IN these challenging times, when the world can often seem quite dark, I have a go-to source of inspiration that never fails to uplift my spirits – a remarkable film called Quai d’Orsay.

Quai d’Orsay, a work of art by the brilliant Bertrand Tavernier, is a captivating satire that masterfully captures the inner workings of French diplomacy. Set in the heart of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs – le Quai d’Orsay as we call it – it provides a glimpse into the chaotic, comical and often absurd world of international politics.

The film’s central character, Alexandre Taillard de Worms, is a tour de force brilliantly portrayed by comedy legend Thierry Lhermitte. As the French minister of foreign affairs, Taillard is an enigmatic, larger-than-life figure who embodies all the eccentricities and foibles of the diplomatic world.

Yet, what makes Taillard truly fascinating is that he is essentially a caricature of a real-life figure – Dominique de Villepin, a prominent politician who has held positions as foreign affairs secretary before becoming prime minister under late president Jacques Chirac.

Quai d’Orsay takes us on a journey back to a defining moment in French diplomatic history – the renowned speech opposing the Iraq War at the UN Security Council in 2003.

This speech embodies the Gaullist tradition of non-alignment with the United States and a commitment to diplomacy over military intervention. Dominique de Villepin, a staunch Gaullist, played a central role during this period, vehemently opposing a war against terror that was bound to cause more harm than good and advocating for a peaceful resolution.

“In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honour we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace,” he pleaded, in a speech that still makes us proud to this day.

As the Israel-Hamas war continues to unfold, this feels more pertinent than ever. Amidst the turmoil in the Middle East, it becomes evident that a diplomatic solution is the need of the hour. It’s time to shift away from divisive rhetoric and instead focus on practical ways to put an end to the bloodshed.

The spirit portrayed in Quai d’Orsay underscores the need for nuanced approaches, pragmatic solutions and a departure from the blame game. It emphasises the importance of understanding the multifaceted nature of the situation and the urgency of initiating constructive dialogue.

This is a view that Dominique de Villepin is championing at the moment. In the current climate, his voice resonates deeply with the French public. It harks back to a time when France’s diplomatic positions were characterised by more subtlety.

In the context of the current conflict, Dominique de Villepin remains true to his Gaullist roots. He underscores that Hamas does not represent the entirety of the Palestinian population, a crucial distinction to maintain, and that the horror of the October attack, in which 1400 innocent people were ruthlessly murdered in Israel, should not prevent us from going forward, with intelligence, towards a lasting peace. He warns against repeating the mistakes made after 9/11, where vengeance and military force were prioritised, leading to greater instability.

This singular stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict is part of a broader tradition of supporting the creation of a Palestinian state alongside a safe Israel.

The two-state solution is deeply entwined with the history of French diplomacy in the Middle East. Leaders like Charles de Gaulle, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac have all played a part in shaping this diplomatic legacy.

The foundation of France’s diplomatic stance on the Israel-Palestine issue can be traced back to the era of Charles de Gaulle.

The first president of the fifth Republic championed the cause of diplomatic independence from the United States and non-alignment, which became cornerstones of French foreign policy. De Gaulle was notably critical of Israel’s actions during the Six-Day War in 1967 and sought to strengthen France’s ties with Arab states.

The commitment to Palestinian statehood continued with Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the principal interlocutor for the Palestinian people in the 1970s.

FRANCOIS Mitterrand, the socialist president from 1981 to 1995, reiterated France’s commitment to Palestinian self-determination during his presidency. In the first-ever presidential visit to Israel, he addressed the Israeli Knesset, where he underscored the importance of Palestinians deciding their destiny within the framework of international law and dialogue.

Jacques Chirac, his successor, played a crucial role in shaping French diplomatic efforts in the Middle East too. One of the most memorable moments during his presidency was a visit to the region, where he made a profound impact and cemented France’s position as a promoter of Palestinian rights.

Chirac’s visit, which took place on October 23, 1996, was a historic occasion. He travelled to Ramallah in the West Bank and addressed the young Palestinian Legislative Council, led by Yasser Arafat. Chirac’s visit was hailed by Palestinians who had endured years of conflict and displacement.

However, what truly made this visit a defining moment was a spontaneous and impassioned incident that occurred during Chirac’s visit to Jerusalem. As he walked through the streets, he became exasperated by the Israeli security staff who were preventing Palestinians from approaching him.

In a moment of anger and frustration, Chirac famously declared, in his special way of speaking English: “This is not a method; this is a provocation.”

These words resonated deeply with those who had felt marginalised and excluded. Chirac’s remark was not just a critique of a particular situation but a powerful statement about the broader Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the need to address the challenges faced by Palestinians.

The current Western stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict stands in stark contrast to some principled positions held in the past. It is disheartening to witness the hesitance of contemporary Western leaders to sincerely call for a two-state solution.

While there is ample room for political and diplomatic initiatives to advance the cause of peace, it seems that the courage to pursue these initiatives has waned in recent years.

De Villepin sheds light on the importance of finding the courage of moving beyond the blame game.

In a candid moment during a recent interview, when pressed by a journalist intent on assigning blame, he responds with solemnity: “You, Madam, are playing a dangerous game.”

He emphasises that the task of assigning blame should be left to philosophers and historians.

As a diplomat, his primary concern is not to dwell on the past, even though all stakeholders must recognise their role in this situation, but to focus on how to bring about an end to this deadly conflict.

De Villepin also underscores the need to acknowledge and incorporate the perspectives of the global South in addressing international affairs.

This assertion reflects a profound understanding of the evolving dynamics in our world. “There is a trap in thinking the West can continue managing the affairs of the world as it has for the past five centuries, as if nothing has changed,” he states.

I firmly believe that it is with perspectives like Dominique de Villepin’s that we have a genuine shot at achieving a lasting peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Commitments to nuance, pragmatism, and an inclusive global approach offer a glimmer of hope in a world often marked by polarisation and oversimplification that hinder progress.

This is the only way we can begin to break down the barriers that have divided the parties involved for far too long.

By listening to voices calling for more cleverness in the furore, and embracing a broader global perspective, we may find a way to move beyond the impasse and pave the road towards a comprehensive two-state solution; less destroying and more repairing.