By John Q. Hosedrinker 
France condemned Israel’s seizure of the Golan Heights demilitarized zone, deeming it a violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement. The Israeli action, following Syrian rebel advances, has drawn international criticism, including from the UN, which noted Israeli occupation of seven positions within the buffer zone. France urged Israel to withdraw its forces and respect Syrian sovereignty. This follows similar condemnations from several nations, with only the US calling for a temporary Israeli presence.
Read the original article here
France’s recent call for Israel to withdraw its forces from the Syrian buffer zone has sparked a flurry of reactions, ranging from outright dismissal to accusations of hypocrisy. The core issue revolves around France’s perceived lack of authority to dictate Israeli military strategy, particularly given its own domestic and international challenges.
The immediate question raised is whether France intends to back up its demand with military action. Without a concrete plan for enforcing the withdrawal, many view the statement as empty posturing, a case of “all care, no responsibility.” This skepticism is fueled by France’s ongoing struggles in Africa, where accusations of inadequate border security and mishandling of weapons caches abound. These failures fuel the argument that France lacks the credibility to lecture Israel on military operations.
The suggestion that France should focus on its domestic issues before interfering in Middle Eastern affairs resonates strongly. The precarious political situation in France, highlighted by a recent no-confidence vote against the government, underscores the perception that Macron’s active foreign policy is a distraction from more pressing concerns at home. This focus on internal problems leads to questioning France’s capacity to effectively influence events in a volatile region like Syria.
Israel’s likely response to France’s demand is a source of considerable speculation. Many believe Israel will firmly reject the demand, viewing the buffer zone as crucial for national security. The argument that a vacated buffer zone would expose French cities to potential threats from non-state actors is not taken seriously.
The consensus regarding France’s influence is one of deep skepticism. Its inability to control situations within its own sphere of influence, particularly in Africa, significantly undermines any claims to authority in the Middle East. The irony isn’t lost on many that multiple countries with contrasting geopolitical interests – Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Turkey – share France’s condemnation, suggesting the position may be flawed. This aligns with the widely held view that if these four nations agree, there’s likely something wrong with the proposed solution.
The comparison to Russia’s actions in Ukraine is also frequently raised. Israel’s justification for its presence in the buffer zone, akin to Russia’s rationale in Ukraine, highlights the double standards perceived in international responses to similar situations. Many observers feel that the Suez Crisis should have taught former European colonial powers to refrain from dictating actions in the Middle East. The call for withdrawal is seen as a reassertion of imperial ambitions, a historical mistake to be avoided.
Furthermore, the call for withdrawal is viewed as a symbolic gesture lacking practical consequences. Some argue that it is purely for public consumption, a way for France to align itself with certain narratives without risking real intervention. The lack of any substantial UN response to the buffer zone situation is noted; the expected immediate condemnation of Israel by the UN seems to be absent, further diminishing France’s initiative.
Ultimately, the prevailing sentiment is one of dismissal. The perceived lack of a strategic plan, the inconsistencies within France’s own actions, and the lack of widespread international support all conspire to make France’s call for withdrawal seem inconsequential. The numerous counterpoints raised, emphasizing France’s internal challenges and its lack of real leverage, underscore that while France may speak, its words carry little weight in the context of Israeli military decisions in Syria. The overriding belief is that Israel will simply ignore France’s request, highlighting the limitations of unilateral pronouncements on complex regional security issues.