The French betrayal

By

Nidra Poller is an astute political commentator and also a novelist living in Paris. Faithful long—time readers may remember the three articles she has contributed to AT. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, she takes a look ($link) at France's 'seduce and betray' policy toward America in dealing with Hezb'allah. Not only is the analysis smart and informative, but Ms. Poller really knows how to write. For example:

And then that 21st—century fetish, the "international community," led by France, drowned that resolve in the cheap perfume of multilateral diplomacy. U.N. Resolution 1701 is a lace handkerchief fluttered in the face of reality. As soon as the resolution took effect, the instigators and perpetrators of the attack celebrated. The resolution tightens Hezbollah's stranglehold by handing it a victory it could not earn on the battlefield; Iran warmed up its exterminating engines; Syria decided that Hezbollah—type action was more promising than diplomatic acrobatics; Hamas swore it would not be outdone by the brave fighting brothers. In other words, jihad.

And

Mr. Douste—Blazy's obsequious pledge of allegiance to the great civilized state of Iran, "factor of stabilization in the region," was not a fluke; it was the tip—off. Far too much has been made of President Chirac's personal gripe with Syrian President Bashar Assad, and far too little attention is paid to France's troubling complicity with Iran and its merciless Hezbollah arm. The charming French minister of defense, Michèle Alliot—Marie, says she is not sending troops unless and until the U.N. can guarantee their safety. An anonymous source cited by Le Monde journalist Mouna Naïm claims that a French diplomat went directly to the Iranians to obtain a promise of mutual nonbelligerency. Barah Mikhail, a fellow of the French government—friendly IRIS think tank, spelled it out in an Aug. 19 radio interview: France doesn't want to be put in a situation where its soldiers would have to side with Israel against Hezbollah. To choose between a Western democratic ally and a terrorist organization seems too morally troubling for Paris.

The article is a real treat to read. The staggering perfidy of the French is seriously yet wittily potrayed. I only hope that it gets published on a the free—access Opinoinjournal.com page so more people can read it.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Thomas Lifson   8 24 06

Nidra Poller is an astute political commentator and also a novelist living in Paris. Faithful long—time readers may remember the three articles she has contributed to AT. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, she takes a look ($link) at France's 'seduce and betray' policy toward America in dealing with Hezb'allah. Not only is the analysis smart and informative, but Ms. Poller really knows how to write. For example:

And then that 21st—century fetish, the "international community," led by France, drowned that resolve in the cheap perfume of multilateral diplomacy. U.N. Resolution 1701 is a lace handkerchief fluttered in the face of reality. As soon as the resolution took effect, the instigators and perpetrators of the attack celebrated. The resolution tightens Hezbollah's stranglehold by handing it a victory it could not earn on the battlefield; Iran warmed up its exterminating engines; Syria decided that Hezbollah—type action was more promising than diplomatic acrobatics; Hamas swore it would not be outdone by the brave fighting brothers. In other words, jihad.

And

Mr. Douste—Blazy's obsequious pledge of allegiance to the great civilized state of Iran, "factor of stabilization in the region," was not a fluke; it was the tip—off. Far too much has been made of President Chirac's personal gripe with Syrian President Bashar Assad, and far too little attention is paid to France's troubling complicity with Iran and its merciless Hezbollah arm. The charming French minister of defense, Michèle Alliot—Marie, says she is not sending troops unless and until the U.N. can guarantee their safety. An anonymous source cited by Le Monde journalist Mouna Naïm claims that a French diplomat went directly to the Iranians to obtain a promise of mutual nonbelligerency. Barah Mikhail, a fellow of the French government—friendly IRIS think tank, spelled it out in an Aug. 19 radio interview: France doesn't want to be put in a situation where its soldiers would have to side with Israel against Hezbollah. To choose between a Western democratic ally and a terrorist organization seems too morally troubling for Paris.

The article is a real treat to read. The staggering perfidy of the French is seriously yet wittily potrayed. I only hope that it gets published on a the free—access Opinoinjournal.com page so more people can read it.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Thomas Lifson   8 24 06