Not only that, but to give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians for their capital. Story here.
I must admit this surprises me – on this side of the pond we think of Sarkozy as a conservative, which we generally equate to “pro-Israel.” (And Sarkozy insists he remains pro-Israel: “France will always be Israel’s friend and will always stand in the way of those calling to destroy it.”) I don’t suppose the Israelis care much what Sarkozy thinks, but does this perhaps portend a broader shift in international opinion?
It is hard to see how a two-state solution can ever be worked out until the settlements are dismantled and evacuated. But do the Pals really need EJ?
They really want it, at least…
And do the Israelis really need it?
As an aside, in only one year, Sarkozy has reached the lowest approval rating ever for a french president.
In related news, for the national day, the syrian president will be invited for the parade. Let’s remember that the french National day (Bastille day) celebrates the overcoming of tyranny. Inviting foreign heads of state/government is in itself uncommon and until now only happened with friendly leaders of democratic countries.
Current french foreign policy which is supposedly intended to be pragmatical, is IMO disastrous and seems completely erratic (you can’t really pander at the same time for Syria, Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinians, for instance) . And moreover a shame since Sarkozy has on several instances very blatantly lauded and/or pandered for several unsavory heads of state.
This concept (conservative=pro-Israel) never existed in France. And indeed Sarkozy states he’s pro-Israel, but since, as I just wrote, he seems to try to be pro-everybody at the same time, it doesn’t mean much.
**BG ** - best not use Arutz Sheva as a cite. They’re a right wing religious radio station/website, and they’re not all that known for their adherence to facts.
Check out Ha’aretzYnet (which is run by Yediot Aharonot, Israel’s biggest newspaper). What Sarkozy said, basically, was that he supported the proposed “Evacuation-Compensation” law, which would compensate Jews voluntarily leaving the West Bank. Nothing about deportation, except in the fevered mind of the Arutz Sheva “reporters.”
As for Jerusalem, that’s the standard European line. BY and large, Israeli press considered Sarkozy’s speech supportive (and his wife, HOT).
Honestly, for the modern lot of French leaders, he’s coming off relatively Zionistic. (Not a group reknown for doing anything than trying to curry Arab favor from the Israeli POV anyway.)
Many accept that any long term solution is going to have to include the removal of settlers from most of the West Bank (how to define “most” is a very controversial item of course, and how to accomplish removal is also an open item) and many in Israel are accepting that East Jerusalem is on the table as a political capital for a Palestine entity (although how to define East Jerusalem is also debatable - some would place it in suburban environs.) It was the fact that such is so widely accepted even by much of the current Israeli leadership as what an end result will likely look like that Obama’s “undivided” misspeak loomed so large.
Nothing too controversial here. Making nice to an Israeli crowd really.
[shrug] Not when your own side does it. There’s precedent for it – after the Camp David Accords returned the Sinai to Egypt, Israeli settlers there were forcibly removed by the IDF; I remember seeing it on TV. There was lots of shouting and protest, but nobody got shot.
Yes, it seems his wife is his greatest success in foreign policy. During her offcial visit in the UK where she met Elizabeth II, both the french and british medias apparently barely mentionned the existence of the french president and the british prime minister.
I don’t think you grasp the differences in scale. The Sinai (and Gaza) had something like 5,000 settlers each, few enough to be overwhelmed by a sufficiently large military force. There are *over a quarter of a million * Jews in the West Bank. Out of a total Israeli population of six million. And that’s without taking into account the much stronger connection the West Bank settlers have to their homes - both from reigious reasons and from the fact that after 40 years, most of them were born there and would be forced to leave the only home they ever knew; not to mention the fact that the settlers make up a disproportionally large portion of the army’s combat units and officer’s corps (like them or not, they’re good soldiers).
Hm, how odd. I suppose that the palestinians forcibly moved out 40 plus years ago were just there for a couple of months and had no ties to their property?
Well, it’s obvious the settlers remaining east of the Green Line indefinitely is not a viable option – and that includes remaining between the Green Line and the Wall – and you’ve ruled out forcible relocation – so do you have any ides for a solution that would work?
