A Mideast Arms Race, Avec Au France
May. 25th, 2004 07:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8I discovered this in the conservatism community (from which, to my shame, I have not yet been banned).
French
EU Parliamentarian calls for sanctions against Israel and proposes providing nuclear weapons to Arab states.
Most chilling is the final paragraph:
There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. We have now destroyed it. So we will carry on with our policy of imbalance and what is happening today is merely the annoying but inevitable result of our collective blindness and cowardice.
The folks in conservatism basically used this to say "neener neener the French gave Saddam nukes!" But there is a larger and more chilling theme here.
In the 1970s Israel was fresh from the Yom Kippur war of 1973 in which all of its neighbors decided, as they had in 67, to attack it at once. It is in this period of the history of the conflict that France decided to pursue a policy of providing Arab states with nuclear materials. Israel caught on by '83 and destroyed the reactor in question. But it raises certain questions.
It is not difficult for me to imagine the frustration France must have felt when the Israeli's took out the reactor they had given Hussein. So much for their plan to Nuke the Jewish State. Having missed that opportunity, the French are now proposing that Europe provide nuclear technology to who? Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? The same nations that have not let the Israelis know the quiet enjoyment of their state since its foundation?
I can understand, given Ariel Sharon's abuses of power, how an EU parliament might be sympathetic to such a plea. It is the reason I consider Sharon a greater danger to Israel even than Arafat. But the French proposal, and the French history strikes me as blatantly anti-semitic. They propose to provide nuclear arms to countries that have openly stated that they desire Israel's utter destruction.
So again, I must raise the question:
Did the UN in 1948 establish the State of Israel in the midst of enemies with the intention that no Jew living there would ever know peace, and the belief that it would eventually be destroyed by its neighbors. Was the establishment of the state of Israel their way of outsourcing "The Final Solution To The Jewish Problem?" Since France, at least, seems bent on equipping Israel's enemies to destroy it, it would appear so.
French
EU Parliamentarian calls for sanctions against Israel and proposes providing nuclear weapons to Arab states.
Most chilling is the final paragraph:
There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. We have now destroyed it. So we will carry on with our policy of imbalance and what is happening today is merely the annoying but inevitable result of our collective blindness and cowardice.
The folks in conservatism basically used this to say "neener neener the French gave Saddam nukes!" But there is a larger and more chilling theme here.
In the 1970s Israel was fresh from the Yom Kippur war of 1973 in which all of its neighbors decided, as they had in 67, to attack it at once. It is in this period of the history of the conflict that France decided to pursue a policy of providing Arab states with nuclear materials. Israel caught on by '83 and destroyed the reactor in question. But it raises certain questions.
It is not difficult for me to imagine the frustration France must have felt when the Israeli's took out the reactor they had given Hussein. So much for their plan to Nuke the Jewish State. Having missed that opportunity, the French are now proposing that Europe provide nuclear technology to who? Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? The same nations that have not let the Israelis know the quiet enjoyment of their state since its foundation?
I can understand, given Ariel Sharon's abuses of power, how an EU parliament might be sympathetic to such a plea. It is the reason I consider Sharon a greater danger to Israel even than Arafat. But the French proposal, and the French history strikes me as blatantly anti-semitic. They propose to provide nuclear arms to countries that have openly stated that they desire Israel's utter destruction.
So again, I must raise the question:
Did the UN in 1948 establish the State of Israel in the midst of enemies with the intention that no Jew living there would ever know peace, and the belief that it would eventually be destroyed by its neighbors. Was the establishment of the state of Israel their way of outsourcing "The Final Solution To The Jewish Problem?" Since France, at least, seems bent on equipping Israel's enemies to destroy it, it would appear so.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 02:25 am (UTC)alt.fan.furry
Date: 2004-05-26 07:14 am (UTC)- Inkan
Re: alt.fan.furry
Date: 2004-05-26 03:30 pm (UTC)I did look at the thread, and mouse's comments are precisely the thing that makes Sharon Israel's worst enemy. His policies have made it possible for mouse to hold the Palestinians blameless, when they are far from it.
That is, of course, an ahistorical view. It ignores the fact that Arab committment to the destruction of the state of Israel dates back to 1948. Really, the truth of the matter is that the Palestinians are between a rock and a hard place: Israel is the rock, the rest of the Arab world is the hard place.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 02:15 pm (UTC)Mako
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 02:39 pm (UTC)I knew that Europe especially is experiencing a resurgence in open anti-Semitism, as I learned circa 1999 from an exchange student. As if Middle Eastern problems weren't unsolvable enough already.
references please?
Date: 2004-05-26 07:21 pm (UTC)Thank you.
- Inkan
Re: references please?
Date: 2004-05-26 08:09 pm (UTC)http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 03:23 pm (UTC)Does France have a long history of anti-semitism? Yes. Is this guy necessarily representative of French government policy? No. I'd have to see a lot more evidence.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 03:43 pm (UTC)This isn't necessarily representative of France any more than Jesse Helms is representative of America.
Go lurk in
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 05:10 pm (UTC)Honestly, I have no interest in hanging out in conservatism. Once, long ago, I kept hearing about this brilliant and visionary mind named Rush Limbaugh. I kept hearing about him and hearing about him until I decided to give him a thorough listening. So, I resolved to listen to each and every Rush Limbaugh radio show in it's entirety for week. Not claiming to have a monopoly on the truth, my hand was actually shaking when I tuned the radio the first day. I really expected to have my most deeply held convictions challenged and ripped asunder.
I learned two things:
1) Even if I agreed with every word RL uttered, I still wouldn't listen to him. I hate talk radio.
2) His debating skills were vastly over-rated. In an entire week I never heard a single caller that disagreed with him. Having 50 or 60 people in a row call up and start the conversation by saying "dittos" does not constitute debate. If he really was a brilliant debater, he would spend his valuable air time picking apart people who disagree with him in person. I strongly suspect he couldn't win an argument with a mediocre high-school debating team member.
One thing I didn't need RL to teach me:
Having lived in the South for 34 years, I know there is absolutely no point arguing with a conservative know-nothing who has made up his mind. Facts only piss them off. If a complex question doesn't have a simple answer they dismiss the answer as wishy-washy, and if context is necessary to understand the problem they will eventually resort to literally saying "blah blah blah" or some similar rhetorical device (except for born-again christians, who will smile at you like one of the townfolk in the Landru Star Trek episode and then just thank you and walk away). This is the exact behavior demonstrated by the Bush Admin when they cherry picked their facts about WMD. So, the only thing reading the conservatism thread would get me is a headache, which I definitely don't need.
To be fair, peoples' most deeply held convictions are the ones most difficult to defend or explain logically, that goes for me as well.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 05:33 pm (UTC)Before or after they condescendingly promise to pray for you?
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-27 03:53 am (UTC)