The two guards were tasked with securing the area ahead of a scheduled visit by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot. This move reflects Israel’s insistence on continuing its actions that violate the historical and legal status quo in occupied Jerusalem, stressing that Israel has no sovereignty over it.

The official spokesperson for the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Sufyan Qudah, stressed in a statement the Kingdom’s absolute rejection of all Israeli measures aimed at changing the identity and character of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, and changing the historical and legal status quo in Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian holy sites.

He also reiterated the Kingdom’s support for France and its position against the attacks of the Israeli occupation forces.

Via Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

WION: “French FM Refuses To Enter Holy Site In Jerusalem In Protest | World News | WION”

( Foreign Policy in Focus ) – It took nearly a year for French President Emmanuel Macron to confront the uncomfortable truth: the path to peace in Gaza cannot be paved with more weapons to Israel. His recent remarks, sharp and unapologetic, reflected the urgency of shifting away from military escalation. “I think that today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering weapons to fight in Gaza,” Macron declared, laying bare his stance. He was unequivocal in his message, adding, “If you call for a ceasefire, it’s only consistent that you do not supply weapons of war.”

Although Macron clarified that France does not supply Israel with offensive arms, his pointed comments seemed aimed at the United States, which remains Israel’s primary arms provider. Washington and other European countries, despite acknowledging that these weapons have been used against civilians, continues to send shipments, fueling a conflict in Gaza that has already claimed more than 42,000 lives. Macron’s statement contributes to an ongoing shift in Europe’s approach that challenges the long-standing, uncritical support for Israel’s military actions.

Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, visibly agitated by Macron’s remarks, fired back with a familiar rhetoric of defense, invoking Israel’s right to self-protection. “As Israel fights the forces of barbarism led by Iran, all civilized nations should stand by us,” Netanyahu declared, calling Macron’s stance “a disgrace.” In a video addressed directly to the French president, Netanyahu doubled down, stating, “Israel will win with or without their support. But their shame will linger long after this war is over.”

His remarks underscore the widening rift between Israel and some of its traditional Western allies as the conflict escalates. Yet, the undercurrent of this diplomatic quarrel suggests something far more significant than a routine policy disagreement. Macron’s hesitation to unconditionally support Israel—despite the West’s long-standing alignment with its security needs—indicates a growing recognition among European leaders that Israel’s operations have surpassed legitimate self-defense and entered the realm of excessive, unchecked aggression.

As the violence grinds on, Macron’s call for a political solution reflects an emerging European discomfort with the status quo. The question now is whether Macron’s bluntness will push other leaders, especially in the United States and Germany, to reconsider their own complicity in fueling this relentless cycle of violence. For years, European nations have trod lightly around Israel’s military actions, particularly in its volatile engagements with Palestinian territories. But more European capitals are now witnessing massive protests against Israel, indicating increasingly discomfort in Europe with Netanyahu’s expansionist approach to the conflict, which is designed to shore up his domestic political survival rather than achieve long-term security.

“J’accuse,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Netanyahu’s heated response to Macron is particularly notable for its timing: October 7. The anniversary of the devastating violence that ignited yet another round of suffering for both Israelis and Palestinians should be a day of solemn reflection, yet Netanyahu has used it to double down on his military offensives on all sides of Israeli borders. Instead of working toward a resolution, his government has opted for broader assaults, widening the conflict, and targeting civilian infrastructure in a way that has drawn mounting international condemnation.

At the heart of Netanyahu’s strategy lies a grim reality: his political survival hinges on perpetuating conflict. Under intense scrutiny for his domestic failures and facing an increasingly fractured political landscape at home, Netanyahu has leaned into a hawkish narrative to rally support from his far-right base. By stoking fear and framing Israel as under siege, Netanyahu has stifled criticism from within his own country while marginalizing voices calling for a peaceful resolution.

Netanyahu’s war is not about elections or the protection of Israeli citizens. It is about staying in power. Expanding the conflict offers him a chance to maintain his political grip, even as international sentiment shifts uneasily away from unconditional support for Israel. Netanyahu’s actions have raised serious concerns about war crimes, particularly in light of Israel’s reported strikes on civilian areas and humanitarian corridors. Although Israel claims its right to target Hamas militants, the disproportionate toll on Palestinian civilians has been impossible to ignore. Hospitals, schools, and densely populated neighborhoods have been devastated, with little regard for international law or the principles of proportionality.

European nations, including France, have historically turned a blind eye to such violations, framing them as unfortunate but necessary casualties of war. But as the conflict drags on, Macron’s diplomatic distancing could mark the beginning of a broader shift in Europe’s stance toward Israel’s military campaigns. As the death toll rises in Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon and the international community grows more aware of the scale of the destruction, Netanyahu’s gamble may yet backfire. His attempt to expand the conflict for personal gain could result in the very political isolation he is desperate to avoid.

Foreign Policy in Focus

BFMTV reported that he said, “I think that today the priority is to return to a political solution, and that we must halt the delivery of arms for pursuing combat against Gaza. France will not deliver them.”

He clarified that France would continue to export defensive materiel, such as parts for the Israeli Iron Dome anti-missile defense system.

The station notes that President Joe Biden has often called for the avoidance of civilian casualties but has steadfastly declined to use his leverage with Israel, given its dependence on US weaponry and ammunition, to pressure it. In Britain, the Labour government of PM Keir Starmer has halted 10 out of 350 weapons licenses on the grounds that those ten weapons would likely be used by Israel against civilians.

Macron is the first leader of a major European country to argue for an embargo of offensive weapons to Israel in response to its total war on Gaza.

The French president has been heavily criticized by former French diplomats and other public figures for not showing the spine toward the Israeli Right that his predecessors such as François Mitterand and Jacques Chirac had. He had also come under fire from NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Oxfam. Last April, 115 French parliamentarians on the left demanded that he announce an arms embargo on Israel. The left more or less won the subsequent elections this summer, which the center-right Macron refused to recognize, appointing a right wing prime minister — which has also embroiled him in controversy.

A solid majority of French Muslims who vote have swung to the leftist Insoumise [Rebellion] Party. About 9% of the French are Muslim, though a large number of them, like the French in general, say they have no religion. Religious “nones” are at least 40% of the French population. France is close to many countries in the Arab world, who will have been filling the Quai D’orsay’s ears with bitter complaints about the Israeli genocide. The French Left and its Muslim component are furious about Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and Macron has been feeling the heat.

Macron underlined his continued commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself. He objected, however, “One does not fight terrorism and against terrorism by sacrificing the civilian population.” He did not, however, express any optimism about the prospects of a ceasefire any time soon. “I think,” he said, “that we are not heard.”

He views the policies of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “a mistake, including for the security of Israel.” He said that both French public opinion and that of the Middle Eastern public is full of resentment toward Israel’s wars, and that it is nurturing hatred.

Unlike the clueless Biden administration “blob,” which is blithely oblivious to the passions that are roiling the Middle Eastern public, the French diplomatic corps and intelligence agencies are full of old Arab hands who know exactly how furious everyone in the Arab world is with not only Israel but its Western backers over the Israeli slaughter of tens of thousands of women and children and its destruction of entire neighborhoods in Gaza — a process it has now begun in Lebanon with its attacks on Dahiyeh in East Beirut.

Macron said it was his priority to avoid an escalation in Lebanon. “The Lebanese people,” he affirmed, “cannot in turn by sacrificed, and Lebanon cannot become a new Gaza.”

There are already indications that the techniques of total war and indiscriminate bombardment deployed by Israel so extensively in Gaza are beginning to be applied to Lebanon.

In a later interview with BMFTV , Macron clarified his position. He was asked by the anchor about his call for an arms embargo, “to whom are you addressing this message?” He wanted to know if Macron was trying to reach President Biden.

The anchor followed up, inquiring whether Macron could be sure that defensive weapons sent by France to Israel weren’t being repurposed for strikes on Gaza or Lebanon.

Macron dismissed the second question, saying “this is absolutely not the case.”

It is true that if France is supplying components for the Iron Dome anti-missile system, they aren’t such that they could be used against Gaza or Lebanon offensively.

Macron pointed out that he has been extremely supportive of Israel in the wake of the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, and that he has hosted the families of Israeli hostages, the release of whom is a firm French demand.

He continued, “Nevertheless, we also strive to be consistent, and when we call for a ceasefire, it applies to Gaza. This was also true for Lebanon last week. So, we strive not to call for a ceasefire while continuing to deliver weapons for war. And I think this is simply a matter of coherence.”

Macron’s logic here is impeccable, and his mere statement of the case shows up how hypocritical and self-contradictory the policies of the Biden administration are toward this issue.

He reiterated his demand for a ceasefire in Gaza and “the resumption of full-scale humanitarian actions,” as well as diplomatic progress toward a two-state solution.

He added, “As for Lebanon, we also call for a ceasefire. I furthermore note that last week in New York, President Biden and I endorsed a ceasefire text, and thus the United States of America was favorable towards Lebanon. This text was discussed with both the Lebanese and Israel, who were urged to adopt it.”

Lebanon was created by the French when they militarily occupied Syria in 1920, since it was a part of Syria along the Mediterranean coast that had a Christian majority, which made it easier for Western, Christian rule to be accepted. Muslim-majority Syria staged a significant revolt in the late 1930s, and by 1945 it had gained independence legally (de facto independence came in 1946 with the French withdrawal). France continues to view Lebanon and Syria as its spheres of influence. Macron rescued then Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri from Saudi Arabia when Mohamed Bin Salman kidnapped him in 2017.

Macron blasted Netanyahu for rejecting the Franco-American call for a ceasefire in Lebanon.

He seemed to target Biden when he said, “So yes, if we call for a ceasefire, coherence means not supplying the weapons for war. I believe that those who provide them cannot call each day alongside us for a ceasefire.”

He pledged to hold an international conference soon on Lebanon, for the provision of humanitarian aid.

He said that “It will also provide support elements to the Lebanese Armed Forces to secure, particularly, southern Lebanon.” With Hezbollah badly hurt, the Lebanese Army may have to finally assert itself in the Shiite South, and it could come into conflict with the Israeli army. Lebanese soldiers have already been killed by Israel. So Macron’s ambition of shoring up the country’s national army wasn’t exactly music to Netanyahu’s ears.

—-

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

BFMTV: “Qu’on cesse de livrer des armes” à Israël pour Gaza: Emmanuel Macron maintient sa position”

StayTunedNBC: “Juan Cole on Ridley Scott’s depiction of Napoleon in Egypt”

I wrote a book about Bonaparte in Egypt for those of you who want to know more about the first major Western colonial war in the Middle East:

Juan Cole. Napoleon’s Egypt. Click here.

[Those who donate $100 to our annual fundraiser at IC will get a signed copy of Napoleon’s Egypt:

Personal checks should be made out to Juan Cole and sent to me at:

Juan Cole
P. O. Box 4218,
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2548
USA
(Remember, make the checks out to “Juan Cole” or they can’t be cashed) ]

Here is an account of the invasion by eyewitness Pierre François Xavier Boyer, an aide to Bonaparte, translated by the British, who intercepted it and other correspondence between Cairo and Paris.

From: Copies of original letters from the army of General Bonaparte in Egypt, intercepted by the fleet under the command of Admiral Lord Nelson. With an English translation (London, J. Wright, 1798-1800, 3 vols.), vol. 1, pp. 147-162.

TRANSLATION.

Grand Cairo, July 28th.

My dear Parents,

OUR entrance into this city furnishes me with an opportunity of writing to you(1); and as my design is to make you fully acquainted with an expedition no less singular than astonishing, I shall take the liberty of recapitulating our achievements since the day we left Toulon.

The land army, composed of 30,000 men, embarked at Marseilles, Toulon, Genoa, and Civita Vecchia, set sail on the 19th of May, under the convoy of 15 sail of the line (two of which were armed en flute[2]) 14 frigates, and several smaller ships of war. The convoy altogether formed a total of more than 400 sail; and never perhaps, since the Crusades, has so large an armament appeared in the Mediterranean.

Without calculating the dangers of the element on which we were embarked, or those which we had to apprehend from an enemy formidable at sea, we steered with a favourable wind for Malta, where we arrived on the 10th of June. The conquest of this important place cost us but a few men. It capitulated on the 12th—the Order was abolished, and the Grand Master packed off to Germany with a budget of fine promises; in a word, every thing succeeded to our wish. Time, however, was precious—we had no leisure to amuse ourselves with calculating the advantages to be derived from the possession of Malta; for an English squadron of 13 sail of the line, commanded by Nelson, was at anchor in the Bay of Naples(3), and watched all our motions. Bonaparte, informed of this, scarce gave us time to take in water: he ordered the fleet to weight immediately, and, on the 18th of June, we were already in full sail for the second object of our expedition. We fell in with Candia on the 25th, and on the 30th our light vessels made Alexandria.

Admiral Nelson had been off the city on the noon of this very day; and proposed to the Turks to anchor in the port, by way of securing it against us; but as his proposal was not accepted, he stood on for Cyprus; while we, profiting by his errors, and turning even his stupidity to our own advantage, made good our landing on the 2d of July, at Marabou. The whole army was on shore by break of day, and Bonaparte putting himself at their head, marched straight to Alexandria, across a desert of three leagues, which did not even afford a drop of water, in a climate where the heat is insupportable.

Notwithstanding all these difficulties, we reached the town, which was defended by a garrison of near 500 Janizaries. Of the rest of the inhabitants, some had thrown themselves into the forts, and others got on the tops of their houses. In this situation they waited our attack. The charge is sounded—our soldiers fly to the ramparts, which they scale, in spite of the obstinate defence of the besieged: many Generals are wounded, amongst the rest Kleber—we lose near 150 men, but courage, at length, subdues the obstinacy of the Turks! Repulsed on every side, they betake themselves to God and their Prophet, and fill their mosques—men, women, old, young, children at the breast, ALL are massacred(4). At the end of four hours, the fury of our troops ceases—tranquility revives in the city—several forts capitulate—I myself reduce one into which 700 Turks had fled—confidence springs up—and, by the next day, all is quiet.

It will not be amiss, I think, to make a short digression just here—for the sake of informing you of the object of this expedition, and of the causes which have induced Bonaparte to take possession of Egypt.

France, by the different events of the war and the Revolution, having lost her colonies and her factories, must inevitably see her commerce decline, and her industrious inhabitants compelled to procure at second hand the most essential articles of their trade. Many weighty reasons must compel her to look upon the recovery of those colonies, if not impossible, yet altogether unlikely to produce any of the advantages which were derived from them before they became a scene of devastation and horror; especially, if we may add to this, the decree for abolishing the slave trade.

To indemnify itself, therefore, for this loss, which may be considered as realized, the Government turned its views towards Egypt and Syria; countries which, by their climate and their fertility, are capable of being made the storehouses of France, and, in process of time, the mart of her commerce with India. It is certain, that by seizing and organizing these countries, we shall be enabled to extend our views still further; to annihilate, by degrees, the English East India trade, enter into it with advantage ourselves; and, finally, get into our hands the whole commerce of Africa and of Asia.

These, I think, are the considerations which have induced the Government to undertake the present expedition against Egypt.

This part of the Ottoman dominion has been for many ages governed by a species of men called Mameloucs, who, having a number of Beys at their head, disavow the authority of the Grand Seignior, and rule despotically and tyrannically, a people and a country, which, in the hands of a civilized nation, would become a mine of wealth.

To gain possession of Egypt, then, it is necessary to subdue these Mameloucs(5); they are in number about 8000—al cavalry—under the command of 24 Beys. It is of consequence to give you some idea of these people, their manner of making war, their arms, defensive and offensive, and their origin.

Every Mamelouc is purchased—they are all from Georgia and Mount Caucasus—there are a great number of Germans and Russians amongst them, and even some French. Their religion is Mahometanism: exercised from their infancy in the military art, they acquire an extraordinary degree of dexterity in the management of their horses, in shooting with the carabine and pistol, in throwing the lance, and in wielding the sabre; there have been instances of their severing, at one blow, a head of wet cotton.

Every Mamelouc has two, three, and sometimes four servants, who follow him on foot wherever he goes; nay, even to the field. The arms of a Mamelouc on horseback, are two carabines, carried by his servants—these are never fired but once—two pair of pistols stuck in his girdle; eight light lances in a kind of quiver, which he flings with admirable dexterity; and an iron headed mace. When all these are discharged, he comes to his last resource—his two sabers: putting, then, the bridle of his horse between his teeth, he takes one of them in each hand, and rushes full speed upon the foe, cutting and slashing to right and left. Woe be to those who cannot parry his blows! For some of them have been known to cleave a man down the middle. Such are the people with whom we are at war! I shall now proceed with my narrative.

Having organized a government at Alexandria, and secured a communication(6) with the read of our army, Bonaparte ordered every man to furnish himself with five day’s provisions, and made preparations for passing a desert of twenty leagues in extent, in order to arrive at the mouth of the Nile, and ascend that celebrated stream to Grand Cairo—the prime object of his expedition. We began our march on the 5th of July, and reached the river by easy stages, falling in, on our route, with some detached parties of the Mameloucs, who retired as we advanced. It was not till the 12th, that General Bonaparte learned that the Beys were marching to meet him, with their united forces, and that he might expect to be attacked the next day: he marched therefore in order of battle, and took the necessary precautions.

Bonaparte sent me forward to gain intelligence, with three armed sloops; with this little flotilla I advanced about three leagues in front of the army. I landed at every village on both sides of the Nile, to gain what information I could respecting the Mameloucs; in some I was fired at, in others received with kindness, and offered provisions. In one of them I met with an adventure as laughable(7) as it is singular: the Cheik of the place having collected all his people to meet me, came forward from the rest, and demanded to know by what right the Christians were come to seize a country which belonged to the Grand Seignior. I answered him, that it was the will of God and his Prophet to bring us there. But, rejoined he, the King of France ought at least to have informed the Sultan of this step. I assured him that this had been done; and he then asked me how our King did? I replied, very well; upon which he swore by his turban and his beard, that he would always look on me as his friend. I took advantage of the kindness of these good people, collected all the information I could, and continuing my route up the Nile, came to anchor for the night opposite a village called Chebriki, where the Mameloucs were collected in force, and where the first action took place.

I sent off my dispatches to the Commander in Chief that night; in these I gave him all the information I had been able to obtain respecting the Mameloucs.

As soon as the day broke, I clambered up the mast of my vessel, and discovered six Turkish shalops bearing down upon me; at the same time I was reinforced by a demi-galley. I drew out my little fleet to meet them, and at half after four a cannonade began between us, which lasted five hours; in spite of the enemy’s superiority, I made head against them, they continued nevertheless to advance upon me, and I lost for a moment the demi-galley, and one of the gun-boats. Yielding, however, was out of the question, it was absolutely necessary to conquer;–in this dreadful moment our army came up, and I was disengaged. One of the enemy’s vessels blew up. Such was the termination of our naval combat.

While this was passing, the Mameloucs advanced upon our army; they rode round and round it, without finding any point where an impression might be made, and, indeed, without any attempt at it. I presume, that, astonished at the manner in which our columns were drawn up, they were induced to put off to a future day the decision of their fortune and their empire. This affair was trifling enough in itself, the Mameloucs only lost about 20 men, but we reaped a considerable advantage from it, that of having given an extraordinary idea of our tactics to an enemy acquainted with any; who knows of no other superiority in arms than that of sleight and agility; without order to firmness, unable even to march in platoons, advancing in confused groups, and falling upon the enemy in sudden starts of wild and savage fury.

After the retreat of the Mameloucs, we advanced upon Cairo, where the decisive action took place. It was, in fine, on the 22d of July, that the army found itself at daybreak about three leagues from Cairo, and give from the so much celebrated Pyramids. Here the Mameloucs, commanded by the famous Mourad, the most powerful of the Beys, awaited us: till three in the afternoon the day was wasted in skirmishes; at length the hour arrived! Our army, flanked on the right by the Pyramids, and on the left by the Nile, perceived the enemy was making a movement. Two thousand Mameloucs advanced against our right, commanded by General Desaix and Regnier. Never did I see so furious a charge! Giving their horse the rein, they rushed on the divisions like a torrent, and pushed in between them. Our soldiers, firm and immoveable, let them come within ten paces, and then began a running fire, accompanied with some discharges of artillery; in the twinkling of an eye more than 150 of them fell, the rest sought their safety in flight. They returned, however, to the charge, and were received in the same manner. Wearied out at length by our resistance, they turned, and attacked out left wing, to see if fortune would there be more favorable to them.

The success of our right encouraged Bonaparte. The Mameloucs had thrown up a hasty entrenchment in the village of Embabet, on the left bank of the Nile, in which they had placed thirty pieces of cannon, with their valets, and a small number of Janizaries to defend their approaches—this entrenchment the General gave orders to force; two divisions undertook it, in spite of a terrible cannonade. At the instant our soldiers were rapidly advancing towards it, six hundred Mameloucs sallied from the works, surrounded our platoons, and endeavoured to cut them down;–but, instead of succeeding, met their own deaths. Three hundred of them dropt on the spot; and the rest, in their attempt to escape, threw themselves into the Nile, where they all perished. Despairing now of any success, the Mameloucs fled on all sides; set fire to their fleet, which soon after blew up, and abandoned their camp to us, with more than four hundred camels loaded with baggage.

Thus ended the day, to the confusion of an enemy who were possessed with the belief that they should cut us in pieces; and who had boasted that it was as easy to cut off the heads of a thousand Frenchmen, as to divide a gourd or a melon(8).

The army marched on that night to Gizeh; the residence of Murat, the Chief of the Mameloucs. The next day we crossed the Nile in flat-bottomed boats, and entered Cairo without resistance.

Here ends the narrative of our military operations. I propose now to give you some account of the miseries we underwent in our march, together with a brief description of the country we have traversed, and of the inhabitants.

Let us return to Alexandria.—This city has nothing of its antiquity but the name—if there be any other relicks(9) of it, they remain utterly unregarded and unknown, among a people, who appear to be scarce conscious of their own existence. Figure to yourself being incapable of feeling, taking events just as they occur, and surprised at nothing; who with a pipe in his mouth, has no other occupation than that of squatting on his breech before his own door, or that of some great man, and dreaming away the day, without a thought of his wife or family. Figure to yourself too, a number of mothers strolling about, wrapped up in a dirty black rage, and offering to sell their children to every one they meet;–Men half naked, of the colour of copper, and of a most disgusting appearance, raking in the puddles and kennels like hogs, and devouring every thing they find there;–houses of twenty feet in height at the most, of which the roof is flat, the interior a stable, and the exterior four mud walls.—Figure to yourself all this, I day,and you will have a pretty correct idea of the city of Alexandria. Add, that around this mass of misery and horror, lie the ruins of the most celebrated city of the ancient world, the most precious monuments of the arts.

Leaving this city to ascend the Nile, you cross a desert, bare as my hand, where every three or four leagues you find a paltry well of brackish water. Imagine yourself the situation of an army obliged to pass these arid plains, which do not afford the slightest shelter against the intolerable heat which prevails there! The soldier, loaded with provisions, finds himself, before he has marched an hour, overcome by the heat, and the weight of what he carries, and throws away every thing that adds to his fatigue, without thinking of tomorrow. Thirst attacks him! He has not a drop of water; hunger!—he has not a bit of bread. It was thus that amidst the horrors which this faithful picture presents, we beheld several of the soldiers die of thirst, of hunger, and of heat; others, seeing the sufferings of their comrades, blew out their own brains; others threw themselves, loaded as they were, into the Nile, and perished in the water.

Every day of our march renewed these dreadful scenes; and, what was never heard of before—what will stagger all belief; the army, during a march of seventeen days, never tasted bread—the soldiers lived during the whole of this time on gourds, melons, poultry, and such vegetables as they found on their route. Such as the food of all, from the General to the common soldier,–nay, the General was often obliged to fast for eighteen to twenty hours, because the privates generally arriving first, plundered the villages of every article of subsistence, and frequently reduced him to the necessity of satisfying himself with the refuse of their hunger, or of their imtemperance!

It is useless to speak of our drink. We all live here under the law of Mahomet, which forbids the use of wine; but, by way of indemnity, allows us as much Nile water as we can drink.

Shall I give you some account of the country between the two branches of the Nile? To do this properly, I must lay before you a topographical chart of the course and direction of the river.

Two leagues below Cairo it divides itself into two branches; one of which falls into sea at Rosetta; the other at Damietta: the intermediate country is called the Delta, and is extremely fertile. Along the outer sides of the two branches, runs a slip of cultivated land, broader in some places than in others, but no where more than a league: beyond this are the Deserts, extending on the left to Lybia, and on the right to the Red Sea. From Rosetta to Cairo, the country is well peopled, and produces a good deal of wheat, rice, lentils &c. The villages are crowded together-their construction is execrable, being little more than heaps of mud trodden into some consistency, hollowed out within; and resembling, in every feature, the snow heaps of our children. If you recollect the shape of those oven-like piles, you have a perfect idea of the palaces of the Egyptians!

The husbandmen, commonly called Fellas, are extremely laborious; they live on little, and in a state of filth and degradation that excites horror. I have seen them swallow the residue of the water which my camels and horses happened to leave in their troughs.

Such is this Egypt, so celebrated by travelers and historians! In despite, however, of all these horrors, of the hardships we endure, and of the miseries the army is condemned to suffer, I am still inclined to think that it is a country calculated above all others to give us a colony which may be productive of the highest advantages(10); but for this, time and hands are necessary. I have seen enough to be convinced, that it is not with soldiers as ours! They are terrible in the field, terrible after victory(11), and, without contradiction, the most intrepid troops in the world: but they are not formed for distant expeditions. A word dropt at random, will dishearten them—they are lazy, capricious, and exceedingly turbulent and licentious in their conversation—they have been heard to say, as their officers passed by, “there go the Jack Ketches of the French!” and a thousand other things of the same kind.

The cup of bitterness is poured out, and I will drain it to the dregs. I have on my side firmness, health, and a spirit which I trust will never flag: with these I will persevere to the end.

I have yet said nothing of Grand Cairo. This city, the capital of a kingdom, which, to borrow the language of the Savans of the country, has no bounds, contains about 400,000 souls. Its form is that of a long shaft or tunnel, crowded with houses piled one upon another, without order, distribution, or method of any kind. Its inhabitants, like those of Alexandria, are plunged in the most brutal ignorance, and regard with astonishment the prodigy who is able to read and write! This city, however, such as I have described it, is the centre of a considerable commerce, and the spot where the caravans of Mecca and India terminate their respective journies (My next will give you some account of these caravans).

I went yesterday to see the installation of the Divan, which Bonaparte has formed. It consists of nine persons(12). And such a sight! I was introduced to nine bearded automatons, dressed in long robes, and turbans; and whose mien and appearance altogether, put me strongly in mind of the figures of the twelve apostles in my grandfather’s little cabinet. I shall say nothing to you of their talents, knowledge, genius, wit, &c.—this is always a blank chapter in Turkey. No where is there to be found such a deplorable ignorance as in every part of that country—no where such wealth, and no where so vile and sordid is a misuse of the blessing.

Enough of this. I have now, I think, fulfilled my intentions: many topics have been doubtless overlooked; but these deficiencies will be well supplied by the dispatches of General Bonaparte.

Do not entertain any uneasiness on my account. I suffer, it is true, but the whole army suffers with me. My baggage has reached me in safety; I have, therefore, in the general distress, all the advantages of fortune. Once again, be easy; I am in good health.

Take care of your healths; in less than a year I hope to have the happiness of embracing you. I know how to appreciate that happiness in advance, as I will one day shew you.

I embrace my sisters with the sincerest affection, and am with respect,

Your most obedient son,

BOYER.

I thought I would share this account, given that Ridley Scott’s film Napoleon, is being released this weekend and readers may be interested in this little-known episode. Bonaparte took Egypt in the summer of 1798, likely in an attempt to grab its grain and other exports for Revolutionary France and possibly also to cut Britain off from its Indian colony. The British, however, sank the French fleet soon after it cast anchor off the coast of Alexandria. Bonaparte and the French army were conquerors of Egypt but were also stranded there.

The following spring, General Bonaparte marched into Ottoman Palestine, then under the rule of an Ottoman vassal Cezzar Pasha. The British navy, however, intercepted the heavy artillery that had to be sent by sea from Alexandria to the Palestinian coast. The French could take overland only light artillery. They besieged Cezzar’s capital of Akka March through May but could not breach the fortified city walls. They then retreated, as described by Berthier. His letter was intercepted by the British along with a good deal of other French correspondence, and the British gleefully translated these letters and published them the following year in London.

I wrote a book about Bonaparte in Egypt for those of you who want to know more about the first major Western colonial war in the Middle East:

Juan Cole. Napoleon’s Egypt. Click here.

[Those who donate $100 to our annual fundraiser at IC will get a signed copy of Napoleon’s Egypt:

Personal checks should be made out to Juan Cole and sent to me at:

Juan Cole
P. O. Box 4218,
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2548
USA
(Remember, make the checks out to “Juan Cole” or they can’t be cashed) ]

Now, on to Berthier:

From: An Account of the French Expedition in Egypt; Written by Bonaparte and Berthier; with Sir William Sidney Smith’s Letters. With an English translation (London, Edward Baines, 1800.), pp. 33-36.

[ALEXANDER BERTHIER, General of Division, Chief of the Staff of the Army, to the Minister at War].

Prairial 1.—The enemy, who had been bombarded and cannonaded by a very severe fire, and who saw the destruction of the palace of Dgezzar [Ottoman vassal ruler Jazzar, Cezzar Pasha], of that part of their fortifications which had not yet been attacked, and of all the public edifices, attempted another sortie at the 1st Prarial, at day break; they were again repulsed.

Although the French army could not breach the city walls, they could bombard it with artillery. They fired shells at the palace of Cezzar Pasha and at civilian buildings, wreaking great destruction on habitations.

At three in the afternoon they rushed forward, and attacked every point. They availed themselves of the reinforcements they had received, and their object was to throw themselves into our batteries. This attack was made with more than their usual ferocity; they were, however, repulsed on all sides, except at the turn of the glacis, near the breach tower, of which they took possession; but it was soon retaken by General Lagrange, who attacked the enemy with two companies of grenadiers, and even pursued them into their external armed post, of which he made himself master, and compelled the enemy to retire into the place.—The enemy, in that reconnoiter, lost a considerable number of their bravest troops.

Bonaparte reluctantly gave up on taking Akka at that point and gave the order to retreat back to Egypt.

The whole of the siege artillery was now removed. It was replaced in the batteries by some field piece. What was useful was thrown into the sea. By means of a mine, and sapping, we destroyed an aqueduct of several leagues in length, with which Acre was supplied with fresh water; all the magazines and the harvest in the environs of Acre were reduced to ashes.

In a scorched earth policy, on their way out the French attempted to deprive the people of Akka of potable water by blowing up an aqueduct. This was sheer colonial spite, since it was not done in hopes of taking the city. That goal had already been given up on. It was just a goodbye “screw you!” from a disappointed would-be colonizer. – JRIC

At nine in the evening of the 1st Prairial, the drums were beat to march, and the siege, which lasted sixty-one days after the opening of the trenches, was raised. When they had passed the bridge, the division of Kleber began likewise to move. It was followed by the cavalry, who left 100 dragoons dismounted to protect the workmen employed in destroying the two bridges. They had orders not to quit the banks of the river till two hours after the last of the infantry had crossed. General Junot, with his corps, had proceeded to the mill of Kerdanna, to cover the left wing of the army.

The enemy continued to fire upon our parallels during the whole night, and did not perceive till next day that the siege was raised. They had suffered so much, that they did not attempt any movement to follow us.

The army conducted the march with the greatest order. On the 2d we arrived at Cantoura, a port which had been our landing place for the articles coming from Damietta to Jaffa, and where it had been landing our besieging artillery, and the Turkish field pieces taken at Jaffa. This artillery, consisting of forty pieces, had been, from time to time, carried to the camp of Acre, to supply the place of the French field-pieces which we were obliged to employ as battering pieces in the siege. Bonaparte had not horses sufficient to draw this immense quantity of Turkish artillery. He preferred the mode of carrying off by sea to Jaffa his sick and wounded. He resolved to carry off only twenty Turkish pieces. He caused twenty to be thrown into the sea, and burnt the carriages and cases on the harbor of Cantoura.

On the 3rd the army slept upon the ruins of Cesarea. The following day several Naplousians [fighters from Nablus] appeared at the port of Abouzaboura. Some of them were taken and shot; the rest retired. Their purpose was to plunder the stragglers who are to be found about an army.

On the 4th the army encamped four leagues from Jaffa, up on a river which formed a kind of creek. Detachments were sent to burn the villages which had sent parties to harass our convoys during the siege. The grain was burnt, and the cattle carried off.

The French, of course, could not know from which villages the fighters came that harried them as they retreated. They likely burned villages indiscriminately and stole their cattle, in a bid to frighten others into leaving them alone as they withdrew.

On the 5th the army arrived at Jaffa. A bridge of boats had been thrown over the little river of Bahahia, which is with difficulty passed at a ford along the bar, formed at the place where it falls into the sea. On the 6th, 7th, and 8th, the army stopped at Jaffa. This interval was employed in punishing the villages which had conducted themselves improperly. The corn, as well as the cattle, was carried off. The fortifications of Jaffa were blown up. The merchants of Jaffa paid a contribution of 150,000 livres.

Even as they were leaving, the French plundered villages for corn and cattle, damaged the fortifications of the city of Jaffa that protected it from rural raiders, and shook down the merchants of Jaffa for a large sum of money. The annual income of a well-off noble family just before the revolution was 150,000 livres. Bonaparte was famed for making the people he conquered pay for the conquest, but here he made the people who had resisted him successfully pay for his defeat.

General Dugua wrote to Bonaparte from Egypt, informing him that symptoms of revolt had manifested themselves in the provinces of Benisness [Beni Suef?], Carkie [Sharqiyyah], and especially in that of Bahire [Beheira]; that the English had made their appearance at Suez: that the Mamelukes who were driven from Upper Egypt, and who had descended into the provinces of Lower Egypt, made several attempts to stimulate the people to insurrection; but every thing was quieted by the activity of the troops; and the vigilant conduct of the generals, but that the city of Cairo, and the other principal cities of Egypt, had remained in the most perfect tranquility.

These insurrections were a ramification of the plan of a general attack, which was to have been made upon the French in Egypt, and that at the time Dgezzar was to go into Syria, and when the Anglo-Turkish fleet was to present itself before Damietta.

The army set out on the 9th; Regnier’s division forming the left column, marching by Ramie, with orders to burn the villages, and destroy all the harvest. The head quarters, the division of Bon, and that of Lannes, took the central road, and likewise burnt the villages and the corn harvest. A column of cavalry was detached to the right along the coast. They scoured the downs, and drove in all the cattle that had there been collected.

The French appear to have wrought widespread devastation as they retreated, torching fields and villages and leaving people to starve without shelter. They confiscated all the cattle they could find, turning themselves into a sort of weird French cowboys and cattle rustlers in Palestine.

Kleber’s division formed the rear guard, and had orders not to quit Jaffa until the 10th. In this order the army marched as far as Jounisse; that immense plain presented but one blaze of fire; so dreadful was the vengeance inflicted for the assassinations committed on our troops, and for the very frequent attacks on our convoys, while this severe measure, rendered necessary by the laws of war, deprived the enemy of all means of furnishing magazines and securing provisions.

Although Bertier attempted to excuse these atrocities, which turned the fertile plains of Ottoman Palestine into enormous conflagrations that appear to have encompassed entire groups of villages, even in the eighteenth century this behavior was considered outrageous.

The army encamped on the 10th at Mecheltal, and arrived on the 11th at Gaza, form which it moved again on the 12th. That city had conducted itself very peaceably: it was therefore entitled to protection of persons and property. The fortress was blown up, and three of the rich inhabitants, whose conduct had been very hostile, we taxed with a contribution of one hundred thousand livres.

Ironically, the French generally spared Gaza the sort of vengeful devastation they wrought elsewhere in Palestine. But even there they blew up the city’s fortress, leaving it defenseless before bedouin raids, and they shook down three large merchants for enough money to keep an Ancien Regime noble family in style for a whole year.

Kleber’s division continued a day’s march behind. The army arrived at Kan-Jounesse on the 12th, and again pursued their march on the 13th. They entered the Desert, followed by an immense quantity of cattle which they had taken from the enemy, and with which they intended to provision El-arisch. The desert between this place and Kan-Jounesse comprises a space of eleven leagues, inhabited by the Arabs, who had frequently attacked our convoys. We burnt several of their camps; we carried away a great number of their cattle and camels, and set fire to a small harvest that was collected in some parts of the desert.

Sony Pictures Entertainment: “NAPOLEON – Official Trailer (HD)”

On the 14th, the army stopped for the day at El-Arisch. Bonaparte there left a garrison. He ordered new works to be constructed for the defense of the fort. He caused it to be supplied with stores and provisions. The army continued its march to Cathich, where it arrived on the 19th. The divisions, although marching successively, sustained great inconvenience from want of water. The desert is 22 leagues in extent, in which there is no supply to be had, except about half way, where there is a bad well of brackish water.

On the 18th the army continued its march. The head quarters were removed on the 19th, in order to proceed to Salchich. The division of Kleber marched to Tiach, to embark for Damietta.—The rest of the army was collected at Cathich, where it remained for some time, and then proceeded to Cairo, where it arrived on the 26th. The natives were astonished to see the army in the same state as it just came out of barracks. The soldiers considered themselves as it were in their native country in returning to Cairo, and the inhabitants received us as their compatriots.

The army engaged in the Syrian Expedition, in four months lost about 700 men by disease, 500 killed in battle, and about 1000 wounded, 90 of whom underwent amputation, and were rendered incapable of serving but in the invalids. Almost all the other wounded men are cured, and have joined their corps.

(Signed)

Alexander Berthier.

General of Division, Chief of Staff.

Cairo, 6 Messidor, Year 7.

France doesn’t use much coal. Only about 2.5% of its electricity comes from coal-fired plants. So phasing the noxious stuff out is great but it doesn’t exactly green the grid all by itself.

Le Monde reports that Macron also wants to manufacture a million electric vehicles in France by 2027, and to produce a million heat pumps so that French consumers can replace gas-fired and coal-fired home heating with them.

He did not put numbers on it, but the president pointed to a plan to build out offshore wind in the Atlantic to increase clean energy inputs. Further announcements will be made about bids and goals later this fall. Reuters reports that France only has about 20 gigawatts of onshore wind and the build-out is going too slowly to meet the country’s announced goals. Offshore wind is still rudimentary.

Macron also wants 12 new rail lines for mass transit at a cost of €700 million [$740.4 million], and is promising that the French will be able to lease electric cars for €100 [$105.76] per month. He is also pledging government price controls on electricity bills.

These are praiseworthy goals but, as French environmentalists pointed out, they are not very ambitious.

France has 39 million automobiles, so a million EVs is 2.5 percent. The country has 31 million households, so a million heat pumps would cover about 3 percent of them (not to mention all the commercial and industrial buildings).

Environmentalist and member of the European Parliament Yannick Jadot complained that Macron was mostly kicking the can down the road and was saying “that basically with technological solutions, in 10, 20 years, 30 years, we will begin to solve problems. He needs to pick up the tempo.”

Other observers noted the timidity of the plan, which seemed calculated to spare French industry and agriculture any short-term pain rather than actually to stop global warming in its tracks. At most, he is willing to slow it down a little bit, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience the captains of industry. But the slow-down would take place over decades.

If you compare Macron’s ambitions to those visible in Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which has $369 billion in it for the green energy transition, the Democratic Party is clearly way ahead of Macron’s center-right coalition. Even accounting for the difference in the populations of the two countries, Biden is spending the equivalent of $75 billion in French terms, whereas Macron is suggesting $30 billion or $40 billion.

Germany’s energy mix is set to be 50% no-carbon or low-carbon this year, 2023. France isn’t even trying to get there until 2027. In fact, in almost every way, the Germans have been significantly more visionary than the French in this epochal technological transition. I have to say that as a Francophile who grew up partially in France, this realization came as something of a shock to me. It is the solid German engineers who are remaking the planet, not the French technologists, who had been the heroes of the science fiction films. French politics has become a contest between the center-right and the far right, and people seem to be more exercised by race and petty economic calculations than by the behemoth of the climate crisis.

No chapeau.

——

PS. Oct. 2, 2023: A French correspondent wrote in to chide me for ignoring that France’s nuclear reactors mean that the country has lower per capita CO2 emissions than either Germany or France. This is true, and I should have brought it up. Here is my reply:

“Thanks so much for taking the time to write. Of course you are correct in all your points. As conventionally measured, France has a smaller carbon footprint than either Germany or the US.

I was mainly arguing from genuine renewables, i.e. wind and solar, where France lags and seems likely to go on lagging, given Macron’s policies.

I think it is unwise to put so many eggs in the nuclear basket. Ageing plants are a public safety concern, and as I pointed out, global heating is bringing into question riparian means of cooling down the rods (which as a process also does cause thermal pollution, harming riverine species).

One reason for my point of view on this is that I am a skeptic about the conventional CO2 calculations concerning nuclear plants, which typically do not include latent carbon emissions from the need for long-term safe storage (if there is such a thing). The waste storage issue is usually discounted, even though in the US, at least, it is verging on a crisis, The Scientific American points out.

My father was an engineer, and he went to his grave complaining that nuclear storage was an unsolved and perhaps unsolvable problem.

If we include cradle to grave CO2 emissions, nuclear doesn’t look as rosy.

Again, thank you for writing and pointing out my near-sighted omission of the nuclear factor, which I should have noted.

Officially, France operates under the rule of a colorblind identity, There are no Black, white, or brown French, just a French citizen. However, the shooting of Nahel has reignited a debate over systematic racism that many French politicians refuse to acknowledge exists. Yet, in reality, the problem runs deeper in the country and is more complicated.

Embed from Getty Images
Protesters hold placards reading “Justice for Adama, Nahel, Alhoussein and all the others” (R) and “Free our comrades” as they attend a demonstration against “State racism” in front of the court of Nanterre, western Paris, on July 10, 2023, following the shooting of a teenage driver by French police in the Paris suburb of Nanterre on June 27. More than 3,700 people were taken into police custody in connection with the protests since Nahel’s death, including at least 1,160 minors, according to official figures. (Photo by JULIEN DE ROSA / AFP) (Photo by JULIEN DE ROSA/AFP via Getty Images)

While many police officers reject the idea that minority groups are being discriminated against because of their skin color, a lot of incidents throughout the years prove otherwise. Solely in 2023, Nahel’s death has been the third police fatal shooting at a traffic stop. In most of the shootings throughout the years, the victims had been either black or of North African origin.  Furthermore, in 2021, Amnesty International along with other rights groups filed a lawsuit against the French state accusing it of police profiling on a racial basis.  

Another point that hints at police racism could be seen from the last French election. In that election, more than half of the police officers in France admitted that they would be voting for Marine Le Pen. The far-right candidate whose campaign focused mainly on anti-immigrant and anti-muslim rhetoric.

Nonetheless, this issue is not merely a police issue, it goes deep into French society.

A recent survey by the French representative council of Black Associations discovered that most black people in France have suffered from racial discrimination at one point or another.

Perhaps a better indicator of these sentiments can be seen in the fundraiser started for the 38-year-old police officer Florian M, who shot and killed Nahel. This fundraiser which was started by Jean Messiha, a former spokesperson for the far-right presidential candidate Éric Zemmour, had collected over €1m while a similar fundraiser for the family of the victim had amassed less than €200,000.

These sentiments attributed to French society have also, in more than one instance, been encouraged by French media. In more than one example, the French media frequently relied heavily on police sources without verifying them, but have also vilified and criminalized Nahel, as an individual who deserved to be shot dead, rather than a victim of police brutality.

So this issue is not only a police problem but it also has strings all over the French population. But one cannot turn a blind eye to this problem within the French politics itself.  

As we just mentioned earlier,  In the last France election, A rhetoric spread by the right-wing candidate Le Pen showcases the existence of these racist sentiments within French politics. However, these sentiments are not something new. Since the start of immigration waves toward France, it has been the strategy of French governments to designate specific suburbs away from city centers to host immigrant communities. In theory, to provide support for these communities, but in practice, it left these communities isolated and in dire need of opportunities.

That in itself explains how the recent riots are not something new for the French capital as it echoes the same tragedy of the 2005 riots. It was a riot instigated by the accidental electrocution and death of two teenagers who were hiding from police.

Many individuals believe that both the 2005 and 2023 riots have these deeply-seated concerns from these communities as a catalyst for the riots. Concerning the 2005 riots, Eric Favreau, a French social commentator, claimed that people living in these communities don’t seek violence “The inhabitants don’t want it. The Muslims don’t want it. Even the drug dealers don’t want it. But the problems in these suburbs have been left to stagnate for 30 years, and somehow they’re right. The more they burn cars, the more we pay attention to them (NPR) “.

Embed from Getty Images
PARIS, FRANCE – JULY 8:Despite the ban on the annual march in tribute to Adama Traore, several hundred people gathered at Place de la Republique against police violence and the current climate of repression, at the call of Assa Traore, the Truth and Justice for Adama committee and NUPES-LFI deputies, in Paris on July 8, 2023,France. The memorial commemorated Adama Traoré, a black French man who died in custody in 2016 after he was arrested and restrained by police. The memorial comes the week after the death of 17-year-old Nahel Merzouk, who was killed by police in the Parisian suburb of Nanterre, an incident which sparked protests across the country. (Photo by Antoine Gyori – Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images)

Similarly, Amine Kessaci, the brother of another victim of a police shooting, in an interview for BBC denounced the violence but argued that “There are no other options. There are no companies coming here and saying we’ll pay you more than minimum wage… here people are supermarket cashiers or cleaners or security guards. We can’t be judges, lawyers or accountants.” (BBC).

While the issue of systemic racism in France is not something new or something that can easily be sorted out, the way the French government has been dealing with it will only deepen the issue. Ignoring this issue will not make it go away. When France was called out by the UN for the shooting of Nahel, the French Foreign Ministry blatantly claimed “Any accusation of racism or systemic discrimination in the police force in France is totally unfounded (LeMonde)”.

Also, the way that Macron and the French government have been dealing with the riots depicts a misunderstanding of the roots of the issue. Macron tried to paint the recent riots as an issue of moral crumbling and youth rebellion on one hand and even showcased some signs of authoritarianism by threatening to cut off social media to stop street violence.

All in all, the steps taken by the French government at the moment seem to mostly deflect the rooted issues that not only caused this riot but also the 2005 riots. A self-reflection by the government and the French people is quite necessary before even thinking about starting a conversation about Racism within the colorblind country.

( Waging Nonviolence) – On June 27, Nahel Merzouk, a 17-year-old French boy of North African descent was murdered by a white police officer in a Parisian suburb. Since then, anger has erupted almost everywhere in the country, especially in poor neighborhoods. Young people are taking to the streets to protest against police violence and state racism. Their anger is eruptive. 

Recently, I helped organize support and solidarity for another uprising in France: Soulèvements de la terre, or Earth’s uprising. This movement, created in 2021, is fighting against large and useless infrastructure (like highways, giant tunnels under the Alps, etc.), transnational corporations and other sources of pollution and environmental destruction. At one recent action against a giant water-reservoir designed to support industrial farming, two protesters ended up in comas — the result of explosions from police grenades banned in most European countries, but not France. 

Since then, several spokespersons and coordinators of Soulèvements de la terre have been arrested and interrogated by the counter-terrorism service. A couple of weeks ago, the government decided to outlaw the group. Now, anyone claiming to be a member of the movement is committing a criminal offense. 

The near simultaneous occurrence of these two uprisings is more than a coincidence. It begs the question: Are these not actually two sides of the same coin, two moments in one larger uprising? 

As an activist trained in nonviolent direct action, I’m obviously partly unsettled by the eruptive protests following Nahel’s murder. Burning public libraries, crashing a car into a mayor’s house and trying to set it on fire, looting shops, and destroying buses and tramways doesn’t belong to the action repertoire I follow. If someone would mention these as potential tactics for a protest I would organize, I would vehemently counter-argue or simply not take part in such a protest. I feel more comfortable pushing through police lines to block a coal mine or disrupt a meeting of executives from the fossil fuel industry.

But my preferences don’t matter at all here, for several reasons.

First, alliances are not built upon tactical discussions. Debates and disputes over tactics tend to steal the whole conversation when we’re strategically lost. There’s always plenty of time later to agree to disagree. Alliances emerge from something else: a shared experience (or a shared anger); a set of demands that can be articulated in a way that makes them stronger; a common horizon; or a shared political project.

As for the second, and most important, reason why arguing over tactics is a bad idea: Just like Soulèvements de la terre, the ongoing uprising is about habitability and land.

French activist Fatima Ouassak explains that people living in poor neighborhoods are “landless.” People who originally migrated from Africa to France are, according to her, “deprived of land.” Henceforth, what is at stake when they organize is to claim the right to land. Interestingly enough, the French language offers only one word for both land and Earth: “terre.” The Earth’s Uprising would as well be the Land’s Uprising. 

At a protest to support the Soulèvements de la terre, feminist, anti-racist and anti-colonial activist Françoise Verges explained that the system that the Earth’s uprising is fighting against (a vision of nature as a bottomless pit of resources one can indefinitely extract) started in the colonies, under the slavery-plantation system. Indeed, the “system” change that we’ve been demanding for many years is, first and foremost, about achieving full decolonization. Those facing, on a day-to-day basis, state racism and police brutality are therefore on the frontline of this fight.

The fact that I feel unsettled when I see people burn a library or a public transport infrastructure is as much a disagreement over tactics as it is a manifestation of my own background: I had the privilege to be trained in nonviolent direct action. I was taught how to channel my anger into a strategic plan, whose horizon shall remain the famous Gandhian “constructive program.” I feel privileged to experience the current state of the world without erupting and bursting out in rage — and to instead think about strategies, alliances and campaign goals. 

This is precisely why the current manifestation of anger shouldn’t be dismissed as illegitimate, or as something not smart or disciplined enough for a good campaign. After all, the climate movement is currently debating whether or not we should “blow up pipelines.” We would therefore be hypocrites to criticize those setting fire to the very French institutions oppressing them.

Ultimately, we are not facing two consecutive uprisings, but rather one, two-sided uprising. One side is about the habitability of the Earth, the other is about the habitability of France for Black, Indigenous and people of color. With this understanding comes quite a few strategic consequences. 

For starters, we should demand full amnesty for anyone who has recently been (or will be) arrested, whether they were taking part in the popular neighborhood uprising or in a protest organized by the Soulèvements de la terre. This is key: Since this is about dismantling the existing colonial matrix of power, we won’t return to an appeased situation without breaking with the cycle of violence. It has to begin where the cycle of violence has started: police brutality and repression. 

Yes, there’s a lot of anger and rage, and some of it is expressed in ways that are, to say the least, challenging. This is precisely why the cycle of violence has to stop — and it won’t stop in a sustainable and fair way unless the state does its part. It would be unfair and short-sighted to put the responsibility of breaking with the current cycle of violence on those who are protesting, expressing their anger and desire to not be victims of state racism any more.

People are rising up to defend a habitable world — some from the countryside, on the frontline of the extraction of natural resources, and others in dense urban areas, on the frontline of the extraction of the lives of oppressed and colonized people. 

We should then try and seek inspiration from movements that have tried to connect similar dynamics. One obvious example is the Breathe Act, developed by the Movement for Black Lives. This visionary bill aims to defund the police, develop community-owned ways of ensuring safety, and promote environmental and climate justice. In the words of one of its creators, Gina Clayton Johnson, “We know the solution has to be as big as the 400-year-old problem itself.” 

This visionary proposal combines the necessity of dismantling the institutions that are making the world inhabitable and the vision of what needs to be done in order to restore the conditions for justice. In other words, it seeks to preserve the habitability of the world. This could be a way for the French left to finally address the issue of structural racism and break with its color-blindness. Opening eyes to the reasons behind this side of the ongoing uprising is a first step toward supporting the fight for a habitable world for everyone.

Nicolas Haeringer is working at 350.org, where he coordinates partners engagement and works on global mobilizations. Based in France, he’s been involved in the global and climate justice movements for the last 20 years and has written on strategies for social transformation for two decades.

( Clean Energy Wire ) – The German government and NGOs have welcomed the first G7 commitment to concrete targets for the rollout of renewables, but environmentalists also warned that the rich nation’s inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) could lead to a “huge greenwashing show”. Following a meeting of climate, energy and environment ministers, German environment minister Steffi Lemke said the G7 countries Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the U.S. bear a special responsibility for solving the climate crisis given their resource consumption and the associated damage to the climate. “The G7 met this responsibility, which is also an obligation,” she said.

Energy and climate state secretary Patrick Graichen also said the G7 environment ministers took “the right path” for climate protection, and sent “the right signals” to partner countries outside the G7 on the way to COP28, and to decision-makers in business and society. “But in order to achieve our goals, we need to step up the pace and mobilise the necessary investments.”

At their meeting in the Japanese city of Sapporo, the G7 ministers for the first time agreed on joint targets for the expansion of renewable energies: 150 gigawatts expansion for offshore wind, and a combined solar capacity of more than 1,000 GW of photovoltaics by 2030.

They also committed to accelerating the phase-out all fossil energy sources, specifying that no new coal-fired power plants may be built.

Environmentalists also broadly welcomed the agreements. “The clear commitment to accelerate the expansion of renewables can be seen as a success and gives hope that the signatories to the Paris Climate Agreement will agree on a global renewables target at the climate conference in Dubai [COP28] at the end of the year,” Germanwatch executive director Christoph Bals told energy and climate newsletter Tagesspiegel Background.

He added the targets implied a five-fold increase in offshore wind, and a tripling of solar power by 2030.

But Bals also warned that the G7 commitment to phase out “unabated coal” leaves the door open for plants using carbon capture and storage (CCS). “CCS must not serve as a life extension for coal power.” He also criticised equating “blue” hydrogen made from natural gas using CCS and “green” hydrogen made with renewables: “Without strict criteria, this opens the door for a huge greenwashing show.”

Clean Energy Wire