Perfidious Britain and Treacherous France

Pages: 1 2

At the recently held Cannes G-20 Summit, the host, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, unaware of the fact that his lapel microphone was live, said to U.S. President Barack Obama, “I cannot stand Netanyahu. He’s a liar.”  And, according to the report by French media website Arret Sur Images, Obama responded with, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day.”  The shameful and hypocritical behavior of Sarkozy and Obama, not to be outdone by Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron, speaks volumes about their perfidy and treachery.

Earlier this year, Sarkozy and Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron threatened Israel with severe consequences if Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not accept the Hamas-Fatah unification, and agree to their demands as a price for the resumption of “peace” talks.  Sarkozy (and Cameron) hinted he will certainly vote for a Palestinian State. Although France ultimately abstained on Palestinian statehood, France voted for the Palestinians to have full membership in UNESCO.

French treachery vis-a-vis Israel has a history.  And, on the eve of the 1967 Six-Day War it was on full display, when French President Charles de Gaulle decided to reverse the country’s foreign policy to one in favor of the Arabs, and placed an embargo on weapons deliveries to Israel, despite France’s contractual agreements with Israel. De Gaulle, who had served as founder and president of France’s Fifth Republic from 1959-1969, had forged an alliance with the Jewish state during a time when both France and Israel fought Arab nationalism in Algeria and Nasser’s Egypt respectively.

In 1960, France promised to supply Israel with 200 AMX-13 tanks and 72 Mystere fighter jets over the next 10-years.  On June 2, 1967, three days before the war broke out, de Gaulle cut Israel off cold.  He told his cabinet that “France will not give its approval to, and still less, support the first nation to use weapons.” De Gaulle’s statement was hypocritical and treacherous since he had already decided to abandon Israel and embrace the Arabs. On November 27, 1967, in a televised news conference, de Gaulle described the Jewish people as “this elite people, sure of themselves and domineering.”

Much of the instability and violence in today’s Middle East has its antecedents in the actions taken by the British and French governments.  While World War I was still going on they met and began to draw the map of the Middle East and drew up what would became known as the Sykes-Picot secret agreement of May 1916.  Following the end of war and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire they created new and mostly artificial nations such as Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, while abandoning minorities such as the Kurds.
On August 10, 1920, a pact between the allies (Britain and France) and the representatives of the Ottoman Turkish government, known as the Treaty of Sevres, abolished the Ottoman Empire and obligated Turkey to renounce all rights over the Arab Middle East and North Africa.  The treaty also provided for the establishment of an autonomous Kurdistan.

The Turks rejected the Treaty of Sevres, and in 1923, Turkey was recognized as an independent nation, with the Treaty of Lausanne subsequently replacing Sevres.  Under its terms, Turkey was no longer obligated to grant the Kurds autonomy.  The treaty divided the Kurdish region among Turkey, Iran, and Syria – with British and French collusion.

Syria became a hodge-podge of ethnic and religious groups.  The French, who were wary of Sunni-Arab nationalism, granted autonomous status to the Alawites. They created an officer cadre from amongst the Alawites, which eventually gave rise to the Assad dictatorships, and Alawite domination of the Syrian military. Today’s upheaval in Syria has a great deal to do with those early French policies. The majority Sunni-Arabs resent the Alawite monopoly on power, and they remember (as the Kurds do) the betrayal of the French.

Pages: 1 2

  • davod

    "I actually believe that the liberal European elites have decided that Islamization is preferable to the proverbial "clash of civilizations."

    Wose than but slower than Munich.

  • SHmuel HaLevi

    Observing from the mid distance, from Israel, Europe is moving exactly in the direction they chose during WWII. They replaced those they murdered in masse with islamic hordes which will waste no time to do what they do best,
    Our only concern is that Europe has a significant nuclear weapons stock and a very large nuclear industry that will also fall in Moslem hands.
    Iran has served well as a misdirection player…

  • LindaRivera

    It is NOT just Britain and France! After the savage, inhuman murders of six million Jews, Germany still harbors a rabid HATE for Jews:

    'Official confirms submarine deal hung on PA taxes'
    By JPOST.COM STAFF 12/07/2011
    Merkel threatened PM with halting of submarine deal if he refused to resume transfer of tax revenues, German paper reports.

    On Sunday, German newspaper Welt am Sonntag reported that German Chancellor Angela Merkel threatened Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with the halting of a German plan to deliver a submarine to Israel if the latter refused to resume the transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority.
    According to the report, Israel yielded to pressure from Berlin and unfroze the funds. http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article

  • LindaRivera

    A survey of PA Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, reported in the Jerusalem Post on 15/07/2011:
    Sixty-six percent said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.

    Asked about the fate of Jerusalem, 92% said it should be the capital of Palestine.

    62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage, and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools.

    When given a quote from the Hamas Charter about the need for battalions from the Arab and Islamic world to defeat the Jews, 80% agreed.

    Seventy-three percent agreed with a quote from the charter (and a hadith, or tradition ascribed to the prophet Muhammad) about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones and trees. http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.asp

  • LindaRivera

    Every poll taken of PA Muslims consistently reveal the majority hold strong religious beliefs to mass murder Jews. It is a shocking crime against the Jewish people that Americans, Europeans and other non-Muslim taxpayers are forced by their governments to finance the most bloodthirsty, genocidal society the world has ever known. A cruel, merciless society that plans the Second Holocaust of Jews.

  • StephenD

    So if there was a sudden blast and a cloud of dust which when settled you could see across the barren wasteland where once stood "Palestinians" what would the world do? They may lament the "loss" but to what end and for how long? For the survival of Israel it is more important to take the necessary actions that may in the short term be costly but never so much as the cost of doing nothing.

  • sod

    No wonder British and France today face so many unrest in their own countries and are going down because of their trecahery . Will the US be next?

  • tarleton

    there's alot of hysteria about moslems ''taking over '' here in europe ….can anyone here explain to me exactly how 1.5 m moslems take over a country of 59 million …it's more bogus than algore's prediction of global warming ,for christsake

  • mrbean

    General Swartzkopf had the French pegged right during the Gulf War when he said: "Going to war without the Fremch is like going hunting without your accordian."

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    Are the US, France, England, Germany, and Norway all evil, or is Israel just belligerent and stupid? Hmmmmmm.

    • robert grimes

      god gave the land to his chosen people the jews it belongs to them

  • PhillipGaley

    Yes: if the commoners would accept Islam, they could be much more easily ruled. And simply because, Moslems are not nearly so much ruled by Islamic law as by Sharia—the interpretation of Islamic law, as provided by Islamic lawyers, the mullahs; the people would have a religion, and the female question would be effectively put to rest, . . . the great problem of course is, Israeli women: In many instances, a man wishes to reflect ideas and concepts with an equal, but just so soon as women are accorded equal status, we find them to be possessed of and expressive of their own view of things—two examples of which were Deborah, who became judge (in Old Testament times) and Rebekah who, when to resolve the argument, her family put the question to her, as to whether she would wish leave in that instant, she answering: "I sure would; I sure do.", . . .

    The crazier our Society becomes, the more difficulty a man finds in seeing a decent woman in response to himself—Islam promises and end to all of that: the men composing the common rabble can be nuts, and still get a woman or women, . . . and what's any given woman to do about it?

  • tarleton

    can you be precise and give me some mathematical figure or graph to produce some evidence of your theory …..even the G W cultists have some type of equation or graph to back up their bogus predictions …this is something like the ''yellow peril'' hysteria of the late 19th century
    Even if they were able to outbreed the anglos , their religion is such a retardent in the economic and business field.. they are destined to become a permenant underclass …how many successful moslems do you know …little shopkeepers are about their limit