It would appear that the Obama administration is de-listing Iran as a state-sponsor of terror in order to reach a deal on nuclear weapons development. The administration is also intent on de-listing terrorist group Hezbollah, according to sources, leading to the bizarre situation where a clearly radical terrorist Islamic group is being described by this “basket-case” administration as a legitimate organization.
This is one of those rare situations where even though Iranian Shi’a backed militias and Hezbollah are fighting against ISIL the adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not applicable. Remember Iran and Hezbollah support the Assad regime in Syria – the lack of support from the West to rebels fighting Assad since 2011 facilitated the rise of ISIL. Not content with that extremely poor outcome it now seems that Iran and Hezbollah can look forward to being given a freer rein in the pursuit of their equally extreme agendas in return for their support in fighting ISIL and so that Obama can claim an ego driven victory as he fiddles and waits to exit the White House after eight disastrous years of foreign policy decisions. Decisions which Europe is starting to pay dearly for and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
That would seem like enough bad news for Israel this week but amazingly less that three months after the Hebdo attacks and other outrages perpetuated by radical Islamists in France the deluded French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called for a relaunch of the Middle East peace process based on a two-state solution.
“Only the creation of viable sovereign Palestinian state… will ensure peace and prosperity in the Middle East,” he said in a statement that called for negotiations to resume to achieve “a comprehensive and lasting peace accord.” The words “comprehensive” and “lasting” and “peace” do not exist in the Iranian or Hezbollah / Hamas / Fatah lexicon when discussing Israel and Fabius knows that.
Netanyahu won a closely-fought election on Tuesday, during the election campaign, Netanyahu specifically stated that he would not accept the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is a key part of the two-state solution backed by the EU and France in December 2014. Netanyahu had previously accepted this concept in 2009 before the Palestinian Authority demonstrated that their intention was and still is a policy of no compromise dismantling and destruction of the Israeli state.
Palestinian Authority leaders reacted negatively to Netanyahu’s victory, expressing fear that the Israeli leader would thwart efforts to establish a Palestinian state. Now France sticks in its nose with a sweeping and unrealistic statement which once again shows those that seek to undermine Western society and Israel that they still have sponsors at the highest level of European politics.
With Iran being courted by the US and seemingly allowed to continue towards the objective of possessing nuclear weapons, with Obama openly hostile to Netanyahu and Israeli interests, with ISIL attacking Lebanon and Hamas vowing a fresh spate of attacks on Israel does it seem realistic to ask Israelis to allow the creation of an openly hostile and extremist nation on its doorstep?
France once again adds its voice to a debate where in the past it has always been found to be lacking and where its follow through has always lagged behind its rhetoric. Does guilt play a part? It was the drawing of borders in the Middle East by France and Great Britain after World War 1, with total disregard for ethnic or historical precedent (solely based on self interest), that has allowed subsequent generations to inherit the Middle East problem.
France has domestic problems that it should focus its attention on before confusing the international debate on issues where it has nothing constructive to add. The liberal agenda in France has always been perceived to hold sway to such an extent that the nation is uncompetitive and which policies, showing a complete disregard for its citizens, have led to a sustained and steady rise of far-right wing support in France.
The EU and France in particular with a well worn and clearly “unfit for purpose” policy of appeasement towards radical Islam need to accept that concessions such as these will buy no good will or long term strategy alterations from those that seek to undermine all that the West and France holds dear. The rest of Europe should not pay the price for France’s lack of control of immigration since the 1960’s where policy is now being dictated by a sizeable section of voters whose ideals are fundamentally at odds with traditional European values.
France does not speak for Europe, the current French government does not represent the views of its citizens, liberal France in its appeasement of radical Islam is as dangerous as the threat it seeks to appease. Fix your own house France before looking to cast aspersions on the state of others.