The French position has remained in a state of stagnation throughout the aggression against Gaza over the past year, like most European countries which have sided entirely with Israel under the pretext of self-defense, until the attack which targeted UNIFIL forces on Israeli territory. Lebanese border.
This marked the beginning of the emergence of new European voices opposed to the war, led by French President Emmanuel Macron, whose statements led to reactions rejecting its implications from the Israeli side, with the Israeli Foreign Minister declaring the last week the possibility of addressing the French. legal action against the French president.
But the question that arises is: has there been a fundamental change in France’s positions after the aggression against Lebanon, or are its statements circumstantial and motivated by reasons limited to the situation? Lebanese and French interests in Lebanon? To what extent can the French position have a positive impact in stopping the aggression?
In fact, it is difficult to view the French president’s statements with much hope and optimism, that is, to view them as the embodiment of a fundamental change in the French position on the war in course, from absolute partiality to public criticism of Israel.
What this indicates is that if there was a change in the French position, it would have direct or indirect consequences on the war, whether within the international system, in the Security Council, where France retains a seat among the five influential international decisions, or in the corridors of the European Union. Therefore, Macron’s statements and his political movement regarding Lebanon are subject to a number of reasons, including:
First of all: Motivations linked to Lebanon’s legal and historical status with France in the Middle East and the permanent French presence among a group of the elite and political class in Lebanon, France being considered a major player on the political scene Lebanese.
And for this presence; Which has atrophied in recent years and remained at a symbolic level with distinct components, historical and cultural dimensions linked to the colonial era, and even before that since the 19th century, the time of the Ottoman era. Educational, religious and cultural missions played an important role in the second half of the 19th century.
The cultural, religious and ethnic pluralism that characterizes a number of Southern societies was – and still is – a vector of early interference in their affairs and sharing of influence during the colonial era. Since then, France has not gotten rid of its colonial tendency, which has adopted multiple approaches in its relations with Lebanon.
The French presence has seen a sharp decline in many of its former colonies, whether in Africa or in other countries considered a political, cultural, economic and military extension of French interests. It has even reached the point of complete withdrawal of some of them. them, to make way for other regional and international powers.
In fact, it is difficult to view the French president’s statements with much hope and optimism, that is, to view them as the embodiment of a fundamental change in the French position on the war in course.
We recall these examples of points of conflict concerning French interests in a number of countries, in which the change in attitude of public opinion against France with the rise of new national and regional powers has led to the absence of French role in influencing the search for solutions to regional and regional problems. international crises. These are forces whose rise and behavior on a certain number of issues were linked to their colonial extensions, and therefore, invoking other models leads us to explain French action in Lebanon in terms of concerns and fears which dominate the French political mind, that is to say the possibility of losing Lebanon in a conflict context, a loss which will be added to the rest of the losses that have occurred in France successively in a certain number of countries.
In direct terms, the French president’s statements and what happened do not reflect a change in French position, but rather the maintenance of its presence in Lebanon and what concerns it in the context of the regional conflict and in the context current situation and the direction taken by the aggression and its active elements. Even though the French position on the war has completely changed; This is unlikely for several reasons. It won’t affect the news, but in the best case, he can remain a mediator.
The question that arises is perhaps: why is a complete change in the French position on the current war ruled out? Because the dominant will in the current aggression is essentially linked to the American will and its strategy in the Middle East, which is based on the end or overall weakening of the forces opposed to the integration of Israel into its regional environment Arab.
On the other hand, the far-right trend in Israel is imbued with a spirit of revenge, which keeps European countries in a subordinate position and in an ineffective secondary role, notably France.
secondly: The reasons linked to the general critical spirit which prevails within the political class in France with regard to the war, this spirit of support for the rights of the Palestinians and of opposition to the war, came from the left – which won first place in the last election; And if he did not obtain a government mission, it would be with what we could call the “dogullists” or certain elites affiliated with the same movement.
The position of Dominique de Villepin, French Minister of Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister during the era of Jacques Chirac, is an example of the repercussions of the war on the French political imagination, particularly among the elite who saw France as a power which was to maintain its independence of the United States of America. This perhaps reminds us of France’s position on the Iraq War in 2003, and the speech of Dominique de Villepin himself to the Security Council at that time.
This trend in France, although it does not have a significant participation in the political scene, is considered an extension of the elite of the Fifth Republic in France and its values, which gives it symbolic authority in the criticism and rational political debate. It appears at the current moment of aggression against Gaza and Lebanon through its effective contribution to shaping French public opinion on the major choices and positions that should be expressed by France as an extension of the values of the Enlightenment and one of the forces which helped to formulate the general features of the philosophy of human rights and freedoms after the Second World War.
The scenes of devastation in Gaza were enough to widen the circle of criticism on the French political scene, where the French president lost his majority to left-wing leader Mélenchon, who led a pioneering movement against aggression and war, and the constant reminder, coinciding with the European elections, of the resulting legal, moral and humanitarian crisis. This means that the aggression and the ongoing war are directly reflected in the Western political and cultural climate, which imposes a counter-dynamic, and it is here that we can understand the behavior of the French president.
The growing circle of criticism of the official French position on the aggression against Gaza and Lebanon in various political and cultural circles, as well as the positions of a large part of the political elite which publicly calls for an active role for France ; To stop the bleeding and save human lives, and before that, the protest movement led by the left, led by Mélenchon, in Parliament and in the French streets, exerted strong pressure on the French president.
Thus, Emmanuel Macron’s recent political decision regarding Lebanon occurred under intense internal pressure in response to images conveyed by the media of the destruction of lives in Gaza and Lebanon. This does not only concern France. The positions of a number of European politicians found themselves caught between the painful human cries conveyed by images and new media, and the immoral tendency to justify murder and devastation. by the Elysée are partly aimed at the French interior.
We can say here in a word that the French president, while seeking to preserve French interests in Lebanon and the French role of intervening alongside other regional and international powers, also works through this approach of symbolic participation in the general debate which takes place in France on aggression, that is to say to absorb the repercussions of the critical movement and its dynamics which are growing day by day in the face of the moral setback of unconditional support and absolute bias towards Israel.
Repeated massacres that targeted civilians and destroyed aspects of life were not enough to bring about a radical change in the French position in favor of Palestinian rights and the legitimacy of opposition to the occupation.
Considering the above reasons regarding the French position, the French role will not exceed the level of mediator between Iran and Lebanon on the one hand, and the United States of America and Israel on the other hand. This was demonstrated in Lebanon’s expression of commitment. to the implementation of Resolution 1701, as was evident in the communication with Iran, which led to a Lebanese reaction to Iran speaking on behalf of Lebanon.
But beyond the controversy surrounding the intervention of actors in the region, the future negotiation aimed at finding a political solution to the war that Israel is waging in Lebanon, the time horizon of which has been announced at more than two weeks , will be where France will be active in one way or another, and this is what differentiates Lebanon from Gaza.
noseAFrance’s initiative, although at an intermediate and ineffective level, represents a political move in general that is subject to the calculations of French interests in Lebanon and the region, and is not led by the remnants of the aggression that destroyed entire villages. in addition to the southern suburbs. Its political concern will also be linked to the status and extent of the political influence of the active forces in conflict with Israel, in particular by ensuring the elimination of the clutches of Lebanese Hezbollah in the south and its withdrawal from the borders, in addition other vestiges that the political situation in Lebanon could witness.
In conclusion: The repeated massacres that have affected civilians and destroyed aspects of life have not been enough to provoke a radical change in the French position in favor of the Palestinian right and the legitimacy to oppose the occupation, as stipulated in international human rights conventions and treaties, which the French philosophical and political spirit contributed effectively to its formulation, whether in the contexts of its initial training with the philosophy of the Social Contract and the Enlightenment, or in the balance of forces created by the Second World War, in which France maintained an active participation. its presence in the international system, or by the weight it represents within the European Union.
Therefore, the role that the French president is trying to play does not have a qualitative impact on the course of the war and aggression, because it is governed by purely French concerns, and it does not deviate from the American and Israeli demands to create intermediate spaces for negotiation.
The views expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of the Al Jazeera network.