Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius intends
to propose a UN Security Council resolution that would present a
framework for negotiations to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That
framework will include the 1967 lines as a basis for negotiations on the border
between Israel and the future Palestinian state.
other words, Fabius, and his superior, President Francois Hollande, want Israel
to abandon the territory of Judea and Samaria and turn it over to the
Palestinians. The fact that control of this territory is considered of great
importance to Israel’s security by the democratically elected Israeli
government seems to be of little concern to them.
do not busy themselves trying to find a solution to the endless slaughter going
on in Syria, Iraq, Libya or Yemen. Their excuse is that they don’t know how to
handle these problems.
as regards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they claim they know exactly what
the solution is, and they have no compunctions about attempting to impose their
solution on Israel. “It is necessary to move forward to have a solution to
this problem,” Fabius announces grandiloquently.
years ago at Munich, French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier felt equally
confident he knew the solution to the German-Czechoslovak crisis brewing at the
time. He told hapless Czechoslovak Prime Minister Edvard Benes that the Sudeten
area, which the democratically elected Czechoslovak government considered
essential for its defense, should be turned over to Germany.
position was backed by French Foreign Minister Georges Bonnet. They were in
complete agreement with Neville Chamberlain and his foreign minister, Viscount
Halifax. The rest of the tragic story is well known. One wonders if Hollande and
Fabius realize they are treading in the footsteps of Daladier and Bonnet.
are not alone. The Brussels bureaucrats of the European Union are busy lining up
the EU member states in support of Fabius’ position. Among them we may even
find the Czech Republic and Slovakia, who may by now have forgotten their bitter
experience of the past.
Chamberlain and Daladier, who insisted they had Czechoslovakia’s best
interests at heart, Hollande and Fabius insist they have the best intentions and
Israel’s interests at heart. It just so happens they think they know better
than the people of Israel what’s good for them.
and Fabius are so sure of themselves they refuse to acknowledge that if Israel
left Judea and Samaria, this would by no means be the end of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Further claims against Israel would be put forth
by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and various and sundry terrorist organizations claiming
to represent the Palestinians.
Mahmoud Abbas, who Hollande and Fabius presumably see as the Palestinian
negotiator, would probably be brought down once he could no longer depend on the
Israel Defense Forces for support in the area. And the vacuum left by an Israeli
withdrawal would most likely be filled by Hamas, or possibly even the fighters
of the Islamic State, who consider the area part of the Islamic caliphate they
are constituting and aim to bring the territory of the State of Israel under
their control as well.
a glorious end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would be. All hell would
break loose, and at that point Hollande and Fabius would probably admit they had
no solution to this conflict. But the damage would be done.
calling on Israel to withdraw to the armistice lines delineated by the IDF and
the Jordanian army in 1949 — an armistice violated by the Jordanians in 1967
— Hollande and Fabius might do well to think again before treading in the
footsteps of Daladier and Bonnet.