France and ’Israel’: More Than a Strategic Alliance and Commitment

Shimon Peres summed the relationship between Paris and “Tel Aviv”, on March 7, 2008 and stated: “I do not know any other country that helped “Israel” as France did … Thanks to France we were able to acquire weapons to defend ourselves (…)”.. France – the friendand eternal ally to Israel – is governed by a structural coalition despite the turmoil that had prevailed the relationshiphistorically. Although Paris claims to provide attention to Arab issues particularly in Lebanon and Palestine, it has a hard core bias to the Zionist entity.

The degree of bias and equality between the victim and the executioner manifested itself in many incidents, but yesterday it surpassedlimitations and magnitude in the Security Council after it tried to persist in the issuance of an unfair statement holding Hizbullah exclusively responsible for the tension on the Lebanese-Palestinian border, refusing to condemn the occupying entity in the killing of the UNIFIL Spanish soldier.

The Researcher in International Relations Walid Sharara stated, “French policy is confused, contradictory and unbalanced, France seeks “Israel” affections and consent in an attempt to bid on the Americans for many considerations notably electoral and ideological as well as political.”

He continued, “The pursuit of Paris to pass a draft statement in the Security Council that exonerate the Zionist occupation and condemns the Resistance is disharmonious with its political performance; on the one and it pleas Hizbullah for electing a President for the country but on the other hand, it seeks to his convict it in the United Nations. ”

According to Sharara, the slogan “France the kind mother of Lebanon” was hollow and illogical. It had always been a colonizing and mandating country, describing its current situation as a skipper who leads the steamer blindfolded.

In an interview with al-Ahed newswebsite, Sharara declared thatduring the authority of Gen. Charles de Gaulle, Parisian diplomacywas independent of Westerners, especially Americans, that is, it was non-biased and analytic as the French claimed it was.

Sharara portrayed some occasionswhereFrance stood along Arab issues confronting “Israel,” including the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat’s treatment in Paris and the invasion of Iraq in addition to the war on Lebanon.

However, he illustrated that French policy changed after 2003 and became a 100% Atlantic Policy. Moreover, he pointed out that the ruling group was currently indulged in supporting “Tel Aviv” open-endedly.

Hence, the French representative in the Security Council’s failure was due to the declination of his power to control the region’s situation. According to Sharara, Paris was unable to influence; it is a mere player against the rise of new players in the world like Iran, China, Russia, Brazil and others.He viewed the French as unwilling to recognize the new balance of power unlike the Americans who were more realistic.

Nonetheless, Sharara continued, “Let us consider the American attitude towards Hizbullah, the Iranian nuclear file and the Syrian regime. Washington is aware of the strength of the adverse alliance;Unlike Paris which expatiatesin exaggerated claims to bring down President Bashar al-Assad,the obstruction of nuclear negotiations and hammering Hizbullah”.

Shararaconsidered that the French made a huge mistake when they named Hizbullah’s military wing in the terrorists’ list. Henceforth, Hizbullah had become an active regional player which cannot be ignored obliging the French administration to create positive relations with it despite the differences.

Thus, after the fall of the French draft statement and the success of the issuance of a resolution implicitly condemning “Israel”, is there anythingthat would drive change in French diplomacy towards the region or are we going to see a continuation of the blind support and unconditional obligation to protect the security of “Israel?” …

Source: al-Ahed news