In September 1938, a democracy (the United Kingdom) and a tyranny(Nazi Germany) met in Munich – an event synonymous with appeasement and the sacrifice of tiny Czechoslovakia.
In August 1939, two tyrannies (the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany) signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact – an event that led to the deaths of over 50 million, among them 6 million Jews.
In May 2016, two democracies (France and the United States) will convoke some 30 states (represented by mostly democrats but some tyrants) to Paris, ostensibly to address the most persistent conflict in history – between Israelis and Palestinians – while disenfranchising the representatives of both.
Is this meeting to be an objective, impartial and balanced initiative to mediate an elusive peace?
Or is it to serve a diktat where Israel is targeted as the paschal lamb?
What then are the motives of the two co-hosts?
France, despite or because of its shared victimology with Israel as a target of Jihadist terrorism, is seeking to appease its burgeoning Muslim demography and the current government’s radical left components, while attempting to carve out protagonist glory on the international stage.
The United States, in its Obama twilight, following its neo-Cold War discomfiture at the hands of the Russian Tsar, seeks a cost-free, “no boots on the ground” Middle East role as cover for an Iranian appeasement policy that could hardly justify a premature Nobel Peace Prize.
France, only last month, revealed a worrying intent, by leading the charge on Jewish heritage, in UNESCO, to delegitimize the Jewish link to the Temple Mount and the Jewish integrity of the “Kotel”, its Western Wall.
Former Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, just before leaving office in February, sought to ensure his legacy by floating this conference as a trial balloon. He was, however, honest in threatening Israel – lest it reject the Paris doctrine – with a UN Security Council resolution that would damage its status unilaterally.
The tactical date for the presentation of this resolution was bruited for between late November and December, so not to impact on the United States Presidential election, but thereby permit a last-minute lame-duck Obama policy change by denying Israel its defensive American veto.
The Palestinians have welcomed the Franco-American proposal, knowing that, though not a state, they will be seated in the anteroom, with access to full information, communicating with media and represented by state proxies and NGO lobbyists.
Israel, a UN member-sovereign state, is denied entry – an insolence and discrimination bordering on antisemitism.
Will such treatment placate ISIS attacks in France and the United States? Not likely, but it will certainly encourage further anti-Semitic anti-Zionism of right and left in Europe and a surge in terrorism against Israel, but also greater violence across the Middle-East.
The conference ignores the reality that the Israel-Palestinian conflict has become the perpetual daily-bread of so many foreign offices, aid agencies and NGOs, that would be hard-placed to survive, should peace be achieved.
After all, this so-called intractable conflict is,arguably, the most solvable in today’s war-stricken world. If the self-declared peace-makers were to convince the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the conflict would be 90% resolved.
Palestinian obstinacy in doing so is proof of their thinly disguised intention for the elimination of the Jewish State.
UNESCO validation of a Palestinian heritage built on the theft of the Jewish narrative only perpetuates the conflict, by providing “Palestine” with a recognition denied to Israel.
Is then May 2016 to witness a “Munich” in Paris?
Russia as a World War II ally and now Mid-East Quartet partner, just as Germany and the United Kingdom for their own different historic and current reasons, must restrain Paris and Washington from evoking a scenario that would endanger not only Israel,but ultimately themselves.