Article

2004-09-25 Europe

France determined to fight anti-Semitism, improve Israel ties

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-09-25 1:45:35 PM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Extraordinary stuff. Especially with the two French journalists still captive. Greater minds than mine will have to explain this to me. Could it be that France is slowly waking up to the danger posed by the Arab/Muslim world??

Posted by Bryan 2004-09-25 1:54:47 PM|| 2004-09-25 1:54:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Bryan: Could it be that France is slowly waking up to the danger posed by the Arab/Muslim world??

Watch their hands, not their lips.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-09-25 2:14:27 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-25 2:14:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Bryan, if the dark days of 1940 are an example of today's France, a few have always been awake. some are awakening, while the majority will tag along until it's far too late.

Franco-Islamic Republic. the first E.U. state to fall to the forces of jihad.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-09-25 2:15:08 PM|| 2004-09-25 2:15:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Barnier also said he would visit Israel next month to improve bilateral relations that have often been strained over Franceâs support for the Palestinians and continuing ties with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

This is exactly the same sort of crap we are seeing from Saudi Arabia. France is trying to paint themselves as being anti-terror while they nonetheless harbor Arafat's wife and continue to fund terrorism abroad. France's duplicity makes their internal problems with Islamic unrest just that much more richly deserved.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-25 2:53:13 PM|| 2004-09-25 2:53:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 What ever happend to old Dominique-kanick-kanah, anyway?

Posted by Anonymous6640 2004-09-25 2:59:51 PM|| 2004-09-25 2:59:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I think this Michel is a man. Not sure about Michelle or Dominique...

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-25 3:42:56 PM|| 2004-09-25 3:42:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 France is trying to improve it's relationship with Israel only to benefit it's self. The government of France does not now or has it ever given a damm for the Jews or Israel.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-25 4:14:23 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-25 4:14:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Frank G

Michel Barnier is a man.

Michelle Aliot Marie is a woman.

Dominique Galouzeau alias de Villepin is now Minister of Interior meaning he is head of the Fight against crime, terrorrism and reckless driving. :-)

Posted by JFM 2004-09-25 4:41:09 PM|| 2004-09-25 4:41:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I was teasing too :-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-25 4:59:47 PM|| 2004-09-25 4:59:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "We are go-weeng to fight anti-Semeeteesm, and we weel improve our re-lay-shons weeth that sheetie leetle....um, ah, Meedle Eastern cawn-tree."

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-09-25 5:49:12 PM|| 2004-09-25 5:49:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 "Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, one of the Jewish leaders who attended the 90-minute meeting, praised the change in Franceâs attitude in the last year."

Fool me once --- shame on you.
Fool me twice --- shame on me.

Posted by Anonymous6092 2004-09-25 5:53:17 PM|| 2004-09-25 5:53:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Dominique Galouzeau alias de Villepin is now Minister of Interior meaning he is head of the Fight against crime, terrorrism and reckless driving. :-)

but I note you aren't sure of Dominique's gender either ...heh heh

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-25 5:57:10 PM|| 2004-09-25 5:57:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier promised U.S. Jewish leaders ...

Wouldn't it be better if his governments made committments to the French Jewish leaders?

Posted by Super Hose 2004-09-25 6:18:35 PM|| 2004-09-25 6:18:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 My family always said:
"Fool Me Once Shame on You,
Fool Me Twice Shame on Me,
Fool Me Thrice And I'll break the restraints and chase you to the ends of the earth with my cliche axe.

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-25 6:26:10 PM|| 2004-09-25 6:26:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Could it be that France is slowly waking up to the danger posed by the Arab/Muslim world??

Perhaps but not likely. The French like anyone are creatures of habit, and France's favorite game in the middle east--more precisely, re the jihadists, the mullahs and the pan-arabists-- is the same game that De Gaulle introduced vis-a-vis the superpowers and theat France has played ever since: triangulation between the US hyperpower and its mortal rival(s).

France's number one priority has been and remains countering and thwarting the US hyperpuissance wherever they can do so at little or no economic or strategic cost. In the middle east, this means tilting toward the jihadists et al; in the far east it means joint military maneuvers with China and red-carpet receptions for Chinese leaders in Paris, including military parades and stunts like bathing the Eiffel Tower in red light (I'm not joking).

POsturing? Maybe; they love to pull the same stunts with Castro. But Iran is different. This isn't a tinpot caribbean caudillo; this isn't about a third=party like Taiwan. Iran's challenge is now, or soon will be, an existential threat to the US. The time for French gaming is long past. Either with us or against us, Jacques.

Posted by lex 2004-09-25 6:30:10 PM|| 2004-09-25 6:30:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 lex: Iran's challenge is now, or soon will be, an existential threat to the US.

Iran will never be an existential threat to the US. It can cause some destruction stateside through terror attacks, or in the future, via ballistic missile attacks, but definitely not endanger this country's existence, especially not if we implement a full-scale missile defense.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-09-25 7:05:17 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-25 7:05:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Alright, maybe the "existential" characterization was over the top. But you shouldn't underestimate the amount of havoc-- economic and even strategic-- that can be created by a few well-placed dirty nukes in container-cargos.

Few people realize how dependent this new economy is upon automated container-unloading and just-in-time inventory management. These innovations are responsbile for much of the nation's productivity improvements in the last decade, and if we're forced to search every (or even a large smapling of) container, the economic recovery will come to a halt. This economy depends on efficient retailing and cheap goods from Asia. Eliminate those and you can shave about a point, maybe a point and a half, off of GNP growth in this country for years to come.

How do you think the Chinese central bank strategists would respond to that scenario, Zhang? Think they might want to reduce their US Treasury holdings?

Posted by lex 2004-09-25 9:03:33 PM|| 2004-09-25 9:03:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 While Iran may never mortally endanger America, Zhang Fei, France's duplicity still carries a high price tag, as lex points out. China's sowing of discord and increasing threat levels on the Korean peninsula or in the Middle East carries with it a gigantic economic burden in terms of costly military interventions required to pacify these hotspots. A putative NATO ally like France cheerfully abetting China's strategic sabotage is simply outrageous. That America does not have the moral fortitude to begin sanctioning its own trade with China is nearly as bad. Such willing participation with the Chinese communists is tantamount to financing their constant undermining of global security while the United States picks up the tab.

France's actions are nothing less than the equivalent of touching off a security backfire intended to blaze towards the inferno raging through the Middle East. Distant China can only sit back and laugh riotously at such Gallic gullability. Other European countries should take notice of France's malfeasance. Instead, in some mistaken desire to thwart perceived American unilateralism, they are tacitly or overtly encouraging this sort of lemming-like rush to the cliff's edge.

Europe's continued dalliance with Iran is proof positive of their shortsightedness. No amount of trade can compensate for the danger that a nuclear armed Iran represents. Instead, Europe actively courts both communist China's strategic encroachment and Middle East terrorism's benediction. Witness France's overtures to Hamas vis their hostage in Iraq.

As lex has repeatedly mentioned, NATO may well need to be dissolved and replaced with a coalition of those who will not betray the vital interests of both America and Europe.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-25 9:11:25 PM|| 2004-09-25 9:11:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 No need to dissolve it-- LiberalHawk has pointed out that NATO can still be useful in some circumstances, like Afghanistan. the point is to let NATO die a slow death and start ramping up bliateral security relationships-- call them understandings, if you like, or agreements to cooperate, or whatever-- with Russia above all and also India. The future is coming at us a lot faster than anyone thinks.

Posted by lex 2004-09-25 9:18:40 PM|| 2004-09-25 9:18:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Your point about container traffic is well made, lex. However, I must disagree with you about China. Imagine the money we could save if China was taken off of our radar screens. If we were able to economically cripple them to where they could no longer export missile and nuclear technology, there could be tremendous cost savings realized at home through decreased military spending on places like Iran and the Koreas.

It is much like the deceptively low price of gasoline. Once you factor in all of the military budget consumed by our defence of the Persian Gulf, suddenly that oil starts costing closer to $100 a barrel. We need to neuter China's constant meddling in world affairs. To do so requires that we wean ourselves of the cheap VCRs and running shoes pouring out of communist China.

Eliminating some of the $127 BILLION trade deficit that we have with China could go a long way towards freeing up money to create new jobs at home. China has very cunningly invested in a large chunk of America's Treasury holdings. Suppressed GDP and inflation may end up being a small price to pay compared with having to piss on every one of China's endless arsons around the globe. We are dying the death of a thousand paper cuts while China laughs up their collective sleeve.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-25 9:36:39 PM|| 2004-09-25 9:36:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I think the threat of economic disruptions from China in the event of war is overstated. US trade with China is perhaps 2% of the US economy. We can take the hit. We've gotten along without them for over 200 years. I think China could disappear off the map tomorrow and it still wouldn't matter.

As to the matter of Treasuries, Americans own $34T worth of assets. If Treasury yields get more attractive, we'll buy 'em by the truckload. Alternative investments are just too attractive. Strangely enough, if Treasury yields go up, other asset prices will go south, as they lose their attractiveness relative to Treasuries. And that will make America a lot more attractive place to invest in.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-09-25 10:37:26 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-25 10:37:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I think the threat of economic disruptions from China in the event of war is overstated. US trade with China is perhaps 2% of the US economy. We can take the hit. We've gotten along without them for over 200 years. I think China could disappear off the map tomorrow and it still wouldn't matter.

Then, aside from a nearly treasonous political conflict of interest, what is it that prevents America from instituting harsh sanctions against China? We are spending untold billions around the globe thwarting Chinese destabilization plots. Why not collapse their economy and bring the savings back home?

There is no way on earth that China could possibly find any other buyers to take up $127USD billion worth of idled manufacturing capacity. We DO NOT have to start a war with them to do this. All we need to do is adopt some reciprocal trade agreements AND MAKE THEM STICK.

The only thing I can see preventing this is how addicted American politicians are to campaign contributions being made by those who profit from dealing with China. Wal-Mart is a sterling example and represents 10% of the entire Chinese trade deficit all by itself.

America's manufacturing jobs are being sold down the river and our soldiers' blood is being spilled abroad so that Capitol Hill politicians can fart through silk during their re-election campaigns. Doesn't anyone else have a problem with this?

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-25 11:04:20 PM|| 2004-09-25 11:04:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Not sure I have a problem with it. THe harsh economic reality for us is that we have a mature, slow-growth economy and a fast-growing elderly population (which will include you and me soonah dan you tink). The numbers don't add up for us: 2% economic growth will not support asset price increases of the range needed to allow you and me to retire--no matter which assets you're carrying-- before we're eighty. We need access to high-growth markets, to support top-line revenue growth for our companies, hence for government revenue growth as well, and to enable bottom-line growth as well, via lower-cost, more efficient manufacturing. For each of these vital American economic goals, China is extremely important because there is no large economy on this planet that offers anything like the pace of growth, in demand or offshore manufacturing supply capacity, that China offers.

Look at the alternatives: aside from oil, gas, and nickel, Russia is a basket case. Mexico's another oil-rich, manufacturing-poor basket case. Brazil and Indonesia are not much better. India's desperately poor and hopelessly bureaucratic.

Face it, 'mericans, we and the Chinese are joined at the hip. We need growth, and they've got it: they need vast and stable demand and reinvestment opportunities, and we've got 'em. There's not going to be a divorce here.

Posted by lex 2004-09-27 12:42:53 AM|| 2004-09-27 12:42:53 AM|| Front Page Top

18:34 Flash Whagum2399
20:47 Travis Horn
20:41 Travus Horn
00:49 lex
00:42 lex
03:59 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:40 VAMark
23:33 Heartless Bastard TROLL
23:32 Deacon Blues
23:31 Heartless Bastard TROLL
23:25 tipper
23:19 Zenster
23:13 Anymousse6646
23:12 Deacon Blues
23:11 Anymousse6646
23:09 Anymousse6646
23:04 Deacon Blues
23:04 Zenster
23:01 Comment Top
23:01 Heartless Bastard TROLL
22:59 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:52 Douglas De Bono
22:49 Douglas De Bono
22:44 Deacon Blues