de Gaulle _really_ should have known better; during his childhood his family were an anomaly in France--conservative Catholic Dreyfusards. He of all people should have ben aware of the irrationality of and the mass hysteria endemic to anti-Semitism and couched his language accordingly.

One difference between then and now is that French anti-semitism now has a domestic political component. This makes it more valuable and less likely to be discarded.

I suppose it has been said before, but "Vive la France libre"....

It seems hard cheese to lay European antisemitism on DeGaulle. Bad his speech may have been, but he was fertilizing overprepared ground, wasn't he?

Harry's point is a good one. I don't recall a lot of debate or objections to the abandonment of Israel anywhere in Europe. Countries like Holland and Norway used to be strong boosters, but no more.

Israel was popular when it was new and they were the underdog. Also, when a lot of Europeans had living relatives in Israel (who endured the Holocaust). Today, that is a distant memory.

Come on. Let's get the history straight.

Israel and France were partners (with Britain) in their joint 1956 attack on Egypt, while Eisenhower sided with the Egyptians and made the Anglo-Franco-Israeli conqerors give back the Suez Canal.

Later, De Gaulle was the key supporter of Israel conventional and nuclear military development up through Israel launching the pre-emptive 1967 war, while the U.S. was much less enthusiastic. After Israel's regional military dominance was assured in 1967, De Gaulle became more even-handed, while the U.S. turned dramatically toward the new top dog.

In summary, the U.S. didn't do much for Israel after voting for partition in 1947 until Israel emerged as the regional powerhouse in 1967. France, in contrast, was Israel's close ally during the desperate years up through the 1967 6-days war, then became less enthusiastic once Israel became an occupying power. I'm sorry if this history doesn't prove the inevitable evilness of the French, but that's just the way it happened.

Isn't that the point of the story, that as soon as De Gaulle recognized Israel was militarily superior to France he resorted to classic anti-Semitic tropes?

Steve:

So is your point that France and the US were motivated by competing theories of realpolitick or of principles?

France moved from being a traditional European colonial power (let's control and dictate and the Israelis stand for what we stand for and can help us) to a post-sixties, UN-loving, US-challenging bystander (the Arabs are a lot richer and more promising than the Israelis, so let's get real here and cut some turf).

I agree that the US may be criticized for being slow off the mark with respect to Israel, but to present France as putting principle above interest is a bit much. But, if I am wrong, why did they switch?

France supported Israel while it was the underdog (De Gaulle is largely the stepfather of the Israeli nuclear arsenal). America didn't support Israel much until Israel became the regional overdog by starting and winning the 1967 war.

To OJ: Israel was hardly militarily superior to France in 1967. France had a massive military, including its own nuclear arsenal, trained to fight the Soviets, who were a lot scarier than any combination of Arabs. But after June 1967, the Israelis were clearly dramatically better than the Arabs (which isn't all that hard), so help from France was no longer necessary for Israeli survival. De Gaulle was, first and always, a French patriot, so he found more pressing uses for French resources than a foreign country that no longer was in much danger.

Why did American opinion and government support swing in the opposite direction, toward Israel, after the Israelis destroyed Arab air forces on the ground in Pearl Harbor-type raids, occupied lots of Arab territory, and built a nuclear arsenal?

General Patton explained it well: "Americans love a winner." We hadn't thought all that much of Israel when it was in danger of being eradicated. Once Israel's survival was assured (with French assistance), America became Israel's biggest supporter.

We also had other reasons for not liking Israel previously, such as that it was a staunchly socialist country with little economic freedom, and that it had never done much of anything for us in our struggle with communism. Nixon (along with Senator Henry Jackson, independently) came up with the brilliant ploy in 1969 of luring some traditionally socialist Jewish intellectuals into the actively anti-Soviet fold (the "neoconservatives") by linking support for Israel with opposition to the Soviet Union. This eventually proved very useful to Reagan in mustering the support needed to destroy the Soviet Union.

I'm sorry if this history doesn't fit in with popular views about the eternal moral purity of America and the eternal moral depravity of France, but that's just the way it happened.

Steve:

What uses? France had already lost to Algerian rabble and the Vietnamese. What glorious victories did it post after '67?

I'd not make any moral claim about our support of Israel, but do think it better fits the pattern that France (De Gaulle) turned on Israel once it became the superior power than that they felt like their baby could stand on its own.

Steve:

What uses? France had already lost to Algerian rabble and the Vietnamese. What glorious victories did it post after '67?

I'd not make any moral claim about our support of Israel, but do think it better fits the pattern that France (De Gaulle) turned on Israel once it became the superior power than that they felt like their baby could stand on its own.