It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Sharon Accuses France of 'Pro-Arab' Policies

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
In an interview for Israeli television, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accused the French of being "pro-Arab" He pointed to France and the European Union's balking at refusing to add Hizbollah to a list of banned terrorist groups. At a recent meeting with the Israeli Foreign Minister, French President Jacques Chirac indicated that the issue was more complex and had to be looked in context to the region.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon criticized France Wednesday for balking at a U.S.-backed proposal to declare Hizbollah a terrorist group.

"The French are pro-Arab," Sharon said in an interview aired on Israel's Channel 2 television.

"One of the strangest things is that France is not ready at all to define Hizbollah as a terrorist organization when it is one of the most dangerous around," Sharon added, referring to the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The tension between the two countries has been on the rise as of late with both sides sniping at each other. While France has positioned itself as an alternative to the U.S. especially in the Middle East, I remain perplexed as to why the European Union and France which seems to have the biggest issue is reluctant to add Hizbollah to its lists. Is it concern that there might be backlash with its large Arab population? This may be a legitimate concern, but also hypocritical on thier part.




posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
This is almost funny.
First, France gets accused of being anti-islamic for banning .scarfs, now Israel acuses them of being uhmmm how did he put it.... "Pro-Arab", a very interesting term to use, I must add. It implies a lot of things and tells us a lot about how Sharon's mind works.
It seems like these days you have to deal with extemely simplified deffinitions of entire races and groups of people, and you have to pick just one side. Neo-conservative dumbed down version of reality for "stupid" masses at its best.

EU is trying a different aproach to the situation in the middle east, in the lines of neutral observer and economical friend ( in terms of investments, deals with goverments, stuff like that). It seems like they want to calm everyone down first and not make more people angry, specially in areas where people are not allowed to form legitimate goverment, infrastructure, police force, etc, etc.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Let's face it. France is for France. The rest of the world is just a bunch of annoying imbeciles. The French have tolerated the rest of humanity with barely any grace at all. If the thirteen original colonies had been trying to free themselves from Spain, the French would more than likely have stayed out of the whole affair. They had their piece of the pie, but why pass on an opportunity to stab a long time enemy in the back?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Yeah, bet they're kicking themselves for helping you now. As fun as it may be to vilify France, why don't we try NOT to mimic all your favorite media darlings and think for ourselves?

It's rough, watching France be vilified at every opportunity by the rest of the rest. They had colonies on every continent, and maintain at least a cultural prescence in many of those places. They are one of the few nations that are trying to keep the peace in Africa, and as an alternative to the 'america uber alles' attitude you see everywhere, they're a pretty good choice.

As far as this issue goes, Sharon is simply in the wrong. France is trying to juggle the needs of its populace and former colonies against the fight against true terrorism (as compared to the American definition of "anyone against us hates liberty, freedom, etc. and ergo MUST be a terrorist nation!"). The Palestinians have many valid complaints... and while I believe that Isreal has every right to be a nation, its methods of securing that nationhood are somewhat questionable. However, the issue that comes up is 'Which faction in Palestine speaks for the people?'

To be frank, most of the organizations in Palestine have members that run the gamut from true freedom fighters to blatant anti-semitist terrorists. You can't simply elect one as the voice of everyone, especially after more than half a century of conflict. I approve of France's reluctance- it shows some thought on their part. While much fo Hezbollah does emply terrorist tactics, I do believe there is a political arm in place as well. I might be wrong, but at least France is considering its options.

DE



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
This is almost funny.
First, France gets accused of being anti-islamic for banning .scarfs, now Israel acuses them of being uhmmm how did he put it.... "Pro-Arab", a very interesting term to use, I must add. It implies a lot of things and tells us a lot about how Sharon's mind works.
............


The thing is that Chirac while maintaining a strong policy towards islamic extremism inside France, he has an opposite position when it comes to large extremist Islamic groups.

Chirac is trying to keep happy those large terrorist groups by not announcing to the world they are terrorists so as to not enfuriate them completely, while at the same time France is maintaining a strong opposition against islamic extremism inside the country trying to avoid any more problems in France.

Chirac is unable to come to terms and agree that Hizbollah and other islamic extremist organizations are terrorists because he fears it will bring even more terrorism in France.... although his stance is not helping him or France at all as we can see from the news coming from France and Europe about islamic extremists still trying to attack them...



[edit on 23-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
They are one of the few nations that are trying to keep the peace in Africa, and as an alternative to the 'america uber alles' attitude you see everywhere, they're a pretty good choice.
....................DE


I beg your pardon, you are claiming this in spite of French forces shooting and killing unarmed protesters in the Ivory Coast, and hiding what is happening there?

If shooting and killing unarmed protesters, including women and children is France's way on trying to keep peace.... who needs any enemies in the world?...


[edit on 23-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I beg your pardon, you are claiming this in spite of French forces shooting and killing unarmed protesters in the Ivory Coast, and hiding what is happening there?

If shooting and killing unarmed protesters, including women and children is France's way on trying to keep peace.... who needs any enemies in the world?...


So...America's checkpoint system isn't a daily slaughter? Please. We both know that soldiers have limited resources for crowd control, even when they are peacekeepers. People die in riots even when no one opens fire, and protesters are very rarely unarmed. A hurled rock can kill, no?

And I do beleive the french are doing more than America is to keep the peace there.

DE



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
And I do beleive the french are doing more than America is to keep the peace there.

DE


Not according to what people in the Ivory Coast are doing and saying, proclaiming they will go to a civil war if the French stay there.

Face it, France has it's hands even more bloddied than the US or the coalition, at least they were trying to go after terrorists...the french just shot unarmed people protesting the French "invasion".

Anyways, back to the topic of this thread, I still believe that Chirac is playing all sides as he tries to maintain control over France while at the same time keeping happy terrorist organizations...

[edit on 23-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Not according to what people in the Ivory Coast are doing and saying, proclaiming they will go to a civil war if the French stay there.

Face it, France has it's hands even more bloddied than the US or the coalition, at least they were trying to go after terrorists...the french just shot unarmed people protesting the French "invasion".


Yeah, you mean like instigating things by attacking french peacekeepers? the french are trying to prevent a civil war on one axis, only to have another civil loom up on them. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Care to remind people how logn they've been there?

Yeah, americans are dealing with terrorists...by blocking main roads, and shooting anyone trying to travel them. That's an excellent way to prevent insurgency, as shown by the continued fighting. Shooting unarmed travellers is FAR more appealing than shooting unarmed protestors.



Anyways, back to the topic of this thread, I still believe that Chirac is playing all sides as he tries to maintain control over France while at the same time keeping happy terrorist organizations...


This is what is refered to as 'comprimise'. France has a large Islamic population, so unlike America, it can't run around slandering and stereotyping them. Ergo, instead of demonising them, Chirac is trying to comprimise with the Islamic -especially Middle Eastern- world. You must admit that the Palestinians do have legitimate grievances, which are sympathized with by many arabs. Since France has a large arabic/islamic population, this is a concern. Like I said, at least France is trying to keep out of the ethical quagmire in Israel until there is a clear, definitive alignment of these groups under or against Abbas.

DE



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I feel sorry for france in 50 years it will be mixed arab race. The country will fall back to 1500's. France has gone mad importing some many muslims.
You would think they would think a., but they don't.

If i was leader of european nation, i'll be presevering my culture and people. Not destroying my culture and people. Whole of europe seems to be following self these destructinng polices.

So many french women have betrayed their french for arabs.

[edit on 23-2-2005 by TheTruth123]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   
"Palestinians do have legitimate grievances, which are sympathized with by many arabs."

I have no pity for palastians. The Islamic empire invaded and occuiped france, spain and the eastern part of europe. For many hundred's of years. It's about time they taste their own medicine.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheTruth123
"Palestinians do have legitimate grievances, which are sympathized with by many arabs."

I have no pity for palastians. The Islamic empire invaded and occuiped france, spain and the eastern part of europe. For many hundred's of years. It's about time they taste their own medicine.


That is just flat-out ignorant. Makes as much sense as an American still hating the british for the revolutionary war.

As for your utter contempt for history, let's throw you a link:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Moors only managed to conquer about half of Spain and Portugal in the 700s, driven out several centuries later by EL Cid. They did not ever reach france- they were stopped by the Franks. As for eastern europe, it was only the muntainous areas directly adjascent to turkey that were invaded, only to be thrown back adn contested for an extended period of time. this was a rather small area of eastern Europe, mostly in Translyvania.

As for your comments about 'their own medicine', well, that just shows more ignorance on your part. AS the article says, the Caliphate in Spain was tolerant of all religions, and fostered peace. I see many Europeans trying to do that right now, but as usual, I don't see many Americans giving peace a chance.

DE



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
This is almost funny.
First, France gets accused of being anti-islamic for banning .scarfs, now Israel acuses them of being uhmmm how did he put it.... "Pro-Arab", a very interesting term to use, I must add. It implies a lot of things and tells us a lot about how Sharon's mind works.
It seems like these days you have to deal with extemely simplified deffinitions of entire races and groups of people, and you have to pick just one side. Neo-conservative dumbed down version of reality for "stupid" masses at its best.

OK, I Guess, but this I liked . . .


EU is trying a different aproach to the situation in the middle east, in the lines of neutral observer and economical friend ( in terms of investments, deals with goverments, stuff like that). It seems like they want to calm everyone down first and not make more people angry, specially in areas where people are not allowed to form legitimate goverment, infrastructure, police force, etc, etc.


The EU is brown-no$ing the Arab$/Mu$lim$ $incs they have $omething I$rael doe$n't - Can you gue$$ what that i$. Germany, France, the Ru$$ian$ are all trying to get in on developing the$e area$ $ince Mu$lim$ coutries are filled with it. In addition they are highly dependant on their oil since Europe does not have its own oil re$erve$.

$o I hope you know under$tand what motivate$ the European$ - And why they want to get in good with the Arab$/Mu$limS.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join