Posted on 03/07/2007 5:51:31 PM PST by SJackson
I disagree. France would give up a great deal by following the American line on Israel. There is nothing to be gained for France by doing so. France enjoys privileged economic relations with key Muslim states because of the diplomatically neutral (and rhetorically pro-Arab) position of France vis-a-vis Israel. For France to simply adopt a pro-Israeli position would be extremely insincere: most French people are not pro-Israel. It would also jeopardize the various special relationships France enjoys with various Arab governments. And it would create a strong political backlash within France.
By contrast, what's the benefit for France in supporting Israel against the Arabs, to offset those clear disadvantages? There's no moral advantage in it certainly: we've already spoken of the philosophical and moral problems with having an explicitly religious state of European emigres set up in the Middle East. There's no appreciable economic advantage to France. The Americans are not going to "Think better of France" or do one thing concrete in France's favor. What is to be gained by doing this? Nothing whatever. Certainly nothing that compensates for the loss.
No, it's in France's interest to stay neutral in the affair, and to be reasonably sympathetic to the Arabs. That makes the most sense economically, security-wise, and morally.
"The issue with Israel is that there is a term of citizenship based on RELIGION. Not who one's parents were (lex sanguinis) or where one was born (lex solis). Those things are entirely appropriate in a secular state. "
You have your revulsion exactly backwards. Citizenship based on blood is despicable. It is the essence of the Nazi mindset. After all blood is immutable as many Jews who were European citizens and considered themselves an assimilated part of their respective countries, rather than Jews, learned.
One, anyone, can become a Jew. But there was no German transfusion available.
"Israel's laws are vastly better than France's? That is a joke?"
Not at all. In Israel Muslims are allowed to wear the hijab when they seek medical treatment and in school. The size of one's cross is not limited either, and the kipah is permitted as well.
Further, in 1948 France voted for the creation of a Jewish State. Note the word Jewish. So its a little late in the day for you to claim how offensive you now find it.
But what will be really offensive is when France in the next ten years or so adopts Sharia. You of course have opted to live elsewhere, in US in fact. I imagine many French people, the lucky ones, will opt out as well rather than 'submit.'
You still have not demonstrated to me in any way the pro-Jewish legal bias.
"France enjoys privileged economic relations with key Muslim states because of the diplomatically neutral (and rhetorically pro-Arab) position of France vis-a-vis Israel."
It is refreshing to hear your lack of sentimentality in openly declaring that the French have no morality and are simply whores.
But I must disagree with your reasoning. You forgot to mention that France, not unlike Muslim authoritarian regimes around the world, placates its own disgruntled and very youthful Muslim population by villifying Israel.
France buys this short term security but forfeits its future.
"Citizenship based on blood is despicable."
No more despicable than religion which passes by the bloodline.
The question is how to solve the middle east problem in the long turn. It can not be into our European interest that the Americans fail completely. Iraq is a desaster, Afghanistan could turn into a desaster and the recent operations of Israel in Lebanon were a desaster. The outcome of a well meant but completely incompetent policy of Washington. They would have been well advised to listen to the European concerns. Since they did not we have to deal with this situation.
What is going to happen if the Americans are pulling out uncoordinated of this area now? They will leave the scene to the Iranians who will take over to dominate the whole area. Is it in the French interest if the Mullahs control the whole Persian gulf? Is it in the French interest if the Turks are forced to invade northern Iraq because the Kurds pose a threat to their internal stabillity? Is it in the French interest if the Bagdad area will turn into a new anarchy pot like Somalia? A home for all kinds of terrorist scum. Lebanon is on a turning point. Is it in the French interest that the Lebanese turn into a agressive theocracy? Last but not least Israel. Is it in the French interest that the Israelis might use their nukes on Iran because they do not see another solution? As we know it is quite likely that the Iranians are going to shoot back and it will be not as harmless as Saddams outdated Scuds this time. Is that in the French interest? What will be if the US anti missle program is the BS I think it is and a crazy mullah is firing missles with a chemical warhead i.e. to London? Is that in the French interest?
The Americans were very bad counseled when they invaded Iraq. They made practially all fundamental faults that are possible if we think about the way they did it. Very emotional and not rational at all. The concerns of France, Russia and Germany had a sound standing. Although much damage is done, it is still in our basic -European- interest to prevent America from giving up its positive global role. This is much more worth than a few Renaults you sell to Algeria or those few Mercedes we Germans sell to the Iranians. America is in a very weak situation (they would never concede that but who cares) and it needs its European friends now just as we needed them on other occasions. They are our closest friends (although they loose themselves sometimes in idiotic surrender monkey BS about France) and partners and not scum nations like Iran, Irak, Syria, Algeria or whatever.
The thing is that we -in difference to America or Israel- are able to put on pressure i.e. on Iran if we want to. The Iranians need their economical and technical partners in Germany and France. Therefore it would be helpful if we strong western Europeans would define a common policy on that area. And I think it can not be a policy against the Americans.
Yawn. Just like those whores who make very good business with Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (and this is not France). Both disgusting muslim theocracies that would drive your beloved Israelis into the Mediterrainian if they would be able to. You should think twice before calling somebody who makes just business a whore.
Immigration policy is based on persecution. Either Jewish or one Jewish grandparent. The standard taken from the Nuremburg laws. Particularly over the last decade, many immigrants are not Jewish. I'm not sure that's any more despicable than immigration based on country of origin.
That you consider Judaism despicable based on inheritance by "blood", heck, don't convert.
Interesting, the French had no problem with Israel when they and the Brits wanted the Suez canal back. The US sold all three out. Political alliances often change over time.
mark for later
"In Israel Muslims are allowed to wear the hijab when they seek medical treatment and in school. The size of one's cross is not limited either, and the kipah is permitted as well."
This is a bad idea in the schools, esp. when faced with a militant and proselytizing Islam that seeks to establish the subordination of women as a social norm, per the religion. France is a secular state of strict gender equality. To the extent the tenets of a religion disagree with that, those tenets of that religion must be suppressed in order to function in France. In an educational environment such as the schools, the ideals of the Republic are taught. The headscarf is a sign of the subordination of women, pure and simple. It's wearing by Muslim girls, at the behest of their parents, is an assertion that religious values trump the values of the state. They do not. The values of the state trump the values of religion, and particularly in the setting of the government schools, religion which is hostile to the ideals of the state will be silenced by force of law. Period. The hijab teaches that women are subordinate. It teaches girls that their fathers can force them to wear a badge of their subordination. Outlawing it teaches the girls that the laws of the French state outweigh the laws of Mohammed and the laws of their father, that the French state is more powerful than either Sharia or the male figures in their family, that the religious and male authority figures will indeed obey the French state just like everybody else in France, and that, whether their religion likes it or not, they are equal. The hijab was a direct challenge to the supremacy of the French state, it was a direct test between religion and the state. In France, religion is subordinate to the state. Period. It is not an open question. The hijab is banned, and it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, in order to be CONSISTENT, and not to single out Muslims, the Jewish skullcap and large Christian crosses needed to be banned in schools too. Had the Muslims not insisted on challenging the supremacy of the French state within France with the hijab, nobody cared about Jewish skullcaps or Christian crosses; Jewish and Christian moral teachings don't defy the morality of the Republic. Islam's assertion of the superiority of men directly defies the ideological beliefs of the secular French state. Islam directly challenged the state. In France, Islam will adapt to the secular morality of the nation, and not the reverse. It was very important to assert the supremacy of the rule of law, and the ideal of female equality, over religion and over family authority. Islam's practices have to modify to meet the beliefs of the French people, and Islamic family structures have to alter themselves to come in line with the people of France. The hijab law was the right thing to do, absolutely. The ban on skullcaps and large crosses was an unfortunate necessary side effect so as to not have the state discriminate in FAVOR of these benign religions whose tenets do not challenge the morality of the French secular state.
"Further, in 1948 France voted for the creation of a Jewish State. Note the word Jewish. So its a little late in the day for you to claim how offensive you now find it."
In 1948, American blacks and whites could not marry in half the country. That the politics of the day drove a bad solution does not bind the present to follow it. The key problem with Israel is that it is explicitly a Jewish state. States should be based on the equality of humanity under the law. They should not be based on religion. Israel is, and that will remain a problem, although clearly not as bad a problem as the fact that Saudi Arabia is too. Judaism is benign. Militant Islam is not benign.
"But what will be really offensive is when France in the next ten years or so adopts Sharia."
This is never going to happen. Israel will be overwhelmed by the Arabs and have Sharia imposed on it before that ever happens in France. I know you probably HOPE that it happens in France and all over Europe, so those evil unsympathetic Europeans can all get their comeuppance. But it isn't going to happen, ever, at least not in France.
"That you consider Judaism despicable based on inheritance by "blood", heck, don't convert."
I DON'T.
I merely note that countries which base nationality on blood are NO MORE despicable than religions (like Judaism) which do. I don't think EITHER are despicable (so long as there is a work around, and in both cases there is: conversion or marriage in). My discussion partner is the one who asserts that countries which base nationality chiefly on blood are despicable. I disagree. It's a logical basis on which to confer status.
I misunderstood, sorry. We agree.
"Just like those whores who make very good business with Saudi Arabia or Pakistan"
Are you referring to the US? Have the cajones to say so.
And are you comparing the French vetos and nuclear arms sold to the Arab/Persian countries to the US' purchase of oil? How about the German and French sales to Saddam under OFF?
If that is your moral vision we have little to discuss, and I wonder why you post here.
"An French JEW doesn't have to surrender his US citizenship when he becomes an Israeli, but a French Gentile?"
You still have not documented this statement. You can't.
"Outlawing it teaches the girls that the laws of the French state outweigh the laws of Mohammed and the laws of their father, that the French state is more powerful than either Sharia or the male figures in their family"
And you call yourself a conservative? You are just a Nanny Stater who thinks it is just fine for the government to intrude on the family.
"The hijab was a direct challenge to the supremacy of the French state, it was a direct test between religion and the state."
The Hijab threatened the French State? Just evidence of the pathetic fragility of the French State, which substitutes meaningless symbols for real desperately needed reform.
"It was very important to assert the supremacy of the rule of law, and the ideal of female equality"
Now that's a joke.
What threatens the French state, and shows the inherent weakness of the State, and the controlling power of its Muslim immigrants, is the lawless violence in the banlieus, not just during the riots, but always. Why can't the French control that serious breach of the law instead of the purely symbolic, meaningless, stance on the hijab? Why can't they control women being attacked and raped on the streets for not wearing the hijab? That does not affront the power of the State? Why can't teachers control the classes where students intimidate them from teaching history?
The French government substituted cosmetic change, as if it meant something, and ignored the real problems. Short term result: Muslim riots. Long term: Muslim rule.
"The key problem with Israel is that it is explicitly a Jewish state. States should be based on the equality of humanity under the law."
The key problem with Europe is that it is post-religion, post-childbirth, post-identity, and post-morality. Europe has surrendered their religion, identity, autonomy and democracy to the beaurocracy and their Muslims who at least reproduce and believe. That makes them the strong ones.
No I was referring to the little green boys and girls from Mars. It was sarcastic btw. People who make good business are not nessecarily whores to me. No matter if they come from France or the US.
And are you comparing the French vetos and nuclear arms sold to the Arab/Persian countries to the US' purchase of oil? How about the German and French sales to Saddam under OFF? If that is your moral vision we have little to discuss, and I wonder why you post
The French sold nuclear arms to the Arab countries recently? Are you speaking about the current nuclear equipment of Iran or the relating (and non-existing) WMDs of 2003 Irak? I am quite sure that no European country sold any dangerous nuclear equipment to Iraq or Iran with the knowlege of its gouvernment in the last 10 years.
Nevertheless let me say that much: Apart of this fact we will sell whatever we want to and we will not ask you about permission (BuHuHaHa!). Now and in the future. To think anything different would be naive. Our economic relations are our own decision.
Personally I am really not sure if it is reasonable to back the US in its clash with the Iranians or not. We Europeans could do something there, but it would mean a substantial loss for us if we put massive pressure on them. The thing is that to most European observers the US already lost their war in Iraq. Espechially if the gouvernment in Washington is going to change with the next administration. Hillary will pull out. Period. This would mean that Iran will take over southern Iraq, the Turks will take over northern Iraq and the zone around Bagdad will become Osama's new caliphate. The mullahs in Teheran will make a roaring party for you (sadly all girls wear a burkha) since you did their job then. Iran is the winner of the recent US policy in every way: Apart of throwing some de facto harmless bombs (to solve your "Iranian problem" you need "boots on the ground") you have no effective means to act against the Iranians since your troops are already engaged in Iraq and you lack the resources to throw a plus of 300.000 soldiers (that is the minimum nessecary) into a new war.
Therefore you should understand that we Europeans ask ourselves if it is in the interest of anybody that we cancel our economic relationship with Iran completely for a hopeless American attempt to change something that America is not able to change. Welcome to Realpolitik. You whining about the OFF or economic relationships between France and Iraq is ridicolous.
I am among those very few in Europe who do not rule a embargo out. To me America is still much more important than a few Arabs. Nevertheless I also think it is idiotic that the US loose themselves in sabre-rattling if they obviously do not have the means to accomplish.
"You still have not documented this statement. You can't."
How much would you like to wager?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tony-parkinson/frances-well-oiled-wheels-of-diplomacy/2005/10/13/1128796647825.html
http://instapundit.com/archives/016459.php
http://www.afrol.com/articles/13617
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files_156/iran_301/france-and-iran_2788/economic-relations_3366.html
whores.
Buying time?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.