Afrasianet - Al mayadeen - Buthaina Aliq - Macron, through his positions identified with the American and Israeli positions, plunges his country int

o the midst of dangerous conflicts, and declares beyond any doubt that the new theory followed by France today is the theory of the clash of civilizations.

It seems that France's continuation of the same path in its foreign policy, especially towards our region, foreshadows its tendency to establish itself as a subservient of the United States of America. All the historic attempts established by de Gaulle were dropped by President Macron through his position on the current Israeli war on Gaza.

This performance was not surprising. Things have reached where they are gradually. All the speeches Macron gave that suggested he was trying to restore Gaullist glory remained chatter without any practical translation.

During his recent visit to Israel, Macron abandoned the minimum balance towards the issues of our region, which France adopted at various historical stages.

After World War II  and the establishment of Israel, the French then tried to adopt a policy of following two lines: supporting Israel  on the one hand, and taking into account the feelings of Arabs and Muslims on the other, but Paris quickly retreated from the second line due to Arab solidarity with the Algerian revolution. The arrival of socialists known for their support of Israel to power has gone too far in the relationship with it.

At that stage, France armed Israel and provided it with the technical and practical means to produce nuclear weapons, and then France's participation in the tripartite aggression against Egypt along with Britain and Israel, which prompted the Arab countries, with the exception of Lebanon, to cut their relationship with it in 1956.

French support for Israel at that stage reached advanced levels, which was expressed by then-Socialist French Prime Minister Guy Mulet by saying: "As long as there is bread for France, there is bread for Israel."

The official French mood changed significantly with de Gaulle's rise to power. This change was translated in 1967 by de Gaulle denouncing the outbreak of the Six-Day War and the consequent occupation of Arab territories by Israel, and then by France's insistence that the French version of Resolution 242 in 1967 include a provision for "withdrawal from the occupied territories", not "withdrawal from territories", as stated in the English version.

This position on Israel was not separate from France's rejection of American hegemony over Europe through the advanced American role in NATO, which prompted de Gaulle to freeze France's participation in NATO.

When de Gaulle left the presidency, the relationship with Israel was at its worst, and the relationship with the Arabs at its best. This Gaullist mood continued for years afterwards, to the point that the oil embargo imposed by the Arab oil-producing countries in 1973 did not extend to France.

This positive Arab attitude was the result of a differentiated French performance during the October 1973 war. On such days 50 years ago, France played a positive, balanced and influential role within the framework of the European Community, which issued a statement in which it clarified the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and the need to end the occupation of territory that has been ongoing since 1967.

When the Camp David Accords were signed in 1978 between Egypt and Israel, France expressed reservations about the agreement, expressing its fear of "this unilateral solution that disturbs the balance in a region where everyone has vital interests."

 France considered that "a number of conditions that must be met were not met in the agreements held," but this trend ended with the arrival of Mitterrand, who is biased towards Israel to the presidency, and who has expressed since his election campaign his support and blatant bias towards it.

After 14 years, Chirac tried to differentiate. France played an important role in the April 1996 understanding reached after  Israel's operation Grapes of Wrath against Hezbollah in Lebanon, but Tel Aviv, in cooperation with the United States, made efforts to distance France from any active role in the committee that was formed to monitor the implementation of the agreement.

Israel has not ceased to express its annoyance with the French performance. But French foreign policy did not continue in this way, and quickly turned around, especially with regard to the Middle East. There has been talk of a shift in favor of Israel since 2005 with Ariel Sharon's visit to Paris.

These political positions have been accompanied by an equally oscillating media performance. The French writer Alain Grech writes in one of his articles that "the French press was hugely biased towards Israel during the 1967 war, unlike the position of de Gaulle and the communists," but things did not remain the same.

"During the first  intifada (1987-1993), as well as at the beginning of the second intifada, the Palestinian point of view was widely presented and well listened to," explains Grish, but what Grech calls a "slide" of the French media towards Israel soon occurred starting in the last years of Chirac's rule, for two reasons: the growing pro-Israel attitude of the French government at that stage, and the emergence of the influence of "pro-Israel networks," especially under President Sarkozy.

The term "pro-Israel networks" was used by the writer Blanc Rowe in his book Sarkozy, Israel and the Jews. The controversial book states that "Israel is beyond the scope of democratic debate in France," and the author goes so far as to ask the following telling question: "Has France become a Zionist country?

He pointed to efforts to turn the parliament of Jewish organizations in France, known as CRIF, into a lobby along the lines of the American model, and to try to replicate AIPAC's role in delivering presidents.

The book also details the French police's use of Israeli police to quell suburban unrest, and France's dispatch of the French frigate Germanale to the coast of Gaza in 2009 to break Palestinian resistance, which at that point was being bombed with internationally banned weapons, and whose children were being slaughtered by the hundreds.
This growing Israeli influence is talked about by Alain Grish in his book Islam, the Republic and the World. The writer pointed to the role  of a "trio" consisting of Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alain Vinker Kraut and Benny Lévy, who became media representatives of Jews in France.

He spoke of media outlets declaring that "the IDF is the only army in the world that has a written moral code," journalists explaining how the separation wall built by the Sharon government in the West Bank is "compatible with international legitimacy," and even promoting the narrative that "Israel and France face one enemy, Islamic fanaticism."

It seems clear that these ideas were carried with him by Macron on his recent visit to Israel. The French president appeared to sacrifice morality, justice and international law.

Through his positions identified with the American and Israeli positions, Macron plunges his country into the midst of dangerous conflicts, and declares beyond any doubt that the new theory followed by France today is the theory of the clash of civilizations, adopting what Herzl, the founder of Zionism, said: "Israel is the vanguard of civilization in confronting the hordes of barbarism."

All this without paying attention to the great damage caused by this policy, which will deepen the atrophy of the French role in our region.

In November 2007, the American magazine Time published a dossier on "The Death of French Culture," sparking great controversy in France. It seems that the next death will go to French politics in our region, at least.