European countries.

In recent years the left was quite insignificant in France, but now they hold some cards. Especially since RN is widely considered unreasonable. It is a delicate situation, maybe the left could now have some demands if the government sees a necessity for them, but so far the government has just managed to get through with their plans (with some dubious shortcuts). I doubt making the government collapse and forcing new elections will help much. Especially now that security is an important aspect, which often is not a strong platform for left wing parties (as voters make assumptions)(also since LFI wants France to leave NATO). And what does the left do if they are in the lead to form a government, but no other parties are willing to form a government out of spite?

I was thinking more as compromises to each other within the alliance. I was hoping as well that Macron, Renaissance would try to work with the (reasonable-)left. What is happening now is that they are upholding the status-quo that obviously is losing its support. I fear it to escalade to the far-right because of this stance, I hope it does not.

This was due to fail, as it incorporated everything from the centre-left to the far-left. Plus, there are figures that don’t want to make compromises like Mélenchon.

It might’ve also been because of Mélenchon that NFP lost its chances of working with the centre(-right). On the other hand the alliance’s great share made it possible to balance the far-right.

As I understand it, the English and Arabic channels are very different editorially, with the latter being rather controversial and biased to the Muslim Brotherhood¹. The English channel even wrote about the division themselves².

This is something, in addition to that censorship exists in the west/everywhere (and arguably is favourable in certain forms), that should be kept in mind regarding Aljazeera. I must honestly say, I did not read more upon this, so feel free to correct or specify.

1. Al Arabiya English (2017), https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeera-English-vs-Al-Jazeera-Arabic-One-channel-two-messages.
2. Aljazeera English (2011), https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2011/5/6/al-jazeera-one-organisation-two-messages

I agree with most that Edric pointed out.

Most importantly to add is, when and what was the reason he said this.

In Europe, many countries blindly supported Israel in the past as well, but now they show more nuance.

We (at least I) don’t really know if Biden’s view has changed in any way, but as you and Edric point out it has been over 30 years. Even a slight change could make this quote not relevant for his current stance.

I agree that Biden’s response shows very little concern for the Palestinians, which fits right in to any other US president’s view in the conflict. I think it’s deplorable, but I see a little hope in Blinken’s trip with the other Arab states and at least came to the conclusion for a fighting pauses.

Thanks for the source, but I think it is weird to drop a decades old quote with a recent picture. Especially during the complications of the conflict right now. It feels indigenous without a further context or reason why this is relevant?

Let me be clear that I think the international community should get involved and stop this non-proportional response from Israel (and in any case this never ending conflict) and that the US has a significant leverage over Israel.