Hmmm, I think part of the problem is failure to see the glorious opportunity inherent in all this. Oddly, the more I read about this the happier I'm becoming, because I'm starting to see an interesting parallel. The things these people described in their symposium sounded very familiar. I wonder if history will repeat itself... but this is all the subject for a future blog post of my own.

Meanwhile, I think it's safe to say that the French government, and a large section of its citizenry too, have indeed become "the ally of tyranny everywhere." Iraq, Mugabe, China, Iran, etc... it's pretty close to an inversely perfect record. Even the opportunity they're presenting us for the future should not restrain us from proper criticism in the present.

it is not my job to change your views on france, which i won't even try to do.
but at least i can rectify a few of your wrong facts:
"I read a number of articles where France was actively assisting Hamas, a genocidal terrorist group"

what the situation was: on an EU summit on Monday britan and fracne chlashed about whether the political arm of the hamas should be blacklistet or not.
this has so far nothing to do with their opinions and actions on the military arm of the hamas, which is blacklistet throughout europe and the US.
th problem with blacklisting their political arm is especially their importance as a political player in the middle-east, which does mean there is no way to find a peaceful solution without negotiating with them.
and as you know even israel doesn't blacklist their political arm, but nogatiate with them on cease-fire. [so is israel sponsoring islamist terror? i dont think you would say this, or?].
there is nothing to palliate about hams, but it is indeed more than only a terrorist organizations, things are in reality much more complicated then they sound from far away.
when hamas is the only 'humaitatrian' organization working in the fugitive camps then the things are not as simple as destroying them would be succesful, because there they can agitate their members and supporters. i myself dont think this is a good reality, but this doesn change it. changeing it would mean to send humanitarion aid to the fugitive camps with other organizations, but it is obvious this is complicated too. [if the agitation basis is there already, you only would sponser terrorist by feeding them].
whatever is a solution i future, cracking down the whole hamas is no option by now, which is why israel does peace-talks with them. this does not mean israel sponsors islamist terror, but is searching for a solution that fits reality.

besides this, if the 'opinionjournal' even talks about bush who "marginalize[s] Islamist terrorists" i myself wouldn't think this can be called unbiased journalism.

and to the iranian islamist group: the US themself blacklistet them as terrorist. now, when the groups terror should be ended you call for pardon for them?
so what does it mean if a group is on your terrorist list? there are 'good' terrorists and 'bad' terrorists?
the US themself fightet this militant group throughout iraq in the days of war and beyond, but cracking down their financing basis [1,3 million dollar in cash where found in their headquater] means 'supporting tyrrany'?

perhaps by now you should think of splitting your list of terroristic groups in those who should be supportet and those who should be cracked down. so its easier for you're allies to fulfill your wishes...

If the Iranian dissident group was MKO, Trent, France has a legitimate case.

Re: Hamas, France has no case. Hamas does work in the refugee camps? Well, Hitler lowered the unemployment rate and Osama Bin Laden built roads. So freaking what? There is NO complexity involved, these people are openly genocidal and there is no separation in practice between any part of Hamas and its military arm. One either recognizes naked evil or one does not. France, whose record of winking at terrorism aimed at Jews is long and distinguished, just added to that shameful history.

And yes, there is an alternative to negotiating with Hamas. Just as there's an alternative to negotiating with al-Qaeda. Unlike negotiation, the alternative works.

Throw in the rest of France's actions lately, including open efforts to prop up Saddam Hussein, and it's hard to quarrel with Trent's assessment (and that of more than a couple French observers) that there's an unhealthy climate in France. I will in fairness point to Phil Carter's blog INTEL DUMP, where he notes some constructive good being done in Afghanistan. Everything else I've seen has been a mess at best, enabling evil at worst.

As Armed Liberal has noted before in these pages, there is a "war on bad philosophy" whose outcome will be determinative in the long run. Right now, France is on the other side of that war.

I agree that France has become a willing ally of tyranny, but I tend to agree with Maxim that the examples you give here are not particularly apt. The Iranian militant mujaheedan who are the subject of the current crackdown are an extreme left-wing militant group with no popular base in Iran and little if any relationship to the current pro-democracy activists there. There may have been independent reason to reign them in. Maxim also corrects the record on Hamas, though I remain suspicious of French intentions on this score notwithstanding.

You seem to imply that France is aligning with its domestic Arabs out of multiculturalist leftist sympathies (I am referring more to Part I of your series here). Nothing could be further from the truth: the French are hardly multiculturalists, they are exclusionary. They hate their local Arabs far more than they hate their Jews, and the growth of militant Islamists in France is not a result of over-inclusiveness, but rather of exclusion.

The French relationship with Arab and Islamic tyranny abroad stems from a different tradition: a nationalist and mercantalist foreign policy that has no concern for human rights or collective security. In the last two months, de Villepin's itinerary has basically been limited to Libya, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and the Palestinian Authority.

This is simply a continuation of French Iraq policy as applied to the rest of the Arab world. The French tend to dig around in the sewers abandoned by the Americans (Jordan being somewhat of an exception here). The advantage to them is twofold: these countries have oil money and represent huge markets for French business: in particular, infrastructure projects (construction, utilities, highways, etc.). Second, they allow triangulation vis-à-vis the U.S. to enhance their stature (and ego).

This policy also explains in large part French support for the Palestinians and official tolerance or downplaying of the resurgence of anti-semitism at home. France abandoned Israel after Suez and the six-day war simply because the Arabs supply a crucial commodity and represent far more profitable markets for French exports. Israel-bashing is a key element of this policy and, given the public consensus on the primacy of national strategic and commercial interests in foreign policy, this attitude is present throughout official circles and in throughout the political classes.

These policies have virtually universal support among the populace across the political spectrum, from left to right. There are two attitudes: one is complete ignorance or at best indifference. The other holds that everybody does the same thing: the tu quoque argument. This explains in part their reflexive anti-Americanism, which imputes the vilest of motives to any U.S. intervention abroad. It's called projection.

G Gonzalez, Paris, France

Addendum to above:

I should nevertheless add for the removal of doubt that the recent French actions on Hamas and the Iranian mujaheedan do reflect indirectly France's policy of allying itself with tyrannical regimes, if not for the reasons given. If the policy may be sound, the timing is entirely suspect. In particular, the mujaheedan group has used France as a safe harbor for over 20 years. The decision to crackdown on them now almost certainly is a signal to the Iranian regime that France is on the side of the regime in its spat with Washington.

G Gonzalez analysis is very plausible: in terms of cynical realism, Villepin = Kissinger exp10

But there are other factors too. After all, this realism is not very realistic, in the long term.

It requires ignoring the costs of antagonising the USA, exaggerating the benefits of aligning with economically flatlining African and Middle Eastern kleptocracies, and overlooking the dangers of "rogue" states, WMD, and international terrorism.

I suspect that postmodernist philosophy, evading the questions posed by the failure of Soviet Communism, erodes serious analysis among French opinion formers.
Instead there is a mixture of frivolity, cynicism, populist "pacifism", gestures to activists, and the sort of America-baiting that pleases former Gaullists, and old Communists and New Left radicals.

There was an interesting article by Philip Delves Broughton in the Telegraph touching on this:

"Politics, they feel, is just politics. Cynicism about politics ... in France ... is terminal. Politics is trivial, ephemeral. Poetry is Prometheus's stolen gift to man. As a result, the gap between rhetoric and reality here is ocean-wide."

I'm not certain if Villepin's refusal to break links with Hamas is necessarily malign, however. (I certainly think it's wrongheaded, morally obtuse and above all a mistake).
Being very charitable: France may still hope Hamas will sign up for a ceasefire, or split on the issue, and/or show Hamas rejection as totally unreasonable to the wider Arab. As I said, if they do think this, they are misleading themselves.
(Alternatively, they may just be being a bunch of mendacious frogs :)

France's anti-americainisme runs very long and deep. Clemenceau spat in Woodrow Wilson's face in 1919. Ever since they figured out we were surpassing the UK in world leadership they've been working against us.

After Pearl Harbor the first nation we attacked was Morocco, and we had to fight ... France ... to get in there. [I can almost hear the left if that had happened today: Morocco hasn't attacked us, they're no threat, it's about oil, etc ad nauseum]

Talk to the pros in counter-espionage. I think you'll find that France is considered one of our top espionage problems.

French anti-semitism runs even longer and deeper than its anti-americanism, and it is endemic to the culture. In 1987, in Quebec, there were two blatantly anti-semitic 'jokes' printed on placemats in restaurants along the main route between Motreal and Quebec City.

As late as 1991, when I moved out of Quebec permanently it was still a common occurence to hear educated people referring to "ces sales juifs" those dirty jews in what they thought was 'polite' conversation.

The intersection of anti-americanism and anti-semitism is Israel. No further explanation needed.

John Farren does a good job describing French cynicism, hypocrisy and problems with reality as additional background. Much of the present social, cultural and, I would say, moral crisis in France arises precisely from the increasingly apparent unsustainability of the rhetoric / reality gap when a society in decline discovers its inability to adapt.

Bart Hall also points out the deep historical roots of anti-semitism in France. The dependency on oil and Arab markets and use of Middle East regimes for geo-strategic leverage have resurrected that ignoble tradition and given birth to new strains of antisemitism as well.

Zut alors! So Pierre Laval wasn't so very far off base, after all.

Cordially...

Neither the French nor the Islamofascists are recent enemies of the United States. The first six frigates built by the U. S. were to suppress the piracy and enslavement of Americans by Algerians, "millions for defence but not one cent for tribute", but found their first use in an all but declared naval war with France from 1798 to 1801.

How do we know the following statement is true:

The sickness of France has been largely created by people who want only one thing: to destroy freedom and to destroy Western civilization.

One indication is this:

1) It is certainly true that the only way to get two groups to cooperate when normally they would be at odds with one another, is to present them with a common enemy.

2) The Left and Islamism are natural enemies: the former is a philosophy informed mostly by secularists and materialists while the latter worldview is informed by a rigid, legalistic (in my opinion a worldly, widely-held, and probably quite orthodox) interpretation of Islam.

3) The Left and Islamism are cooperating to an unprecidented degree - with the academic Left touting Islam as a religion of Peace, and Islamists coopting groups like A.N.S.W.E.R to further their cause.

4) The common enemy of both the Left and Islamism is Western Civilization, which both view as inherently disordered, and in need of radical reform. (By the way, Western Civilization is defined broadly here, to include not only the political tradition of the West, but also its philosophical and religious tradition.)

From this it is possible to conclude that the Left and Islamism are working together to tear down Western Civilization. France, dominated politically by the Left with a large consituency sympathetic to Islamism, is caught up in the dynamics of this struggle against Western Civilization.

-- Cy

I did a little research into the guys the french busted on my blog

Apperantly they are seeking a mix of Marxism and Islam, and call themselves the "people's mujahadeen". They were "disarmed" in Iraq by the US government after the war

These people also supported the Mullas orgionaly after the revolution, and opposed the US backed Shah. Who knows if these are people we really want to deal with?

And this was obviously bad timing on France's part.

----

As far as Hamas goes, I don't know. In the past I would have said we should have at least tried to engage them in negotiations. After all, they are the ones who control a lot of the anti-isreal terrorism. Their actions in the past couple weeks though have really shown them to be pretty evil. I mean, they didn't even wait for the talks to break down. It could very well be that they simply want the violence to continue in order to make violence the only solution.

I think all of you are getting carried away. Just because France did not agree with the U.S. about going to war with Iraq, does not mean it is not a democracy, and that it is trying to help tyrants.

Of course, you can always find news items to support your thesis. But every news item may have varying interpretations. I'm not here trying to be an apologist for France. I'm an American and proud of it. But I never say that America is always right and France always wrong.

Let's be careful what we accuse others of. We in the U.S. have supported dictators in Africa, the Middle East, South America and in other places. One exampe: We helped build the Taliban that we later had to fight in Afghanistan. Does this make us a proponent of tyranny?

Like U.S., France is a democracy. Like U.S., France sometimes does bad things. Like U.S., there are people in France who think their country is always right and other countries are always wrong.

It is this tit for tat business that should be stopped on both sides. Ths is the only way we both could fight terrorism, our mutual enemy.

Regarding the timing of the raid on the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK or MKO), this might be the time that the US would actually like to see the Islamo-Marxist, long war-absorbed, & probably cultlike MEK taken out. Iran may be on the verge of a revolution, in which the US, I suspect, probably sees little good in the MEK's taking part &, after which, much less good in the MEK's taking part in a new Iranian government. I don't defend Chirac or de Villepin. To the contrary. But I can't help wondering whether the raid came with US support or prompting. Anyway, I'm glad to see a reduction in the MEK's potential role in Iran.

Me too. ("Anyway, I'm glad to see a reduction in the MEK's potential role in Iran.")

It's true that the U.S. supported a lot of very bad people in the past, under the "better our bastards than their bastards" strategy. It's tough to defend a lot of the specific horrors of the U.S. proxies around the world. But at least the U.S. fighting a proxy war against the demonstrably evil Soviet Union; we supported bastards to prevent nations from falling under the yoke of one of the most murderous philosophies in history. What's the French excuse for supporting Mugabe, Hamas, Hussein, et al.? Is the U.S. as bad as the Soviet Union, and so must be resisted by supporting similarly evil regimes? That's a rhetorical question.

I have noticed that the apologists for Frances’ current support for terrorist organizations and vicious dictators like to point out that the U.S. has supported dictators in the past. What they forget to mention is that in the main the U.S. supported those dictatorships during the Cold War to fight the spread of communism. What is Frances’ excuse for her current behavior? I have come to conclude that for many of these apologists any action that thwarts the U.S. is a good thing regardless of its cost.

Just wanted to say, in case I'm not heard from again, that I found this site through Merde in France (with whose author I just traded a few interesting emails under my real name). You guys (Merde in France, Winds of Change, Dissident Frogman, etc.) have a terrific set of sites going, the France section of my "Favorites" menu has expanded rapidly.

This astonished me: the quote from Guy Milliere's article "France is Not A Western Country Anymore" to the effect that in "many" French cities, teenaged girls -- all of them, not just muslim girls -- have to go out at night in burqas, lest they be harrased or attacked.

If that's true, it really is troubling -- even if it's just one city. That's just not acceptable in any western society--not under any circumtances or according to any major western ideology, left or right, that I can think of.

Some of the comments presented in the symposium are so dire they're hard to believe. (As Kamins said -- they're very French comments!!)

I honestly don't know what to think -- I don't doubt France is facing (or rather, not facing up to) a boatload of problems, but how deranged, really, is their society becoming? I'll want more evidence before I'll accept that the short-term is as bleak as protrayed in the symposium.

The Australian intelligence services too recently raided the homes of alleged MEK members and arrested many. It is believed they did so in collaboration with U.S. intelligence or that the latter were aware of the raids. MEK are revolutionary communists and would perhaps not make good leaders of a post-mullahcracy Iran. On the other hand, perhaps the Australians (and the French) simply noticed this group on a list of proscribed (i.e. terrorist) organisations and decided, in the new, more anxious climate, to take them out. The people caught in the dragnet had lived here for a long time, but (as in the French case) that doesn't mean that until now the government was supporting terrorists.

About Hamas

First, Maxim, Israel has never negotiated with Hamas, and never will. This is mainly due to the fact that the Hamas Covenant specifically calls for the destruction of Israel, and rejects any attempts at negotiation. "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement." Also: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." Whenever you hear of negotiations with Hamas, these refer to negotiation between the PA and Hamas, not Israel and Hamas.

Furthermore, Israel . The US and Canada do not differentiate between the "political and military" of Hamas, only the EU makes the distinction. (Canada did make a distinction between the "political and military wing" of Hezbollah, but has recently banned Hezbollah completely.

More info on Hamas here and here.

Is this Iranian group bad? Sure. It just looks extremely suspicious when the French crack down on them, yet refuse to label the "political wing" of Hamas a terrorist organization, which nations like the US, Canada, Israel, and Germany (apparently) have all done.

Dang it, I knew I'd screw up one of those tags. There are 2 links in that big block.

The news about the raid by the Aussies is interesting & welcome. But I don’t think that the French “just noticed” something about the MEK group which they’ve been providing with poice protection for decades now.

If you think that France's anti-American viewpoint is bad enough now... just wait until their 10% Muslim population doubles or triples.

i really do support Paul Siegel's view of things.
looking into history tells me (everybody has his own view of history, and that's a part of mine) that there is and was never 'the big conpiration',
'the one and only evil'. things often go this way or that way, and everything could have been going any other way if any accident or chance would have happend. would there really have been second world war if the 'terrorist-attack' against him before he became what he got 'famous' for would have succeded? looking into history tells me it is will, its circumstances, it is biography of few, it is dumb contretemps that made and makes histroy.
finding an ultimative 'plan' and 'conspiration' behind every decision deflects from reality.

and Paul is right when he talks about every thesis can find it's facts.

for a long time i couldn't accept intelligent and wise people can have so different opinions on things. but it really shows one thing: 'the one and only thruth' is not existing, people are doing right, and they are doing wrong. and even the intelligent ones do their mistakes - or to make it more radikal can be wrong throughout their lives.
do you really think the chiefs of KPdSU in the soviet-union always where as dumb as a post? and every of hilter's helpers where stupid idiots? no, they where not, they just where wrong. [this does not make their doing a better one, of course]

how interpretable 'news' are, how difficult facts are to recover - doesn't the news about the MKO show it?
thanks to joe, ggonzales, w.smith and others for uncovering this.

is there really this one big conspiration of french anti-americanist islamo-marxist behind every of de'villepens steps?
in france we have the most conservative government in france' history, why they should fight for leftists? or extreme nationalists? both are their hardest enemies. JUST THINK.

------------------
about the hamas thing:

"Hamas does work in the refugee camps? Well, Hitler lowered the unemployment rate and Osama Bin Laden built roads. So freaking what? There is NO complexity involved, these people are openly genocidal and there is no separation in practice between any part of Hamas and its military arm."

my intention was not to marginalize hamas' terrorism and the problem they are to a working peace-process.
i know the facts scott has cited. but the problem with this is another one, than recognizing they are unusful for palestinians future and they are a terrorist group, which is not hard to dicover.

but you should recognize they are the only ones helping in the refugee camps, they give financial support, they build kindergardens, they give food. this shouldn't marginalize their terroristical aims - but it should show that there is a problem that lies deeper than just the obvious way of 'good' and 'evil'. in our way of sight, they are, indeed, evil. but how would you think of if they are you're only delivery of bread and humanitarian aid? they give another thing to the refugees, which makes the situation as complicated as it is: 'education'. you know what this means. their education is agitation for their aims.

is there a real peace thinkable without hamas, or by trying to destroy them? NO.
is there a real peace thinkable with hamas, or by trying to negotiate with them? NO.
do i have a solution for this to offer? NO.
but i can say things are not as simple as they may be looking on the first looking, but they are not. destroying hamas does not only mean destroying an terrorist organization, but it also does mean destroying an humanitarian organization - and thats not a solution those who live in these refugee camps will give up without fight.

"And yes, there is an alternative to negotiating with Hamas. Just as there's an alternative to negotiating with al-Qaeda. Unlike negotiation, the alternative works."

yes? really? is it that simple? the news i can watch from israel since 40 years have to be different to yours. i can see how helpless a high-tech army can be against those who have to offer their live for killing innocent ones.
and what about the news in iraq? the news that i was watching told me since may1 51 soldiers died, more than one a day. and the numbers are increasing week by week.

Whaq: I believe he was referring to the 'cités' -- the projects surrounding major cities and towns in France. Not the cities themselves.

(See, e.g., this.)

It is so simple.

Hamas provides kindergartens, & teaches children from a young age to hate & dream of murdering Jews. Like the refugee camps, Hamas is part of the multigenerational project of the weaponization of minds & culture of the Palestinians.

Hamas has always wanted to eliminate Israel.

If somebody is determined to kill you, if that is what he pursues as his life’s work, then with him you do not negotiate except as a ploy.

There is nothing to negotiate about. For Israel there is only to destroy Hamas & Hizbollah. For the US there is only to destroy the Taliban, to destroy Saddam’s regime, to destroy the regimes of Iran, Syria, & North Korea. By means military or otherwise.

Here in the United States the majority of us are determined for an active policy of destroying, by means military or otherwise, all regimes & organizations who would destroy us. Barring unforeseen extraordinary events, that policy is set in granite until 2008 at the earliest.

September 11, 2001 is an important date in US history, & an important date in French history, whether France likes it or not. France has no choice in the matter.

There is nothing to negotiate about. For Israel there is only to destroy Hamas & Hizbollah.

at least one question still open: what do you do with the thousends of 'weaponizeds'?

it's the same question as: what do you expect to face in afghanistan after winning the war?
and it is the same question as: what do you do with the weaponized country of iraq after 'freeing'?

in either case the answer seems to be trouble, deads and failure.

Maxim, the IDF (the Israeli military) is not at all powerless against Hamas or anyone who is "willing to offer their lives" to kill Israelis. The military power is there. The reasons for not exercising that power are purely political.

All: as an American, I am absolutely disgusted by the French behavior during the past year (and during previous years as well). As an Israeli and a Jew I am even more disgusted with it, but I do have just a bit of a problem with some of the American self-righteousness while criticising the French. I suspect that self-righteousness to be somewhat newly-acquired, most likely following 9/11. And I am not talking about support of tyrants (although I certainly could). I am talking about ignoring murderous gangs like Hamas. It certainly looks like the US did not mind them before, because (as DenBeste puts it) "they were only killing Jews". I wish this country did not have to go through 9/11 to finally open it's eyes, and I sure hope that neither France, nor any other country has to go through the same to realize who our (the humanity's) common enemy is.

A side note: I agree that the timing of the French crackdown is suspicious, but it could as well be true that they did have specific intel on the group's intent to blow-up Iranian embassies in Europe. Stranger things have happened.

No, Maxim, goddamn it, Hamas is NOT the only organization "helping" in the refugee camps. Where in the hell did you get that crazy idea? It so happens that the UN, and EU, and a thousand Arab charities around the globe pour mountains of hard currency and humanitarian assistance into the West Bank. The Palestinians are, in fact, the only nationalist movement in the world currently living off of a flood of international welfare.

You have to be really, really, really stupid to fall for the good cop-bad cop routine put on by Hamas, even while they take credit for one suicide bombing after the next. The fact that they raise money for humanitarian purposes is completely tangential, and the ONLY reason they do this is because it keeps them popular with the Palestinians themselves--even as they serve as magnets for IDF troops and missiles. The fact that reasonable people can be so easily duped shows a staggering ignorance. Just admit it, for god's sake--Villepin's suggestion that Hamas ought to be treated with kid gloves, only days after they have slaughtered scores of women and children in cold blood, is indefensible. Your calling attention to their humanitarian efforts--which you know to be a smoke screen--in some attempt to whitewash the facts on the ground is utterly offensive.

I wonder how much humaitarian assistance they'll be doling out to the families of the children they murder.

Maxim's post, ending "in either case the ending seems to be trouble, deads and failure" reminds me of a similar thread by a French national (I think on Samizdata). I think there is evidence of a fundamental difference of philosophy between the French and Americans.

To Maxim I would ask: And what is the alternative?

Yes, the road ahead is fraught with trouble and potential failure -- and possibly a few deads (not sure if you mean deaths or deadends). But I think America(ns) are willing to face these possibilities, because to not do so seems the greater evil.

maxim -

"is it that simple? the news i can watch from israel since 40 years have to be different to yours. i can see how helpless a high-tech army can be against those who have to offer their live for killing innocent ones."

maxim, the only reason the hi-tech army can be seen as helpless is that the soldiers and commanders are humane almost beyond understanding.

If Israel chose to, they could readily level every village in Palestine. It is the restraint - and yes, I'm aware of civilians killed in cross-fire, and injured in thousands of other ways. But compared to the capabilities of the modern armies, the levels of destruction in Palestine (and Iraq and Afghanistan) represent a triumph of humane military action.

Read histories of urban warfare in WW II, and understand that the capabilities of the modern armies - the sheer destructive capability - are probably an order of magnitude greater per combatant than they were then.

So whatever we believe about the political causes and eventual solutions, please understand that the issue isn't the relative ineffectiveness of the modern (Israeli or American) military, but its restraint.

A.L.

For Maxim and like minded individuals I pose this question: If the Palestinians are Arabs, and as Arabs like to point out that all Arabs are brothers, why is the political arm of Hammas so sucessful in the refugee camps,since Arabs as brothers, should accept their Palestinian brethern into their homes and not cast them into camps as barely tolerated strangers.

Could it be that these camps exist in large part due to the funding of these camps by the French dominated EU and by the aquiesence of the US by it's funding (along with further EU funding ) of the UN created Palestinian refugee camps? After 50 years one would think the Arab Palestinian brethern would at the minimum hold dual citizenship in the Arab countries they presently reside in,as brothers, being able to integrate themselves in those countries (like they are able to in the US and in most non-Arab countries) instead of still being "refugees" amongst their "brothers".

Could it be that in fact these terrorist (Hammas,Hezbollah,Al-Aqusa Martyrs Brigade to name a few) are in large part a creation of and whose continuing existence is due to the funding and acceptance of the EU and the UN?

The France defenders (Paul Siegel and others) don't give much objective support for their position other than a presumed need for more perspective, as well as their tu quoque argument. I also think that the theme of the (extremely uncomfortable) alliance between the Left and Islamism (Cy Kologis) is a bit overworked. I think this involves making the wrong assumptions and applying the wrong categories to French motivations.

My criticism of the French has little to do with their opposition to the war per se. Indeed, its extreme form of realpolitik, devoid of any regard for human rights, decency, and responsibility, is hardly new. Moreover, French leftism is only marginally similar to American leftism in their shared collectivist approaches. American leftism is far more superficial and diffuse. French leftism is harder to define, since the French parties on the right support a great deal of "collectivism" that Americans would label as "leftist" and the French left is hardly multiculturalist. Indeed, both the left and the right in France have been coopting National Front hyper-nationalist and xenophobic themes for some time. Another important difference is that on neither left nor the right in France do you find any self-reflection, let alone criticism, regarding the morality or even wisdom of that country's own actions abroad: there is a common advocacy of the "Raison d'Etat".

What unites the Right and the Left in France in the realm of foreign policy is the shared primacy of French national interests, to the virtual exclusion of other considerations, coupled with a virulent anti-Americanism whose center of gravity is its hostility towards the perceived American threat to those French nationalist interests, rather than, say, a blanket objection to imperialism or concern for the Third World.

One need look no further than the dozens of French military or intelligence service interventions in Africa over the past 40 years to protect French strategic and commercial interests, with nary a discouraging word among the political classes or the press. Also instructive is the French position in the first Gulf War - the one that really was about oil. The U.S. Senate could barely eke out a majority (52-48) in support of that war. In contrast, the French government approved the intervention by a 92% vote in the National Assembly and a 95% vote in the Senate. And that was with a Socialist Party majority in power! In that case, French commercial and strategic interests truly were at stake: France in contrast to the U.S. produces no oil and is 100% dependent on imports. The French are hardly pacifists.

All nations look out for to protect their strategic and economic interests. The line is a certain sense of basic morality (Bosnia, Kosovo) and responsibility. The U.S. may at times approach that line but, leaving aside a few cold war excesses, it tries not to step over it. Examples of stepping over the line are: (i) sales of weapons-capable nuclear reactors to a tyranical regime, (ii) sales of 8 billion $ in arms to that same tyrannical regime (the comparable U.S. figure is 5 million $, (iii) sales of military parts through "third countries" to resupply that equipment, (iv) entering into "conditional" oil drilling contracts worth in excess of 50 billion $ that are dependent upon the regime's remaining in power and the lifting of sanctions.

One might add the recent consolidation of relations by France with Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and the Palestinian Authority. The French of course will cite their so-called "historical ties" with the region and the need for another force to counter the U.S. hegemon. But the whole rapprochement has a distinctly commercial and obstructionist smell to it. It certainly has nothing to do with concern for third world peoples or collective security. Indeed, France more or less openly supports the perpetuation of dictatorships in the Arab world (and elsewhere) in the interests of ensuring the stability necessary to cultivating its commercial and strategic interests in the region. Do we hear French voices rising up to condemn such dubious policies? Of course not.

These policies may not be realistic or far-sighted. But they certainly are cynical and fundamentally irresponsible.

Folks, I think we've discovered another commenter who needs to be elevated to Guest Blogger status. GGonzalez, come on down!

Tu oublié de lire les article concernant la vente des airbus A380 (20 appareil deux fois plus gros que le plus gros des boeings) a larabie saoudite
dommage pour boeing, il ont le pétrole et nous les avions
bye

Quel beau matos ils ont 10 ans d'avance ces américain sur leur 30 ans de retard

ça c'est vrai

"ils ont le pétrole et nous les avions"

Eh les gars, vous nous rendez un peu trop facile la tâche. Vous pourriez au moins nous laisser réfléchir un peu au lieu de faire la démonstration de la thèse à notre place Quel progrès pour l'humanité !

QED

D'ailleur une chose que vous n'aurais jamais c'est notre liberté de penser.

GGonzalez,

No. It is alot simpler than that.

France is becoming Greater Algeria.

The French elites hate their own nationality and anyone who is any good is leaving France. A joke all the rage in London goes something like this "Where do you find a young, hustling French entreprenure (sp?)...London, of course."

France is well on its way to becoming the first Arab nuclear power. Of course, it will then run into the American 9/11 doctrine -- "No Arab state will be allowed to own or credibly pretend to own WMD."

France is doomed to live in very interesting times.

Mon wallpaper préféré

Trent,

Told 'ya they'd wig out upon being called voluntary Algerians. It's like calling a Russian "nie kulturny".

To quote GGonzalez... "QED"

Umm. Maxim, Israel does not negotiate with Hamas, nor do they see the difference between the "political arm" and the "military arm." The fact that there is a difference is a fiction in and of itself. Imagine if there was a distinction between the military arm and the political arm of the Israeli or American government, would either one of us be on any better speaking terms with our enemies? Would we "negotiate" with the political arm of Al Qaeda whilst continuing our armed struggle against the terrorist group?

Israel demands of the Palestinians an end to violence before substantive peace talks can resume. Is that so wrong? However the Palestinians choose to achieve that (negotiation or otherwise) is up to them. Israel's stated position, in fact, is that negotiation will not work, only taking a stand against Hamas will effect any change.

Any possibility of getting some translations of the above? I think I get the gist, but hate to make judgments based on insufficient information.

To: Phil Winsor

My French is sketchy, but the posts are very simple.

"jean" was bragging that Saudi Arabia purchased 20 A-380 planes from Airbus recently, twice more than from Boeing, and that was a defeat for Boeing, which might have the oil, but they ("jean & co."?) have the planes.

Next one by "jean" was celebrating 10 years of their ("jean & co."?) advance against 30 years of US retreat, I didn't quite get it.

Then "blogographe" said that it is so true.

"GGonzalez" criticized "jean".

Then "blogographe" said that what we will never have is their freedom of thought.

Then "blogographe" posted 9/11 pictures with a comment that it is his preferred wallpaper.

Phil

I actually sent you a private message translation, which I might as well republish:

BEGIN

"You forgot to read the articles about the sale of the Airbus 380s (20 planes twice as big as the biggest boeing) to Saudia Arabia. Too bad for Boeing, they've got the oil and we've got the planes.
bye
Posted by: Jean on June 19, 2003 12:26 PM
Great stuff, they've got a ten year lead over the Americans on their thirty year lag.
Posted by: jean on June 19, 2003 12:43 PM
That's certainly true.
Posted by: blogographe on June 19, 2003 01:06 PM
"they've got the oil and we've got the planes"
Hey guys, you're making it a little too easy for us. You could at least let us think a bit instead of proving the point for us. And congrats on the Airbuses! What progress for humanity!
Posted by: GGonzalez on June 19, 2003 01:25 PM
QED
Posted by: GGonzalez on June 19, 2003 01:26 PM
Moreover, one thing you will never have is our freedom of thought."

END

It is too bad when a thread descend into name-calling and mindless bragging. There are in fact very good arguments one can make re: French foreign policy (and certainly its domestic policies). Mitterand for example strongly supported against his political foes the U.S. stance on placing Pershing missiles in Europe to offset the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Mitterand was also the first European leader to draw attention to the Bosnia problem and even landed in Sarajevo under a hail of sniper fire (à la George Bush carrier landing). Mitterand also mandated Hoechst to produce the RU-486 "day after pill" after Reagan banned it and tried to kill the market for it.

On French problems with their Arab population, they face difficulties and traditions that are such that they cannot simply adopt wholesale the American assimilation model. There has also been greater consciousness about addressing problem of racism, so widespread that it is the majority held view in France according to their own public opinion polls... Oops! Here I go again! These arguments are best left for others to formulate, but there certainly is a countercase to be presented on a number of issues.

osasha & GGonzalez:

Thanks for the help- Your translations confirm my guesses, based on the graphics posted by "blogographe"

Airbus 380- if I recall correctly, this aircraft needs special handling at airports due to its size-what good will they be if an airport won't make the effort and passengers can't disembark?

blogographe:
Be careful what you wish for-- you just might get it.

Well, one thing you gotta admit, even when it's meant to provoke or insult you--French is a grand and lovely language.

Too bad the French own it. . . .

It may be that the French have glamorized the criminal for too long in too many ways. A certain sociopathy of expression, that goes rather beyond classic sang-froid, seems to have become fashionable among many of them. I speak not only of the comments & pictures that I find here, but also elsewhere, in non-political forums too. A kind of sang-froid plus post-modernist disrespect for meanings of words plus reactionary political motivation that borders on the contrarian, opportunistic, & insincere way that a somewhat educated criminal tends to argue -- the kind of argument that tends, when pushed, to dissolve into an pathetic assertion of the kind: “I was just playing with your head, you fool.” It is as if French intellectual culture were tending toward a renunciation of humanity as any kind of ideal. I suppose blogographe may be proud of Frenchness, but he should wonder whether Frenchness can be proud of him.

Ah, the A380. Son of Concorde. Not so neat, but really, really big. It's kinda sad to tout airline orders as some kind of major accomplishment in these circumstances. If this were an airline industry board, I still worked for Boeing, and there was commercial aircraft one-upsmanship going on, maybe.

The 9/11 stuff is beneath comment. Guess France wasn't "All Americans Now" for very long, huh? I prefer honest hatred to insincere sympathy, anyway.

Et ça sa marche encore

benladen:

Got anything new to offer? Otherwise, crawl back under your rock.