Before Mr. Netanyahu came to power, Israel's great historical leaders, whatever their political sensibilities, were acutely aware of this vulnerability the Yom Kippur War made manifest.
Yitzhak Rabin, who had seen at close quarters the peril to the homeland, defended, with unparalleled conviction and political will, the idea that there wo…
Before Mr. Netanyahu came to power, Israel's great historical leaders, whatever their political sensibilities, were acutely aware of this vulnerability the Yom Kippur War made manifest.
Yitzhak Rabin, who had seen at close quarters the peril to the homeland, defended, with unparalleled conviction and political will, the idea that there would be no peace or serenity for Israel if the Palestinians were not also recognized as a free and sovereign state.
At Camp David, Menachem Begin, who came from the right of the right, courageously made the choice of peace with Israel's main enemy, post-Nasser Egypt.
Ariel Sharon, who had realized the powerlessness of force during his controversial intervention in Lebanon, had, on the eve of the health accident that was to strike him down, decided to lead his country to renounce its colonial ambitions in the West Bank.
These men had foreseen and fully recognized, for Yitzhak Rabin at least, that Israel would only find peace on condition that it established a balanced relationship with the Arab states around it, and with the men and women of Palestine, based on mutual respect and the sharing of the benefits of peace.
The break in Israeli policy introduced in recent years by Mr. Netanyahu's successive governments is certainly not the sole cause of the new situation, but it has contributed mightily to it.
The Israeli Prime Minister and his government - built in a break with the secular, liberal tradition that has dominated Israel's domestic history since its inception - have seemed oblivious to this structural vulnerability of the Hebrew state, and have acted as if the Palestinian problem belonged to the past, and that there was no longer any reason to take into account the expectations or fear the initiatives coming from a Palestinian community that is divided, disqualified and, in its most extreme forms - those of Hamas - quite simply bought off by its enemy.
On a technical level, it is clear that Mr. Netanyahu, who is without doubt the least well-versed in military affairs of all the heads of government who have preceeded him in office since the creation of Israel, has not been able to maintain, between the political authorities, the IDF and the intelligence services, the close solidarity necessary for the constant mobilization of the security apparatus on the right issues. In the short term, these shortcomings have had serious consequences.
However, the main issue is political. Mr. Netanyahu seemed to imagine that the establishment of peaceful and cooperative relations with Israel's Arab neighbors - an excellent ambition in itself, and one that will prove highly useful tomorrow in the necessary quest for appeasement - could have the indirect, but in his view precious, power to absolve Israel from seeking a balanced and respectful agreement with the Palestinians, respectful of their deepest expectations and aspirations.
What's more, with the Abraham Accords having enabled the Arab states to abandon the Palestinians to their sad fate, the Israeli government felt free to embark on a creeping but brutal and determined relaunch of its settlement policy in the West Bank.
Israel's policy has changed, but it would be unfair to attribute to the Hebrew state the monopoly of the new brutalization of the world from which the horror of October 7 emerged. Everywhere, the forces committed to moderation, cooperation and peace have been defeated. That the Palestinians have been increasingly and suicidally tempted to take refuge in a kind of political nihilism cannot, alas, surprise us. Could a population with no future, and therefore no hope, be tempted by moderate parties with nothing to offer?
The United States, too, bears its share of historical responsibility for arming the trap, having given little encouragement to European efforts in favor of a peace process based on the quest for a two-state solution, and having, at Donald Trump's instigation, swung over to the crime-pusher camp by breaking the Paris agreements with Iran and endorsing the transfer of its embassy to Jerusalem.
Europe, for its part, lacked neither lucidity nor imagination in its obstinacy to support the only model capable of transforming long-standing adversaries into partners, but it proved incapable of withstanding the shock when President Trump decided to sound the charge against any solution based on balance and common sense - strength of analysis, weakness of will.
How, in these conditions, can we fail to see that it is today the ideological heirs of the assassins of Anwar el-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin who together hold the pen of the tragedy that is being written before our eyes?
What can we do to help peoples in distress chart the right course? In the short term, we must ensure that a legitimate counter-attack, aimed exclusively at destroying the aggressor's military means, avoids the two major pitfalls that everyone has clearly identified. Firstly, the risk of an uncontrolled escalation that could lead to a general conflagration. Behind Hamas, there is Hezbollah; behind Hezbollah, there is Iran; behind Iran, there are Russia and China.
In this respect, let us pay a fitting tribute to the composure and commitment of President Biden who, unlike his predecessor, is unquestionably putting the full weight of the United States behind moderation, de-escalation, the release of hostages and the right to life of civilian populations.
The second major risk is that of mass annihilation of civilian populations, used by some as human shields and by others as an outlet for the temptation of revenge, to use the worrying expression of the Israeli Prime Minister.
As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, France is strongly committed to this essential issue. As well as issuing warnings, the European Union must shoulder all its responsibilities to work with humanitarian organizations to ensure the massive delivery of life-saving supplies to a civilian population in deep distress. Let's make these strong gestures the instrument for the return of the hostages.
There are times and places when it is criminal not to be there. Europe would never recover from remaining passive in such dramatic circumstances. All that remains is to build a future of peace. This is a daunting task, given the wall of distress and hatred that now separates Israelis and Palestinians. Today, it is both too late and too early to establish two states on Palestinian soil.
It is, however, time - indeed, high time - to start creating the conditions that will make this dual creation possible when the time comes. The first of these conditions is for Israel to put an end to its colonization policy and finally recognize that the solution to the Palestinian problem cannot be achieved by exporting Western Palestinians to Egypt and Eastern Palestinians to Jordan.
The second of these conditions is to recreate, notably with the support of the moderate states of the Abrahamic Pact, an active, respected Palestinian authority capable of taking over in Gaza from an ashen Hamas and negotiating a status that respects Palestinian rights. Beyond the Middle East, good will exists, like that of Brazil, whose draft resolution France was right to support at the UN. It's up to us to join their efforts.
I would like to conclude by mentioning the essential role that the European Union must play in the service of peace in this tormented but close region. Europe, shattered and ruined, has rebuilt itself on a simple and powerful idea, the one that guided the Franco-German reconciliation: we can only find peace with our long-standing adversaries if we take their legitimate needs into account. It's up to Europe to convince Palestinians and Israelis of the relevance of its reconciliation plan, and it's up to France to convince our partners to rise to this historic challenge.
Before Mr. Netanyahu came to power, Israel's great historical leaders, whatever their political sensibilities, were acutely aware of this vulnerability the Yom Kippur War made manifest.
Yitzhak Rabin, who had seen at close quarters the peril to the homeland, defended, with unparalleled conviction and political will, the idea that there would be no peace or serenity for Israel if the Palestinians were not also recognized as a free and sovereign state.
At Camp David, Menachem Begin, who came from the right of the right, courageously made the choice of peace with Israel's main enemy, post-Nasser Egypt.
Ariel Sharon, who had realized the powerlessness of force during his controversial intervention in Lebanon, had, on the eve of the health accident that was to strike him down, decided to lead his country to renounce its colonial ambitions in the West Bank.
These men had foreseen and fully recognized, for Yitzhak Rabin at least, that Israel would only find peace on condition that it established a balanced relationship with the Arab states around it, and with the men and women of Palestine, based on mutual respect and the sharing of the benefits of peace.
The break in Israeli policy introduced in recent years by Mr. Netanyahu's successive governments is certainly not the sole cause of the new situation, but it has contributed mightily to it.
The Israeli Prime Minister and his government - built in a break with the secular, liberal tradition that has dominated Israel's domestic history since its inception - have seemed oblivious to this structural vulnerability of the Hebrew state, and have acted as if the Palestinian problem belonged to the past, and that there was no longer any reason to take into account the expectations or fear the initiatives coming from a Palestinian community that is divided, disqualified and, in its most extreme forms - those of Hamas - quite simply bought off by its enemy.
On a technical level, it is clear that Mr. Netanyahu, who is without doubt the least well-versed in military affairs of all the heads of government who have preceeded him in office since the creation of Israel, has not been able to maintain, between the political authorities, the IDF and the intelligence services, the close solidarity necessary for the constant mobilization of the security apparatus on the right issues. In the short term, these shortcomings have had serious consequences.
However, the main issue is political. Mr. Netanyahu seemed to imagine that the establishment of peaceful and cooperative relations with Israel's Arab neighbors - an excellent ambition in itself, and one that will prove highly useful tomorrow in the necessary quest for appeasement - could have the indirect, but in his view precious, power to absolve Israel from seeking a balanced and respectful agreement with the Palestinians, respectful of their deepest expectations and aspirations.
What's more, with the Abraham Accords having enabled the Arab states to abandon the Palestinians to their sad fate, the Israeli government felt free to embark on a creeping but brutal and determined relaunch of its settlement policy in the West Bank.
Israel's policy has changed, but it would be unfair to attribute to the Hebrew state the monopoly of the new brutalization of the world from which the horror of October 7 emerged. Everywhere, the forces committed to moderation, cooperation and peace have been defeated. That the Palestinians have been increasingly and suicidally tempted to take refuge in a kind of political nihilism cannot, alas, surprise us. Could a population with no future, and therefore no hope, be tempted by moderate parties with nothing to offer?
The United States, too, bears its share of historical responsibility for arming the trap, having given little encouragement to European efforts in favor of a peace process based on the quest for a two-state solution, and having, at Donald Trump's instigation, swung over to the crime-pusher camp by breaking the Paris agreements with Iran and endorsing the transfer of its embassy to Jerusalem.
Europe, for its part, lacked neither lucidity nor imagination in its obstinacy to support the only model capable of transforming long-standing adversaries into partners, but it proved incapable of withstanding the shock when President Trump decided to sound the charge against any solution based on balance and common sense - strength of analysis, weakness of will.
How, in these conditions, can we fail to see that it is today the ideological heirs of the assassins of Anwar el-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin who together hold the pen of the tragedy that is being written before our eyes?
What can we do to help peoples in distress chart the right course? In the short term, we must ensure that a legitimate counter-attack, aimed exclusively at destroying the aggressor's military means, avoids the two major pitfalls that everyone has clearly identified. Firstly, the risk of an uncontrolled escalation that could lead to a general conflagration. Behind Hamas, there is Hezbollah; behind Hezbollah, there is Iran; behind Iran, there are Russia and China.
In this respect, let us pay a fitting tribute to the composure and commitment of President Biden who, unlike his predecessor, is unquestionably putting the full weight of the United States behind moderation, de-escalation, the release of hostages and the right to life of civilian populations.
The second major risk is that of mass annihilation of civilian populations, used by some as human shields and by others as an outlet for the temptation of revenge, to use the worrying expression of the Israeli Prime Minister.
As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, France is strongly committed to this essential issue. As well as issuing warnings, the European Union must shoulder all its responsibilities to work with humanitarian organizations to ensure the massive delivery of life-saving supplies to a civilian population in deep distress. Let's make these strong gestures the instrument for the return of the hostages.
There are times and places when it is criminal not to be there. Europe would never recover from remaining passive in such dramatic circumstances. All that remains is to build a future of peace. This is a daunting task, given the wall of distress and hatred that now separates Israelis and Palestinians. Today, it is both too late and too early to establish two states on Palestinian soil.
It is, however, time - indeed, high time - to start creating the conditions that will make this dual creation possible when the time comes. The first of these conditions is for Israel to put an end to its colonization policy and finally recognize that the solution to the Palestinian problem cannot be achieved by exporting Western Palestinians to Egypt and Eastern Palestinians to Jordan.
The second of these conditions is to recreate, notably with the support of the moderate states of the Abrahamic Pact, an active, respected Palestinian authority capable of taking over in Gaza from an ashen Hamas and negotiating a status that respects Palestinian rights. Beyond the Middle East, good will exists, like that of Brazil, whose draft resolution France was right to support at the UN. It's up to us to join their efforts.
I would like to conclude by mentioning the essential role that the European Union must play in the service of peace in this tormented but close region. Europe, shattered and ruined, has rebuilt itself on a simple and powerful idea, the one that guided the Franco-German reconciliation: we can only find peace with our long-standing adversaries if we take their legitimate needs into account. It's up to Europe to convince Palestinians and Israelis of the relevance of its reconciliation plan, and it's up to France to convince our partners to rise to this historic challenge.