MACRON IS TRYING TO CURRY THE FAVOR OF FRANCE'S GROWING MUSLIM POPULATION

The Macron-Starmer delusional disorder

Are these two leaders trying to keep “Palestine” out of their own countries by way of deflection? 

 

By Yisrael Medad 

 

JNS

Aug 6, 2025 

 

 

Muslims in Paris with their prayer rugs get ready for Friday prayers.

 

Following the decision in late May 2024, when Spain, Ireland and Norway formally recognized a Palestinian state in “an attempt to refocus attention on efforts to find a political solution to the war in the Middle East,” more countries have recently joined the bandwagon.

French President Emmanuel Macron has declared so, but he is waiting for the U.N. Security Council in September. France will be “true to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.” Likewise, Britain’s Prime Minister, Keith Starmer, confirmed that the United Kingdom plans to recognize the “state of Palestine” at the gathering unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.

Starmer’s conditional recognition, which includes allowing the United Nations to restart aid supplies and to make it clear that there will be no annexation of the West Bank, is a bit awkward. Besides the criticism he has received, among which is an assertion that recognizing a Palestinian state would destabilize international law, he has basically awarded a right very few populations have been privileged with: to deny statehood to one people who have enjoyed such a status for seven decades.

Starmer demands that Hamas immediately release all 50 remaining hostages, sign up for a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the future government of the Strip. If that is not the exact opposite of realpolitik, I don’t know what could be. And if Hamas rejects that framework, can other terror groups agree, such as the PLO, even though their intentions are basically aligned with the goals of Hamas?

Let us put Starmer’s nonsensical thinking aside. What about Macron?

My initial thought after hearing that he would solemnly announce in about one month that France, “true to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East,” will recognize the “Palestine” was to feel sorry for the residents of New Caledonia, the Kanaki people.

The French colonized those Pacific islands in 1853 and, among other actions, practiced a slave trade to have the population work on their plantations. Despite agreements over the years, the indigenous people are still waiting for full independence.

I also thought about the Mediterranean island of Corsica, annexed by France in 1768. It is defined as a “territorial collectivity” of France, but those folks, too, are still in a stage of waiting. In their case, they expect “a form of autonomy” in the near future. The Arabs of Judea and Samaria could have achieved that some 45 years ago.

My second thought was whether Macron’s maneuver sought to deflect attention from his legal imbroglio with political commentator and podcaster Candace Owens. The far-right political commentator and podcaster, who engages in medieval-style antisemitic conspiracy theories, claims that Macron’s wife, Brigitte, was born male. The couple has filed a legal action in Delaware asserting that Owens has been spreading “outlandish, defamatory and far-fetched fictions.”

Whether or not someone files against Macron for his outlandish, defamatory and far-fetched fiction about “Palestine” would, I admit, be too good to be true. To assert, as he does, that his decision is “consistent with [France’s] historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” is stripping away the historical truth, as well as promoting a false narrative for future developments.

My last immediate reaction was to mull over the real reason for Macron’s announcement. Could it be memories of the early eighth-century C.E. conquest and occupation of France during the Muslim Umayyad caliphate? That period was a great era for Muslim colonization and empire-building.

Could Macron be seeking to stave off another, modern-style occupation of France by Muslims? Is he placating the pro-Palestine movement in his country, which, in turn, is creating a feeding frenzy of violent, murderous Jew-hatred against French Jews?

Another matter of concern is exactly what lies behind France’s historic commitment to peace in the Middle East. How historic is that history?

During the First Crusade, Raymond IV, Count de Saint-Gilles from Toulouse, France, on his way to conquer Jerusalem in 1101, set up a fort near Shiloh known since then as Sinjil, a mispronunciation of his name. The town was established in 1105. Its residents are descended from the Murra Tribe, which emigrated from the Arabian Peninsula. While not biblical, that still may be too ancient for our current woke generation.

A good place to start would be in 1847, when the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem re-established French Catholic charity institutions, which became tools for colonization, and cultural and economic domination, as well as missions of conversion. It was in 1882 that French pilgrims set off for Jerusalem on a first “penitential pilgrimage” that proved a future success.

All that was developing due to this foreign interventionist campaign came to a halt in December 1918, when Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau of France and Prime Minister David Lloyd George of Great Britain reached an agreement whereby France yielded its claim to Palestine. It is thought that Clemenceau was fixated on La Syrie Intégrale (a “Greater Syria”), which would include part of Palestine to the south and Cilicia to the north.

Is Macron trying to reinvent a “presence,” as it were, in “Palestine”—this time an Arab one, rather than a Jewish national homeland?

When Macron received interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa on May 7, he announced this was in line with “France’s longstanding (sic!) commitment to supporting the Syrian people in their aspiration for peace and democracy.”

Or is Macron trying to keep “Palestine” out of France? Or rather, any “Palestinian refugees”?

On July 11 this year, France’s National Court of Asylum ruled that Palestinian nationals from Gaza who are not under the U.N. protection may be granted refugee status. The ruling is a precedent, as previously, only Palestinians covered by the mandate of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) could be considered for refugee status in France under specific conditions.

Macron is not only playing with history, diplomacy and humanitarian ideals; he is playing with fire. Recognition of an Arab Palestine before peace and security for Israel is in place is not commensurate with the vision he puts forward. The “Free Palestine” campaign is genocidal in its intended results to Israel, and those promoting a two-state solution have blinded themselves, purposefully or foolishly, to its consequences.

Worse, that act surely will cause more pain, suffering and death than the media has been highlighting—quite disingenuously at that.