France and Britain like to lecture Israel in the name of Western values. That is precisely why it is time to hold up a mirror to them: Both countries are undergoing profound demographic, cultural and political changes, while political Islam and radical movements are exerting growing influence on public and political discourse. A group does not need to become a majority to influence political parties, elections and foreign policy.
The beginnings of this process can already be seen today, including in the debate over Israel and the Middle East. This does not mean, of course, that every Muslim is an extremist, nor that an Islamist government will take power in London or Paris tomorrow morning. The argument is different: No one can guarantee who will govern either country 30 or 50 years from now, or what values those governments will uphold. Governments change. Nuclear arsenals remain.
Europe, in fact, is currently moving in the opposite direction. France is strengthening its nuclear deterrent and seeking to expand its role in the continent's security. Britain and France are deepening their cooperation, while Germany is moving toward closer strategic cooperation with the French deterrent. But serious security policy does not consider only who controls a weapon today. It must also ask who could inherit it tomorrow.
France and Britain should therefore begin, now, a long, responsible and controlled process that would ultimately lead them to voluntarily relinquish their national nuclear arsenals. Not tomorrow morning, not unilaterally and not at the cost of abandoning Europe's security.
Precisely because such disarmament could take many years, the decision should be made while these countries are still governed by leaders seeking to preserve the liberal and democratic values of the West. Those who wish to defend Western values must also protect the West's most dangerous weapons against the possibility that, one day, they could fall under the control of governments that do not share those values.
Germany bears a particular responsibility in this regard. Germany's commitment to "Never Again" cannot be merely a remembrance of the past. It must also mean an enduring responsibility for the security of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
Exactly because Berlin is now deepening its nuclear-deterrence dialogue with Paris, it should lead Europe in asking the question no one wants to confront: Is it wise to build the continent's security for the coming decades around national nuclear arsenals when we cannot know the future political character of the countries that will control them?
There is also an answer here to the growing criticism of Israel coming from London and Paris. The two European capitals frequently tell a country that experienced the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack how it should manage existential risks in the name of Western values. Israel is entitled to respond: Look at yourselves as well. If the changes taking place within your societies are already influencing your attitudes toward Israel today, what certainty can we have about the policies they will produce a generation from now?
This is not an argument for Israel to distance itself from Europe. On the contrary, Israel should continue cultivating its relations with Britain, France and Germany, while at the same time continuing to broaden its alliances in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Americas, the Middle East, India, Africa and elsewhere. Responsible foreign policy does not abandon allies because they are changing. It simply refuses to become dependent on them.
France and Britain inherited destructive power of almost unparalleled magnitude. The generation leading them today can still decide what it wishes to leave to the generation that follows. Precisely in the name of the values they invoke when addressing Israel and the world, they should begin today to discuss the day when they will give up the bomb. No one knows who will govern London and Paris a generation from now. When nuclear weapons are involved, that is not a reason to wait. It is a reason to act before it is too late.
The writer is CEO of C.P.D.H., a corporate diplomacy firm, and an international relations expert.
