Jews fleeing France

What is your point? Establish that jews are leaving France because of the anti-semitic attacks there (a reality which does not please anyone there except the arabs) ? Or criticise Jacques Chirac?

Corinne

 

You'd better stop criticising Chirac, because Bush is even going further: how exactly do you call George W. Bush's attitude when, on Monday April 1, 2002, he said that he would not label Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat a terrorist because the Arab leader remained engaged in peace talks despite a week of devastating suicide bombings within Israeli cities.

The president said that Arafat's involvement in negotiating a peace settlement prevented his designation as a terrorist.

United Press International reported on this.

Corinne
http://www.christianresistance.com

 

Expresing support for Arafat is not the same as Chirac-or France-being anti-Jewish

 

This is really a cheap attack, and unjustified. Read the article better and you will see that the government is against the attacks and so are 99.9% of the French people. Those who perpetrate the attacks on jews are either arabs (we have 5 million of them, all anti Israel) or neo-nazis (a few hundreds). France is not an anti-semitic country. If you had 10% of the population of America being arabic, you'd have the same problems. It is a problem the French will have to solve and most arabs there know very well that they are not approved or even liked. There are more anti-arab feelings, believe me.

Corinne

 

I think you've misunderstood me becuase what you are saying is very much in line with the point I was making.

 

Well, just don't say that France is anti-jewish, it is an insult I cannot accept. Those who sided with the Nazis during WWII and cut France in two (the occupied part and the free part/under Vichy) are a great source of shame and we did not hesitate to condemn to death Marechal Petain for it, even though he was a war hero from WW I.

France has recognised the errors made by the vichy government and apologised to the Jews.

The French are not against the Jews or Israel, but they are not against the idea of a Palestinian State either. We think that both populations (arabic and jewis) have been able to live together for millenaries, they should carry on doing so with respect for each other's needs.

Now that Arafat is dead, one major obstacle has been lifted.

Because we have 5 million arabs on our soil does not mean that we agree with them. We do not. They are the main reason for the extreme-right doing well. But France is a Christian country so I have all the confidence in the world that we will not let ourselves be islamised.

France is a pressure-cooker. Right now it is letting off a little steam, but soon enough the lid will blow. Mark my words.

Corinne

 

Yes, and there was also this american guy who fought with the Muslims in Afghanistan against his own country. John Walker, wasn't that his name?

There are also quite a few english arabs in Cuba, who fought against the US and the UK.

But I agree, there are some dangerous arabs in France. Some of them are French, some are not. One thing I know is that they will not be saved, even if they kill to the last Christian.

Corinne

 

Well, just don't say that France is anti-jewish, it is an insult I cannot accept. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't! I said that expressing support for Arafat is not the same as being anti-Jewish. Its perfectly possible to suppport both Jews and Palestinians.

 

Well, just don't say that France is anti-jewish, it is an insult I cannot accept. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't! I said that expressing support for Arafat is not the same as being anti-Jewish. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree on this. This would be as ludicrous as saying that expressing support for UBL is not the same as being anti-American.

Its perfectly possible to suppport both Jews and Palestinians. [/QUOTE]

On this I can agree.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yes, and there was also this american guy who fought with the Muslims in Afghanistan against his own country. John Walker, wasn't that his name?

Corinne </font>[/QUOTE]You must be referring to rat boy. He was a traitor. Of course, I guess the difference is that I don't remember Bush going to visit rat boy and showing any sympathies for him or his cause. Perhaps, you could enlighten us since you are from France.

Chirac did visit Arafat and seems to have only positive comments for him. Does that not say something about your leader, and shouldn't you be the least bit concerned about it?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Sounds more like Clinton than Bush to me. As a matter of fact, Bush has refused to deal or even meet with Arafat for a long time, in direct opposition to the dentente policy of the Clinton administration.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yes, and there was also this american guy who fought with the Muslims in Afghanistan against his own country. John Walker, wasn't that his name?

Corinne </font>[/QUOTE]You must be referring to rat boy. He was a traitor. Of course, I guess the difference is that I don't remember Bush going to visit rat boy and showing any sympathies for him or his cause. Perhaps, you could enlighten us since you are from France.

Chirac did visit Arafat and seems to have only positive comments for him. Does that not say something about your leader, and shouldn't you be the least bit concerned about it?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Chirac is not my leader, I did not vote for him.

As for your comment that he had only positive comments for him, I think this is exaggerated.

Corinne

 

Sounds more like Clinton than Bush to me. As a matter of fact, Bush has refused to deal or even meet with Arafat for a long time, in direct opposition to the dentente policy of the Clinton administration.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]I am a big fan of the White House press briefings and I know for a fact that Bush and Arafat used to have private conversations. Arafat was then considered by the White House (dixit press briefing officer) as a foreign leader.

So, to say that Bush did not deal with Arafat is a lie.

Here is an extract of one press conf, held on June 20, 2001:

START OF PRESS CONF

MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I want to report on several phone calls the President made today, and then also give several personnel announcements.

The President spoke this morning with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and Egyptian President Mubarak to discuss the situation in the region. The President said he is looking forward to seeing Prime Minister Sharon next Tuesday in Washington. The President thanked President Mubarak for his indispensable role that the Egyptian President is playing in assisting our efforts to bring an end to the violence in the Middle East.

The President later today will be speaking with Chairman Arafat. And finally, the President has directed Secretary Powell to travel to the region next week. And I want to share all that information with you.

On the personnel side, the President intends to nominate Hilton Lewis Root to be United States Director of the Asian Development Bank, with the rank of Ambassador. The President intends to nominate Christopher William Dell to be Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Angola. The President intends to nominate Michael L. Dominquez to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. The President intends to nominate Nelson F. Gibbs to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations and the Environment. The President intends to nominate Claude B. Hutchinson, Jr. to be Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Management. And two judicial nominations -- the President will nominate John D. Bates to be a judge for the United States district for the District of Columbia. And the President intends to nominate Reggie B. Walton to be a judge of the United States district for the District of Columbia.

With that I'm pleased to take your questions.

Q Ari, what is his message to Chairman Arafat going to be today?

MR. FLEISCHER: His message to Chairman Arafat will be that it's important for all parties to adhere to the cease-fire, to embrace the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee so that peace can be achieved in the region and confidence-building measures can be taken.

Q And why is he choosing now -- he's been sort of reluctant in the past to call Arafat. Why is he doing it now?

MR. FLEISCHER: I've always differed with that. The President has talked with Chairman Arafat before. Secretary Powell has talked with him before. And so this is part of the President's ongoing effort to help the parties in the Middle East to achieve peace.

END OF PRESS CONF

Corinne

 

That was early in his administration. I think you will find, however, when it becasme clear to Bush that Arafat wasn't working for peace, that he basically black-balled him from being a legit leader in the world, thus was the need for Abbas and Quriea.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Can you quote me one time when Chirac has had anything negative to say about the Godfather of Terror?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Can you quote me one time when Chirac has had anything negative to say about the Godfather of Terror?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I can. In 2003, when a broad international consensus had arisen that Arafat was an obstacle to peace, Jacques Chirac said: "Arafat is responsible for the failure, for all the failures, because he always wanted a little more."

You want more quotes?

Corinne

 

Just one is enough. Thank you. Would you also provide a link to the source of this quote, please.

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick