President Charles de Gaulle's November 1967 warning about Israhell

[yankeedoodle]

DE GAULLE, ABOUT ISRAEL'S BIG MISTAKE IN 1967: "WARRIOR PEOPLE AND DETERMINED TO EXPAND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!"
https://inpolitics.ro/de-gaulle-despre-marea-eroare-a-israel-in-1967-popor-razboinic-si-decis-sa-se-extinda-cit-mai-mult_1860080083.html

In November 1967, a few months after the 6-day war in which Israel had expanded its territory to the detriment of Syria and Egypt, the president of France, Charles de Gaulle, held a historic press conference, today considered a landmark moment, in which he warned that the Jewish people had made a great error, which would have major consequences in time. Below are the general's visionary words about the unpleasant surprise Israel gave the international community that year by expanding its territory after the Six Day War.

"The establishment of a Zionist center in Palestine between the two world wars, to go back in time, and then the establishment of the State of Israel after the Second World War, created, at the time, several concerns. Indeed, the question was raised, even among many Jews, whether the establishment of this community on lands acquired on more or less justifiable terms and in the midst of hostile Arab peoples would not lead to endless and endless conflicts. Some even feared that the Jews, who had hitherto been scattered, and who remained as they had always been, that is, a chosen people, self-assured and dominant, might, once gathered in the places of their ancient glory, change their full aspirations of emotion they had for 19 centuries: "next year in Jerusalem".
With all the positions for or against that they aroused, or rather, that they provoked in certain countries at certain times, a considerable capital of interest and even sympathy in their favor has been accumulated, above all, it must to say, in the Christian world. A capital which was nourished by the immense memory of the Old Testament, nourished with all the resources of a magnificent liturgy, maintained by the compassion which their ancient endurance inspired and which the legend of the wandering Jew has romanticized, in our country, increased by the horrible persecutions of which they suffered during the Second World War and increased with the regaining of a homeland, thanks to their constructive work and the courage of their soldiers. Therefore, in addition to the financial support, influence and significant propaganda that the Israelis received from Jewish circles in America and Europe, many countries, including France, watched with satisfaction the establishment of their state on the territory recognized by the great powers, with the desire that they would manage, using a little modesty, to have a peaceful relationship with their neighbors. It must be said that these aspects changed little after 1956.
In the wake of the Franco-British Suez expedition, we saw the emergence of a determined and warlike Israel state, ready to expand. Further, the act of doubling his population by immigration suggested that the territory he had obtained would not have long sufficed him, and that he would have been inclined to take every opportunity to extend it. Therefore, the fifth republic distanced itself from Israel in relation to the special and close ties that the previous regime had with this state and, on the contrary, encouraged the relaxation of relations with the Middle East. Of course, we were maintaining cordial relations with the Israeli government and supplying it with armaments for its potential defense needs, but at the same time we were offering it advice on moderation.
Especially with regard to disputes over the waters of the Jordan and the periodic clashes between forces on both sides. In the end, we did not approve of their installation in a neighborhood of Jerusalem that they had occupied, and we kept our embassy in Tel Aviv. On the other hand, after the end of the Algerian colonization, we resumed with the Arab peoples of the East the same policy of friendship and cooperation which had been for centuries the policy of France in this part of the world and which, for rational and sentimental reasons, must today be one of the basis of our foreign policy. Of course, we did not hesitate to inform the Arabs that, for us, the state of Israel is a reality, and we do not admit that it must be destroyed. Therefore, on the whole, it could have been imagined that one day our country could directly help to bring about a real, guaranteed peace in the East, provided no new drama came to destroy it. Unfortunately, the drama that came was prepared by a serious and constant tension resulting from the scandalous fate of the refugees in Jordan, as well as the threat of destruction propagated against Israel.
On May 22, the Aqaba incident, regrettably created by Egypt, provided a pretext for those seeking confrontation. To avoid hostilities, France proposed as early as May 24 to the other three great powers to forbid either of the two sides from starting the fight.
On June 2, the French government officially declared that, if necessary, it would condemn any party that took military action first. And this he clearly repeated to all the states involved. I communicated the same in person on May 24 to Mr. Eban, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel whom I met in Paris. I told him something like this: "If Israel is attacked, we will not allow its destruction, but if it attacks, we will condemn your initiative. Of course, despite the numerical inferiority of your population, given that you are much better organized, much more united and much better armed than the Arabs, I have no doubt that, if necessary, you will achieve military successes.
But then you will find yourself engaged on the ground and, from the international point of view, in an increasingly difficult situation, the more so as the war in the East cannot but create a regrettable world-wide tension and have very unfortunate consequences for many countries. Therefore, you who have become conquerors, we will gradually begin to expose your shortcomings. We know that the voice of France was not heard, because Israel attacked and captured, in six days of fighting, the objectives it wanted to achieve. Now he organizes an occupation on the territories he has conquered, which cannot but involve oppression, repression, expulsion if there is resistance against him, which he in turn qualifies as terrorism. It is true that the two belligerents are currently respecting, to a more or less precarious and irregular extent, the ceasefire imposed by the UN. But it is obvious that this conflict is only suspended and can only have a solution through the international community.
But for a solution to be found, unless the United Nations reverses its own decision 9 of 1948 nn), the solution must be based on the return of territories acquired by force, the cessation of all hostilities and the recognition of each state involved by all the others. After that, by decisions of the UN, with the presence and guarantee of their force, it would probably be possible to establish in detail the borders, the living and security conditions on both sides, the fate of refugees and minorities, as well as the rules of free navigation for all in the Gulf of Aqaba and the Suez Canal. That would be necessary and, as France argued, an international status for Jerusalem would also be needed.
In order for such a solution to be implemented, it is obvious that the agreement of the great powers is needed, which would automatically involve the agreement of the UN. And if such an agreement were to become a reality, France would be ready to provide its political, economic and military support for it to be truly implemented. However, it is not clear how such an agreement could emerge as long as one of the four major powers has not yet withdrawn from the hideous conflict it has elsewhere (the US Vietnam War nn). Because everything is interconnected in today's world. Without the tragedy in Vietnam, the conflict between Israel and the Arab states would not have reached its current form. And if Southeast Asia were to see the return of peace, the East could quickly do the same, following the general relaxation that would follow such an event." (BTI translation and adaptation)