French Ambassadors declare war on Israel

Note: On 19 February 2016, Le Figaro published an opinion by Francis Gutmann, a former ambassador, and a member of the 'Club des vingt' arguing that France should engage in "active neutrality" with Israel and Palestine and that peace will not be achieved if France tilts towards Israel as it has been doing for ten years (according to them Sarkozy and Hollande...).  Members of the 'Club des vingt' include Roland Dumas (who thinks former PM Manuel Valls is under the influence of his Jewish wife), Hervé de Charette, Hubert Védrine, Henry Laurens and Rony Brauman, all known for their anti-Israel and pro-Arab positions. 

Via the Gatestone Institute (by Yves Mamou):

- For our ambassadors, terrorism does not exist in "Palestine". They just whisper Quixotically about "the need for security" for Israel.
- The obvious conclusion is that they are just trying to hide their own detestation of Israel behind the Arab one.
- The problem is not Jewish "settlers" in "Palestine". Before 1967, there were no settlements, then what was the Palestine Liberation Organization "liberating" when it was created in Cairo in 1964? The answer, as the PLO was the first to admit, was "Palestine" -- meaning the entire state of Israel, regarded by many Arabs as just one big settlement. Just look any Palestinian map.
- The problem is that these ambassadors are not as dangerous to Israel as they are to Europe and the free world, as they keep on succumbing to the demands of Islam.  

Do not forget these names: Yves Aubin de La Messuzière; Denis Bauchard; Philippe Coste; Bertrand Dufourcq; Christian Graeff; Pierre Hunt; Patrick Leclercq; Stanislas de Laboulaye; Jean-Louis Lucet; Gabriel Robin; Jacques-Alain de Sédouy and Alfred Siefer-Gaillardin.  

These men are retired French ambassadors. They are apparently well educated, very polite and aristocratic people and they regularly publish op-eds in Le Monde. However, they publish in Le Monde only to threaten Israel.  

Their most recent op-ed in Le Monde on January 9, 2017, was to explain how an international conference on the Middle East, the one which scheduled for January 15 in Paris, would be beneficial for the "security" of Israel. Their text is a discouraging enumeration of traditional clichés of France's hypocritical diplomacy.  

Example: "For the Palestinians, nothing is worse than the absence of a state". In which way is it the worst? As Bret Stephens wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal:  

"Have they experienced greater violations to their culture than Tibetans? No: Beijing has conducted a systematic policy of repression for 67 years, whereas Palestinians are nothing if not vocal in mosques, universities and the media. Have they been persecuted more harshly than the Rohingya? Not even close."  

Stephens also noted that:  

"a telling figure came in a June 2015 poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, which found that a majority of Arab residents in East Jerusalem would rather live as citizens with equal rights in Israel than in a Palestinian state. "  

The French ambassadors, however, do not explain. They just add: "The Proclamation of a Palestinian state will certainly not change anything on the ground," but they say that they hope this symbolic move will create "a new dynamic imposing new realities". Hmm. Now what could these "new realities" be in a Palestinian state in the middle of a war-torn Middle East?

read more