Glamour instead of policy

Last week was marked by the state visit of Nicholas Sarkozy and his wife to the UK. This visit was widely reported by national newspapers and sparked much buzz about a new era in Anglo-French relations.
Mr. Sarkozy delivered a speech about virtues of British people and referred to our Parliament as historical ancestor to other democratic institutes. He heaped praise on British resolve during WW2 and wanted to look like an Anglophile. In fact, he is one. Gordon Brown didn't lag behind and promised a new "Entente formidable" with French. Carla Bruni tried to look like First Lady should look like and to put her rather frivolous past behind. Many journalists and members of public were fascinated by her glamour and now she enjoys some kind of admiration by British public.
Yet it seems like another example of emotion taking over sensible analysis. Should we actually scrutinise what Mr. Sarkozy has done in France over the last year and what he offers to his partners both here and in the US, we would be surprised. Because for all his talk during the election season about new France and the greatest reforms in our generation, he abstained from realisation of his programme. Having encountered the powerful resistance of France's almighty unions, he clearly prefers not to make any decisive moves. His dithering though has had a negative impact on his poll ratings because now he is criticised from both sides of political spectrum. For left wing he is dangerous liberal reformist and for right wing he is ditherer not fulfilling his promises.
As for his talk about bigger NATO involvement of France it is noteworthy that he wants it on French conditions. As it was noted by American experts Sarkozy wants France to have voice in NATO decision process. This may lead to possible rifts and arguments within NATO when France would act versus plans of Britain and the US. Also France wants by its involvement in NATO to be the main pillar of European defence forces and to influence European defence policy. And here we come to another important point. Mr. Sarkozy is very fond of European Union and he wants to further the integration during his spell as President of the EU Council. He denied his own voters a vote on the Lisbon treaty and it seems he will do his utmost to write his name in history of the EU. He has some Napoleonic ambitions and his policies may lead to conflict with other EU members. Angela Merkel was already angered by Sarkozy's proposal of "Mediterranean Union" and this might be just the first sign of Paris falling out with major European powers.
While Carla wooed British public, her husband tried to woo his Anglo-Saxon partners. But we should understand the true reasons of his policy and to follow his actual deeds. For it seems there were many right words but no right deeds. With his promises not fulfilled, his slumping ratings and looming financial crisis, his private life being opened to public doesn't add much gravitas to his person. Yet people were more interested here in wardrobe of Sarkozy's wife than in his policies just as people across the pond are more inclined to hear lofty rhetoric than analyse sensible reform proposals. As for me, I prefer Obama's speeches to glamour of Carla Bruni. At least, they have some political meaning.
In this time of emotions and mood running the world we should use our brains to make our future. We should be cautious and consider all options. Therefore we shouldn't' be deceived by Sarkozy's apparent addiction to Anglo-Saxons for he is trying to push his own agenda - so we should guard our interests. As for Mr. Sarkozy, it would be better for him if he tried to refrain from posturing and restrain his ambitions and actually do the reforms he promised. For if even leaders don't keep their promises, how on earth can people trust politicians again?

Middle East mistranslation

All big media organisations broke today with news of Israeli minister warning Palestinians of looming Holocaust. It was reported by Times (under inflammatory title "Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza), Daily Telegraph and other news outlets. What did happen was actually this. Matan Vilnai, Israeli deputy defence minister, used the term 'shoah' speaking of consequences of continuing missile attacks on Israel from Gaza. "The more qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," he said. This was either mistranslated or misunderstood as a statement of ensuing holocaust for the Palestinians. While the term 'Ha-Shoah' means the Holocaust in modern Hebrew, a shoah has a literal meaning of catastrophe or disaster. The Israeli Government made this point clearly in a statement it issued to mitigate the impact from alleged misunderstanding. It said that Mr Vilnai meant 'disaster' and was not referring to the genocide. However it was too late to stop supporters of Hamas who used Vilnai's words to make their point of the genocide being exercised upon the Palestinians. They compared Israelis with Nazis while deliberately forgetting that it was their stubborn position and interminable war against the Jewish state that led to current sufferings of people in Gaza. From the beginning of the year more than one hundred missiles were fired from Gaza at adjacent Jewish towns like Sderot and Ashkelon. However this has not received much media attention and Hamas statement was reported by major news agencies along with some horrific pictures of Israeli 'atrocities' in Gaza on this week.
Yet this issue deserves putting in wider context. The considerable inclination by Palestinians and their Western supporters to see Israelis as modern Nazis is disturbing. Europe has been a home for the most terrifying genocides in recent history and now many Europeans feel guilty for their countries' involvement in these atrocities. But considering Israelis as Nazis and Israel as an apartheid state makes this guilty less uneasy. This is fostered by Muslim population in Europe that makes its own case for fight with 'racist Zionists'. Unlike the US where Jewish electorate still has a considerable influence over foreign policy, in Europe it is Muslims that stand by their ideas and have a share of votes.
The biggest question is whether we want to be on one side with Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists or with the single democratic state in the Middle East, whether we want to reject our allies and support our bitter enemies? It is whether we want to stand together as the Free World or to bow under barbarism and cruelty (and it refers not only to Islamic but to religious fundamentalism and terrorism altogether). This is the question that needs an urgent answer. And we should hope that self-deprecation wouldn't occupy the minds of our politicians and the answer will be the right one.