In this final section Ayméric Chauprade (above) adds several conditions to his proposals, narrowing down the enemy to one type of Islam, insisting on the need for a Palestinian State and for alliances with "moderate" Sunnis. But he also exposes the truth about the discrepancy in the number of dead Palestinians compared to dead Israelis. And finally he repeats that France can only recover her identity by freeing herself from United States domination.
A foreign policy in keeping with our internal prioritiesFaced with the French identity crisis, our foreign policy decisions will prove determining. An alliance with Russia, the only great European power to openly and firmly assert its Christian civilization, ought to be an obvious choice to any patriot. As should an entente with Shiism and all Middle Eastern minorities confronted with the awakening of the Sunni volcano as it attempts obsessively to reconstitute the Umma in a world Caliphate seeking to expand to the detriment of the other civilizations. I am, moreover, convinced that the United States and Israel will eventually reach an agreement with Iran (including Iran as a nuclear power, as Sunni Pakistan is) and with Shia-dominant Iraq. We must of course also cooperate with the moderate Sunni monarchies of the Arab world, those who do not finance jihad, like Morocco, the UAE, or Kuwait. The war is not against Sunni Islam, it is against the Sunni extremism that is eating away an important part of Sunni Islam, and this nuance is essential because this war must be waged side by side with all moderate Sunni Muslims.
Note: I cannot comment with any authority on his notion of cooperation with "moderate" Sunnis. Nor do I have any knowledge of what an American-Israeli agreement with Iran would mean, except that Iran's nuclear capabilities, assuming they exist, could be used against Sunni extremists, if necessary. Finally what is the relevance of Pakistan here? It all seems very theoretical.
Regarding Israel, France must not yield to the emotional trap, but preserve a balanced policy. When one defends a world based on sovereignty, one also defends the sovereignty of Israel and its right to security. It is nonetheless obvious that the security of Israel can only derive from a fair solution for the Palestinians, which would impose on Israel (as Sharon suggested at the end of his life) the obligation to make painful concessions in the West Bank, hence to dismantle its colonies.
Note: Again, he is very theoretical. Israel has made many concessions to the Palestinians including several offers for a Palestinian State. Israel's very painful disengagement from Gaza in 2005 is the topic of a long Wikipedia page. What makes Chauprade (or anybody else) think that a Palestinian State would appease the Muslims? That they would suddenly stop their attacks and live peacefully side by side with Israelis? Isn't this as quixotic as the French notion of "vivre-ensemble" (living together)?
Below, from Ynet, the last Israeli home demolished as Israel ends the disengagement from Gaza, 2005.
The emotion generated by the drama of the Palestinians is overwhelming some of us, causing us to lose a sense of proportion and to forget the profound causes of the conflict. One argument you hear all the time is that all of this is unjust because Israelis only have fifty (military) deaths while the Palestinians mourn two thousand (essentially civilians). To which I respond with the principle of political responsibility. If I were French Defense Minister and my country were attacked by rockets, then yes I would do everything to keep the French death toll at zero and to inflict the maximum number of losses on my enemy. But then the question arises: Why are Palestinian deaths essentially civilian? Answer: Hamas' combatants emerge from tunnels that they dig in order to shoot rockets on Israel from buildings where families live, then they go back and hide in the tunnels. Israeli aviation and artillery respond, therefore, on the places where the rocket fire originated, namely, the apartment buildings where civilians, whom Hamas has chosen not to protect, reside. So it is clear that Hamas knowingly chooses to sacrifice Palestinian civilians and they do this because they are waging a world war of information based on images and emotions.
A politician worthy of the name, places intelligence ahead of emotion, just as analysis must precede communication, not the contrary. Yes the images of dismembered Palestinian children make me sick. But since 2011, have they shown us images of Christian or Alaouite Syrians massacred by the jihadist rebels armed by Paris, London and Washington? Have they shown us images of Libyan civilians charred in their homes by the NATO airstrikes? Have they shown us images of civilians of Donetsk pulverized by Ukrainian artillery fire?
War is implacable. The Palestinians of Gaza have chosen to give power to a movement, Hamas, whose objective is not to construct a real Palestinian sovereign State next to Israel, but to destroy Israel. Whenever a people put into power a movement with no objective other than the harassment of a military superpower next door, only misfortune can be expected. It's terribly unjust for the civilians who perish, but bad choices cost dearly and we will soon pay dearly for ours if we persist in our soft-heartedness and our strategic errors.
France is at a crossroads. She must - all at the same time - become again a player for multipolar equilibrium by emancipating herself from the United States; support the emergence of a true European power independent of the United States and founded on respect for nations; and confront the identity challenge threatening her which is directly tied to the changing situation in the Middle East, whether one likes it or not. This implies the need for courage not only on the American question, but also on the question of Sunni extremism that is progressing here in France as it prevails in Arab countries one after the other. This courage cannot be expected from a ruling class in large part anesthetized by money from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Only a great political change will give back to the French their identity, their sovereignty, their influence on the world stage, and their honor. Count on me to participate in this great political change as I will fight with all my strength so that my children and my grand-children may live in a France inhabited by her centuries-old civilization.
Note: As I post, a major shake-up has occurred in France with the resignation of François Hollande's cabinet of ministers, and the refusal of some of the ministers to work in whatever new cabinet he manages to put together. Also, Hollande cut a pathetic and dishonorable figure at the August 25th commemoration of the Liberation, speaking unduly at length beneath the pouring rain (causing jokes about the "ice bucket" president) and making numerous faux pas - one of which was "patrie échouée" which translates "the defeated homeland" or "the homeland wrecked". I'm not sure what he meant to say, but at Twitter they are speaking of a "shipwreck".
I have not had time to read carefully the article from Le Figaro, but a post on the cabinet shake-up will follow as soon as possible.
Note: I suspect, but do not know for sure, that this sudden haste to jump ship stems directly from the pro-Palestinian riots, the massacres of Christians in Iraq, and the violence in Ukraine. Suddenly everybody knows something is wrong! They don't want to be associated with an economic collapse, a possible volcanic rise in street crime and riots, and the obvious takeover by the Islamic State of destabilized Arab countries. It's not impossible that Ayméric Chauprade's dissertation had something to do with this, although that may be a stretch.
(You probably also heard that Qatar bombed Libya.)
Below, François Hollande, incompetence incarnate, both victim and perpetrator of corruption, greed, ignorance and arrogance.
Final note: Regarding this impressive but still theoretical foreign policy proposal from Chauprade, I will take a cautious approach. First, Marine Le Pen has to become president. Second, Chauprade, who has been working closely with the Front National behind the scenes for a number of years, and who has also been adviser to Jean-Marie Le Pen, still has to prove himself in a real-life situation such as a ministerial post, and he may do that, but it cannot be before 2017. Third, he is very close to some Arab countries such as Morocco where he has been a foreign policy adviser. He seems to have inadvertently adopted a little bit of George Bush's idea of getting the "bad guys" and using the "good guys" as our allies. Chauprade sees the only danger to be Sunni fundamentalism, no other form of Islam. In fact, the other branches of Islam will be our allies, in his view.
So we must be cautious. French readers can read a critical article about him at Rue89. (You must be cautious about this article as well.)
Labels: Aymeric Chauprade, Foreign Policy, Hamas, Immigration, Islam, Israel, National Identity, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia