More French anti-Israel Sentiments

Israel98 · 10-09-2002, 05:15 AM

The Fuji story was retracted by the source as erroneous, so in fairness I edited my comments, but could not remove the post subject, so I am including the following post:

FRANCE: ISRAEL #2 THREAT TO WORLD PEACE, JUST AFTER IRAQ

Israel was ranked number two, just after Iraq, on a list of countries that threaten
world peace, according to a recent survey conducted by French newspapers.
Syria, Iran and Libya also appear on the list, albeit after Israel.

The list includes a total of 15 countries. Following Iraq and Israel were
Afghanistan, the United States, Palestine, Iran, Pakistan, Algiers and Libya in
that order. Syria appears number 12 on the list.

Imagine that. Well the what do the French know anyway?

minusthejihad · 10-09-2002, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Israel98
The Fuji story was retracted by the source as erroneous, so in fairness I edited my comments, but could not remove the post subject, so I am including the following post:

FRANCE: ISRAEL #2 THREAT TO WORLD PEACE, JUST AFTER IRAQ

Israel was ranked number two, just after Iraq, on a list of countries that threaten
world peace, according to a recent survey conducted by French newspapers.
Syria, Iran and Libya also appear on the list, albeit after Israel.

The list includes a total of 15 countries. Following Iraq and Israel were
Afghanistan, the United States, Palestine, Iran, Pakistan, Algiers and Libya in
that order. Syria appears number 12 on the list.

Imagine that. Well the what do the French know anyway?

Once again. Who Cares. Who cares what the French think. They are the ones who took it from both sides during WWII. They got rolled over by the Nazis in a day, collaborated, sent Jews to their death, and then begged the Allied forces to save them. And when WE did, they've acted ungrateful since, making a lot of Americans regret our losses of life for them in the first place. The French should stick to cooking and painting and stay out of politics altogether.

takeo · 10-09-2002, 02:07 PM

blabla, the usual racist French-bashing when we have our own opinion which doesn't seem to correspond to your ideas.
in fact i totally agree to the list of states that treathen world-peace! Let's just count which countries were involved in war/iniciated wars the last decades and you can compose your own list. Very soon we will be able to put another totally unnecessary and unprovoked, unautorised terrorist aggression against Iraq on the list, making the US rough state number 1.
Yes, the US helped to liberate France in WWII, and we helped to liberate the US from the Brits during your independance war. Should we both be eternally grateful? Both did it primarily for their own interests by the way, and during WWII the Soviet input was as important as the American one. I think france should finally get rid of NATO and devellop a totally independant and powerful military organisation, preferably in cooperation with germany and other European countries and conduct our own separate policy. (i don't think we can trust GB tough) The PCF has proposed to send French troops to the Middle East, to protect its interests and to promote a peaceful settlement for the iraqi crisis. I think in the current situation we have more common interests with russia and china than with the US.
At least we are not biased, we consider both warmongering sides as a threath.

alexbmn · 10-09-2002, 02:08 PM

I think its quite honorable to be hated by racists, appeasers,terror supporters and anti semites.

**Mediocrates** · 10-09-2002, 02:46 PM

takeo - get over it. Your country LIKES taking an extreme position and advertising it. Yes the most evil and dangerous countries on earth <suitable dark Bela Lugosi laughter>

takeo · 10-09-2002, 03:17 PM

"Your country LIKES taking an extreme position and advertising it"

There is nothing extreme in our position, ask the world population if they consider the us a peaceful nation and probably around 90% will say "no", in Africa, Asia, eastern Europe, latin america ... everywhere they have some vivid memories of uS-warmongering. (of the French too, but that was a long time ago, except maybe in Africa)
The Bush and sharon policy however are considered extremist and biased all over the world, even in rightwing, pro-us circles in for example Mexico.

jcsd · 10-09-2002, 03:50 PM

Most african nations have an aversion to Israel, this is mainly due to Israel's support of apparthid in RSA, which in turn caused Israeli speakers to be booed at a recent conference on racism in africa. I remember the right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu appearing on BBC tv saying Israel COULDN'T be racist as it encouraged black jews to live in Israel.

**Mediocrates** · 10-09-2002, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
Most african nations have an aversion to Israel, this is mainly due to Israel's support of apparthid in RSA, which in turn caused Israeli speakers to be booed at a recent conference on racism in africa. I remember the right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu appearing on BBC tv saying Israel COULDN'T be racist as it encouraged black jews to live in Israel.

But of course that's totally made up because Israel TODAY has defense technology and training agreements to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars with many sub Saharan African countries.

Israeli speakers were booed for the same reason you like to. It's fun and harmless and distracts them from doing any real work.

Go back and do you homework.

**Mediocrates** · 10-09-2002, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by takeo
"Your country LIKES taking an extreme position and advertising it"

There is nothing extreme in our position

Nice sidestep. But anyhow, sure, you like staking out a loud outrageous position. It's so Gallic. Of course it is.

"A recent newspaper survey determined....."

Wow that sounds firm.

jcsd · 10-09-2002, 04:18 PM

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...95/9507031.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/bac...860324012.html
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/w.../apartheid.htm
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/abdul-5b.html
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0eyh0

These are some of many articles outlining Israel's involvment with apartheid era RSA.

Note: The fourth link comes directly from the ANC archives and the fifth link from the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs. Also note that the muslim website that describes says "zionism is racism" is only paraphrasing UN resolution 3379 http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cfx0 (now revoked)

elke · 10-09-2002, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by jcsd

These are some of many articles outlining Israel's involvment with apartheid era RSA.

Note: The fourth link comes directly from the ANC archives and the fifth link from the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs. Also note that the muslim website that describes says "zionism is racism" is only paraphrasing UN resolution 3379 http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cfx0 (now revoked)

Take a good look at your sources: both the Washington Report and the Muslimedia are biased, as is obvious.

The "Zionism is racism" UN resolution has been repealed for obvious reasons - the fact that the self-same Washington Report fails to mention.

Iori Yagami · 10-09-2002, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by takeo
blabla, the usual racist French-bashing

Holy wack, the Frenchies are a race now?

**Mediocrates** · 10-10-2002, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
http://www.washington-report.org/bac...95/9507031.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/bac...860324012.html
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/w.../apartheid.htm
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/abdul-5b.html
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0eyh0

These are some of many articles outlining Israel's involvment with apartheid era RSA.

Note: The fourth link comes directly from the ANC archives and the fifth link from the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs. Also note that the muslim website that describes says "zionism is racism" is only paraphrasing UN resolution 3379 http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cfx0 (now revoked)

One has nothing to do with the other. Your point was "because of involvement with.....Israel is hated in sub saharan Africa.."

Which of course is wrong because your conclusion is not true.

You also like to smear with a broad brush. Their cooperation was not about cooperating on Apartheid which is what you imply.

I wonder how you feel about Soviet cooperation with Libya, Egypt, Angola, Namibia, Cuba and the like. Still nice?

jcsd · 10-10-2002, 05:13 AM

The followings is an extract from a history book (World Conflict in the Twentieth Centurary by S.M. Harrison) published in 1987 reflecting the Israeli view at that time of South Africa

The most oppressed negro in South Africa has more to eat than millions of Africans in 'liberated countries'. The most rabid white extremist will not treat negroes in the way negroes treated whites in the Congo, Uganda, and other African states

Yosef Lapide, Israeli reporter

The book then has a short paragraph about Israeli relations with other African countries

Israel's support for South Africa has resulted in its loss of economicand diplomatic relations with most African countries

As you can see Israeli support went beyond supplying weapons and economic support to the regime. There was also political support.

jcsd · 10-10-2002, 05:21 AM

While you may think Muslimmedia and the Washington report are biased (it is hard to find sources on the internet detailing the realtions between apartheid South Africa as most search engine results just throw up comparisions of the two regimes) but the ANC letter to the UN written in 1979 is not and the Israeli MFA is not either.

Also note that the repeal of resolution 3379 only happened after the two Washington report articles were written. My understanding is that resolution 3379 was revoked in 1995 when there looked like there was a geniune chance of getting some kind of deal between the Israelis and palestinians.