Lieberman as Israeli foreign minister

I think I am the only arab excited by the notion of having Lieberman as the new Israeli Foreign minister, but then again, humor and anarchy excite me, and there is nothing funnier than having Mr. "Let's nuke the Aswan damn" be the next Israeli FM. I mean, can you imagine the hilarity that will ensue at peace talks? Can you imagine Lieberman attempting diplomacy? I mean, I wept when he came out third, not because it showed an ugly face for israelis, but because he didn't outright win this fucker. Imagine him as PM. That would've been the stuff of awesome.

In all seriousness, I think Lieberman is exactly what the doctor orderd at the moment, because, just by existing, he puts both arabs and Israelis on the spot and holds a mirror to both of their faces. Because of him Israelis had to, maybe for the first time, debate whether a country can both have an official religion and be a democracy at the same time. And because of him Israeli arabs, who keep reminding everybody how palestinian they are, had to face the fact that despite their "support" for Hamas or the PA or whatever, when push comes to shove, they would not give up their israeli passports to be reunited with their palestinian brethern. I mean, when I saw arab newspapers being furious over Lieberman's demands of stripping "disloyal" Israeli- palestinians of their israeli citizenship, I was like "wait, they want them to remain Israelis?", but I thought it was the "zionist entity", which is both illegal and immoral and needs to be dismantled. Whatever happened to that? Why the fuck would you want them to keep a citizenship like that one? Aren't those the same "traitorous palestinians" who sold out their land, cause and country for an israeli made-up citizenship? Now they are your people and you are fighting for their right to keep the citizenship of the country you call illegal? Is anyone paying attention?

Oh no, thank god for lieberman. He is the lattest addition to our middle-eastern insane asylum, and he is already proving to be more entertaining that Tzibi, Bibi and Barak combined. And now he is in power, which means we have a bunch of really fun days ahead. I can't wait till he starts to threathen to bomb Damascus as a way of negotiating peace in the Golan. That will be a hoot.

Comments

  1. S.M., you are indeed, without a doubt, the fourth wise man of Biblical lore. In all seriousness, maybe Lieberman will be the one to stop the farce that Clinton started, and maybe we can get to the only workable solution — a transfer of the Palestinians to Jordan and the renaming of Jordan as Palestine. Considering that the British invented Jordan less than 100 years ago, it isn’t a verrucht idea.

  2. “Because of him Israelis had to debate whether a country can both have an official religion and be a democracy at the same time.”

    Why so?

    PS. I remember some time in 2001 shortly after Second Intifada begun there was join meeting between Israeli and Palestinian “negotiating” teams. I do not remember particulars but I recall Peres who was saying to Palestinians something like “While you could have somebody more liberal (probably hinting at himself) you got Sharon because of your Intifada”.

  3. “they want them to remain Israelis?”, but I thought it was the “zionist entity”, which is both illegal and immoral and needs to be dismantled. Whatever happened to that? Why the fuck would you want them to keep a citizenship like that one? Aren’t those the same “traitorous palestinians” who sold out their land, cause and country for an israeli made-up citizenship? Now they are your people and you are fighting for their right to keep the citizenship of the country you call illegal? Is anyone paying attention?”

    Better delete this fast, before Sand Ape sees it and blows a gasket!!! We’ve had similar debates over and over but logic like this just doesn’t sit well… In fact, it doesn’t sit AT ALL! :D

  4. SFGoth you’re an idiot…why should the Palestinians be forcibly moved to Jordan when their families have been living on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean for THOUSANDS of years. If anyone doesn’t belong on the land, it’s the European Ashkenazim who have minimal, if any, genetic connection to the land. Why punish Palestinians who have been on that land forever? And Why punish the Jordanians and force them to give up their land to a totally different people? What did they do to deserve it?

  5. why should the Palestinians be forcibly moved to Jordan when their families have been living on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean for THOUSANDS of years.

    Can you prove that? I mean, can you prove that a majority of “Palestinians” are actually descendants of the ancient inhabitants of that land, rather than the descendants of families that moved there from other Arab nations during more recent times? Because, the numbers don’t seem to work. There was a veritable population explosion in Palestine in the early 20th century, as compared to the 19th century when that land was intensely undesirable.

    Or does it not need to be proven, when the question is raised about the legitimacy of Arabs (rather than Jews) claiming it as their ancestral homeland?

    Oh, and to get back onto this:

    why should the Palestinians be forcibly moved to Jordan…

    a) Who said anything about using force? Offer them Jordanian citizenship and see how many volunteer, first. It doesn’t seem to have been necessary to use force to get Palestinians in the millions to settle in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, North Africa, etc in the past. And they don’t even get citizenship in those countries! Now, you claim force would be required?

    b) If force is required, so what? Since when are Arabs opposed to use of force to move populations? Arabs are doing it in Sudan right now, right? Or is it only bad when others do it to Arabs? If so, how much credibility should non-Arabs place on that “force is bad” claim? You require the rest of the world to co-sign your double standards?

  6. Roman Kalik says:

    when their families have been living on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean for THOUSANDS of years.

    Quite unlikely, to say the least. Read some of the region’s history when you get the chance.

    If anyone doesn’t belong on the land, it’s the European Ashkenazim who have minimal, if any, genetic connection to the land.

    Great answer there – “I don’t like expelling people – except I think *these* people should be the ones expelled.”

    Why punish Palestinians who have been on that land forever?

    *chortles* This little slice of land has been overrun by dozens of armies, resettled by conquerors time and time again…

    But oh well. I liked “forever”, by the way.

    And Why punish the Jordanians and force them to give up their land to a totally different people?

    Half of Jordan’s populace is Palestinian – including half of the monarchy, though I’ll leave it up to you to work out which half.

    Now, I don’t support forced expulsion, Patrick, but at least get the bloody facts right…

  7. The Israelis aren’t compromising because they don’t need to compromise. Not one single suicide bomber was able to get through the security wall during this last war and Palestinians have never been more isolated.
    Israel is not going to suddenly decide to give up its claims to Jerusalem and Hebron now. Sometimes I get optimistic, but this is not one of those times. Please spare us the peace process… even the Messee7 Obama isn’t going to get Netanyahu and Hamas to strike a deal. I vote to ignore the whole issue.

  8. Nice analysis. Lucky you–you get to watch it from afar. Those of us here… oy!

  9. Patrick:
    Just to touch on your claim about Ashkenazi Jews’ genetic relationship to the Levant, the overwhelming weight of authority holds that Jews are genetically marked as descendants of an ancient Levantine population. See, e.g., Doron Behar et al. “The Matrilineal Ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: Portrait of a Recent Founder Event” . The American Journal of Human Genetics 78 (3)(March 2006), pp. 487–97 .While Jews are genetically related to Kurds and Armenians, peoples whose presence in the region pre-dates the Arab conquests, a recent 2003 study found that Palestinians, like other Arabs, have a high proportion of Sub-Saharan ancestry. See, Martin Richards et al., “Extensive Female-Mediated Gene Flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Near Eastern Arab Populations,” American Journal of Human Genetics 72:4 (April 2003), pp. 1058-1064. To be clear, this suggests that Palestinians arrived along with the other Arabs at some point in the 7th century.

  10. It’s still rather pointless to discuss who lived on the land thousands of years ago and who came first – as has already been mentioned, this little patch of land has been the scene of conquest, migration, and integration for as long as history has been written – let’s just concentrate on who is living there now, why they can’t seem to live together peacefully, and what can be done to change this…

  11. I squeezed my mind trying to come up with the emergency scenario where we would need 10 empty Jars of Coffee..and yeah..totally blank.

    I bet he’s thinking “disaster preparation” and possible scenarios where the toilet gets blown up and he needs some place to piss and he’s too old to get away with taking a leak in the back yard. Either that, or he’s planning on teaching you to make molotov cocktails when the revolution comes.

  12. Oops! Wrong thread! Nevermind!

  13. “Patrick Says: March 16th, 2009 at 9:12 pm SFGoth you’re an idiot…why should the Palestinians be forcibly moved to Jordan when their families have been living on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean for THOUSANDS of years.”

    Dude, why don’t you look up the history of population transfers and get back to me before calling me an idiot. Also, come up with a plausible scenario to the Palestinian home country issue that doesn’t involve giving them Jordan (which is more than 50% Pali, btw). There will never be a country called Palestine in Gaza or the West Bank — that’s simply reality — so the only solution is transfer, whether you think I’m an idiot or not. BTW, where do you think those “European Ashkenazim who have minimal, if any, genetic connection to the land” came from, Norway? You think that hundreds of thousands of Christian Euros converted during the Crusades? If I’m an idiot, I shudder to think what adjective applies to you.

  14. BTW, where do you think those “European Ashkenazim who have minimal, if any, genetic connection to the land” came from, Norway? You think that hundreds of thousands of Christian Euros converted during the Crusades?

    I’ve always wondered about that part too :)

  15. Marie Claude says:

    OK, according to Shlomo Sand, there is’nt a jew race but a jewish population, that is composed of many persons with different origins, like France is… like most of the countries are, the idea of Israel being the nation of the very Jews was emerging in the nineteen century, when the other nationalisms raised, such german’s, italian’s, french’s…

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html

    http://www.wariscrime.com/2008/10/17/news/shlomo-sand-when-and-how-was-the-jewish-people-invented/

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E4D91439F937A25756C0A9649C8B63

    • AEWHistory says:

      “OK, according to Shlomo Sand, there isnt a jew race but a jewish population, that is composed of many persons with different origins, like France is like most of the countries are, the idea of Israel being the nation of the very Jews was emerging in the nineteen century, when the other nationalisms raised, such germans, italians, frenchs”

      I know this thread is quite old now, but as an academic this burns me up. First of all, I really detest Sand as he is a sloppy, shoddy researcher who chose his thesis largely on what would make a splashy name for himself. Second, his theories are not well supported, making his first choice all the more unfortunate.

      One of the main issues I have with many identity histories is that most people who write these histories do not have the vision to look beyond themselves–and their political agenda–and look at the actual supporting materiel. For instance, when Foucault argued that people defined themselves largely by their sexuality I wanted to slap my head…. because here is a man who…. wait for it…. defined himself largely by his sexuality. In other words, most of these identity historians identify everyone as they identify themselves. So a gay man like Foucault argues that people define themselves by sexuality (and some people do… he did… I think he’s dead now). Most African-American historians argue that race defines identity, and for Jewish historians this is often split between religious, ethno-nationalist, and socialists, not to mention a few others. In this case those who define themselves largely by an ethnic Jewish identity argue that Jews are an ethnicity and those who define themselves by their Jewish religiousness argue that Judaism is a religion (well, it is really both, but that’s for another time). Sand falls into the socialist category that rejects ethnic, nationalist, and religious points of view. So his theme is not surprising: That there is neither a real Jewish nation nor a real Jewish religion since both are really inventions. This is an ideal socialist/communist argument, not to mention quite anti-Jewish/Israeli, etc. It isn’t necessarily typical anti-Semitism, but it falls into that general category nonetheless.

      Anyway, Sand is a fraud. Quietly shelve his book and next time you have an urge to look at it go on Amazon, Google, or anything else and research Jewish identity. Or write to me. I know literally dozens or better books.

  16. If you’re positing that somehow the Hebrews who left Palestine during the Roman occupation went to Europe en masse and stayed genetically pure that is ridiculous. Yes, Abe, Ashkenazim are related to Kurds and Armenians, who never inhabited Palestine en masse. I’m one quarter ARmenian, Armenians moved to Syria and Egypt in the late 19th century, before that they lived in what is today SE Turkey. And the “Levantine” populations to which they are supposedly related are more closely related to Palestinians according to your very same survey. And by Levantine I mean Phoenicians and Assyrians not non-Levantine Kurds and Armenians who have never inhabited Palestine, just like the Ashkenazim, who are, let’s be clear, immigrants, just like the British in America.

    Abe, how does having some SSA ancestry according to ONE survey prove that Palestinians CAME to Palestine in the 7th century? Who do you think lived in Palestine prior to the Arab invasion? The ARabian invading force for Eygpt and the Levant consisted of only 4000 soldiers and had almost no impact on the genetic makeup of native populations..Egyptians are nearly pure descendants of ancient Egyptians.

    Jordan is today 50% Palestinian but that doesn’t mean it should effectively become Palestine and it doesnt mean JOrdanians are happy about it. LA is over 45% Hispanic, should we just hand it over to Mexico?

    Craig, Sudanese aren’t really Arabs they’re mulatto. The Janjaweed supposed “Arabs” are blacker than coffee. And whatever they’re doing has no bearing on the rest of the ME. Arabs pay no attention to what goes on there, honestly. “Arab” is a misnomer anyway, Egyptians are Pharanoic, Lebanese are Phoenician, Syrians are Assyrian, and Palestinians are Canaanites/Philistines, they are not the same as Gulf Arabs.

  17. If you’re positing that somehow the Hebrews who left Palestine during the Roman occupation went to Europe en masse and stayed genetically pure that is ridiculous. Yes, Abe, Ashkenazim are related to Kurds and Armenians, who never inhabited Palestine en masse.

    And are Kurds and Armenians closely related to Northern Europeans? You seem to be defeating your claim at the very same time you are making it. Or am I missing something?

    And by Levantine I mean Phoenicians and Assyrians not non-Levantine Kurds and Armenians who have never inhabited Palestine…

    There seems to be some question about the origins of Palestinians, though, isn’t there? They seem to be (originally, at least) a mixture of Greek invaders and an originally “African” people. So what are you trying to argue? That Palestinians are more “middle-eastern” than Ashkenazi Jews? They weren’t originally “middle-eastern”, at all.

    Abe, how does having some SSA ancestry according to ONE survey prove that Palestinians CAME to Palestine in the 7th century? Who do you think lived in Palestine prior to the Arab invasion?

    I didn’t read the study… I’m not into arguing based on genetics ratehr than history… but I’m guessing that a study that showed Palestinians of today are closely related to (ethnic) Arabs, that’s pretty good evidence they aren’t the same Palestinians who lived there a couple thousand years ago. Because, those original Palestinians were part Southern European and part African… you don’t mix Philistines + Canaanites and get Arabs as a result. Not genetically, anyway.

    Craig, Sudanese aren’t really Arabs they’re mulatto.

    Most Arabs aren’t “really” Arabs, Patrick. Egyptians are for the most part ethnically EGYPTIAN. North Africans are a mixture of large parts of berber plus small parts of Arab and European. And so on. Why are you going to kick Sudanese out of the “Arab” club, but not everyone else who isn’t ethnically Arab?

    The Janjaweed supposed “Arabs” are blacker than coffee. And whatever they’re doing has no bearing on the rest of the ME. Arabs pay no attention to what goes on there, honestly. “Arab” is a misnomer anyway, Egyptians are Pharanoic, Lebanese are Phoenician, Syrians are Assyrian, and Palestinians are Canaanites/Philistines, they are not the same as Gulf Arabs.

    Well, finally we agree on something! :)

    I humbly submit that the real difference in attitude about the Sudan is it isn’t in the middle-east, though. It probably applies to a lesser extent to North Africa, too. Although NA was an important part of Arab empires in the past, which is probably the only reason hardcore Arab nationalists still care at all.

  18. Forgot to comment on this one:

    Who do you think lived in Palestine prior to the Arab invasion? The ARabian invading force for Eygpt and the Levant consisted of only 4000 soldiers and had almost no impact on the genetic makeup of native populations..Egyptians are nearly pure descendants of ancient Egyptians.

    I don’t doubt that you are right when it comes to Egypt, but you could very well be wrong about Palestine. It had a much smaller population, and Arab armies fought over that land for nearly 1000 years, in many waves and during many time periods.

  19. Craig, You bring up a good point about Ashkenazim, they are definitely genetically different from their northern European counterparts. But in the same vein, if they were truly from the Levant, then why are their closest relatives inhabitants of the Caucasus? Furthermore, if Ashhkenazim from Eastern Europe, Sephardim from the Middle East, and Falasha from Ethiopia all claim to be descendants of Hebrews why do they look so diffrent?

    Having some, very slight Sub-Saharan African blood, and again just in one survey, does not prove African origins for an entire people. Racial/genetic surveys are not always completely accurate. Genetic links between Palestinian and Arab peoples don’t belie the Palestinians origins among the non-Arab inhabitants of ancient Palestine. There are probably close genetic links between Arabs and Iranians or Syrians and Turks or Armenians or Kurds. I am Egyptian but get confused for Iranian or Greek all the time, as do plenty of people in the Egyptian-American community (for the Iranian part, not very many look Greek). Being part of the same region and having similar phenotypes mean there are definitely common origins, but sephardic and mizrahi jews are part of that too, and, if what you say about them is true, so would ashkenazim. Having a relationship between Palestinians and Arabians doesn’t mean they are one in the same or ARabians displaced Palestinians. Even the ancient Philistines and Canaanites probably had some genetic links to Arabians by virtue of being so close…just as Spanish and Italian people have some genetic links.

    And yes, we do agree on the point that most ARabs aren’t Arabs anyway. The only people that can be considered “Arab” are those from the Arabian Penninsula, their cousins in Jordan (who are a people from Arabia), and Iraqis.

    I think it’s time for a very expansive and comprehensive study to be done on Israelis (Ashkenazim and Sephardim) and Palestinians and the neighboring populations. Break down the Arabic-speaking groups into Muslim and Christian as well. If a lot of scientists agree on this it will have itneresting results.

    • AEWHistory says:

      Ethiopian Jews are almost entirely native to Ethiopia according to recent studies. That doesn’t make them less Jewish, but it makes them less “Hebrew” ethnically. OTOH, European, N. African, and MEastern Jews are almost entirely of Hebrew descent. As to the differences in complexion, I would submit that you all need to study vitamin D deficiency (I have a D deficiency, so I’ve had to learn quite a bit myself). Depending on your latitude your skin must adapt in order to absorb–or stop absorbing –Vitamin D. Too little and you cannot function, too much and it is poisonous. Since we’ve only been studying these things for a few decades, and we’ve really taken basically zero track of changing skin tones in populations, I think medical science will prove in the near future that people’s who move away from the equator turn lighter skin within a few centuries (maybe sooner). Conversely, people’s who more toward the equator will become darker. I think this might be modified by jungle canopies, but I’m ignorant here.

      Anyway, the main issue here is the supposed incongruity in appearance. Truth is that we evolve much more quickly than we ever thought possible. Consider this: our branch of humanity is merely 200,000 years old and the modern homo sapien is only 50,000 years old. So why assume that skin and appearance changes cannot take place in 1,000 years? That’s 2% of the entire existence of modern humans. I never thought I be discussing evolution and Zionism….. weird crap.

  20. Patrick,
    Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews from Yemen and the rest of the Arab world
    have been proven to be genetically far closer to each other than to their respective neighboring Arab and European populations. There is direct and incontrovertible historical and archaelogical evidence that Jewish communities in places like Yemen formed during the exile of the first Temple, from ancient Israel, about 2,500 years ago. The migration pattern of the Ashkenazi Jews started from the Roman expulsion 2000 years ago, led to migration to Italy, and then up to Central and Northern Europe. If this doesn’t prove the ancestral connection to the people who lived in the land 2000 to 3000 years ago land that both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews share i don’t know what would.

  21. “If you’re positing that somehow the Hebrews who left Palestine during the Roman occupation went to Europe en masse and stayed genetically pure that is ridiculous. ”

    Not really, no. The jewish minority in Europe has historically been very isolated from the rest of the european populations, both by their own choice and by the law of their respective countries. Inter-religious marriages were forbidden (often by threat of death) up until modern times, leaving the jewish bloodline quite pure. Only in the 20th century will you find any significant amount of jewish-christian marriages, and by then many jews had already immigrated to the levant…

  22. Marie Claude says:

    this is an ideology myth, eveywhere populations get mixed when they happen to live in the same aeras, d’ya know why, cuz guis like to fuck zvery single ass around that titilles their libido, not different for the jewishes !

    Now, I am not saying that all practiced external tribal sex, but if a population want ro ramain safe, generally chosing a wife out of the serail is a solution

    there are contradictions on the analyses, which depend on political and or ideological ahendas

    • AEWHistory says:

      MC, as an Askenazic Jew I can assure you this is true. When my wife and I were married we were tested for genetic markers for potential birth defects. I bring this up because Jews have an amazingly large number of potential number of birth defects that can arise…. and they arise BECAUSE of inbreeding over centuries and centuries. What you are describing is a combination of pre-civilization tribal human breeding concepts–concepts that aren’t really applicable to Europe of the past 15+ centuries–and the womanizing of the male French and probably Italian population. Just because some French guy can’t help himself whenever he sees anything with breasts on it doesn’t mean that everyone behaves that way. Actually, if you ever read this, look a few answers up for my discussion of Shlomo Sand and my concerns over how people discuss identity; you’re an excellent case. Not everyone works the way you work, not everyone defines themselves the way you define yourself and/or not everyone’s experience’s are your experiences.

  23. this is an ideology myth

    Not really, MC. Or I should say, not for everyone. You won’t find many halfbreed Asian and Caucasian kids here in the US, even in areas where there are large numbers of both. The few mixed breed kids there are, come from inter-racial marriages, not from casual sexual relationships. That’s just one example. Maybe its different in France? lol.

    Anyway, speaking PURELY SUBJECTIVELY I reckon I’ve known several hundred Jewish kids and their families when I was a kid growing up in New Jersey and New York. There were only a few (I mean, very few) who didn’t look middle-eastern. So, speaking as somebody who is of (northern) European descent, if there are people going to claim the average Ashkenazi Jew can pass for a European, I’m here to say “No, I don’t think so!”. On the other hand, I’ve been told by a couple Arabs that in airports they can’t tell a Jew from an Arab without talking to them first. *shrug*

  24. Marie Claude:

    “eveywhere populations get mixed when they happen to live in the same aeras”

    This is often true, but some obstacles have to be overcome, and religion is one of the toughest… Up until the late 19th century, it was pretty much inconceivable for a christian european to marry someone of a different faith; even catholic/protestant marriages were pretty much unheard of, and here we’re talking about the same basic religion! Jewish/christian marriages, I’m afraid, were simply, for all practical purposes, non-existent. Besides, the jewish communities were generally large enough to remain genetically healthy, so no problem there…

  25. Roman Kalik says:

    Marie Claude:

    this is an ideology myth

    No, it isn’t. It is merely that people like Professor Shlomo Sand, who themselves hold an ideological set of beliefs on the matter, would have *liked* it to be that way.

    Sand’s an expert on French history, not Jewish history. His works on Jewish history leave much to be desired – some facts, for example, rather than rewriting history based on his opinions regarding Christianity and Islam, and the marginality of the Jewish identity that he resides in.

    I mean, the basic premise of his work is that Jews today are all converts. Who converted them? How? They just “popped up” in Sand’s world. Which is why we should all abandon our “myths” and join the great bi-national state of Israeltine.

    Political myths go both ways, Marie Claude.

  26. Funny how there was no rush to create “Palestine” when Gaza was Egyptian and the West Bank was Jordanian.

  27. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/20/obama.iran.video/index.html

    Looking forward to seeing the iranian reaction to Obama’s initiative! I expect more of the same’ole, same’ole… ;)

  28. Gaza was Egyptian and the West Bank was Jordanian for all of twenty years, and it was merely held because the Palestinians could not form a sovereign government. It’s not like Egypt or Jordan ever exercised a territorial claim to either area or deprived the Palestinians of their self-determination, Egypt and Jordan clearly have returned those lands to the Palestinians, whereas Israel continues to consolidate its illegal occupation of Palestinian land with its expansion of West Bank settlements.

    That does bring up an interesting point though. Palestine has been under Egyptian authority or rule for far longer than it has been under the control of any other group of people. It was under Egyptian control in the New Kingdom, Ptolemaic times, Fatimid times, some Mameluke times, and during the reign of Mohamad Ali Pasha as recently as the 19th century. That is far longer than it has ever been under Jewish control (really only the past sixty years) or under autonomous Palestinian control. Egypt has a more legitimate claim to Israel/Palestine than either Jews or Palestinians. Thankfully, we have the good fortune of not being cursed with the Semitic disposition to insatiable greed so we have graciously rescinded our claim.

  29. Marie Claude says:

    Craig, lots of our Askhenasi Jews don’t differ from a slavic or a blond Aryen, they are the people that are in France for centries, most of of the black haired ones come from the Sefarades, ex spanish Jews, Marocco’s, Algeria’s, Tunisia’s, what differs the tunisians from the the rest of the Sefarades, is that they have grey-green eyes, like the Berberes

    So the races have been melted sometimes.

    Nowadays our Askhenasi Jewish population tend to marry a goy, also because they are no more so religious . I don’t know about the Seffarades, probably to a lesser point

  30. Marie Claude says:

    Well Roman, I am not arguing “who is right” on that purpose, may-be you could advise me a book that conters Shlomo sand theories

  31. Patrick, Jordan as a region with specific borders didn’t exist until the british drew a few lines on a map… It just so happens to be half of what was before Greater Palestine, again as defined by the british.

    “Palestine has been under Egyptian authority or rule for far longer than it has been under the control of any other group of people.”

    Perhaps so… Too bad the egyptians didn’t bother to proclaim and have a state recognized by the UN, huh? ;)

    “…we have the good fortune of not being cursed with the Semitic disposition to insatiable greed”

    This blatant, racist attitude hardly needs further comments, does it…?

  32. MC, I don’t know how to explain the difference in France then. Maybe it’s just a case of there not being many Jews in Europe anymore.

  33. Marie Claude says:

    still 600000 by us, 2nd largest diaspora after the US

  34. But then again, the french are kind of dark themselves… ;P

  35. Adam, they are both Semites, I was referring both Jews and Arabs in my claim so I wasn’t just targeting one side. It may not be politically correct, but it is empirically pretty obvious. Egyptians are not Semitic.

  36. Marie Claude says:

    Adam it is mitiged, north of France -> Flanders, Normandy -> Vikings, Brittany, Celts, East of France, (Alsace- Lorraine) germanic, blond
    Jura , Schweitzers, mixed, the rest is on the italian side : Savoie mixed, south of France, mediterraneans, south of Loire until Pyrenees, basques, berberes arabes (Poitiers) -> black hair

  37. Patrick, I’ll believe that most egyptians are not semitic, or at least just watered down versions – Sinai egyptians are a different story, and these are the ones I have been reffering to in this post…

    MC, I’m screwing with you. Still, I’ve been to northern France plenty of times, and you guys are certainly darker than us on average – not that many blondes… at least not natural! ;)

  38. MC, out of all the types of people you listed who make up the French population, the one group you didn’t name was Gauls! Poor Gallic bastards went and got themselves extinctified, eh? :P

  39. Actually, Jews are undercover Arabs. And Arabs are closet Jews. Both are descendant of Celtic crusades to the Middle East.

    Happy?

    What kind of a discussion is that? And what are you trying to prove exactly?
    Enjoy wasting your time on an inane argument. Quite a way to evade having a serious discussion, by arguing historical ownership – a topic none of you is well versed in (unless you’re actually an anthropologist, if so, raise your hand!)

    Let me simplify things for you:
    - anyone (a la SFGoth) who wants to expel people -any people – from their homes is a proto-terrorist.
    - Most Middle Eastern nationalisms in their current form are early 20th century constructs. And that includes both Israel and Palestine, fyi. So what?

    Now regarding the post’s topic: I think that Lieberman is increasingly representative of the Israeli population.
    He’s still tightly controlled, though. It’s only a matter of time until he comes to power. At which time we’d have reached the endgame for the Middle East peace process.. I can’t wait to see that.

    As for stripping Palestinian Israelis from their citizenship: that’s what makes the difference between a tyranny and a democracy. Israel has to decide which one it is.

  40. Yeah, you’re right about the Sinai Egyptians Adam, and they are the ones causing all the problems with letting terrorists into the Sinai, and smuggling drugs and humans into Israel, prostitutes into Sinai, and weapons into Palestine, not to mention them spying for Israel in 1973 and 1967.

  41. Oh well.. I hope they’ll turn out to be a nice bunch nevertheless, seeing as I’m going there in about 3 weeks time! ;)

  42. Roman Kalik says:

    Marie Claude,

    Well Roman, I am not arguing “who is right” on that purpose, may-be you could advise me a book that conters Shlomo sand theories

    Pretty much all historical works that mention Jews, over the past two millenniums?

    Just to name a few examples. Sand obsesses with the same notions that plagued the Middle-East ever since people began traveling to get a Soviet education – to whit, that Jewish identity is a myth. That we’re all Khazars or former Muslims, really. That the Palestinians are the real Hebrews who converted to Islam.

    It’s politicized bullshit.

    Craig, lots of our Askhenasi Jews don’t differ from a slavic or a blond Aryen, they are the people that are in France for centries

    Marie Claude, France’s Jewish populace can be traced to the days of the Roman Empire, but the most major entrance of Jews to France came under Charlemagne – and he purposefully sent out his own Jewish merchants to bring back more Jews from Iraq, to name one point of origin. Charlemagne saw Jews as the backbone of his mercantile income.

    As to their appearance… I find myself amused by how people so often attribute outer appearance to shared origin. People change in appearance not just via mixing with the populace they reside in, but also through basic evolutionary culling – people who looked more French would likely survive longer in Middle-Ages France, for example.

    And of course, local genes did enter the Jewish gene-pool of Europe… more often than not, through rape. The Middle-Ages were not a pleasant time, and a Jewish community often enjoyed little legal protection and was ripe pickings for any marauder, officially-uniformed or otherwise.

    As for the waning state of France’s original Jewish populace (rather than the newer arrivals from Morocco and the like) can be attributed to the era Napoleon – Napoleon Bonaparte gave France’s Jews an ultimatum of integration, giving them the chance to arrange the conditions of it themselves or else he would do so by force. It was part of France’s secularization.

  43. haha don’t worry Adam, the Sinai Bedouins are incredibly hospitable, and most of the tourist workers in the Sinai are Egyptians from the Nile Valley anyway, I hope you have a good time, which city are you going to?

  44. Sharm… a week of R&R in the sun! 8)

  45. As to their appearance… I find myself amused by how people so often attribute outer appearance to shared origin. People change in appearance not just via mixing with the populace they reside in, but also through basic evolutionary culling – people who looked more French would likely survive longer in Middle-Ages France, for example.

    Roman, that’s the point MC was indirectly making. She doesn’t even admit to the continued existence of France’s indigenous population, the Gauls. And she may be right about that. Of all countries in Europe, France is probably the only one that has been conquered and occupied pretty much continuously going back into pre-history. Even the country, “France”, is named after a German tribe that conquered the region during the twilight of the Roman Empire. It isn’t surprising to me that a people like the French with no ethnic identity of their own would be dismissive of anyone else’s self-identification. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being a nation of mutts… people make that claim about the US a lot, despite the fact it isn’t really true… but it’s just as racist to deny somebody’s ethnic heritage as it is to ridicule them for it.

    And, MC, my stereotype of the French is of small dark people. Never seen much to invalidate that stereotype either, though I did once work for a guy with a French surname who was about 6’5″, built like a bear and had red hair. No doubt a Norman French, right? But the Vikings invaded France ~1100 years ago, so if his family was such a big believer in spreading the genes around how come he’s not 5’6″ with dark hair and eyes? Hmmm?

  46. Roman Kalik says:

    Roman, that’s the point MC was indirectly making.

    Not really – the point she was making was that Jews are people of a shared religion who just happened to have picked up a shared identity of a more national form around the end of the 19th century. At which point, we’re all “just like the Europeans”.

    Or just like the French, anyway. Which is what Prof. Shlomo Sand, to whose works MC linked to, is claiming. Except he’s also a post-modernist, post-Zionist, post-nationalist, post-anything-at-all kind of liberal-minded individual, with a heavy portion of bias and little, if anything, to do with reality.

    Jews aren’t that mixed, really, for two very specific reasons – one is that the regions Jews primarily lived in – Christian Europe and the Muslim Middle-East – had only two options available for Jews. Which is to say, they either integrated *fully*, abandoning their faith and past entirely to join the Good Folk, or they could live as second or third-class citizens while dressing in special identifying clothing, and living in their own allotted parts of the city.

    In Europe, the Italians first coined the term “ghetto” for the Jewish Quarter of Venice. Similar practices of forcibly and legally dividing the Jewish population from the rest of society were quite common.

    One observe the turns and shifts of the Jewish population in Europe based on tolerance trends, or rather when “convert or suffer limitations” became “convert or die”. The same applied, to a lesser extent, in Muslim lands, with the Almohad Dynasty being quite focused on the “die” part.

    The second major reason was that Jews held a shared identity of their own in the first place, and it was more than just a religious trend. Half of the religion is, by and large, a repository of traditions and historic memorials – there is simply no differentiation in Judaism between national identity, religious identity, or ethnic identity.

    And anyone claiming that Jewish identity is a “recent” trend should read the poetry of Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, from the 11th and 12th century.

    But Jewish appearance did vary, and the genes were not entirely homogeneous… no one ever really claimed that they were, across the world. Jews changed. They changed through the few conversions that existed, the changed through rape… but more than anything, they changed through the *dilution*of their genetic pool, which is particularly noticeable in Ashkenazi European Jews and the genetic diseases that they have a weakness to.

    This dilution, to which I alluded in my previous post, was the product of the rather violent history of Jewish communities. People who looked more “local”, who could *hide* and weather out the storms, were the ones likelier to survive. Thus a natural process of evolution, slight mixes of the local gene pool, and the more violent “culling of the herd” resulted in varying Jewish populations. We diverged, ethically, culturally, and in religious trends.

    But they can still trace themselves to a shared ancestry, we hold shared traditions and customs, a set of religious beliefs, and a sense of identity. The Jewish shared identity was always more that of a large extended family than a “nation”, a legacy of our tribal past which never quite left in the first place. Which is probably one of the reasons that it survived.

    It speaks volumes that in the Middle-Ages, Jewish trader from Prussia could meet a Jewish merchant from Egypt and, within a day or so, find a shared language, compare customs, and possibly even find some shared relative.

  47. Marie Claude says:

    Craig not at all, they interbred, BTW, some of our celts from Poitiers aeras were famous in Scottland,the Picts, do you know that the celt name of Poitiers is Lemo, the roman name Lemonum, the inhabitants the Pictones ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poitiers

  48. Marie Claude says:

    Adam that means that our integration is a success, people interbred very well :lol:

  49. Marie Claude says:
  50. Marie Claude says:

    # 44, Craig, you’re wrong, see the map

    http://antique.mrugala.net/Celte/Peuples%20celtes.htm

    we are the country that had the most various populations, that explains our numerous traditions, languages, cultures, landscapes, cheezes and wines, BTW, Churchill said to de Gaulle (?) “how can anyone manage to govern a country with so many cheezes and so different wines ?”

    also saying that we were a country that always has been invaded proceed of your americanism indoctrinment propaganting that we are a country of surrenders, but, in history, point me one european country that has not been invaded bus us, ah yes, the US, but you’re invaded by Chineses, they even own your state budget, that’ the modern invadement ! :lol:

    Now, again, ask the other europeans countries if they don’t have some remains of our invadements, none in Europe can say it, except the nordest counties like Norway,Sweden, Portugal and Ireland for the Atlantic

  51. Marie Claude says:

    Roman

    La Révolution accorde le 21 septembre 1791 la citoyenneté pleine et entière à tous les Juifs de France.

    French Revolution decreated on september the 21rd that french Jews are plainly and completly French

    Le XIXe siècle voit une assimilation poussée des Juifs français avec de nombreuses conversions au christianisme.

    In 19th century a massive convertion of the french Jews into Christians made them completly assimilated

    http://www.guide-genealogie.com/guide/genealogie-juive.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_France

    while the UK were more vindicative against them

    http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/england_history.htm

  52. Roman Kalik says:

    From the Wiki article, Marie Claude:

    The net effect of his policies, however, significantly changed the position of the Jews in Europe. Starting in 1806, Napoleon passed a number of measures supporting the position of the Jews in the French Empire, including assembling a representative group elected by the Jewish community, the Sanhedrin. In conquered countries, he abolished laws restricting Jews to ghettos. In 1807, he made Judaism, along with Roman Catholicism and Lutheran and Calvinist Protestantism, official religions of France. Napoleon rolled back some reforms in 1808, declaring all debts with Jews annulled, reduced or postponed, which caused the Jewish community to nearly collapse. Jews were also restricted in where they could live, in hopes of assimilating them into society. Many of these restrictions were eased again in 1811.

    What the article fails to mention is that Napoleon’s creation of the Sanhedrin was to force upon France’s Jews a central religious leadership under his direct control – it was to this council that he brought his demands of turning the Jews into “French”.

    Which is to say, destroying every semblance of their Jewish identity utterly.

    For the same reason, they had forced constraints on where they could live. Napoleon wanted to forcibly assimilate France’s Jews – as you say, they were to be plain and completely French. And nothing else.

    So yes, many Jews assimilated. I do not doubt that many of them converted to Christianity in the wake of late 19th century liberal thought, coupled with the rise of nationalism.

    You gave them the carrot and the old stick, MC. Assimilate or be hated. Assimilate or be anti-French. Assimilate and profit. Assimilate and be accepted.

    while the UK were more vindicative against them

    You may want to read the history of France’s own Jewry, from the start of the massacres during the Crusades, to mass expulsions, to a very direct separation from the rest of society that remained until they were *forcibly assimilated*.

    At least when England’s Jews gained their full rights in the early 19th century, it didn’t have a stick of “you *will* assimilate and disappear, I command it!” attached to it.

  53. That’s very interesting Roman, I didn’t know about the examples from Napoleon’s reign. Thanks!!

  54. Marie Claude says:

    Roman, no, UK jews got the british nationality around 1860, why are you always supporting the anglo-saxon legend of the good guis ?

    they were not forced to become christian, that was their choice to participate into the french political spectre and to get miitary grades, they fully were aware of the writings of the “enlightened philosophers, and probably shared most of their ideas too

  55. Marie Claude says:

    Besides, since then, lot of our political and intellectual personalities were /are jews, but secular, that’s what hurts you I guess

  56. Marie Claude says:

    I forgot to mention that the separation of the church from State only occured in 1904, therefore the jews that were french citizens and who wanted to exert a role in french infrastructures obviously had to become christians too, no other religion had the possibility to be in offices until the 20 th century

  57. Roman Kalik says:

    Roman, no, UK jews got the british nationality around 1860, why are you always supporting the anglo-saxon legend of the good guis ?

    Queen Victoria knighted Moses Haim Montefiore. Isaac Lyon Goldsmid was made a baronet four years later.

    Britain remained a monarchy, MC. The monarchy set the trends.

    they were not forced to become christian, that was their choice to participate into the french political spectre and to get miitary grades, they fully were aware of the writings of the “enlightened philosophers, and probably shared most of their ideas too

    *shrug* Which is why Napoleon had them forcibly resettled, their rights defined by how many “French points” they had, to make a rather sad parallel?
    You gave them the carrot and the stick, MC. So that way, you could be smug in your superior and pure French identity while watching those who weren’t there be forcibly pushed into it.

    Yeah, they knew what they were going into, MC. They also knew the alternatives you left them with – very few, if any at all.

    Besides, since then, lot of our political and intellectual personalities were /are jews, but secular, that’s what hurts you I guess

    What hurts me, MC, is the fact that they are not merely secular. Their grandparents and great-grandparents were *secularized*, reeducated, molded to fit the Majority Society so it wouldn’t cringe its nose as they passed their Jewish minority.

    You set trends, and then you made them follow them. You made them equal citizens not by granting them equal rights, but by attempting to eliminate that which made them different in the first place.

    You did not *accept* their differences, MC. France ate them. Just like it tried to eat its former colonies, devouring their culture and leaving only French.

    You know what that particular attitude of cultural reeducation reminds me of? The Soviet Union.

  58. Roman Kalik says:

    Forgot to mention, Moses Haim Montefiore was knighted in 1837.

  59. Or just like the French, anyway. Which is what Prof. Shlomo Sand, to whose works MC linked to, is claiming. Except he’s also a post-modernist, post-Zionist, post-nationalist, post-anything-at-all kind of liberal-minded individual, with a heavy portion of bias and little, if anything, to do with reality.

    I understand what you are saying, Roman. It drives me nuts when people who have a personal agenda try to abuse the sciences to make their case. Very difficult to argue with such people because they think they have the facts on their side.

    In 19th century a massive convertion of the french Jews into Christians made them completly assimilated

    MC, when Jews become Christians they also become completely non-Jewish.Just as when Christians were converted wholesale to Islam they became non-Christian. I’m not really following how this bolsters your claims about French Jews?

    Craig not at all, they interbred, BTW, some of our celts from Poitiers aeras were famous in Scottland,the Picts, do you know that the celt name of Poitiers is Lemo, the roman name Lemonum, the inhabitants the Pictones ?

    Most historians believe the picts to be indigenous to Scotland and Northern Ireland, MC. I’ll let you argue with them about it :)

    As for the Gauls… they “interbred” and vanished? Is that what you are saying? Because I’ve never seen you acknowledge they even exist in France, anymore. I’ve seen you mention the Britons who fled the anglo-saxon invasions of Britain and moved to the continent, and had part of France named after them, and I’ve seen you claim that Picts came from France and migrated to Scotland, but I’ve never seen you talk about the indigenous people of France. *shrug*

  60. also saying that we were a country that always has been invaded proceed of your americanism indoctrinment propaganting that we are a country of surrenders…

    That’s right, when history isn’t on your side then blame it on American brainwashing. lol.

    You do realize that the Romans were unsuccessful in invading Germania, correct? And only partially successful invading Britain? In fact, the Romans suffered a catastrophic defeat in Germania and never seriously attempted conquering German lands again. And then of course, when Gaul was lost to teh Romans, it was Germans who took it from them… the Franks became your new rulers, and gave Gaul their name. I don’t know what period of time you want to look at and claim France was not under foreign rule… the middle-ages, perhaps? But what about the Franks and the Normans? :o

    Not gonna play this game. France’s history is well known, and it has nothing to do with American indoctrination.

  61. Marie Claude says:

    Craig, I know how you like to interpret history for good raisons :lol: umm, funny that no school books is saying our visions, in the contrary, our former colonies are complaining that they had to learn the the Gauls were their ancesters too, and do you know, some blacks happen to have some blue yes and blond hair, incredible !!!

  62. Marie Claude says:

    no history book is saying YOUR vision, ptain bloody keyboard !

  63. no history book is saying YOUR vision, ptain bloody keyboard !

    Really? And what exactly did I say that you don’t agree with? I’ll be happy to battle it out with you. I love to argue about history, you know that :P

    But simply denying the validity of what i say isn’t helpful. Point out to me what you dispute, and lets get into it.

  64. …and do you know, some blacks happen to have some blue yes and blond hair, incredible !!!

    Pretty sure they don’t qualify as “black” under such circumstances, eh? :P

  65. Augustus Caesar, exactly 2000 years ago (9 AD):

    Upon hearing of the defeat, the Emperor Augustus, according to the Roman historian Suetonius in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars, showed signs of near-insanity, banging his head against the walls of his palace and repeatedly shouting Quintili Vare, legiones redde! (‘Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!’).

    Is that only in American history books, MC?

    By the way, it was the tribes that later became the Frankish confederation that inflicted that defeat upon Rome. Several centuries before they invaded Gaul and evicted the Romans. I guess the writing was on the wall, even then, eh? And the Romans launched that disastrous incursion into Germania, from occupied Gaul. Seems to me the Romans mistakenly believed the Germans would be as easy to roll over as the Gauls had been. Live and learn, right? Only, the Romans didn’t live. Nor did their empire. And it wasn’t Gauls who took them down, it was Germans… the Franks not least of them.

  66. Hey MC, to try to be at least somewhat on topic for this blog, who stopped Arabs from invading Europe from Spain? Gauls, or Germans? I understand very well why you like to claim Normans and Franks as your countrymen even though they were in fact your conquerors, but some clarity is called for when discussing history. Wouldn’t you say? Else, I will start accusing you of using a sanitized and specifically ‘French” version of world history.

  67. Marie Claude says:

    Roman

    theTorah says, “They will come back to Israel from all over the world. Many will not even know that they are Jews, for I will bring them back. Not for their sake; but, for mine for I have given my word to them.”

    does that explain the aggressive advertising of the far-right pro-sionists, that all Jews must come back to Israel ? especially those threatened Jews in France !

    Do you know why they are so much after us, because we have the second largest jewish diaspora after the US, and demonising the French and all our arab immigration is part of the agenda. I guess the fact that we also host the biggest part of the muslim immigration in EU helps them for good reasons.

    Though in the last polls about anti-semitism in EU, we had the lowest rate, ~15 %, incredible, no ? and it’s mostly due to the conflict that opposes Israel and Hamas

    Now I tell you a secret, a Rotschild noble married a french starlett, some decades ago, he is not the only one, there are many who don’t endorse the orthodoxy of the far-rightists anymore.

    Le Grand Armorial aux Archives nationales contient également les armes de Timothée d’Alba, seigneur de la Gironnie et de Daniel d’Alba, vicomte de Monbazillac:

    umm, we beat the Anglo-Saxons, Louis XIII made the first jewish nobles

    http://lesermentdupuits.canalblog.com/archives/histoire_de_france/index.html

    obout the Jews supposed forced to reverse into catholics :

    Rapidement les Juifs renoncent à tout particularisme linguistique et culturel, spécialement en France et en Allemagne: prenant au sérieux et croyant irréversible leur libération juridique, ils se disent citoyens “de confession israélite” et affichent un patriotisme ombrageux. L’assimilation atteint parfois la religion: les conversions au catholicisme ou au protestantisme sont nombreuses en France et en Prusse (Henri Heine). Les Juifs participent à l’essor économique du XIXe siècle (Rothschild, Pereire), à la vie politique (Adolphe Crémieux en France, Gabriel Riesser en Prusse), à la littérature et à l’art.
    Ce judaïsme assimilé est expansionniste: il gagne les communautés encore médiévales d’Afrique et d’Asie. On perçoit ainsi une colonisation par le judaïsme français des communautés d’Algérie, suivie du décret Crémieux (24 oct. 1870) qui accorde en bloc la citoyenneté française aux Juifs d’Algérie. Ceux d’Europe se mobilisent lors de l’affaire de Damas en 1840 (des Juifs avaient été emprisonnés et torturés à la suite d’une accusation de meurtre rituel sur la personne d’un franciscain) et de l’affaire Mortara (un enfant enlevé à une famille juive de Rome par la police pontificale, sous prétexte qu’il avait été baptisé en secret par une domestique). L’Alliance israélite universelle, fondée à Paris en 1860, se propose de lutter en tous lieux pour la sauvegarde des droits des Juifs et leur libération par l’instruction. Elle crée, avec l’appui du gouvernement français et des autorités musulmanes, bravant parfois l’opposition des notables et rabbins des communautés concernées, des écoles modernes et des centres d’apprentissage en Afrique du Nord et en Orient. Son école d’agriculture de Mikweh Israël, en Terre sainte (1870), œuvre purement philanthropique d’abord, facilita plus tard la colonisation sioniste.

    http://hebreunet.ovh.org/hpj.htm

    umm, France help the Jews to be respected in ME too

    so pogroms ?????

    yes, in Russia

    the anti-semitism as we are in use to refer appears within nationalisms

  68. Marie Claude says:

    Craig Charle Martel lived in Poitiers, the citty of Lemo, um his warriors werent coming from across the Rhein, but from the very place of the pPctons

  69. Craig Charle Martel lived in Poitiers, the citty of Lemo,

    He was born in Herstal. Present day Belgium. Which is where the Frankish tribes migrated to. They controlled (as rulers) some parts of present day France. The rest of Roman Gaul was ruled by other German tribes. The indigenous people under that system were little more than property.

    “Charles” is spelling variation of “Carl” in German. “Carl” in German is “Churl” in English. “Churl” means “Free Man” – it is the lowest social status a free man could have. Anything lower than that is a slave for all intents and purposes, which is the status Gauls had under the Franks. Despite his name, the actual social stats of Charles Martel would have been a Jarl, or Chieftain, which is “Earl” in English.

    Gaul was under German rule at the time of Charles Martel. As it was during the time of his grandson, Charlemagne. The Franks were a Germanic tribal confederation and they used Germanic social constructs in lands they conquered.

    um his warriors werent coming from across the Rhein, but from the very place of the pPctons

    They were Frankish warriors, just as it was Anglo-Saxon warriors that William faced at the battle of Hastings several hundred years later. The tribes didn’t abandon their tribal identities when they migrated. That didn’t happen until quite a bit later.

  70. Marie Claude says:

    ça va Craig , I tell you one more secret, we are VIRTUAL, and you imagine us in a second life scenario

  71. Trying to distract me with some French nonsense, eh? :P

    Won’t work!

    obout the Jews supposed forced to reverse into catholics

    There’s nothing “supposed” about it. And it’s far from the only instance where Jews were coerced into conversions. In Spain, Jews were given the same ultimatum that Muslims were, during the Inquisition. I tell you, MC, my ancestors still lived in Europe back then but I’m not a big fan of trying to retroactively clean up the history so that things look prettier than they really were. How big a leap is it from doing that, to applying the same revisions to ugly current events that we’d rather avoid confronting? Not a large one, I think.

  72. Marie Claude says:

    Craig, tranlate, this had nothing to be compared with Spain inquisition, but you still want to read alike, I don’t care. Now, you’re condamned to relive your life , I just hope that next time you will be better formated :lol:

  73. MC, first you accused me of using an American version of European history and when I backed up the claims I made, you changed the subject – without apology. Now you claim I’m mis-interpreting historical European persecution of Jews… if I point out that there was also an Inquisition in France, will it matter to you? History is a hobby of mine, MC. I’m pretty well informed, especially about European history. You, on the other hand, repeat the romanticized version that we teach to grade school children in the US because the realities are too complex for young minds to grasp. There’s nothing wrong with that, it is the only version most people know, but don’t try to use that grossly simplified version to claim people who have studied history in more depth are incorrect. And for damn sure, don’t claim the more subtle and complete understanding of history is “propaganda” :P

  74. Roman Kalik says:

    @MC,

    Roman

    theTorah says, “They will come back to Israel from all over the world. Many will not even know that they are Jews, for I will bring them back. Not for their sake; but, for mine for I have given my word to them.”

    does that explain the aggressive advertising of the far-right pro-sionists, that all Jews must come back to Israel ? especially those threatened Jews in France !

    “far-right pro-sionists”? Apologies, I didn’t realize that Le-Pen was in favor of French Jews. Normally I wouldn’t deign this semi-ignorant, semi-patronizing foolery with a reply, but you’re certainly getting there…

    For most Zionists, secular or religious or otherwise, bringing Jews to Israel was a matter of safety and disillusionment. The religious concept of the return from the exile is set for the coming the Jewish Messiah and the restoration of the Temple – not exactly to do with current days, is it?

    What I *have* noticed in the past few years is a monumental surge of French Jews coming to Israel, along with many of those who *do* stay and France buying up residences in Israel for… a rainy day.

    Can’t help but wonder what might have got them to consider France as *unfriendly*.

    Do you know why they are so much after us, because we have the second largest jewish diaspora after the US, and demonising the French and all our arab immigration is part of the agenda. I guess the fact that we also host the biggest part of the muslim immigration in EU helps them for good reasons.

    The so-called demonization of the French by “Zionists” exists primarily in your own head.

    Though in the last polls about anti-semitism in EU, we had the lowest rate, ~15 %, incredible, no ?

    Yes, it’s also incredible that France is credited to be the leader among European nations that misreport anti-Semitic attacks as regular crimes unrelated to hate.

    and it’s mostly due to the conflict that opposes Israel and Hamas

    When so many people have a penchant to blaming “the Jews” for anything that Israel does, along with spreading conspiracies of mass domination and the world bowing to “The Zionist Cabal”, of which the local Jewry is then seen as the local representation…

    Yeah, I’d say there’s a problem.

    Now I tell you a secret, a Rotschild noble married a french starlett, some decades ago, he is not the only one, there are many who don’t endorse the orthodoxy of the far-rightists anymore.

    Amazing. You have actually mixed Orthodox Judaism with far-right politics in your head. Does that make you feel better about yourself, in that little world of yours? Becuase, you see, that doesn’t have much to do with reality.

    umm, we beat the Anglo-Saxons, Louis XIII made the first jewish nobles

    Good for you for utterly missing the point – in Britain, they weren’t forcibly assimilated into the general populace. In Britain, becoming equal members of society was not granted at the price of disappearing.

    so pogroms ?????

    yes, in Russia

    I see a brief history lesson of the Jews of France is needed. Particularly making note of the bad bits, including the Inquisition.

    Late 8th Century – Charlemagne, having realized the benefit Jews could bring to the economy of his kingdom, defines the rights of obligations of the Jewish minority within France. His legal protection and code, while very beneficial to Jews, still accords them second-right citizenry and inequality before the law – the most Charlemagne could give them in Catholic Europe.

    Early 9th Century – Charlemagne’s son and heir, Louis, continues the policies of his father, attracting further Jews to the kingdom of France. He is seen, like his father, as a protector of the Jews. Jewish mercantile activity expands greatly within the French sphere of influence.

    1010 – Alduin, the Bishop of Limoges, gave the Jews within his diocese a choice – baptism or exile. Duke Robert of Normandy and his vassals acted to destroy all Jewish presence within their lands – the result being rampant massacres. The Jews were accused of alerting the Saracens of impeding military offensives from Christian lands, as well as the desecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher by Muslims, prompting violent eruptions across France.

    1065 – Another eruption of violence across France, Jews are massacred across the kingdom. A few areas, like Narbonne, enjoy relative calm compared to the rest.

    1096 – The First Crusade. The Crusaders pass through Ruen, imprision all of its Jewish populace in a local church, and then exterminated those who did not accept baptism. Jews throughout France write letters to the Jewish community across the Rhine, asking them to fast and pray for them – but the Jews across the Rhineland also suffer similar fates.

    1182 – The century that passed from the First Crusade can be identified by hatred. Mass hatred. Blood libels had become the norm, as did burnings of the Jewish “offenders”. 1181 saw the crowning of Philip Augustus, who immediately ordered all Jews in France to be arrested in the midst of Saturday, and their property to be confiscated. 1182 saw the order of expulsion for all of France’s Jews.

    1198 – King Philip Augustus recalled his edict of expulsion, having realized that Jews can be an excellent source of income over time. The returned Jews were given specific places within the French economy, with special taxation and official monitoring to make sure of their continued profitability. Jews were now little more than money cows, and were treated in kind by both the king and the lords – “my Jews”, “my lands”, “my vineyards”.

    1226 – Louis IX, a very pious king. So pious that he forbate all forms of lending, regardless of the fact that his predecessors limited the scope and ability of Jews to find employment to this very place in the economy. The state of the Jews as the property of their lords was further cemented, and they were now legally in the same position as serfs – simply of a more money-producing kind.

    1234 – Louis IX freed his subjects of a third of the previously existing debts to Jews, effectively handing over the Jewish funds to Christians.

    1243 – Louis IX ordered the public burning of some 12,000 Jewish manuscripts in Paris, mainly copies of the Talmud.

    1251 – Louis IX having become a captive during the Crusades, a populist movement of Frenchmen moved from northern France with the supposed goal of rescuing him. They attacked Jews as the wandered through the country.

    1268 – Louis IX decides to arrest all the Jews of France and seize their property. He reconsidered in 1269, but ordered instead that all Jews should wear a sign on their outer garment – the roulle, a piece of red cloth in the form of a circle of fingers. The roulle was worn on both front and back of the garment, so that under no circumstances would a Frenchman mistakenly not identify a Jew.

    1273 – The Inquisition turned to the Jews of southern France, having found that the Jewish population there, which was coerced and forced into mass conversions to Christianity, was returning to the Jewish religion. The Inquisition treated all such “relapses” as cases of herecy, and treated them in kind – torture for confessions and an attempt to make them repent, and the stake. King Philip the Fair at first ordered his seneschals not to imprison Jews at the demand of the Inquisitors, but rescinded that order by 1299. If the Inquisition had at least *some* difficulties in France, they were now lifted. The Inquisition was given free reign in France to fulfill its initial role – to monitor all Jewish converts to Christianity, and to punish all lapses severely.

    1306 – Philip the Fair, now having run out of money, turned to the Jews. A day after Tisha B’Av, a Jewish fast day, all the Jews of the kindom of France were arrested. In the prisons, they were told that all their worldly property, excluding the clothes they wore and a sum of 12 sous tournois each, and that they were to be thrown into exile.

    1315 – Louis X ordered that the Jews were allowed to return to France for a period of twelve years. Conditions were set as to how they could conduct their business at the time, and they were also forced to pay for the return of their synagogues and cemetaries. The badge on their clothes remained. At the end of the twelve-year period the Jews were ransomed a sum of 122,500 livres to be allowed to remain, likely the plan from the very beginning.

    1394 – Charles VI expells all the Jews of the kingdom of France (are you seeing the trend here, MC?). They were this time given a respite of several months to sell of their property, at the end of which period they were escorted to the borders of the kingdom. All debts that Christians held to Jews were summarily released.

    1615 – Jews began returning to France in small trickles, which resulted in an edict that forbade, upon pain of death, for a Christian to shelter a Jew, or even to converse with one. Violent riots erupted against the returning Jews.

    1648 – Louis XIV annexes the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, both holding a significant Jewish population. He considered banishing them as well, but decided against it, deciding that he could profit from their presence.

    1683 – Louis XIV orders the expulsion of the Jews of Martinique.

    Jews were not allowed to fully return to all of france until 1785, Marie Claude – the very end of the 18th century. So yes, not only did you have the brutal hunts of the Inquisition, you had pretty much everything else. Inclucing the expel/return/expel/return/expel routine.

  75. Marie Claude says:

    Roman,

    I am aware of all the the medias pressions, I surf on american sites and pro-sionist sites ie jihad watch, atlas shrug, PJM… and the poll I quoted was printed on them, funny that they only pointed on european anti-semitism, while meaning french’s one, cause I know when it is question of Europe, they mainly lunderstand at us as eurabian people, just that the Brits passed us lately LMAO

    how many times I have been reproached De Gaulle pro- arab policies, since the blizt krieg of 1967, when he warned Israel not to start the hostilities, and thus then would imply an embargo on delivering her arms ?
    Since then we are on the board of the machiavellans that only seak their own interest…

    the sentence that I put in exterpt was one of an american jewish friend who wanted to explain me why Jews have to return to Israel

    What I *have* noticed in the past few years is a monumental surge of French Jews coming to Israel, along with many of those who *do* stay and France buying up residences in Israel for… a rainy day.

    yes, there are advertisings in our papers to buy properties in Israel, lots of our jewish comminity who can afford the charges make it for retirement purpose, mostly in Tel Aviv aeras which has a liberal reputation

    The so-called demonization of the French by “Zionists” exists primarily in your own head.

    one late exemple :

    Some typical actions of French ruling elites (ie those people who used your grand daddies as cannon-fodder):

    -Alliance between France and the Turks against Karl V. Turkish warships are allowed to stay in Marseille’s harbor despite use of Christian some of them probably French slave rowers. Also entire Europe (France include) is endangered: First siege of Vienna.

    -Hostile neutrality, as in forcing Spaniards to distract forces from the main effort, during the Lepanto campaign. IN the months preceding the battle, the forces on the Turkish fleet crushed several revolts in occupied Europe perpetrating such atrocities that even islamic scholars were moved by them (a unique case since inception of Islam where islamic scholars were moved by atrocities against infidels). It also set back the cause of freedom in Balkans for several centuries. It was also the root cause of what happened last decade in former Yugoslavia

    -Backstabing and irresponsible behavior during the events who led to second siege of Vienna. Louis XIV pressured Jan Sobieski to remain neutral. He wasn’t moved by considerations like the fate of populations under Turkish yoke. He didn’t stop to think that if Sobieski had listened him you would be wearing a burkha now. He also took advantage of Austrian and German troops being busy elsewhere to steal Alsace, aka aone of the root causes of WWI.

    -De Gaulle’s action during WWII. He ever seemed more concerned by consolidating his position than by having Free France make a useful contribution to war effort (No, I am not debasing Free French. Only that one). After reading De Gaulle’s war memories it looked like the motto “Petain is the shield and De Gaulle the sword” (against Germans) should have been inverted “De Gaulle, the shield. Petain the sword” (against Allies)

    -De Gaulle’s 1945 release of Hadj Amin Husseini. Amin Husseini was a former participant in the Armenian genocide, organizer of the 193x pogroms in what was called Palestine, Hitler’s personal friend, helped to recruit the SS divions Hanschar whose atrocities in Serbia would horrify even the SS high command and last but not least his assassinations of Palestinian leaders willing to compromise with the Jews contributed to making Middle East the mess it is. De Gaulle, supposedly a Free French, released a war criminal related to the Nazis in order to cause trouble to the British. That with the corpses of those who had fallen in France still warm.

    -De Gaulle’s double-crossings during the Cold War. His weapons embargo against Israel prior to Six Days War in order to ingratiate the Arabs. Arab leaders had told that their goal was neither destroying the state of Israel nor sending back Jews to Europe but their extermination in case they had won the war. That didn’t bother him

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3putt_de-gaulle-sur-israel_news

    http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2007/06/BERG/14839

    no, It’s not an illusion :

    http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2004/07/21/news/israel/zafrance0720.txt

    http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,671180,00.html

    Well, I’m not buying all what it is said abroad, we have our problems, we try to handle them the better we can, Surburbs gangsterism and rampant anti-semitism can’t be cured in a day, but laws make it more difficult for them

    Now, you have your views on history, seems that they all don’t coincide with our french jews views

  76. Marie Claude says:
  77. Marie Claude says:

    from the last article

    “In total, we as can see, France isn’t facing to the “Year of crystal” ie Alain Finkielkraut nor to the “new Judeophobia” ie Pierre-André Taguieff, but rather to the “rise of social violence” , readily diagnosed by the former president of CRIF Théo Klein. The main ground is found in ghettos of unemployment and poverty where grow, without any hope for the future, part of the young people, first and foremost issue is that of immigration. If it should be combated, as in the rest of society, all forms – especially violent – of racism and anti-Semitism, it also should be, more broadly, addressed to the root causes.”

  78. Marie Claude says:

    Le pen’s views on holocaust are not what consolidated his party, which was mainly successful because of the too liberal policy practiced by our supposed right party for decades, that somewhat endorsed the socialism agenda. This far-right party was created by the remains of OAS members, not hte smartests.

    they are going less and less popular :

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lection_pr%C3%A9sidentielle_fran%C3%A7aise_de_2007

    Louis XIV was also against protestants, he revocated the Edit de Nantes, that allowed them to live in peace since Henri IV

    He reversed bigot at the end of his life since he was morganatly married to a pius jansenist Madame de Maintenon ; Jansenists were not known for being tolerant, ie Voltaire pamphlets (BTW, Volaire was deist but against any religion)

  79. Roman Kalik says:

    MC,

    Then I guess you missed the articles discussing the British immigration and refugee status policy, which has resulted in it hosting some of the most radical clerics who escaped the secular dictatorships of the Middle-East. You must have missed the articles discussing the underground Shari’a courts in the same country. You must have missed articles on how MI5 can no longer *track* the sheer number of local suspects of radical Islamist leanings and potential terrorists. Or the sheer idiocy of some British liberals and their interpretation on how tolerance is defined – including doing amazingly stupid things like removing items that have Piglet from Winnie the Pooh on them from offices.

    You must have also missed the articles on Spanish politics, and current-day rate of Spanish anti-Semitism for that matter. You must have missed the articles on Sweden’s refugee Muslim immigrants and the increase in anti-Semitic attacks and family honor crimes that they brought with them.

    You must have missed, in fact, most of the article on the net that discussed Europe.

    Here’s a hint, MC – when you search for “France”, what you *find* will be connected to France. When you don’t search for the rest, you won’t *get* the rest. This is directly connected to your own interests.

    You seemingly want a victimized France, so that you can rush in and defend it. What you don’t realize is that you actually do more to defame it as a result than those you supposedly battle.

    But you know what? Let’s play a game for a moment. Let’s pretend, purely for the sake of the argument, that France gets more attention than it should on the matter. Could it have something to do with the fact that, since Charles de Gaulle began his period of Politique de Grandeur, France’s leadership had been rather arrogant people whose sole aim, sometimes, was seemingly nothing more than to glorify France and its supposed benevolent influence, snub the US and the UK, and to basically serve, in political terms, as the leg that trips people and the mouth that smirks when that makes people fall?

    Chirac wasn’t much better, recently. Your political elites and your old cultural elites seemingly worked together to re-create the stereotype of the arrogant, elitist Frenchman, of a kind unseen since the days of Louis XIV the Sun King. France’s foreign policy was defined not as much as what it was for but by what it was *against*, which is why it seemingly played both the role of the wise sage to whom all must turn for advice, and the smug intellectual who sits on the folding chair, eating popcorn and enjoying the carnage that supposedly would have been averted *had they only turned to France*.

    Have you looked in the mirror lately, MC, at your aging politicians and intellectuals? At least Sarkozy is a far more honest breed of politician than your old guard – he wants France to be influential, but is also willing to act and sacrifice to do so. And he is not playing the old games of international arrogance.

  80. Marie Claude says:

    here we go the same litanies, precisely that were what I described before, no matter what I said, the denigrations existed before I acknoledged them by net surfing LMAO

    I am not missing anything, what you quote for the British hosting terrorists, I tell you who they were, GIA fighters, that our counter terrorism have been tracing and that the so smart british government didn’t want to release until they also got hurt by terrorism too. Their goal wasn’t to set an islamist goverment by us, but to fight our interests in Algeria, precisely Sahara, they (and their alike) were more crual to the Algerians, (ie 200000 casualties) I recommand you to google Algeria Civil war, the starting of these movements had political causes, some of the terrorists were financed by Marocco, (because of the remnent conflict on the Saharian borders….) guess why !

    As for Spain, this was of the same attempt like for the Brits, I am not saying that AQ doesn’t try for us but our anti-terorist service have one of the best reputations

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4316

    Chirac wasn’t much better, recently. Your political elites and your old cultural elites seemingly worked together to re-create the stereotype of the arrogant, elitist Frenchman,

    yes, you learn very well your americanist lesson for a former soviet citizen

    De Gaulle had no other alternative to stand like he did, Roosvelt’s contempt and his denegation to endorse de Gaulle as the representant of the resistants made it, according to his inclinations Roosvelt had preferred an ex Vichy military Giraud…and his arrogance was even worst (that’s another debat that have had many times elsewhere) though still got the archives…

    see how are described the salvator Roosvelt :

    http://kimel.net/fdr.html

    about France

    http://kimel.net/france.html

    you can check all the links in there, very instructive,

    I hope you read What I bring, though I have adoubt

  81. I hope you read What I bring, though I have adoubt

    Why shouldn’t people respond with the same “it’s just propaganda” attitude that you bring to the table, MC? Why do you expect better treatment than you give others? Is it because you’re French, and you think you are better and smarter than everyone else? lol.

  82. Roman Kalik says:

    MC,

    here we go the same litanies

    Here we go, the same rushing to dismiss everything as “people hate France”.

    I am not missing anything, what you quote for the British hosting terrorists, I tell you who they were, GIA fighters, that our counter terrorism have been tracing

    Um, not quite, no, though I can see now why this is the *only* thing that you thought of. You really *do* read it only if it has France in it somehow, eh?

    The UK had Islamist radicals from far and wide – Afghan Mujaheddin, Egyptian fanatics who were expelled from Egypt… it was all something of a mess. As are Somali underground Shari’a courts…

    De Gaulle had no other alternative to stand like he did, Roosvelt’s contempt and his denegation to endorse de Gaulle

    You realize that we are talking about completely different time periods, I assume. De Galle’s politics were a matter of the *Sixties*, not WWII. FDR was long dead by then.

    And yes, I am well aware of the fact that Roosevelt at first preferred to try and sway the Vichy government rather than accept De Galle – this may have had something to do with the fact that De Galle was a leader of nothing tangible at the time. Pretty much all the Allied nations had a very gradual slide toward accepting and supporting De Galle as the leader of the French resistance. De Galle always had a very flimsy grip of said leadership and representation, sometimes due to his own paranoia and mistrust toward Britain – the very nation that first recognized his role as the leader of free France and supported him.

    It was first and foremost a battle of Ego. Roosevelt, Churchill and De Galle were never famous for *liking* each other, to say the least.

    And yes, I am also familiar with FDR’s stereotypical and even somewhat anti-Semitic views – though mostly, they were quite more actively shared by other government officials in the US at the time, including those who could officially speak as US representatives.

    I still fail to see how this has anything to do with his politics 20 years down the line.

  83. Roman Kalik says:

    Correction:

    I still fail to see how this has anything to do with De Galle’s politics 20 years down the line.

  84. Marie Claude says:

    Roman the clichés of a supposed “arrogance” still come from these times, what de Gaulle beared during his exil in UK was an everyday humiliation, that the Brits and the American made sure he felt, in counterpart, he had to faint indiference and higher concerns, France liberation at any price.

    Now it is understandable that de Gaulle then stood for the independance of France, and couldn’t bear an american occupation too, even transformed as a Nato base. The very first goals of Roosvelt weren’t to deliver Europe from nazysme, but to take over our colonies. It is when the Soviets were winning all their battles and that they surely would have smashed Germany, they would also have overcome all the westerEuropean countries too, that Roosvelt finally decided to help us. Fortunately Churchill was convinceful enough. Everyday, I am repproached these times by my american fellows ; naturally they only see the positive part of them, but not how we had to endure these times, and the back yards political manigance for power

  85. Roman Kalik says:

    MC,

    what de Gaulle beared during his exil in UK was an everyday humiliation

    What De Gaulle bore during his exile was what every leader in exile lives through – it’s called marginality. He was the one who had to prove himself as being useful to the war effort, not the other way around. That was something that took quite some time for De Galle to realize and to stomach.

    The very first goals of Roosvelt weren’t to deliver Europe from nazysme, but to take over our colonies.

    Bullshit. Even De Gaulle always looked accusingly toward the British rather than the Americans. Sometimes I feel that you’re making this stuff up as you go.

    It is when the Soviets were winning all their battles and that they surely would have smashed Germany, they would also have overcome all the westerEuropean countries too, that Roosvelt finally decided to help us.

    The Americans joined the European conflict after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan was an ally of the Third Reich, in case you forgot.

    Until then, America was still mostly in an isolationist stance – even as Roosevelt was building up the aging US arsenal and navy, and even as he gave the Allies full economic support. His was a policy was “all aid short of war” – officially, at least… because that’s all he could manage with strong opposition among US politicians and the populace regarding getting involved, once more, in “Europe’s War”.

    All the while, the American armed forces were being prepared for invading Europe, even before Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was *in favor* of active armed involvement against Nazi Germany. It was his top priority. But he was incapable of entering the conflict by his own decision – many Americans weren’t interested in dying to save your European lives after you messed it all up again. Wars have this “high casualty rate” thing, you see… not something that people tend to approve of.

    So he acted at the very first pretext – Pearl Harbor. And yet, instead of acting first against the Empire of the Rising Sun, Roosevelt directed the already prepared forces to Europe, and sat down with Churchill and Stalin to plan the destruction of the Nazis.

    Everyday, I am repproached these times by my american fellows ; naturally they only see the positive part of them, but not how we had to endure these times, and the back yards political manigance for power

    Thank them. Americans owed your parents and grandparents nothing, MC.

    Nothing whatsoever.

    That’s what you keep forgetting.

    And please, cry me a river. France’s low political state was first and foremost due to *France*. Your politicians bickered, back-stabbed each other, and had a race regarding who could sell your state secrets to Germany first. Your military was dated all the way back to the WWI. When De Gaulle’s military theorems were ignored in France, and were instead taken up by Germany’s armor divisions and mechanized infantry.

    France slept and dreamed of a New Age of Prosperity even as the German tanks cut around the Maginot Line. You sent aging WWI veterans to fight young German soldiers who had over 30 years of military technology and advances at their side.

    Then you had the Vichy government.

    You know how one could best describe your country’s situation after that? Civil war. You weren’t fighting the Germans as much as you were fighting the other half of your country. Until De Gaulle formed an organized and proper military force from the French in the colonies and the partisans opposed to Vichy, France needed to be saved, first and foremost, from France itself. You were practically your own worst enemies during WWII.

  86. Marie Claude says:

    Bullshit. Even De Gaulle always looked accusingly toward the British rather than the Americans. Sometimes I feel that you’re making this stuff up as you go.

    That’s not says Kremlin declassified documents

  87. Marie Claude says:

    Thank them. Americans owed your parents and grandparents nothing, MC.

    Nothing whatsoever.

    That’s what you keep forgetting.

    of what ??? it took them 2 centuries to pay back

    http://www.hudsonrivervalley.net/ROCHAMBEAUINCONNECTICUT/ROCHAMBEAUINCONNECTICUT4.pdf

    and escuse me the american occupation wasn’t always quit pleasant

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121793,00.html

  88. Marie Claude says:

    Most of all what is repproached to de Gaulle, and why is the banner of socialists is given to us, is the alliance that De Gaulle made with the Soviets to counter the US ambition to make of France a protectorat (also the end of Nato)

    What yu read about us is their frustrations

    Chef de la France libre, il a mis en échec les tentatives anglo-saxonnes visant à réduire la France, après-guerre, à un statut de protectorat (1). Chef du gouvernement provisoire de la République française, il a signé à Moscou, le 10 décembre 1944, un « traité d’alliance et d’assistance mutuelle », qu’il qualifie de « belle et bonne alliance ». Il faut mener, expliquera-t-il « une politique française d’équilibre entre deux très grandes puissances, politique que je crois absolument nécessaire pour l’intérêt du pays et même celui de la paix (2) ». Son départ du gouvernement, début 1946, puis l’entrée dans la guerre froide ramènent la France dans le giron atlantique, notamment via l’OTAN à partir de 1949.

    http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2008/04/VIDAL/15800

  89. Marie Claude says:

    And please, cry me a river. France’s low political state was first and foremost due to *France*. Your politicians bickered, back-stabbed each other, and had a race regarding who could sell your state secrets to Germany first. Your military was dated all the way back to the WWI. When De Gaulle’s military theorems were ignored in France, and were instead taken up by Germany’s armor divisions and mechanized infantry.

    Like everywhere in democraties, I heard that in Israel policies aren’t quit consensual

    France slept and dreamed of a New Age of Prosperity even as the German tanks cut around the Maginot Line. You sent aging WWI veterans to fight young German soldiers who had over 30 years of military technology and advances at their side.

    ok, unions wars weren’t quit adequat to prepare a blitz krieg, Leon Blum, the french minister of that pre-war period should have better forecasted the following years

    Then you had the Vichy government.

    yeah, the Brits preferred to leave us alone in Dunkeerque, knowing it would more difficult to cross the channel for tanks

    You know how one could best describe your country’s situation after that? Civil war. You weren’t fighting the Germans as much as you were fighting the other half of your country. Until De Gaulle formed an organized and proper military force from the French in the colonies and the partisans opposed to Vichy, France needed to be saved, first and foremost, from France itself. You were practically your own worst enemies during WWII.

    Precisely, thanks to de Gaulle this didn’t happened, he manage to take over all the french administrations before the alliees, and made them work right away. Our alliees would have been pleased to see the 2 divided France fighting each other, thus set then their puppet representant for controlling us ad vitam et eternam, like they use to make in latin America, Iran, but their puppet blowed them into their face there…

    fortunately some persons can appreciate de Gaulle, but not for your raison

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_golden_anniversary_of_de_g.html

    http://www.planetenonviolence.org/Comment-De-Gaulle-a-Sabote-le-Plan-Britannique-de-la-Grande-Syrie-et-Favorise-la-Creation-de-l-Entite-Sioniste_a1474.html

    Now I am not expecting that you endorse my view of our policies, just that I recall you that no country is clean, even your country has some hidden secrets

    but who cares, you are the victims

  90. Roman Kalik says:

    MC,

    That’s not says Kremlin declassified documents

    Which ones? “Stalin – A Paranoid’s Memoir”? Please, don’t make me laugh.

    of what ??? it took them 2 centuries to pay back

    You forget your own history, I see. Including WWI. Compared to the scant casualties of the French in their participation in the American Independence War (French involvement was primarily economic, not military), I’d say the 200 years in question already had ample repayment in it.

    So again, you were owed nothing. And demanded everything.

    and escuse me the american occupation wasn’t always quit pleasant

    No military occupation is pleasant, especially when your armies are conscript armies – they recruit anyone who can hold a gun by their very definition. The culling of the criminals in the army is usually an afterthought in such large conflicts. They’re punished severely (up to and including execution), but who in their right minds would bother spending so much time looking for them before the actual recruitment in the middle of one of the world’s biggest armed conflicts?

    Most of all what is repproached to de Gaulle, and why is the banner of socialists is given to us, is the alliance that De Gaulle made with the Soviets to counter the US ambition to make of France a protectorat (also the end of Nato)

    NATO’s sole aim was closing off, and countering, the expansion of the Communists. Your alignment with the Soviet Union after the 60′s was the sole result of Charles De Gaulle’s pride and arrogance, and moreso. You chose your own separate path, and deliberately aligned yourselves diplomatically with one the Soviet Union on the one hand, and the pan-Arab nationalists on the other. De Gaulle’s politics can often be analyzed as little more than looking at what the US and the UK were doing, and then choosing the opposite.

    Don’t you remember how and when France left NATO, MC? De Gaulle had demanded to make France one of NATO’s leaders, and to involve it in France’s colonial wars – notably Algeria. He also ranted a bit about how the UK was too close an ally of the US… in fact, he talked about that more than once, like when he torpedoed Britain’s entry to the EEC. He did it three times, didn’t he?

    What yu read about us is their frustrations

    What I read about you is your own actions. What I make of that is my own conclusions. Both my family in the Soviet Union and my current homeland of Israel suffered due to French policies.

    Like everywhere in democraties, I heard that in Israel policies aren’t quit consensual

    Lack of total rapport within the political system is one thing – that is indeed one of the central aspects of a small party democracy, small-scale political instability included.

    In France that went just a *little* further, all the way to selling France’s sole military defense secret to the Germans. Your politicians destroyed your country, and then divided it and fought over it.

    ok, unions wars weren’t quit adequat to prepare a blitz krieg, Leon Blum, the french minister of that pre-war period should have better forecasted the following years

    Such a lack of preparedness was nothing short of criminal. In this I share De Gaulle’s pre-war views entirely – his was the correct strategic military thinking for France, not a static “perfect defense”.

    yeah, the Brits preferred to leave us alone in Dunkeerque, knowing it would more difficult to cross the channel for tanks

    Oh, please, don’t blame someone else again. Vichy were Frenchmen, Frenchmen entirely aligned with Nazi Germany, and Frenchmen who made their own choices for the country. Your Third Republic had already crumbled de-facto before the Maginot Line even fell.

    Our alliees would have been pleased to see the 2 divided France fighting each other

    They already saw it in WWII. And no one was pleased of it, to say the least. You were a liability until much later in the war.

    thus set then their puppet representant for controlling us ad vitam et eternam, like they use to make in latin America, Iran, but their puppet blowed them into their face there…

    Yes. Right. Of course. It’s precisely this sentiment of “France the Victim”, “France the Great” that acts against you. And remind me, where did a certain Grand Ayatollah spend his time, spreading his propaganda for the Islamic Revolution of Iran…?

    I also recall De Gaulle’s speech about how the US should stop the conflict in Vietnam. Which is amusing, considering the fact that France essentially handed over the conflict to the US, and the aid the US once gave France during the Indochina War.

  91. Roman Kalik says:

    Now I am not expecting that you endorse my view of our policies, just that I recall you that no country is clean, even your country has some hidden secrets

    but who cares, you are the victims

    I thought the French were the victims, aren’t they? Of the Americans, of the British, of the Germans… everyone is responsible for France’s lack of glory.

  92. “All the while, the American armed forces were being prepared for invading Europe, even before Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was *in favor* of active armed involvement against Nazi Germany. It was his top priority. But he was incapable of entering the conflict by his own decision – many Americans weren’t interested in dying to save your European lives after you messed it all up again. Wars have this “high casualty rate” thing, you see… not something that people tend to approve of.”

    That’s a bit harsh, RK… “after you messed it all up again”? Please, don’t blame everyone for Germany’s territorial ambitions. By that logic, americans “messed up” in the pacific as well. Japan wasn’t a natural ally of Germany before the US entered the war and bolstered the commonwealth countries – it became a marriage of convenience, because of a mutual enemy…

    “And remind me, where did a certain Grand Ayatollah spend his time, spreading his propaganda for the Islamic Revolution of Iran…?”

    I don’t like the guy any more than you, but he didn’t do anything illegal. What would you have the french do? Arrest him without a charge? It doesn’t work like that in democracies… Well, with one notable exception! ;)

  93. Roman Kalik says:

    Adam B,

    That’s a bit harsh, RK…

    It was a very prevalent opinion within the US at the time, that’s all. It was your mess, and it was your mess to resolve as far as many Americans were concerned.

    As for my own opinion on the matter… European countries messed it up. The UK and France are of particular notice. The former essentially blinded itself from what Hitler and Nazis were, instead ending up helping them diplomatically to make that “Peace in Our Time” that Chamberlain was so obsessed with, and the latter was busily increasing German anger with the way it handled its control of certain German industries and resources post-WWI. It didn’t even help France economically that much – it seemed to be much more about humiliating their old enemies.

    The rest was just self-inflicted blindness across Europe. People didn’t want a war, so they pretended that it wasn’t going to happen regardless of what happened. Whereas the US saw Japan’s militarism a mile away, even if most of what it meant that much of what it did, in its stance of neutral isolationism, was to withdraw American troops from areas soon to be attacked by Japan – like China.

    I don’t like the guy any more than you, but he didn’t do anything illegal.

    You know, I’m not entirely sure that this is true. Is working toward the overthrow of a sovereign nation illegal? And does it make the host state of such people, who such a matter, complicit in the resulting events?

    At the very basic-most level, nations resolve such matters by not granting individuals entry – the right of every sovereign nation. Some people are just undesirable, and bring nothing but harm with them. France could have done the same, but it didn’t.

  94. I didn’t catch the refference to the prevalent attitude of the time in the US, sorry. Still, your own opinion is similar, and like I said, by your logic, the US is as much to blame as Britain – the US was equally blinded in regards to nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The US saw japanese aggresion as little (or as much!) as europeans saw german ditto, but, like us, they chose to ignore it, hoping it would go away, and failing to strengthen their position in the Phillipines, etc.

    The times were changing – the world was essentially a smaller place than it used to be and dialogue/diplomacy was becoming the preffered method of dealing with upcoming conflicts. Chamberlain became the symbol of miscalculation, but in reality everyone was willing to let Germany (and Japan) get away with murder to avoid an open conflict. In the end everyone was wrong.

    About Khomeini… I’m not sure what he actually did in Paris, but preaching for a system change in a dictatorship (relatively benign though it may have been) sounds quite acceptable. That his version turned out to be much worse isn’t really relavent to the case. As for the right of sovereign nations to disallow individuals entry on the grounds of suspicion alone, I took that up in another thread, where I complained that Denmark is currently being chastized by the UN for excersizing this exact “right”… Apparently there is no such thing!

  95. Roman Kalik says:

    Adam B,

    the US is as much to blame as Britain – the US was equally blinded in regards to nazi Germany and imperial Japan.

    The American public simply didn’t give much of a damn about what happened beyond the borders of the US at the time – isolationism was prevalent. Whereas in Europe, it was basically your own back yard being messed up.

    But yes, US isolationism did indeed lead to a very late response in handling Japanese advances – in fact, they were all handled after the fact. China, the Philippines…

    And the world did indeed become a much smaller place, so to speak… the US couldn’t *afford* to be isolationist, regardless of what the citizens wanted. The US wanted to stay at the sidelines, supporting its allies financially without placing itself in direct harm. It didn’t work out all that well, and at least Roosevelt realized that soon enough.

    About Khomeini… I’m not sure what he actually did in Paris, but preaching for a system change in a dictatorship (relatively benign though it may have been) sounds quite acceptable. That his version turned out to be much worse isn’t really relavent to the case.

    What Khomeini did in France was use it as a central base to launch his information war. His cassettes. His interviews. And they made it quite obvious that what he intended was a Shari’a state. He fully intended to replace a dictator with his own form of dictatorship – and he did. There was nothing quite acceptable in it, just like Cuba as it was over the past decades hasn’t been an improvement, to say the least. Supporting a revolutionary just because of the *process* is not good – you need to look at what he wants to change *to*.

    As for the right of sovereign nations to disallow individuals entry on the grounds of suspicion alone, I took that up in another thread, where I complained that Denmark is currently being chastized by the UN for excersizing this exact “right”… Apparently there is no such thing!

    Tell that to the UK. They denied Geert Wilders entry, didn’t they? Purely for political reasons? It’s persona non grata – and it is indeed the right of every sovereign nation, unless said sovereign nation signs it away.

    You might want to check if yours did, as part of your EU membership.

  96. Here we are back with the EU membership-thing… It’s the UN (a Special Rapporteur appointed by The UN Commission on Human Rights, now The UN Human Rights Council) that’s complaining, not the EU.

    What the UK (and the dutch) have done in the Wilders case is despicable, maybe even illegal, no matter how you feel about the guy.

    Like I said, I know little of what Khomeini was actually doing in France at the time, but I’m not sure if publishing propaganda about a Sharia state in what was then an absolute moarchy constitutes a crime as such. For a modern pendant take a walk down Edgware Road/Bayswater Road in London, and you’ll find plenty of bearded fellows selling books about a future sharia state in the UK… :D In any case, he made most of his tapes, etc. while living in Turkey and Iraq as far as I have heard…

  97. Roman Kalik says:

    Adam B,

    Oh, them. The council that has a majority of dictatorships and major human rights violators on the council, deciding what goes on the agenda.

    I do love the UN, don’t you? ;)

    What the UK (and the dutch) have done in the Wilders case is despicable, maybe even illegal, no matter how you feel about the guy.

    Not nice, not something that should be done as a rule? Sure. Illegal? I disagree. I don’t see it as a basic human right to allow everyone and anyone to enter my country, just as long as they’re not convicted criminals.

    For a modern pendant take a walk down Edgware Road/Bayswater Road in London, and you’ll find plenty of bearded fellows selling books about a future sharia state in the UK… :D

    Yes… that’s because UK immigration and refugee policies have been amazingly stupid over the years, as I’ve previously mentioned… They have a most interesting collection of radicals from far and wide. And it might just blow up in their faces again sooner or later.

    In any case, he made most of his tapes, etc. while living in Turkey and Iraq as far as I have heard…

    He made more tapes in France, but mainly he used it as a live communication hub. He basically ran the revolution from afar.

  98. franchie says:

    Roman, you want to look like the intelligent person here,and to have the last word on this history, it conforts you for your claims, and while the Americans are espousing your cause, they are the guis you can trust, because they “had” (finito, now, who are you going to endorse, Chineses? you got to learn chinese and their history, don’t forget, they make no feeling of your history, if you’re useful to them only) power and money and a big anglo-saxon mouth

    I tell you what, the french, for the most, don’t care to show off, they have enough subjects that keep them busy in the very France, good and bad, intelligent and idiot…

    if they do, it’s to counter (most of the time to have fun) big mouthy supermen to whom we are supposed to be merciful of every thing we breath, for being on the wrong side of the channel and of the Atlantic, for our language and traditions that have been opposing those devorant and never happy anglo-saxon need of recognition, Now, I’m telling you something like Cambronne did “MERDE”
    your explanation of history don’t stand honest analyses, it’s part of your means to be seen as the good guis, and us as the bad, cuz we were concurrent since UK existedBeside, I wait for your sources that you never provided, I expect that you’ll find some good ol american legend…

    BTW, I got Shlomo’s book, and he ain’t living in France but in Israel, his book was translated from hebraic into french…

    according your fairness, I am bending tothink that he is the very one that dares to voice truth.

    Roman and alike in your ivory tower promoting a legend, don’t you see that the world around you don’t believe you, even the people of your religion, don’t you see that the american empire is done, finita la comedia !

    now you can tell whatever convenient rubbish, I don’t care, it will not get you into your paradise

  99. franchie, would you care to elaborate on this “american empire”…?

  100. Marie Claude says:

    Adam, I am franchie

  101. MC, would you care to elaborate on this “american empire”…?

  102. I only have some marginal knowledge of French history, mostly from period costume films, but I will say, during the mid-late 18th century, les decolletage was tres magnifique’!

  103. So which Western European country has its military take the first coup? I tend to think it’s England, which is so far gone from what it was that the military is going to have to do something if this trend towards Islamization continues.

  104. Roman Kalik says:

    MC,

    and while the Americans are espousing your cause, they are the guis you can trust, because they “had” [...] power and money and a big anglo-saxon mouth

    *shrug* We trust anyone just as far as we can throw them, really. We won’t be committing suicide just because our current allies demand it, and we’ll be sure to find new allies post haste.

    After all, that’s how we became allied with the United States, remember? France used to be Israel’s primary ally, before De Gaulle rose to power and began his policy of hostile neutrality. Declaring an arms embargo against Israel just days before it was meant to be attacked was the nail in that particular coffin.

    …for our language and traditions that have been opposing those devorant and never happy anglo-saxon need of recognition, Now, I’m telling you something like Cambronne did “MERDE”

    Anglo-Saxon this, Anglo-Saxon that… have you noticed a certain trend in your obsession with opposing anything to do with these Evil Anglo-Saxon Cabal?

    Clementine Churchill once said to De Gaulle that he shouldn’t hate his friends more than he hates his enemies, when his mistrust of the “Anglo-Saxons” became so utterly evident.

    Tell me… do you *have* to dig up age-old European conflicts?

    your explanation of history don’t stand honest analyses, it’s part of your means to be seen as the good guis, and us as the bad, cuz we were concurrent since UK existedBeside, I wait for your sources that you never provided, I expect that you’ll find some good ol american legend…

    BTW, I got Shlomo’s book, and he ain’t living in France but in Israel, his book was translated from hebraic into french…

    according your fairness, I am bending tothink that he is the very one that dares to voice truth.

    You’d like something in particular? Perhaps a genetic study or two?

    You know, some American legends, or something of the sort?

    Perhaps we should start with a few history books, or perhaps a far more comprehensive and specialized encyclopaedia?

    But you know… those are just summarized works, at the end of the day. You can find mention of the Jews in the old historic works of every country they have been in – often with some derogatory term toward them, their foreign customs and appearance, and how they should all disappear. We can track the changes and the movement of the communities based on such historic works, on letters and ledgers that survived the passage of time… we can learn so much from just going through the sheer *mountain* of historic data we have around us.

    You what you reminded me of, just now? Of Holocaust deniers, angrily discussing the Grand Conspiracy and demanding that the world prove to them what they can easily discover for themselves, if they were not blinded utterly by their prejudice. Your view of history is similarly tinted.

    Perhaps you wanted sources regarding Charles De Gaulle’s stance toward NATO? Like the memorandum that he sent in 1958? Or anything specific? Just let me know, it would seem that they didn’t teach history too well where you were studying, or perhaps independent study was frowned upon.

    Oh, and as for Prof. Shlomo Sand… Sand is an Israeli professor of French History and an very political View of the world. He currently works at the Humanities Faculty of Tel-Aviv University. He comes from a very actively Communist family, even during their time in Europe. Sand was the guy who left the Union of Israeli Communist Youth because he found it too dull, and used to belong to these guys who he found radical-minded for his Communist and Internationalist ideals… before eventually deciding that they, too, were not radical enough for his liking.

    So yeah, that’s your compass of Truth and Clarity? Of historic facts? You might as well go to the Pravda Soviet newspaper and look for facts there in the same vein…

    Roman and alike in your ivory tower promoting a legend, don’t you see that the world around you don’t believe you, even the people of your religion

    Don’t you see that you’re talking bullshit, only because it suits your political delusions? And if you’re talking about Shlomo Sand, he’s about as religious as a doorknob.

    don’t you see that the american empire is done, finita la comedia !

    The same American Empire that wanted to take over your colonies and turn France into a serf, right? All part of the Anglo-Saxon Master Plan, I’m sure.

    Just like you wanting really hard to believe Shlomo Sand’s antics. Just like you desperately want to associate Zionism with this Great Anglo-Saxon Master Plan.

    now you can tell whatever convenient rubbish, I don’t care, it will not get you into your paradise

    One final psychological self-defensive move, eh? If you say I’m a fanatic long enough, it’ll convince you that I’m worth listening to? Rather amusing in and by itself, but so very predictable as far as human behavior is concerned.

    Nothing new here, I guess.

  105. Marie Claude says:

    You what you reminded me of, just now? Of Holocaust deniers

    yeah, that’s the kind of response one gets when one argue on “objective truths” LMAO

    so Sand a communist in Israel, what a surprise, I thought you were one people LMAO

    Just like you desperately want to associate Zionism with this Great Anglo-Saxon Master Plan.

    Objection, it the other way round, AIPAC+Neocons, and quantities of associations manage quit well the design

    Oh, well I am an ignoramus french villan, how dare I upgraded myselt to the spritual level of “know it all” LMAO

    OK, I graduated in history of Art, just being silly , like a French, futility, futilities, yeah, leave the serious thing to the Adults…

    funny that the radicals of yours come mostly from the former soviet countries, a need to emphasise that they are of the herd

  106. Roman Kalik says:

    MC,

    yeah, that’s the kind of response one gets when one argue on “objective truths” LMAO

    No, it’s the kind of response one gets when one bases one’s entire argument on propaganda and ignores centuries, if not millenniums, of historic and scientific research that’s within one’s reach.

    so Sand a communist in Israel, what a surprise, I thought you were one people LMAO

    You don’t say. Tell me, do often partake in building straw-men for winning imaginary points, or is it just a passing association?

    We Jews have a saying – “Two Jews, three opinions.”

    Had you actually known anything at all about Jews, or Israel, or Jews *in* Israel, you would have been aware of the diversity of Jewish opinion and thought. Instead you seem to be fighting imaginary windmills.

    And winning. I applaud.

    Objection, it the other way round, AIPAC+Neocons, and quantities of associations manage quit well the design

    Thank you for further cementing my argument. So tell me, do these people also work together to form the Great Worldwide Anglo-Saxon Empire?

    Or is it just a matter of “cultural colonialism”, as the kind people who so tried to indoctrinate my parents back in the old country used to say?

    Oh, well I am an ignoramus french villan, how dare I upgraded myselt to the spritual level of “know it all” LMAO

    OK, I graduated in history of Art, just being silly , like a French, futility, futilities, yeah, leave the serious thing to the Adults…

    Straw-man again. You’re defeating arguments that no one other than yourself believes exist, at least in this particular debate.

    funny that the radicals of yours come mostly from the former soviet countries, a need to emphasise that they are of the herd

    Most of the Jews who came from the former Soviet Union are secular, liberal, and tend to hold about two or three degrees each. Hardly what I’d call a picture of rabid Evil Fanatical Zionists.

    But hey – we’ve already verified your complete and utter lack of knowledge on the matter of Jews, Israel, and what comes between. So no surprise here.

  107. Marie Claude says:

    if I am so ignoramus, then why do you bother arguing with me ? A guess ???
    LMAO

    I am not particularly interested on Israel ethnies more than on any other ethnies, and yes, I don’t know much about them since most of yours hold us in such contempt, but we, as French, we are in use to not be worshipped by lots of the world countries, since we don’t bother either to comply to anyone of them, and nonentheless we are still in their mirror to condamn what they find bad on their own’s, but, isn’t it funny that our creations are studied in world wide universities though !!!

    Strawman or not, think what you want, but anytime I’ll find untruths about us I’ll be on the counterside

    Apart that you want to have your argument, I am sure you are a nice guy in the everyday life, hey, not sure for me LMAO

  108. “Or is it just a matter of “cultural colonialism”, as the kind people who so tried to indoctrinate my parents back in the old country used to say?”

    Hmm, rather contradictory… Cultural colonianism is what you might call british anglification of India. Or better still, the modern californication of much of the world, since there is no real, physical colonianism involved. Colonialism within a country’s own borders is self-contradictory – what you’re talking about is integration. Ironically, one of the biggest problems plaguing Europe right now is integration – or rather lack of integration – of it’s new muslim citizens, and you yourself have proclaimed this our greatest problem…! ;)

  109. Roman Kalik says:

    @MC,

    I don’t know much about them since most of yours hold us in such contempt

    We used to like you a great deal, as a matter of fact. Staunch allies and all the rest, before De Gaulle decided that Arabs were more profitable than Jews in the long run. And we rather like Sarkozy, more as a person than for his actual political stance.

    We Israelis judged France and the French by actions, little else. You abandoned us to be killed, we resented that. You refused to give us the ships we’d already paid for, we resented that. You aligned yourselves with the Soviet Union and thus directly assisted in such wonderful ventures as the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, and the indirect support to the imprisonment and suffering of Jews in the USSR, and we didn’t like that one bit.

    Your politicians favored our enemies, and treated us like a temporary event that would soon disappear – and that for now, only deserves a slight twist of the nose. These were the actions of your *leaders*, the very people you voted into office and who served as your public face to the world.

    And while Mitterrand tried to patch things up during his time, even visiting Israel in his official capacity, Jacques Chirac went all the way back to the levels of De Gaulle’s hostile neutrality.

    We don’t hate the French, MC. We’re not some kind of extension of your myth-born Anglo-Saxon arch-enemies. To consider why, maybe, we didn’t much like *France* for some time now, see the above. People don’t like to be back-stabbed by their allies, or to see them support their enemies instead.

    but, isn’t it funny that our creations are studied in world wide universities though !!!

    That’s nice, so are ours.

    Strawman or not, think what you want, but anytime I’ll find untruths about us I’ll be on the counterside

    Untruths, eh? Seems that to fight them, you first invent them.

    @Adam B,

    this is the Soviet Union I’m talking about. To understand this what I spoke of, you must first switch your brain into drone mode.

    Cultural colonialism and imperialism does not require borders – it is the spread of “dangerous” practices, notions, and the like. It’s when you’re enveloped in the emptiness of American capitalist social trends, follow policies that destroy your spirit and erode your culture.

    You must fight it, Adam! Preserve your identity, your culture, your natural inclination to socialist collectivism… um… yeah, and then you kinda sorta lose your identity and culture and all the rest when you become a drone in the new Cummunist Utopia, but sacrifices must be made in the glorious path to a new and brighter future of Man.

  110. Marie Claude says:

    he, our politicians are not ment to defend foreign countries, but ours, some manage it well, some are idiots… like everywhere They don’t favor anyone more than others, they favor what is profitable for our country peace too, it happens that some of them have not your favor. But Iwouldn’t say that those who you favor are favorable to us too. This is not I call back stabbing, but policy choice making. This is what the state do since they exist. The problem is that you only make the same reading of it as the former american administration did : “you are with us or against us” with no nuance, and not considering that if we don’t participe into your crusade, we also are not advocating that Israel must disappear, up to now you managed very well how to survive, can’t see that any time soon you’ll be not able to. BTW, some common technologies are still exchanged with our plane industry, and they equip your planes.

    Of course de Gaulle infuriated Israel in appealing for an embargo on arms, umm the fregates, your Mossad guis managed to get them out of Cherbourg, with the complicity of the administration there ; this policy gave you the opportunity to initiate your own arms manufacturings, and counting among the arms sellers top ten rank ; eh, Georgia lately opposed them to Rusia, though, I dunno if they found out how to manipulate them, I suppose not ! cuz your instructors suddenly had vanished before the events.

    You’re misinformed for Mitterand, he never acknoledged holaucaust and deportations, he was a Vichy former and sympathetisan, from his family background first, and kept some friendships with unfrequentable persons of this period ; Chirac did,as for the armenian genocide.

    Untruths, eh? Seems that to fight them, you first invent them.

    Let’s say that each one has his/her convenient truths

  111. Roman Kalik says:

    @MC,

    he, our politicians are not ment to defend foreign countries, but ours, some manage it well, some are idiots… like everywhere They don’t favor anyone more than others, they favor what is profitable for our country peace too, it happens that some of them have not your favor. But Iwouldn’t say that those who you favor are favorable to us too. This is not I call back stabbing, but policy choice making. This is what the state do since they exist.

    That’s all very nice and all, and politicians should most certainly work first and foremost for the benefit of their country – it’s their job.

    It doesn’t change the fact that your chosen path was to abandon us, once your greatest ally in the Middle-East, to die days before the intended three-pronged assault on our country. You acted for your own benefit? Good for you, but it doesn’t change the fact that you acted against ours in such a manner that we could no longer view you as friendly. And you kept on acting in the same vein once it began.

    De Gaulle once famously said that France has no friends – only interests. He proved it, rather actively and painfully for those who viewed his country as a friend.

    The problem is that you only make the same reading of it as the former american administration did : “you are with us or against us” with no nuance, and not considering that if we don’t participe into your crusade

    I am not American, MC. And we don’t have “crusades”. I’m frankly amazed that you talk about political flexibility when you most certainly acted against us, and rather actively, rather than merely disagreeing with us.

    When you get *that* flexible, MC, don’t expect people to like you.

    we also are not advocating that Israel must disappear

    Depends on which French newspaper you happen to be reading, or which French academy you attend. But that’s beside the point – since De Gaulle, France treated Israel in a hostile, if somewhat neutral, manner. The implied “You will disappear, so why bother with you?” was most certainly there.

    BTW, some common technologies are still exchanged with our plane industry, and they equip your planes.

    Yes, I’m sure we buy and sell this and that. We’re not at *war* with France, after all. But we’re nowhere near the same friendly relationship of the 50′s.

    Of course de Gaulle infuriated Israel in appealing for an embargo on arms

    Appealing? He unilaterally declared one. And as he was only one selling arms to Israel, and the rest of the region was filled with Soviet customers, it had a decided… bias, one could say.

    umm the fregates, your Mossad guis managed to get them out of Cherbourg, with the complicity of the administration there

    Not sure how complicit the administration was, but we most certainly went in to take our own paid-for property. That it also humiliated De Gaulle a bit was merely a bonus at the time.

    this policy gave you the opportunity to initiate your own arms manufacturings, and counting among the arms sellers top ten rank ;

    Oh, we turned to other alternatives – including vastly expanding our local industries. France proved to us that being completely reliant on a single ally was a recipe for disaster.

    eh, Georgia lately opposed them to Rusia, though, I dunno if they found out how to manipulate them, I suppose not ! cuz your instructors suddenly had vanished before the events.

    Not really sure of the extent of arms sales to Georgia – don’t really care. And it’s completely unrelated to what we’re discussing.

    You’re misinformed for Mitterand, he never acknoledged holaucaust and deportations, he was a Vichy former and sympathetisan, from his family background first, and kept some friendships with unfrequentable persons of this period ; Chirac did,as for the armenian genocide.

    A former Vichy man and sympathizer… amazing. Mitterrand was one of the French resistance’s spymasters. He was Vichysto-résistant, having formed a vast network with other former POW’s who had actually went out to fight the German invasion and survived the captivity – you never heard of the ORA? The Germans knew Mitterand by his cover name – François Morland.

    He’s actually famous for refusing to hand over his network to De Gaulle’s direct control, which infuriated De Gaulle to no end. Mitterand kept control of his already formed spy hierarchy as the war progressed.

    And he had a plan to liberate the POW and concentration camps – Operation Viacarage

    His war activities were secret, so when his past in the Vichy government structure was revealed it stirred up quite a controversy in the 50′s. And then there’s the fact that he arranged for wreaths to be placed on Pétain’s grave… but then, this was something De Gaulle did as well. Pétain was once France’s great hero of WWI, even if he did betray the nation later down the line.

  112. Well, this thread has certainly drifted a lot since I last checked it!

    Adam,

    The US saw japanese aggresion as little (or as much!) as europeans saw german ditto, but, like us, they chose to ignore it, hoping it would go away, and failing to strengthen their position in the Phillipines, etc.

    Adam, in point of fact the bulk of the US military was in the Phillipines. We also had a Regiment of Marines in China, which may not sound like a lot but it was a lot for us in the 1930s. We had basically no military at all – at the time, by popular demand. Our first offensive, at Guadalcanal? You know how we pulled that off? We transferred EVERY MARINE WE HAD to a the newly created 1st Marine Division. That was, for all intents and purposes, the entire Marine Corps that landed at Guadalcanal. The reason we didn’t reinforce the PI when the Japanese besieged the Islands? We had nothing to send.

    The times were changing – the world was essentially a smaller place than it used to be and dialogue/diplomacy was becoming the preffered method of dealing with upcoming conflicts.

    That sounds familiar, doesn’t it? :)

    As do the US sanctions on Japan, for what they were doing in Manchuria. The Japanese found those sanctions quite annoying. And today, the US gets beat up for not being isolationist… as if it would be helpful if we had our heads buried in the sand, the way we did in the 1930s. I’m a pretty “isolationist” sort, but I believe the right to be left alone has to be aggressively protected… when somebody messes with you despite the fact you’ve made it clear you want nothing to do with them and their agenda, you have to slap them down, really hard. As a form of dissuasion to others who may see you as an easy target.

  113. This is not I call back stabbing, but policy choice making. This is what the state do since they exist.

    Isn’t that exactly what Americans accuse the French of, and you say it is American propaganda? And then you admit to it, but say that everyone does it? lol.

  114. Marie Claude says:

    “France has no friends – only interests”, as so Israel, and or any other democratic state, I wonder why you call trades relations, ” friendship” relations, that means that your policy is based on emotional levels, and that prevents you from having some lucid perspectives of the stakes. You can’t deny that De Gaulle wasn’t a liar about them, quit a military vocabulary, not a politically corrected diplomatic’s for sure.

    This wasn’t abandon since you were not invaded but the invadors, and de Gaulle in his discourse said that he would condamn the firsts that would start the hostilities, be it Israel, Egypt , Syria… this was the very matter of breaking the equilibrium of the aeras. (ie video that I provided above), but again you hold it as a friendship betray while it was a wise political warning, saying that each country in this aera should remain on the UN resolutions basis, uh, I don’t see that your country respected any of them, For de Gaulle this was the referrence for his political position.

    I can assure you that there isn’t a dislike of Israel here , just indifference, I’m talking of the anonym population, not of the manipulated one by Hamas propaganda, that is counted in the poll rates quoted above.

    Not really sure of the extent of arms sales to Georgia – don’t really care. And it’s completely unrelated to what we’re discussing.

    in the contrary, it says that you are just like us a country that “has no friends – only interests” too, but that you don’t want to acknoledge it ! sil manupulating the feelings instead of the logical reasonnements.

    and Mitterand ain’t what you think, no one in France believe what you say of him anymore, his lefties friends had the greatest deceiption of their life when they finally knew about his real motives in his past.

    Mitterand was an ambitious man, during the war he has 2 possibilities for starting his career, join the resistance or Vichy. He didn’t join Resistance, because he knew that he would have been an anonymous pown who would have had to obbey to the orders, while in Vichy he could make a “channel” of useful aquaintances for his forecasted political ambitions, (rich persons and bourgeoise supports ; in resistance, poors !) and escuse-me his job there was’nt very dangerous, war prisonners in Germany care did’nt set threats on his life, nor posed him as a harsh collaborator, thus preserving his political aftermaths.
    So, what you read of our policies, still is based on De gaulle embargo in 1967, this was a very visible fact, while you can’t discern the invisibles of a Mitterand

  115. Marie Claude says:

    I forgot to mention what I related for the fregates, I read it in a book called “the secret history of the Mossad from 1951 until nowadays” Gordon Thomas

  116. Craig, I don’t doubt what you’re saying is true, but this only stresses the fact I was trying to get across to RK – the US was as unprepared and as reluctant to face realities as were democratic Europe.

    I do, however, disagree on “…today, the US gets beat up for not being isolationist…”. Nobody (well, none of your friends, at least ;) ) want an isolationist US, wether it be militarily or economically. What you’re getting beat up for is your tendency to side-step diplomacy, step on peoples’ toes, and act before consulting with anyone else, usually with dire consequences… ;)

  117. “the US was as unprepared and as reluctant to face realities as were democratic Europe.” Hardly. Even as late as 9/1/39 (that’s 1/9/39 for your non-Amis), the U.S. could’ve been invaded from Canada or Mexico by any significant army. We had no army, almost literally – basically a couple of divisions with toy tanks and 1903 bolt-action rifles. We had a decent navy. We did have the B-17 bomber and the B-29 was on the drawing board, but all we could have done in 1939 was carpet bomb western Germany from England and lose a helluva lot of planes. In contrast, France had over 100 divisions and heavy tanks. England had a very good expeditionary force. The French could easily have stopped Hitler in 1936 when he re-militarized the Rhine or in 1939 when he denuded the west to take Poland. Of course, in 1938 the Great Appeaser sucked all the oxygen out of a German army coup that would have struck upon Hitler —> CZ, but England gave it to him. The U.S. couldn’t have done a damn thing to anyone, even if we had wanted to in 1939.

  118. the US was as unprepared and as reluctant to face realities as were democratic Europe.

    I don’t really agree with you about that, Adam. Germany was gearing up for war right there in your midst. Hitler *published* his intentions, years earlier. To make a comparison to the US you would have to come up with a scenario under which a threatening Mexico or Canada built up an unstoppable war machine with the stated intent of conquering America, and then they actually went ahead and accomplished that conquest, all while we stood idle.

    America’s errors? In Europe? What would you have had us do? Declare war on Germany, while our best ally Britain was signing peace treaties with them? lol. Even if that had been acceptable to the American public, I doubt it would have been acceptable to France and the UK… not until after the Germans made their move, at least. By which point it was already too late. Aftre France surrendered, the US decision to send massive amounts of military assistance to Russia and the UK was the best move we could have made, and it is the move we did make. The continent was lost and there’s nothing the US could have done about that. In Asia? Yes, the US did badly underestimate the Japanese. They hurt us very badly before we could gear up to push them back. But the US was never in serious jeopardy of being conquered by Japan, so it isn’t really the same sort of catastrophic error that Europeans made. Right? :)

  119. Roman Kalik says:

    @MC,

    I wonder why you call trades relations, ” friendship” relations

    Because they weren’t just trade ties. They were far more extensive than that – we had a military, diplomatic, and generally strategic accord between our two countries that I’m surprised you know so little of it. This is, after all, French history – I’d have expected you to be familiar with that, at least.

    France helped build up Israel’s military forces from the ground up. France and Israel participated in a joint military campaign in Egypt. France and Israel shared enemies – Arab nationalists. France and Israel had such good military and technological ties that we participated in your nuclear tests.

    France and Israel had such extensive mutual friendships on all levels of our governments, from the bottom up. We were *allies*, MC. Pretty damn close ones at that.

    But France had no friends, did it? Only interests. So it was indeed a stab in the back.

    This wasn’t abandon since you were not invaded but the invadors, and de Gaulle in his discourse said that he would condamn the firsts that would start the hostilities, be it Israel, Egypt , Syria… this was the very matter of breaking the equilibrium of the aeras. (ie video that I provided above), but again you hold it as a friendship betray while it was a wise political warning, saying that each country in this aera should remain on the UN resolutions basis, uh, I don’t see that your country respected any of them, For de Gaulle this was the referrence for his political position.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67map1.html

    Take a look at that map, please. De Gaulle was a military strategist of more than adequate quality, and in any case it didn’t take a genius to work out what happens when a country has armies lining up at all of its borders.

    Do you know the basic Israeli military doctrine? Move the battle out of the home front. Do you *why* Israel has this military doctrine? Because it doesn’t *have* much of a home front.

    Had the war started the way it was expected to, with a coordinated invasion on Israel from all sides, Israel would have had three, possibly even four, active fronts to handle. Israel did not hold any military superiority whatsoever – be it in numbers, arms, or most importantly – terrain. None.

    Because you see, Israel’s main population centers were less than 20 kilometers away from Jordanian-held territory. The *sea* was about 25 kilometers away. Do you realize how easy it would have been to dismember the country into two halves, and turn a three-pronged war into a methodical and careful rout as the Israel-held lines would have slowly shrunk, and the front being basically everywhere. The Israeli citizens would have been massacred rather quickly, and Jordan would have had no trouble holding the line between the dismembered halves of Israel with a near-endless surge of goods and fresh troops in support – Iraqi forces were already lined up on the Jordanian border to enter and lend aid.

    This would have taken… two, three days? Maybe four?

    De Gaulle was a military man. He knew the stakes, and he was a diplomatically-minded man as you said – he was a soldier first and foremost. He, more than anyone, would have realized what the lined forces meant.

    And he didn’t lift even a single diplomatic finger to help. He did not even attempt diplomatic pressure to try and stop the conflict – instead, he declared an embargo against the likely future loser.

    And Israel wasn’t going to wait for “condemnations” – by the time they happened, and the the UN entered its thousandth debate on What Should Be Done, the war would have been over. And Israel would have been a hastily covered mass-grave.

    As the late Ephraim Kishon wrote in one of his satirical works, De Gaulle and the rest of the world’s leaders would have probably publicly lamented these events, and would have set up a nice shiny memorial.

    So our own military commanders, having decided that we were now entirely abandoned, worked up a crazy and desperate operation to cripple Egypt’s invasion force – it ended up working.

    So sorry we won. And so sorry that we didn’t wait for the man pointing a gun at us and telling us how he’s going to kill us to pull the trigger. So sorry we weren’t *nice* about it all, as it would have been much neater all around if we were gone, I’m sure.

    Maybe if had an old ally of ours at our side, showing Nasser that his invasion wouldn’t be without international repercussions, the whole war would have been averted. But De Gaulle made his diplomatic choices.

    And lost a friend in the process.

    in the contrary, it says that you are just like us a country that “has no friends – only interests” too, but that you don’t want to acknoledge it ! sil manupulating the feelings instead of the logical reasonnements.

    Georgia isn’t an Israeli ally, we merely share amicable relations and trade. We sold them equipment, military and otherwise – that’s where it starts and ends.

    Not quite what we had with France, to say the least.

    and Mitterand ain’t what you think, no one in France believe what you say of him anymore, his lefties friends had the greatest deceiption of their life when they finally knew about his real motives in his past.

    Mitterand was an ambitious man, during the war he has 2 possibilities for starting his career, join the resistance or Vichy. He didn’t join Resistance, because he knew that he would have been an anonymous pown who would have had to obbey to the orders, while in Vichy he could make a “channel” of useful aquaintances for his forecasted political ambitions, (rich persons and bourgeoise supports ; in resistance, poors !) and escuse-me his job there was’nt very dangerous, war prisonners in Germany care did’nt set threats on his life, nor posed him as a harsh collaborator, thus preserving his political aftermaths.

    *shrug* Mitterrand was an ambitious and self-centered man? So what? If we look through most of your politicians and even Resistance leaders of the time, they weren’t exactly a bed of roses. Politicians rarely are. But Mitterrand most certainly turned toward working with the Resistance and set up a very extensive spy network – both by the French Resistance’s and the SD’s standards. The SD had quite the file on Mitterrand, and they *were* hunting for him.

    He wasn’t dodging German soldiers in the woods, he was dodging the secret police of the SS – which is a lot less nice. And he most certainly did contribute to your war effort with the intelligence gathered both from his network, and that which he himself was privy to. He supplied false documents on a very large scale. He was actually one of the Resistance’s central figures, by the accounts of his contemporaries – mainly all those who were *also* active in the French Resistance.

    Dislike him if you will, but he was useful to the war effort. He have been an opportunist and a hypocrite, but he was there, in the thick of it, while De Gaulle was still far, far away.

    I wouldn’t have voted for the man, really. But I wouldn’t have discarded his activities out of hand, either.

    I forgot to mention what I related for the fregates, I read it in a book called “the secret history of the Mossad from 1951 until nowadays” Gordon Thomas

    I’m familiar with the book. It’s one of the more popularized works on the matter, as Gordon Thomas was a quite capable detached analyst and author on the one hand, and supposedly had access to rather good sources from the Mossad on the other.

    But I can’t really decide one way or the other if the information he was given was truly accurate or not – some of his other works, also supposedly via Mossad sources, seem utterly fictional.

  120. Marie Claude says:

    The French could easily have stopped Hitler in 1936 when he re-militarized the Rhine

    what I wrote elsewhere :

    now about 1936, one can argue indefinitly with “if”, the fact was that Germany debt was already paid since 1930, and as the Versailles treaty conditions were a bit severe, France felt that opposing Germany in 1936 would bee too much to add into the bill, and only protested with UK, Besides, Leon Blum, our socialist prime minister was harvesting the benefits of the “front populaire” and had other things in mind, though he should have been worried as a Jew. None knew what were the real Hitler intentions, or just one, De Gaulle, he warned many times about what was going on in Germany, but unfortunately hewasn’t listened.

    or in 1939 when he denuded the west to take Poland.

    this is may-be when the military elites misunderstood their chance

    http://www.historynet.com/operation-saar-a-lost-opportunity-september-99-world-war-ii-feature.htm

  121. Marie Claude says:

    Roman,

    I think De Gaulle was realist as far as engaging France in a new conflict, we just sorted out of a painful Algeria Conflict, and I still remember how people felt about it, and yes Israel was the least of his concerns for that matter.

    Umm, I am not changing my views on Mitterand until I get some irrefutable proofs of his good will

  122. Roman Kalik says:

    MC,

    De Gaulle, he warned many times about what was going on in Germany, but unfortunately hewasn’t listened.

    Indeed. De Gaulle was nearly a sole voice of clarity in a continent that simply wasn’t interested in listening.

    I think De Gaulle was realist as far as engaging France in a new conflict, we just sorted out of a painful Algeria Conflict, and I still remember how people felt about it, and yes Israel was the least of his concerns for that matter.

    Diplomatic and economic aid wouldn’t have gone amiss, to an ally. De Gaulle went beyond realism toward his own country’s safety, and stepped into the land of cutting off allies at their greatest need. Just for that he’s worthy of an award of some kind.

    Umm, I am not changing my views on Mitterand until I get some irrefutable proofs of his good will

    To name a couple of examples, Franz-Olivier Giesbert’s and Pierre Péan’s historic works tend to cover Mitterrand in great detail – they don’t give him a “heroic aura” or something of the sort, but they do show that he was a very important man in his time and position for the French resistance.

    Again, I am not entirely sure how his good will matters one way or another. Compared to his contemporaries, at least he was doing something useful for his country, and risking his life for it. If it had an ulterior motive, so be it – the world is full of useless idealists who talk a lot fail miserably when the time is for action, sometimes making matters a whole lot worse in the long run.

    So Mitterrand was a sneaky bastard? Good for him. That’s the kind of person you need as a spy and spymaster. It’s not the kind of person you need to *like*, on the personal level, but without people like him France might have been quite a lot deeper in Germany’s pocket, and possibly would have been lost altogether.

    Spies are never appreciated by honorable men – that’s because spies are not honorable. Spies are sneaky and treacherous bastards who’d sell their own mother if given half a chance.

    And at the end of the day, you still owe them.

  123. Marie Claude says:

    Roman I admire you ability to reverse “how can one is doing right” of Mitterand

    umm, some secret mossad method there LMAO

  124. Mike Nargizian says:

    Sam -
    May I remind you that you and several other bloggers said that Israel should have bombed Damascus instead of Lebanon a few years ago… if I recall bomb the chinless dictator’s compound.

    And by the way the first Israeli Arab crying over his beloved Israeli citizenship is the one who wails bcs his right to scream down with Israel and long live Hezbollah in the halls of the Knesset was threatened by the rightists of that body… I mean as opposed to him being murdered in a back alley or prison in Syria per say….

  125. We have this quaint term in English; not sure how it translates in French: bullshit. Hitler began violating the armaments limitations in 1932. The French — you — didn’t want to enforce the obligations you imposed under Versailles because it got to be a pain in the ass. So you protested to the Brits? WTF? You know what? You forced Germany to heel, you pay the price to keep them there. It’s like if the USA had walked away from Iraq. We didn’t. Since 1939, France has been the opposite of the U.S. Marines: no worse friend, no better enemy. After France said non to NATO, we should have told the USSR — you want it, you take, just don’t come in through the land side and don’t put any missiles in.

    Marie Claude Says:
    March 25th, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    “The French could easily have stopped Hitler in 1936 when he re-militarized the Rhine” (Me)

    what I wrote elsewhere :

    now about 1936, one can argue indefinitly with “if”, the fact was that Germany debt was already paid since 1930, and as the Versailles treaty conditions were a bit severe, France felt that opposing Germany in 1936 would bee too much to add into the bill, and only protested with UK, Besides, Leon Blum, our socialist prime minister was harvesting the benefits of the “front populaire” and had other things in mind, though he should have been worried as a Jew. None knew what were the real Hitler intentions, or just one, De Gaulle, he warned many times about what was going on in Germany, but unfortunately hewasn’t listened.

  126. Marie Claude says:

    gotha, you musunderstood, we didn’ protest to the Brits, but The Brits and the French protested to Germany, besides where was the US voice ??? it should had been one since Wilson wanted to be part of the Versailles agreement, and, plus, he created what is at the origin of the UN !!!!

    Since 1939, France has been the opposite of the U.S. Marines: no worse friend, no better enemy. After France said non to NATO, we should have told the USSR — you want it, you take, just don’t come in through the land side and don’t put any missiles in.

    do you have friends ?

  127. besides where was the US voice ???

    The US was here, MC:

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/99849.htm

    The Neutrality Acts, 1930s

    In the 1930s, the United States Government enacted a series of laws designed to prevent the United States from being embroiled in a foreign war by clearly stating the terms of U.S. neutrality. Although many Americans had rallied to join President Woodrow Wilson’s crusade to make the world “safe for democracy” in 1917, by the 1930s critics argued that U.S. involvement in the First World War had been driven by bankers and munitions traders with business interests in Europe. These findings fueled a growing “isolationist” movement that argued the United States should steer clear of future wars and remain neutral…

    Isn’t that where everyone thinks the US should be now, too?

  128. SFGoth and Craig:

    I don’t see why you’re actually arguing… :D Sure, the european countries didn’t prepare for the war-machine that was nazi-Germany; they didn’t see WWII coming and that’s a damn shame. My point is, neither did the americans.

    “We had no army, almost literally”

    I’d call that being unprepared…! ;)

    “To make a comparison to the US…”

    The japanese were building a huge army/navy/airforce and rattling it’s saber quite loudly. The americans (and brits/ausies) were hellbent on finding a peacefull solution in the pacific, as was Chamberlain in Europe. Should they have read the writing on the wall, like Chamberlain should have? Yup! Would the US have been conquered? Nope, probably not, but your interests lay in the pacific, and that could have wound up being japanese territory, probably including Hawaii.

    Of course the US couldn’t do much in the European theater, not even after the war had begun, seeing as how they would need time to build up a proper military first. It doesn’t change the fact that the US was as badly prepared for WWII as democratic Europe, if not worse. None of us have much to blame the other for in that area; we can only hope we have learned something…!

  129. “Isn’t that where everyone thinks the US should be now, too?”

    No. :)

    There’s a difference between getting involved in foreign politics/conflicts and thundering headlong into them like a bull in a chinashop… ;) We would all really like to have you along, but we all really wish you’d strive to be more of a team player…

  130. they didn’t see WWII coming and that’s a damn shame. My point is, neither did the americans.

    Adam, we did see it coming. And our congress decided that we weren’t going to participate. That was the purpose of the “Neutrality Act” that I linked. The British and the French saw it coming as well, but decided they didn’t want to risk their empires on another war with Germany, and decided to try to talk their way out of it. <—That was the mistake. The diplomatic approach. That was a fatal mistake. There are some people you can’t talk out of a course of action no matter what you do, and Hitler was one of them. So now when I see people advocating that irrational tyrants should be reasoned with, it makes me think of that old saying about history repeating itself.

  131. but we all really wish you’d strive to be more of a team player…

    Who is “we”? According to Marie-Claude, there is no team. Only national interests!

  132. Well, the french are excluded from the buddy-club by default, of course… ;)

  133. Marie Claude says:

    Adam B do you mind if I consider you as “friend” ? :lol:

  134. Marie Claude, you KNOW I’m kiddin’… ;)

  135. Marie Claude says:

    that was also my purpose :lol:

  136. In some ways, WWII was the end of European monarchs testing their balls against each other. This one happened to involve multi-ton horses with 88 mike mike lances, but it was essentially no different than any other inter-country war in Europe going back over a thousand years (including “blame the Jews”). So, why should the U.S., an ocean away with no serious threat of invasion, and reeling from FDR’s economic policies, have taken men away from their families so that we could police another European backyard brawl? Since neither England nor France — who had chestnuts in that fire — didn’t want to…. Ironically, Hitler is the cause of the current Muslim 5th column in Europe because his war so depopulated and wrecked the continent that thousands of North Africans and Arabs had to be imported to do the dirty work. They weren’t expected (or desired) to integrate; they haven’t, and now their grandchildren and later fellow-immigrants have taken over whole swaths of major European cities to the point where they’re unrecognizable to most Europeans. Enjoy your future. Does MC look hot in a burka?

  137. SFGoth, you seem to have misseed the WORLD WAR part of WWII… Japan was part of the conflict as well, and believe me – had the US sat idly by and watched Germany and Japan share the rest of the world between them, your days would have been numbered sooner rather than later – luckily you had people in charge who realized this before it was too late!

  138. Marie Claude says:

    “The European nations have sprung from several centuries of warring history, but it was not the nationalism of any country that started the wars of the 20th Century. The wars of modern times were precipitated rather by supranational forces aiming for world government. They were wars of ideology-wielding elites against the people, and they continue to this day. ”

    umm globalisation er umm socialisation, seems that has been well working up to now, America is conquested without a war

  139. Marie Claude says:

    about 1936, seems that spanish civil war was convenient for Hitler to blur the democraties, about his inner agenda, he was involved in helping the Franco nationalists to win the war against the commies, which were considered as the current threat for France and UK governing society

    http://www.janus.umd.edu/Feb2002/spanish%20civ%20war%20tom/12.html

  140. Nonsense. Actual cooperation between Germany and Japan was nearly non-existent. Hitler did everything he could to get Japan to attack the USSR. The only thing that made it a world war was that we happened to have a Pacific presence (b/c w/o us, the Euros with Asian colonies would’ve been wiped out by end ’41). In any event, while the Pacific theater was certainly bloody — the “Japs” truly fought to the death — it was pretty much the same thing over and over: see Jap island; invade Jap island; lots of dead men; take island; rinse, repeat. The P-theater has very little of the Shakespearean tragic drama that Europe had. Besides, this thread is focusing on the E-theater b/c that’s the one that’s relevant to the Middle East.

    Adam B. Says:
    March 26th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    SFGoth, you seem to have misseed the WORLD WAR part of WWII… Japan was part of the conflict as well, and believe me – had the US sat idly by and watched Germany and Japan share the rest of the world between them, your days would have been numbered sooner rather than later

  141. SFGoth:

    “Actual cooperation between Germany and Japan was nearly non-existent. ”

    I know – that’s what I told Craig earlier. Nevertheless, had they not been opposed by a joint US/Britain(plus assorted allies), Germany and Japan WOULD have brushed aside all resistance, and eventually come knocking on your door… ;)

    “it was pretty much the same thing over and over”

    Hardly – prior to your “lucky punch” at Midway, Japan was standing strong in the pacific, and pretty much kicking your ass. After Midway, Japan was on the defensive as you describe, but it could have gone either way until then…

    “Besides, this thread is focusing on the E-theater b/c that’s the one that’s relevant to the Middle East.”

    Not at all – some of the americans here were too busy pointing out the reluctance of the europeans in reacting to nazi-Germany, completely forgetting how their own country ignored the looming threat of the japanese empire in the pacific. Relevancy to the ME conflict is not the issue, at least not as far as a comparrison between European and US preparation prior to WWII is concerned… It’s more a matter of excersizing the proper amount of self-critisicm. ;)

  142. Germany and Japan WOULD have brushed aside all resistance, and eventually come knocking on your door… ;)

    That is the conventional wisdom, Adam, but that doesn’t mean it is true. The US didn’t have to pick your side…. especially since your side was losing, badly. We could have thrown our lot in with the axis, and if we’d been as much like the French as Marie-Claude claims everyone is, we probably would have. Luckily for you (and for us!) we aren’t like that, at all.

  143. Not at all – some of the americans here were too busy pointing out the reluctance of the europeans in reacting to nazi-Germany, completely forgetting how their own country ignored the looming threat of the japanese empire in the pacific.

    Adam, we didn’t *ignore it*, we underestimated it. Big difference. The US had quite a hostile stance towards Japan for many years leading up to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. And at the end of the day, we defeated the Japanese, where Europeans failed to defeat Germans – and that’s a bit of an understatement, since you guys got romped. If you insist on drawing parallels, WWII Russia is a better comparison than any European nation.

    And a last note… there were some in Europe, realizing that it was too late to counter Germany in the mid to late 1930s, who wanted to ally with Russia against Germany. That would have stopped Hitler in his tracks. But they were over-ruled by the faction that viewed the USSR (and communism) as a bigger threat than Germany and Nazism was. Since the USSR ended up being in the alliance against Germany anyway, that seems a shame.

  144. “The US didn’t have to pick your side”

    Of course you didn’t – one can always side with the assholes if one so chooses. Britain could have conceeded to Germany’s claim on most of Europe, and avoided their part of WWII. Problem is, it’s hard to coexist with aggresive, expansionist regimes such as nazi-Germany and imperial Japan – Britain recognized this and luckily (as you yourself point out) so did the US.

    “we defeated the Japanese”

    You, yes… And the brits and the aussies and the canadians and the kiwis and the indians and… Well, you get my point? ;)

    “Adam, we didn’t *ignore it*, we underestimated it.”

    You ignored it as much as we did the germans – you were officially negotiating with the japanese right up to Pearl Harbour… Same mistake, whichever way you slice it; nuff said.

  145. Craig, about that last note…

    Isn’t it ironic that what you say is quite correct and quite tragic, while at the same time, many americans felt that you should have teamed up with the germans and continued into Soviet Russia in 1945…?!? :D

  146. Marie Claude says:

    The thing is Roosvelt was not annoyed with the perspective of a nazy Europe, but with the Commies that were coming over all EUrope, and they were winning, not counting their deads (how many millions again ? this wasn’t Stalin worry, he knew that people he invaded would become commies too)

    And Roosvelt could imagine how much trouble it would be, for a country based on capitalist exchanges

  147. About Israel having an official religion, I am not so sure it does, although, since Judaism is at the core of Jewish culture and identity, it’s bound to have pride of place in Israel.

    As for democracies not having state religions, that’s nonsense. Most European countries have state religions (C of E, for example). Take a look at this comment from Yahoo:

    “Jurisdictions which recognize Roman Catholicism as their state or official religion:

    Argentina
    Bolivia
    Costa Rica
    El Salvador
    Liechtenstein
    Malta
    Monaco
    Some cantons of Switzerland (state religion):
    Appenzell Innerrhoden (declared “religion of the people of Appenzell Innerrhoden”)
    Aargau
    Basel-Country
    Berne
    Glarus
    Graubünden
    Nidwalden
    Schwyz
    Thurgau
    Uri
    Vatican City (official religion)

    Eastern Orthodox
    Jurisdictions which recognize one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as their state religion:

    Cyprus (Cypriot Orthodox Church)
    Greece (Church of Greece)
    This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
    Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

    Finland: Finnish Orthodox Church has a special relationship with the Finnish state. The internal structure of the church is described in the Orthodox Church Act. The church has a power to tax her members and corporations, the majority of which is owned by them. The church does not consider herself a state church, as the state does not have the authority to affect her internal workings or theology.

    Lutheran
    Jurisdictions which recognize a Lutheran church as their state religion:

    Denmark (Church of Denmark)
    Iceland (Church of Iceland)
    Norway (Church of Norway)
    Finland: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland has a special relationship with the Finnish state, its internal structure being described in a special law, the Church Act. The Church Act can be amended only by a decision of the Synod of the Evengelical Lutheran Church and subsequent ratification by the parliament. The church has a power to tax her members and all corporations, except those the majority of which is owned by members of the Finnish Orthodox Church. The state collects these taxes for the church, for a fee. On the other hand, the church is required to give a burial place for everyone in her graveyards. The church does not consider herself a state church, as the Finnish state does not have a possibility to affect her internal workings or her theology, although it has a veto in those changes of the internal structure which require changing the Church Act. Neither does the Finnish state accord any precendence to Lutherans or the Lutheran faith in its own acts.

    Anglican
    Jurisdictions that recognise an Anglican church as their state religion:

    England (Church of England)

    Reformed
    Jurisdictions which recognize a Reformed church as their state religion:

    Some cantons of Switzerland (Swiss Reformed Church):
    Aargau
    Basel-Country
    Berne
    Glarus
    Graubünden
    Schwyz
    Thurgau
    Uri
    Zurich
    Scotland – the Church of Scotland is the national church, but is not a “state church” and has complete independence from the state in spiritual matters, thus being both established and free.[3]p.161

    Old Catholic
    Jurisdictions which recognize an Old Catholic church as their state religion:

    Some cantons of Switzerland (Christian Catholic Church):
    Aargau
    Basel-Country
    Berne

    Islamic countries
    Countries which recognize Islam as their official religion:

    Afghanistan (State religion)
    Algeria
    Bahrain
    Bangladesh
    Brunei
    Egypt (State religion)
    Iran (State religion)
    Iraq
    Jordan
    Kuwait
    Libya
    Malaysia
    Maldives
    Mauritania
    Morocco
    Oman
    Pakistan (State religion)
    Palestinian National Authority[4]
    Qatar
    Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (State religion)
    Saudi Arabia (Religion of the Kingdom)
    Somalia
    Somaliland (Religion of the nation)
    Tunisia
    United Arab Emirates (Religion of the Kingdom)
    Yemen

    Sunni Islam
    Algeria
    Malaysia
    Maldives
    Pakistan (as National-sanctioned religion)
    Saudi Arabia (as state-sanctioned religion)
    Somalia

    Shi’a Islam
    Iran (as state-sanctioned religion)

    Buddhism as state religion
    Governments which recognize Buddhism as their official religion:

    Bhutan (Drukpa Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism)
    Cambodia (Theravada Buddhism)
    Kalmykia, a republic within the Russian Federation (Tibetan Buddhism – sole Buddhist entity in Europe)
    Sri Lanka (Theravada Buddhism – The constitution accords Buddhism the “foremost place,” but Buddhism is not recognized as the state religion. )
    Tibet Government in Exile (Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism)
    Myanmar- written in the 1974 constitution

    Hindu countries
    Nepal was the world’s only Hindu state, but in order to negotiate with Maoist rebels they dropped the status as a Hindu state.

    Others
    Israel is defined in several of its laws as a democratic Jewish state. However, the term “Jewish” is a polyseme that can relate equally to the Jewish people or religion. The debate about the meaning of the term Jewish and its legal and social applications (considering that it comes alongside the term “democratic”) is one of the most profound issues with which Israeli society deals. At present, Israel cannot be said to have an established religion. However, the State of Israel supports religious institutions, particularly Orthodox Jewish ones, and recognizes Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Druze religious courts as official state courts for personal status matters (see millet system). The structure and goals of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel are governed by Israeli law, but the law does not say explicitly that it is a state Rabbinate. Non-recognition of other streams of Judaism is the cause of some controversy. As of 2007, there is no civil marriage in Israel.
    The United States and other countries indirectly fund religions of different denominations by granting tax-exempt status to churches and religious institutions which qualify as charitable organizations.”
    Source(s):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_relig

  148. Joanne, I’m not sure what youø’re getting (since noone else has discussed this particular subject in this thread), but you should keep in mind the difference between a country with an official state religion, and a country built on and ruled by religion.

  149. what you’re getting AT… ;)

  150. Marie Claude says:

    Adam B, precisely this is the dilemn that posed this caricature :

    http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2009/03/26/the-washington-post-runs-oliphants-anti-semitic-cartoon/

  151. Roman Kalik says:

    Adam, read Sandmonkey’s post again. Joanne is discussing something that was directly mentioned in the original topic.

  152. RK, you’re right… Guess the discussion had moved too far from the original topic – sorry, Joanne. :)

    I stand by my comment, though… ;)

  153. The final fact that matters regarding WWII is that we (i.e., us, i.e., U.S.) built the A-bomb and by the end of 1946, Europe and Japan would have been wastelands.

  154. Roman Kalik says:

    #153, SFGoth,

    The final fact that matters regarding WWII is that we (i.e., us, i.e., U.S.) built the A-bomb and by the end of 1946, Europe and Japan would have been wastelands.

    Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union had active nuclear programs during WWII.

    Imagine for a moment a scenario where Nazi Germany, which by the end of the war had produced truly incredible technological advances in both rocket design and jet fighters, produces the first feasible nuclear bomb.

    Go further. Imagine a scenario where the US entirely refrains from the European side of the war, and Nazi Germany survives long enough to develop a nuclear bomb regardless of when the US does so. A bomb is worthless if you lack the proper means to deliver it. The Nazis had the means. They had the best means on the entire planet – ballistic rockets and jet bombers. V-2 rockets and the Messerschmitt Me 262. Just imagine, for a moment, a V-2 rocket with a nuclear warhead.

    Time. Time is the key. Given time, Nazi Germany would have had inter-continental ballistic rockets and the best air-force on the planet – it was already getting there. Not to mention the U-boats, themselves a perfected work of art that had no equal at the time.

    Oh, and did I mention that Nazi Germany had successfully tested using U-boats for launching V-2 rockets?

    Just sayin’. ;)

  155. Marie Claude says:

    Nazy Germany would have won if Stalingrad had failed in 1941

    if so, we wouldn’t be here to talk

  156. “but you should keep in mind the difference between a country with an official state religion, and a country built on and ruled by religion.”

    Adam B, by that I suppose you’re referring to Israel. How many times do people have to be reminded that mainstream Zionism has always been secular, another example of the nationalisms that were emerging in the 19th century. The founders of Zionism were secular. It’s true that there is a religious wing to Zionism, but that’s not saying the same thing.

    It is also true that Israel’s religious parties get a lot of privileges because they are usually needed for coalitions under Israel’s proportional system. But that is not the same thing as saying that Israel is built on and ruled by religion. Anyway, I can’t see how a country built on and ruled by a religion would shy away from making that religion official. That doesn’t make sense on the fact of it!

    In trying to correct my purported ignorance, Adam B, you’ve only managed to display your own.

  157. Sorry, I meant “That doesn’t make sense on the face of it.”

  158. We must first recall that during the time of the Roman empire about 1/8th of the population was jewish by the first century. Most of that jewish population even before the roman sacking of judea was located outside of Judea. It was heavily concentrated in Anatolia specifically. Judaism was once a proselytizing faith similar to Islam and Christianity until Christianity and Islam later forced it to become more or less endogamous. From the sacking of the first temple to the first century the jewish population had grown exponentially (almost about 50 times over). There were many converts (especially hellenistic converts). In fact that is how Messianic Judaism begot Christianity and how the levantine myth spread through-out the greco-roman world. Jews continued to proselytize up until it was harshly penalized by the Christian world. Roman emperors Septimius Severus, Constantius the second and Honorius among others instituted penalties for jewish proselytism. Of course post-constantine the punishment for the crime became more vigorous and more readily enforced. In the islamic world jews continued to proselytize Christians up until early second Millennium. There were many examples of even whole domains converting to Judaism, From the Berbers to the Yemenites to the Khazars. The Palestinians and Levantines are clearly not Gulf Arabs, that is evident from genetics and historicity. Quite ironically the closest peoples that the Ashkenazis/Sephardics cluster with are the Turks (who are mainly turkified anatolians in Turkey). Would the zionists suggest that these anatolians are actually East Asian Mongoloid Turks by the same logic, i.e using ethno-linguistic identity to define “race”? Of course they wouldn’t which is why they continue to ignore Anatolia (a key region in the Hellenistic world) in addition to the Caucasus (khazaria). Considering local caucasian peoples R1a would most likely be eastern european admixture more so than khazarian. Caucasians, especially Northern Caucasians are known to have a very high frequency of J2 if not the highest in the world. Whereas Palestinians are up to 60% J1. Strange how the Sephardics/Ashkenazis cluster more so with peoples north of the fertile crescent and the levant. The zionists boldly claim that levantines including aramaic speaking ones came into the area during the arab conquest without providing any accompanying historical or genetic evidence. The reality is that the palestinians are descended from ancient Canaanites and that many of them may have been jews at one point before later converting to christianity and islam. The fact of the matter is that Judaism is more so a religion than a race. In any case many Greeks, Southern Italians especially among various other Mediterranean European peoples have significant degrees of J. Paternally this signifies that they are also genetically closer to Middle Easterners than to most Europeans (R1a and R1b). Coincidentally both Ashkenazis and Sephardics cluster quite well with Greeks.