Why is the whole world against Israel? Part 2

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Northlander

1. I think its obvious that whenever the pal-isr conflict is discussed here we almost instantly get into the discussion of islamic fundamentalists taking over the world and anti-semitism in europe.

2. When it comes to europe I think the discussion is exaggerated. A few arab hooligans as Takeo rightly puts it destroys synagogs etc. I for one live in europe and I still dont belive there is this raising anti-semitic movement here.
The biggest threat for jews in europe is probably Israel ignoring human rights.

1. Yes. Islamic terrorism is at the heart of the Arab/Israeli conflict, together with the brutal and corrupt Arab regimes which use the conflict as a means of holding on to their power. That is why Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia incite, train and finance the Palestinian terrorists.

Sure, we can talk about a land dispute, but the issue of land has been resolved in negotiations in Camp David 2000.

What's holding up progress is the Islamic terrorist infrastructure originating from outside the Palestinian territories.

2. Takeo simply denies anti-Semitism in France, despite the obvious facts. He will tell you that it is a few hooligans, etc., but there have been probably close to 380 anti-Semitic incidents in France alone at this point.

Maybe you and Takeo don't personally experience a rise in anti-Semitism because it is primarily directed at Jews who appear to be Jewish. For example, those who attend Jewish community centers, those who pray at temples and those who wear traditional Jewish jewelry or attire.

But denying the facts doesn't change the reality of the ugly face of European racism from the extreme Left (like Takeo's communist party) or from the extreme Right (like in Austria, France, Germany and Russia).

Still, hypocritical Europeans (and Americans, too) never go out to demonstrate against anti-Semitism, but instead go out to demonstrate against Israel's right of self-defense. This discrimination is why all these self-described human-rights activists are themselves giving moral ligitimacy to acts of Arab terrorism and are often as guilty as the terrorists themselves.

[takeo]

"1. Yes. Islamic terrorism is at the heart of the Arab/Israeli conflict, together with the brutal and corrupt Arab regimes which use the conflict as a means of holding on to their power. That is why Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia incite, train and finance the Palestinian terrorists.
Sure, we can talk about a land dispute, but the issue of land has been resolved in negotiations in Camp David 2000.
What's holding up progress is the Islamic terrorist infrastructure originating from outside the Palestinian territories. "

The land disputes haven't bee resolved in camp David 2000, that's a myth. the Palestinians don't agree with Israeli controll of the borders areas nor do they agree on Eastern Jerusalem, that would not be an equal part of the Palestinian state according to the plans, by the way there were also difficultires according to the settlements.
It's sure that SOME countries, mostly fundamentalist ones, still finance terror groups who want more than the land and refugee-disputes to be solved and the israeli occupation to end, they want to destroy Israel.
But MOST Arab countries don't share that goal and don't support that kind of extreme movements, as well as MOST Palestinians don't support Hamas or Islamic Jihad, who want the destruction of Israel based on religion, in other words they are a minority as well as the parties in israel that favour genocide against the Palestinians are a minority in Israel. (btw: lomplighter, you said somewhere that you can understand people who support genocide against the palestinians )
Most Palestinian "terrorists", even if they use sometimes repulsing methods (as al-aqsa), don't fight for the destruction of Israel and are no Muslim-extremists. Also the leftist PLF are not religious (they had a Christian as their leader), have said that the destruction of Israel is not their goal and by the way have not attacked innocent civilians. And of course the PA and tanzim have declared over and over that the destruction of Israel is not their goal and have never been very religious.


"2. Takeo simply denies anti-Semitism in France, despite the obvious facts. He will tell you that it is a few hooligans, etc., but there have been probably close to 380 anti-Semitic incidents in France alone at this point. "

well, a few people can do a lot of harm, as we have seen in the German school recently. What i mean is that the big majority of French and even Arab French are not anti-semitic and i can say this based on my experiences and based on what i see and hear in the society. Even people who are very recognisable as Jewish can walk around in France without danger, even in Arab quarters as where i live, many do. There is a problem however and we are searching to avoid it in the future and prosecuting people who are responsible.
"
"But denying the facts doesn't change the reality of the ugly face of European racism from the extreme Left (like Takeo's communist party) or from the extreme Right (like in Austria, France, Germany and Russia). "

Nobody is denying the problems but you shouldn't exaggerate either and create paranoia. By the way your friend lomplighter doesn't think extreme-right in france, austria or denmark is a bad thing, i can't blame him because its views are remarcably similar to his views. About the communist party i already told you that many in the party are of Jewish origin and that i never ever encountered anti-semitism in the party.

"Still, hypocritical Europeans (and Americans, too) never go out to demonstrate against anti-Semitism, but instead go out to demonstrate against Israel's right of self-defense. This discrimination is why all these self-described human-rights activists are themselves giving moral ligitimacy to acts of Arab terrorism and are often as guilty as the terrorists themselves."

Because the problems in the Middle-east and the faith of the Palestinians are much worse than the incidents happening in Europe or the US, in fact it can't even be compared. Anyone but staunch Sharon-supporters can see this reality.

[Mediocrates]

"Because the problems in the Middle-east and the faith of the Palestinians are much worse"

is that a typo? if so do you mean 'fate'?

[takeo]

last quote from cekirge: "Israel's situation is certainly not one that I would wish for any nation. They got a whole population, with virtually no supporters, against them. Palestinians also got a legitimate claim on WB and GS. They are in a war that in no way can be fought in a "nice and democratic" way, as Europeans demand.And the worst problem being, several Palestinian factions to be dealt with, instead of one. Unfortunately I also do not belive Israel's problem would vanish even if they gave into Palestinian demands. I wish the best for both nations, and hope for a less bloody confrontation."
and lomplighter responding: "Perhaps governments do not openly support Israel but many polls that I?ve seen indicate support from the general population. At this point I wouldn?t be surprised that fear is a factor in governments shying away from openly supporting Israel.
Call Le Pen a fascist, racist or anti Semitic but I still see the man as having a lot of guts standing up to Muslim Fundamentalist elements. I would say there?s plenty of evidence that terrorists or assassins succeed in altering the course of history from time to time and these people don?t mind forfeiting their lives."

You are right that all the problems wouldn't vanish at once, as there are indeed different palestinian factions, but it would make it much more easy for israel to isolate and destroy (and divide...) the extremist factions that want to destroy israel as a whole. It would not be any longer israel against the palestinians (and the world), it would be a small group of palestinians against the whole world and most of the palestinians, a lost case.
polls indicate that most europeans are more sympathic to the palestinian cause, even if they condamn some of the methods used by the palestinians. Le Pen will do nothing about islamic fundamentalism, instead his measures would destroy the integration of Arabs into the french society, isolate the Arabs and thus creating MORE fundamentalism instead of less. We have seen it in the cities the FN was in power. If le Pen would have been in charge we would still have our own Algerian war going on.

"It may be old fashioned rhetoric when you point out that guests shouldn?t be defending horrendous crimes. Is it acceptable to agree with that? "

they can defend whatever they like, as long as they stick to the law we can't touch them, as we can not charge you for sympatising with le Pen...
are 50 + 1 palestinians for the killing of innocent Jews? i doubt it, anyway, that's not because of Islam but because of the way Israel treated their own children...

and here you are digging your own grave: "You can?t base your whole opinion on Judaism based on the actions of individual acts. Calling for the destruction of all the Palestinian people is extreme although I can understand why a person would do that. " "Is it innocent rhetoric when they call for the destruction of human life? Are they different than the Muftis defending crimes against children? I think not! Should their hearts be ripped from their bodies and be fed to pigs? I think so"

So i am a little confused, people who call for destruction of human life should their hearts be ripped from their bodies and be fed to the pigs (by the way i don't think that's allowed according to the Geneva-conventions...) or are they extreme but understandable?????????????

"The past can?t be altered but it would seem like the future can be shaped. Islamic Fundamentalists are trying to do just that through terror within their own countries.
I see Arafat as an Islamic Fundamentalist equal to the bin Laden?s of the world"

I think that first two sentences can apply for all policy, especially us-policy. Arafat is not a fundamentalist if not he would be the leader of Hamas and he would never seek peace with Israel.

[takeo]

sorry, my english is not so good, i mean "fate" of course

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
The land disputes haven't bee resolved in camp David 2000, that's a myth. the Palestinians don't agree with Israeli controll of the borders areas nor do they agree on Eastern Jerusalem, that would not be an equal part of the Palestinian state according to the plans, by the way there were also difficultires according to the settlements.

LOL.

The myths are those you and other Palestinian apologists are trying to present.

In fact, in this article, Fred Barnes reports on the Palestinian myths regarding this topic:

Myths of the Intifada
Yasser Arafat has propagated three myths about the deals he turned down. Now Dennis Ross has set the record straight.
by Fred Barnes
04/25/2002 12:00:00 AM

PALESTINIAN and other apologists for Yasser Arafat have propagated three myths about his failure to reach peace with Israel. And only now--two years after Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed because of Arafat's intransigence--is the truth becoming known. This is mostly thanks to Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator for both the first Bush administration and President Clinton...

In December 2000, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were brought to Washington. And on December 23, President Clinton presented a new plan to them. The Palestinians would get 97 percent of the West Bank, Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new Palestinian state, refugees would be allowed to return to Palestine but not Israel, and a $30 billion fund would be established to compensate refugees. This was the final offer: The cantons were gone and a land link to Gaza was included...

How can Ross be so sure of that? He was in the room with Clinton and Arafat when it happened...

Ross insists the Palestinian negotiators were ready to accept the offer. They "understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted [Arafat] to accept it." He refused. Why? Ross believes Arafat simply doesn't want to end the conflict with Israel. His career is governed by struggle and leaving his options open. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," Ross said.

What's important about the history of peace talks in the Middle East is what it tells us about Arafat. The inescapable conclusion is that he will never reach a settlement with Israelis leading to two countries, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. The Israelis? An honest recounting of the Clinton-led peace talks shows they were willing, though hardly eager, to make substantial concessions to reach a settlement.."

Full Article

[L@mplighterM]

Quote from takeo:

Nobody is denying the problems but you shouldn't exaggerate either and create paranoia. By the way your friend lomplighter doesn't think extreme-right in france, austria or denmark is a bad thing, i can't blame him because its views are
remarcably similar to his views. About the communist party i already told you that many in the party are of Jewish origin and that i never ever encountered anti-semitism in the party.

LETS GET ONE THING STRAIGHT I HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER SUPPORT HAIDER. I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT I SUPPORT AUSTRIA.

[takeo]

OK, but in Denmark and France yes.
(actually strange because Austrian fascists are the most moderate of the three)

[takeo]

The article is one-sided.
one thing is probably true: ""We wanted them to understand we meant what we said," Ross said. "You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it . . . It couldn't be the floor for negotiations. It was the roof." So for Arafat, it was take it or leave it. He left it, and soon the negotiating environment changed with the election of Sharon and George W.Bush "

This is not a negociation, when will the US and Israel understand that negociations mean BOTH sides agree and negotiate.

the offer was not accepted because of the reasons explained below:
In the Guardian newspaper on 14 April 2001, diplomatic editor Ewen MacAskill wrote:

"The Israelis portrayed it as the Palestinians receiving 96% of the West Bank. But the figure is misleading. The Israelis did not include parts of the West Bank they had already appropriated.
The Palestine that would have emerged from such a settlement would not have been viable. It would have been in about half-a-dozen chunks, with huge Jewish settlements in between - a Middle East Bantustan. The Israeli army would also have retained the proposed Palestinian state's eastern border, the Jordan valley, for six to 10 years and, more significantly, another strip along the Dead Sea coast for an unspecified period: so much for being an independent state.
[...]
A genuinely generous offer by Barak might have secured peace. That was the missed historic opportunity. If Israel had been more magnanimous at Camp David, it could have had the greater prize of long-term stability.
There is a huge danger attached to the Israeli view that Arafat spurned a great offer. Accepting this version perpetuates the Israeli myth that the Palestinians will not be happy until the Jews are pushed back into the sea and that the West Bank and Gaza are full of gunmen and bombers intent on making that happen.
There are such people - but most Palestinians are interested less in the destruction of Israel than in establishing a proper Palestinian state. Most are as exercised about the poor quality of the leadership round Arafat and about the endemic corruption and lack of democracy in their own society as they are about Israel. What they want is for the Israeli army to go home and to take the Jewish settlers with them. There will be no peace until that happens."

"Source: "The real deal; Ewen Macaskill: Israel's View That Arafat Missed A Chance For Peace Under Barak Is Dangerously Deluded", the Guardian, 14 April 2001."

Israeli academic Tanya Reinhart wrote a July 2001 article in Yediot Aharonot, addressing the "massive propaganda about the far reaching concessions which Barak supposedly offered and which the Palestinians rejected." Reinhart asserted:

"The only clear element of Barak's plan in Camp David was the immediate annexation by Israel of about 10 percent of the West Bank land. These include the settlement blocks which are close to the center of Israel and in which there are already over 150,000 Israeli settlers. But the bigger fraud of Barak's plan, which has not received any attention in the public debate, is the fate of the rest of the 90 percent which were supposedly designated to belong to the "Palestinian state". The situation in these areas is easily visible today: These lands are cut up by 37 isolated settlements which were purposely built in the midst of the Palestinian population to enable future Israeli control of these areas. As a result, 2 million Palestinians are crowded in enclaves which consist of about 50 percent of the West Bank, and the other 40 percents are blocked by the defense array of some 40,000 settlers. As always, unofficial rumors were spread in the media that Israel intends to evacuate these areas in some future. But all relevant government offices clarified repeatedly that no plan is being prepared for the evacuation of even a single settlement. First, the Palestinians need to prove that our imposed arrangements work, and then we will of course discuss and consider."

"Source: "Out now! A simple and human step," by Tanya Reinhart, Yediot Aharonot, 8 July 2001. Originally in Hebrew."

8 July 2001 article in the New York Times. Robert Malley, special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2001 and a member of the American peace team at Camp David, identified three "fictions" about the Palestinian failure at Camp David. The latter two of these are highly relevant to the generosity misperception: "



"Yes, what was put on the table was more far-reaching than anything any Israeli leader had discussed in the past -- whether with the Palestinians or with Washington. But it was not the dream offer it has been made out to be, at least not from a Palestinian perspective. "

"To accommodate the settlers, Israel was to annex 9 percent of the West Bank; in exchange, the new Palestinian state would be granted sovereignty over parts of Israel proper, equivalent to one-ninth of the annexed land. A Palestinian state covering 91 percent of the West Bank and Gaza was more than most Americans or Israelis had thought possible, but how would Mr. Arafat explain the unfavorable 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps to his people? "

"In Jerusalem, Palestine would have been given sovereignty over many Arab neighborhoods of the eastern half and over the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City. While it would enjoy custody over the Haram al Sharif, the location of the third-holiest Muslim shrine, Israel would exercise overall sovereignty over this area, known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This, too, was far more than had been thinkable only a few weeks earlier, and a very difficult proposition for the Israeli people to accept. But how could Mr. Arafat have justified to his people that Israel would retain sovereignty over some Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, let alone over the Haram al Sharif? As for the future of refugees -- for many Palestinians, the heart of the matter -- the ideas put forward at Camp David spoke vaguely of a "satisfactory solution," leading Mr. Arafat to fear that he would be asked to swallow an unacceptable last-minute proposal. "

"Source: "Fictions About the Failure at Camp David," by Robert Malley, New York Times, 8 July 2001. Accessing article may require registration. "



"When promoting the Barak 'generosity' myth, few seem to consider the profound Palestinian generosity of its own 'offer' throughout the peace process since its beginnings at the Madrid talks. In calling for an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza, there is an implicit forsaking of Palestinian soverignty to the parts of 1948 Palestine that lie outside these two areas. Expressed more bluntly, Palestinians have been explicitly negotiating -- for a decade now -- for a state in just one-quarter of their historic homeland: "



"Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el- Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises. "

"Source: "Fictions About the Failure at Camp David," by Robert Malley, New York Times, 8 July 2001. Accessing article may require registration. "

[takeo]

here the Palestinian position concerning Camp david and later peace-negociations:

At a 6 April 2001 Center briefing f or the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine in Washington D.C., Omar Dajani, Amjad Atallah and Nisreen Haj-Ahmad -- legal advisors to the Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit -- challenged the popular perception of Barak's offer:

"Omar Dajani stated that Palestinians want viability, independence, and choice, all of which were missing from Barak's proposals. "

"According to Dajani, viability involves "development potential and [territorial] contiguity." This would result in more "predictability," allowing Palestinians to make arrangements for travel and the transfer of goods without worrying about checkpoints and closures. This element of predictability has been absent under occupation, resulting in a "tremendous psychological" and "economic cost." Barak's offer disregarded these concerns. It would have led to Palestinian islands in East Jerusalem within a "sea" of Israeli settlements and Israeli annexation of land all the way to Jordan."

"The Palestinians' shortage of water resources and agricultural land was neglected by Barak's proposals. Annexation of "large swaths of the territory" over the Western Aquifer would increase Israel's proportion of water under international law, thus reducing the Palestinians'. This aquifer primarily lies under West Bank land and is the "best" and "most abundant" Palestinian water source. As for their agricultural needs, the only area left for development is the Jordan Valley, which Israel sought to keep under long-term lease."

"On the topic of independence, the Palestinians asked Israel to "cede overriding authority" over air, water, and other key issues, to them. Israel was willing to recognize Palestinian "sovereignty" in these areas, but wanted to maintain overriding control."

"On Dajani's third point, he said the "dominant feature" of refugee life has been "an absence of choice." Some refugees may choose to stay in Jordan, some may choose third country resettlement, some may move to the Palestinian state, and some may wish to return to their homes in what is now Israel, but he argued they must have a choice."

"Amjad Atallah then discussed how the current crisis arose. The first Intifada ended not because the Declaration of Principles (DOP) was signed, but because of the promise that within five years, final status issues would be settled, there would be Palestinian statehood, and the situation would gradually improve along the way. Yet the "opposite" has occurred. For example, Palestinians were led to believe that settlement building would cease or at least lessen, but the settlement population doubled since Oslo. "

"The "Israeli presence and the occupation" intensified. Settlements and settlement roads "bisected" the West Bank into dozens of sections. There is "less freedom of movement" now than before the signing of the Declaration of Principles. "

"Add to this Israel's decision to "wean" itself from Palestinian labor, and "you have an economy that [was] collapsing" even before the Intifada. The current closures are "the nails in the coffin of the economy."

"In addition, Israel has ignored interim agreements-the release of Palestinian prisoners and the third stage of redeployment have not occurred. By two and a half years ago, Israel should have withdrawn from 90 percent of the West Bank. Instead, the PA controls just 18 percent of it."

"Some have asked Atallah: But why now? Atallah's answer is this: The deal at Camp David was put forward as a "take it or leave it" offer. As a result, the Palestinians on the street believed that this deal was the final offer-it was the best they would get. They believed the peace process was over. Then came Ariel Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif with "over 1,000 [members of the] Israeli occupation forces" and Israel's use of live ammunition against Palestinian protesters the next day. The Intifada erupted in response. "

"Nisreen Haj-Ahmad outlined a proposal to restart negotiations, arguing that the United States needs to recognize "the reasons behind the Intifada." It will not end "without [the offer of] an alternative." She outlined four components of a Jordanian-Egyptian proposal that has been passed on to the U.S., the EU, and indirectly, to Israel: "

"Sharm el-Sheikh II should be implemented. This would include the cessation of the Intifada in return for Israel withdrawing its tanks and ending the closure imposed on the Occupied Territories. "


"Israel and the Palestinians should implement agreements signed thus far. This would help to address the causes of the Intifada and could help "restore the belief" of Palestinians "in the process." Israel's obligations would include the implementation of the third further redeployment, a commitment to the land-for-peace equation, and a "stop to settlement activities." For the PA, this would mean that "security cooperation would resume" and they would continue the collection of weapons. "


"The Israelis and Palestinians should begin "parallel talks." The first track would involve discussion on previous interim talks to clarify what the two parties had agreed to, and the second track would focus on permanent status talks that would be "comprehensive and final."


"Third-party "monitoring of implementation" of "the commitments of both sides" should commence."

"One audience member asked if nonviolent confrontation has been seriously considered. Atallah said that "there's been an attempt to move to nonviolent popular demonstrations." Although they have not received much coverage, these actions are "well organized and well attended," "even when stone-throwing is not allowed."

"Atallah referred to the March demonstration in Birzeit to reopen the blockaded roads. Attendees were diverse, including Atallah; Hanan Ashrawi, Palestinian Legislative Council member; Mustafa Barghouthi, director of the Health, Development, Information, and Policy Institute; and Tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti. Potential stone-throwers were literally held back-they were picked up, put in ambulances, and driven away. This was successful until Israeli soldiers lobbed tear gas canisters, the group scattered, and some children found an opportunity to throw stones. The army then opened fire with live bullets."



"Source: The above section "The view of the Palestinian Authority's Negotiation Support Unit" in this article is an edited version of "Limitations of the Camp David Proposal, Roots of the Intifada, and Possibilities for Change," For The Record, Number 69, 7 March 2001, CPAP."

further information on the PLO view on this matter: (very interesting)
http://www.nad-plo.org/eye/news38.html

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
OK, but in Denmark and France yes.
(actually strange because Austrian fascists are the most moderate of the three)

Denmark and France are two different states that are awakening to the dangers of Islamic Fundamentalism. Further I think that you believe that anyone opposed to Islamic Fundamentalism is a fascist. Actually that’s Muslim propaganda, another trick of theirs is to label people as racists.

Well it might work on some but not on me. You can call me a fascist or a racist, as much as you like I couldn’t care less. Where is it etched in stone that evil has a right to pervade the west?

Nowhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only place where true fascism is alive today is in Islam and wherever it’s spawn has been planted.

[takeo]

I think most of your zionist friends won't agree on this one, nor does Israel (even if you are right that Le Pen has much in common with Sharon). They consider rightfully that le pen is a fascist not only opposed to "islam" or fundamentalism (almost everyone in France is opposed to fundamentalism) but to all foreigners. Le Pen is also a defender of the Vichy-regime, hated by most French, and called the genocide a detail in WWII. Nice friends you have in France...
Some israel defenders even try to attack france by referring to Le Pen... (forgetting that only a minority votes for him).

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by takeo
I think most of your zionist friends won't agree on this one, nor does Israel (even if you are right that Le Pen has much in common with Sharon). They consider rightfully that le pen is a fascist not only opposed to "islam" or fundamentalism (almost everyone in France is opposed to fundamentalism) but to all foreigners. Le Pen is also a defender of the Vichy-regime, hated by most French, and called the genocide a detail in WWII. Nice friends you have in France...
Some israel defenders even try to attack france by referring to Le Pen... (forgetting that only a minority votes for him).

Likewise, you see Arab efforts to annihilate the Jews in Israel as something less than a "detail" -- you think their cause is just. Yet look around pro-Palestinian Web sites, and you will find they are more than willing to disseminate Nazi and White Power material about how the Holocaust never happened, how Jews use the blood of non-Jews to make holiday pastries, and how Jews control the press, the banks, the US government, etc.

Really, the Arab terrorists are quite happy to join hands with fascists as long as the fascists accommodate them as they did during WWII -- by proclaiming Arabs non-non-Aryans (i.e., racially inferior but exempt from persecution because they are willing to serve the Aryan cause).

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
I think most of your zionist friends won't agree on this one, nor does Israel (even if you are right that Le Pen has much in common with Sharon). They consider rightfully that le pen is a fascist not only opposed to "islam" or fundamentalism (almost everyone in France is opposed to fundamentalism) but to all foreigners. Le Pen is also a defender of the Vichy-regime, hated by most French, and called the genocide a detail in WWII. Nice friends you have in France...
Some israel defenders even try to attack france by referring to Le Pen... (forgetting that only a minority votes for him).

When you responded to my earlier posts you were clearly aware that I do not support Le Pen.

The concept of chasing the Islamic Fundamentalists back to where they came from is appealing to me. Get rid of as many as you can.

It’s simply mathematics to me for example:

1 Muslim Fundamentalist= 1 anti Semite
2 Muslim Fundamentalists= 2 anti Semites

Similar to economics takeo.

[takeo]

maybe you visited different pro-palestinian websites, but in the ones i saw, i didn't see this kind of retoric but instead recognition of the existance of israel... (of course you can find some, but it is not the general view of palestinians)
the efforts to annihilate israel are no detail but conducted by a minority-groups of palestinians and Arabs nowadays and certainly not by the PA.
I wouldn't call the israeli occupation and the efforts for the annihilation of palestine a detail either ..
anyway you are changing subject... what do you think of Lomplighter's view on le pen???