Gallant and the French: Is pique the way to make policy? - analysis
While Gallant’s anger at the French is understandable, the question is whether possible French assistance in finding a diplomatic solution to the fighting in the North should be summarily dismissed.
While the heart understands why Defense Minister Yoav Gallant slammed France in an unusual statement on Friday, the mind questions the wisdom of this move.
Or, as a quote attributed to Chinese philosopher Confucius says, “When anger rises, think of the consequences.”On Friday, Gallant took a page out of Foreign Minister Israel Katz’s playbook and forcefully, publicly, and undiplomatically slammed the French. Katz has been doing this for weeks to other countries like Spain, Norway, and Ireland whose ministers had made egregious comments regarding Israel and who have recognized a Palestinian state.Gallant, however, took the tactic up a notch, saying that as a result of French hostility, the country has ruled itself out as an actor trying to defuse the situation in Lebanon.“As we fight a just war, defending our people, France has adopted hostile policies against Israel,” he said on Friday. “In doing so, France ignores the atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli children, women, and men. Israel will not be a party to the trilateral framework proposed by France.”
Relations with France are not all bad
Still, the picture with France – while bleak – is not all black. France did have a role in helping Israel knock out of the air more than 300 missiles and rockets that Iran fired at the country two months ago, and it stood strongly with Israel in the immediate aftermath of October 7.By ruling out any French mediatory role in Lebanon, might Gallant not be working against Israel’s interest to move Hezbollah north of Israel’s borders, preferably beyond the Litani River? Might this not close off a potential diplomatic path to de-escalation?As the North is increasingly in flames, and as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran all seem satisfied with a war of attrition there, keeping tens of thousands of Israelis from returning to their homes, Israel is weighing the dilemma of its next moves in Lebanon.Notably, US envoy Amos Hochstein arrived in Israel on Monday to further try and promote some kind of diplomatic solution to prevent this mini-war from turning into a full-fledged one.In a rare English statement late Sunday night reflecting the urgency of the matter, IDF spokesman R.-Adm. Daniel Hagari said, “Hezbollah’s increasing aggression is bringing us to the brink of what could be a wider escalation, one that could have devastating consequences for Lebanon and the entire region.”Hagari added that “one way or another, we will ensure the safe and secure return of Israelis to their homes in northern Israel. That is not up for negotiations.”Although Hagari said “one way or another,” the number of “ways” to do this is limited.One way is through a military campaign, and the other is via diplomacy and getting Lebanon to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1701 that put an end to the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and stipulated that the Lebanese army, and not Hezbollah, controls the area south of the Litani – a resolution honored only in its breach.Iran’s firing of drones and missiles at Israel in April has made the decision of whether to go to war with Hezbollah even weightier since Jerusalem must now consider whether Iran would become involved if Israel attacked its proxy.If, in the past, Israel was concerned about whether Hezbollah would strike Israel if it attacked Iran and its nuclear installations, now the concern is whether Iran will attack Israel if the Jewish state strikes out at Hezbollah.The military option, therefore, is one of the ways to push Hezbollah back from the border, but it is one full of enormous risk – not only because of the possibility that Iran could enter the fray but also because even without Iran’s direct involvement, Hezbollah’s ability to inflict damage with its arsenal of an estimated 150,000 missiles is enormous.The other way, in Hagari’s parlance, to ensure a return of Israeli citizens to their homes is through diplomacy, and it is precisely here that France may be able to play a constructive role.While France’s influence on Lebanese internal politics should not be overstated, it does still exist to some degree because of the country’s long-standing historical, cultural, economic, and political ties – France left a strong imprint on the country as a result of its being the mandatory power that governed the country from 1920 to 1943.Over the years it has provided a great deal of political, economic, and military support to Lebanon, including in propping up state institutions and in building the Lebanese army.To the surprise of some, France has backed Sleiman Frangieh, Hezbollah’s candidate in the never-ending effort to get a president agreed upon by the Lebanese parliament, a job that has been vacant now for nearly two years.Others, however, were less surprised by this development, given that Macron has played footsie in the past with Hezbollah. In 2021, Newsweek reported that France was one of the external actors that went along with Hezbollah taking up key positions in the Lebanese government, instead of an “independent” and “technocratic” government being set up to steer the country out of its myriad problems.“Macron always viewed Hezbollah as his primary interlocutor in Lebanon,” according to the magazine. “After the explosion at the Beirut port in August 2020, Macron visited Lebanon and met with Hezbollah officials. According to the French press, Macron offered to partner with Hezbollah in Lebanon: ‘I want to work with you to change Lebanon,’ he reportedly told a Hezbollah member of parliament in Beirut.”France, therefore, may have a bit of sway over Hezbollah.On Thursday at the G7 summit in Italy, Macron announced that Israel, the US, and France have agreed in principle to set up a trilateral group to work together to push forward a road map that France proposed earlier this year to reduce the tension along the border.“With the United States, we agreed on the principle of a trilateral (contact group) – Israel, the United States, and France – to advance on the road map that we proposed, and we will do the same with the Lebanese authorities,” Macron told reporters.It is that framework that Gallant rejected on Friday.Again, while Gallant’s anger at the French is understandable – both because of its ban on Israeli participation in the weapons exhibit but even more so because Paris supported the ICC after its prosecutor said he and Netanyahu should be arrested – the question is whether possible French assistance in finding a diplomatic solution to the fighting in the North should be summarily dismissed?In other words, is pique or anger the best way to formulate policy?
Jerusalem Post Store
`; document.getElementById("linkPremium").innerHTML = cont; var divWithLink = document.getElementById("premium-link"); if (divWithLink !== null && divWithLink !== 'undefined') { divWithLink.style.border = "solid 1px #cb0f3e"; divWithLink.style.textAlign = "center"; divWithLink.style.marginBottom = "15px"; divWithLink.style.marginTop = "15px"; divWithLink.style.width = "100%"; divWithLink.style.backgroundColor = "#122952"; divWithLink.style.color = "#ffffff"; divWithLink.style.lineHeight = "1.5"; } } (function (v, i) { });