Barry Rubin is in France and muses on French-American-Israeli relations.
p.s. I checked the Rambus board. oh, boy, you're not kidding! -g-
____________________________________________________
THE REGION, By BARRY RUBIN: Israel and the US through Parisian eyes
By BARRY RUBIN
On the eve of a likely US-Iraq war, France has proclaimed itself the main obstacle to this event. It is also the European country whose government, media and pubic opinion are most systematically against Israel.
How accurate is this picture, and what are the motives behind this behavior?
Of course, in the Iraq case the French position rests on a long-standing desire to show independence by undermining US policy, a wish to please the Arab world in general for economic benefits, and nervousness about France's dependence on the region's oil.
Beyond this, however, are many other considerations. One is a deep distrust of innovation, at least outside of cultural issues. Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat are well known, so why try something else?
There is suspicion of American optimism, as well as of America's belief that change is possible and desirable. Americans think things can be better; the French worry that they will become worse. (Such reluctance to engage in risky experiments does not seem to apply, however, to ideas regarding advice to Israel in solving its conflict with the Palestinians.)
There is also a long-standing belief in the inferiority of America. Paris, is after all, the world capital of intellectual anti-Americanism. One expert told me the US had too much muscle and too little brains. Others called America a "baby republic" with inadequate experience in understanding international affairs.
President George W. Bush is hated. Visiting the French capital, one realizes how hard it is there to conceive that anyone who is determinedly not an intellectual could be smart.
Every nation, of course, applies its own historical experience to understanding current issues. For France, the idea of a US war to transform Iraq reminds them of their own failed experience with colonialism. (Ironically, no one ever mentions the constant French military interventions to effect regime change in France's former African colonies.)
Regarding Israel, of course, the easily accessible analogies are the French withdrawal from Algeria or, more ominously, France's World War II experience under German occupation. The moderates apply the first idea; the militants the second.
Then there are factors spoken about only in near-whispers. One is France's large Muslim immigrant population. Criticism of Israel is seen as a way of integrating this population by showing support on the issue; but actually very few French show up for anti-Israel demonstrations. The Muslims' real problems - better jobs and education - are not being solved and there is internal disorder.
There is also a concern that Middle Eastern issues could bring international terrorism to France, or, even worse, a wave of even more refugees from the region. (Again, few note that France's backing of Algeria's government against Islamist revolutionaries was far riskier in this regard than anything happening in Iraq or Israel. The original plan to use airliners to destroy a symbolic building was devised by Algerian terrorists against the Eiffel Tower.) While the Arabs are seen as angry and frustrated, the question is how these problems can be handled.
THERE ARE three potential ways out of the Mideast's profound deadlock, of which the Arab-Israeli issue is only one of many problems. They are not mutually exclusive:
* The development of moderation and willingness to compromise, from above or below, which can lead to new methods and solutions.
* The rise of forces supporting liberalism, democracy and human rights, which would give rise to possible solutions to the Arab world's real problems, or at least meaningful debates.
* Economic development that raises living standards and satisfies popular needs. This would not necessarily ensure stability, but can be helpful. Ironically, the French elite's low opinion of Arabs makes them doubt the first two outcomes - though certainly there are other reasons.
The French government is working to promote economic development in the Maghreb (Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria). Not coincidentally, this is where most of the economic refugees to France come from. If the situation worsens there, more will try to come to France. And there is no clear sign that progress is being made across the Mediterranean.
For the more militant it is certainly far easier to blame everything on Israel in general, or, for those who want to appear more moderate, just on the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The powerful French intellectual establishment has poured molten mountains of hatred onto this issue, both directly and through the media. It calls to mind the Dreyfus Affair, the great controversy of a century ago in which a Jewish officer in the French army was falsely accused of treason and Jews were subjected to a massive campaign of slander.
College campuses have become ridiculously extreme, and while the effects of a boycott against Israeli scholars should not be exaggerated, it has been promoted by those who would never dream of a similar boycott against Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria or the Palestinians.
The whole blend has been furthered by a post-Communist leftism whose thorough historical failure has forced it to find new issues and targets.
The French Jewish community is making creditable efforts to be active, but, as always happens in such circumstances, some Jews are promoting their careers by joining in the Israel-bashing.
While the situation is bleak enough, it is not, however, completely negative. There are more open-minded people than one might have expected. The French government is starting to accept the fact that the US attack on Iraq is likely to happen despite its opposition.
On the official level, relations with Israel are better than they have been many times in the past. There is some notion that if France ever wants to play a role in a post-Saddam Iraq, or in any Arab-Israel negotiating process, it must show a bit of fairness on these issues.
Yet nobody should expect dramatic changes for the better.
jpost.com |
