In 1961, when it was clear that France had no chance of winning the war in Algeria, ideas about partitions of that North African country flourished. One that was seriously considered suggestef creating a reserve for Whites and Harkis around the city of Oran, while Algiers would have been, like Berlin, a city divided in two parts.
General de Gaulle eventually rejected the plan drawn up by Alain Peyrefitte. But it happened elsewhere. Greece and Turkey exchanged their populations in 1922 to put an end to a war that lasted 100 years and, as a result, the war in Cyprus ended. Sudan closed the book on its civil war by granting independence to the south of the country. The same thing happened in Northern Ireland.
The “War over France” is hardly just at its beginnings. Many murderous Islamist attacks have taken place and large territories are already outside the control of the French secular Republic. Even if the conflict is still in its infancy, the notion of “partition” or secession is advancing in public opinion. That is why in the monthly magazine Causeur, a respected publication edited by Elizabeth Levy, a long article just supported the idea of a division of France.
“Everyone realizes that a second people has formed in France, a branch that wants to define its life on religious values and is fundamentally opposed to the liberal consensus on which our country was founded,” writes Christian de Moliner. “But a nation always rests on a fundamental pact, a minimum of laws that all approve. This is not the case anymore”.
While France is not yet at open war, the faithful of the Prophet are already grouped in areas governed by special rules (compulsory veil, anti-Semitism, marital life regulated according to the Qur'anic principles). “For fear of appearing 'Islamophobic' and to satisfy this burgeoning fringe of Muslims, the French governments are ready to accept the spread of radical practices throughout the country: the veil at school and at work, the obligation of halal meat in all the canteens”.
There will not be adherence of the entire country to Islam as in Michel Houellebecq's “Submission”, but simply the situation where a religious minority imposes its rules on large parts of it. “The expulsion of the extremists, elegantly called 'remigration', is impossible if we keep a democratic framework. Deporting the descendants of immigrants would be brutal and intolerable and it is enough to be convinced to look at the dreadful fate of the Rohingyas. A total separation, territorial and political, is impossible. No viable nation can be formed from multiple Muslim ghettos that have no geographical unity. The only solution that seems to me to suit the various trends of the current society would one territory, one government, but two peoples: the French with the usual laws and Muslims with a Qur'anic status. A council of ulemas will fix the religious law, but the autonomy will stop there. It is obviously out of the question that an embryonic Muslim government is settling in France. The idea would bring peace to France, break the excesses of Islam and preserve a democratic framework for 95% of the population”.
De Moliner's practical proposal is clearly utopian, but the very fact that in France writers and journalists are trying to imagine such solutions to the current state of the country gives you an idea of what is happening in Paris. It is in a panic. Muslim extremists and bandits took control of many no-go French areas, Jews are leaving their historic areas to regroup in more safe ones, the magazine Charlie Hebdo is suffering a new wave of mortal death threats, Emmanuel Macron just returned from a trip in Abu Dhabi and Ryadh where he praised Islam and the French foreign fighters are returning to their home country after the defeat of ISIS in Syria.
Everything is now returning to its proper place. Ready for a future Islamist explosion.