With the big caveat that I don't think the colonial analogy is entirely satisfying, sure.
Algeria was a settler colony, with a large-ish population of European settlers and a large Arab / Berber population. So demographically there is a parallel. I think the relative size of the population were sort of similar, in proportion.
There was a similar fear of democratic growth of the Muslim community. In the case of Algeria, it was justified -- and I think that factor alone led to the abandonment of the colony.
Parallels to Israel were actually drawn by the French government at the time. There were very advanced plans for a two-state solution of sorts in the early 60s, where France would have kept Algiers (and the oil fields. and the nuclear testing grounds.) and the rest of the country granted independance. The resulting map looked strikingly like one of Israel -- and as De Gaulle put it at the time (please forgive the rough translation):
"If we follow through with your solution, we will cause the whole Earth to rise up against us. The Third-World will side with the Arabs. We will have created a new Israel. All hearts in the Arab world, in Asia, in Latin America, will beat along the Algerians'. The Jews have a good reason: on this land they had their roots, long before the Arabs, and they have no other national home. In Algeria, the Arabs were there before us, everything we did bears the stain of the colonial regime, which we cannot clean off. The home of the Algerian French is France."
Myself, I entirely agree with the sentence in bold and that part is exactly where, in my opinion, the colonial analogy stops. (And in case my position feels unclear, I also think Netanyahu belongs in the Hague in front of the ICC.)
(Also, as you can read above, De Gaulle was a huge drama queen, but he had some common sense. What do you call it when you feel moldy old reactionaries aren't what they used to be?)