Antisemitism

[takeo]

A grotesque choice

Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a resurgence of anti-semitism

by Max Hastings

IT is impossible to doubt that genuine anti-semitism -- racial antipathy towards Jews -- is resurgent in Europe and even, in some circles, becoming respectable. A few years ago, my wife and I found ourselves at a dinner party that included several Austrian guests. Mischievously, I asked a female member of the Vienna government sitting opposite me how her country was coping with the Nazi embarrassments of its president, Kurt Waldheim.

She stiffened. "President Waldheim is a fine and good man, who has been grossly traduced by a conspiracy of Jews," she said severely. Her husband interjected: "My father always told me that most of the things the Jews say about the war are lies." Our English host added supportively: "Jews cause most of the trouble in the world, what?"

At this point, the Hastingses departed without explanation. In the car, still shaking with rage, my wife said: "They weren't just pretending to be anti-semitic, were they? They were the real thing." It is rare to encounter such unashamed malevolence at a modern English dinner table, and thus all the more shocking when it happens.

Before the second world war, such sentiments were commonplace, not least in the "Clubland Hero" thrillers of Buchan, Sapper and Dornford Yates. "Bolshevik Jews" were responsible for many of the villainous conspiracies frustrated by Richard Hannay, Bulldog Drummond and Jonah Mansell, before they gave the culprits a good flogging.

It has often been observed that Hitler did the British ruling classes a favour by making anti-semitism no longer respectable. Yet as late as September 1944, a Foreign Office official named Arminius Dew minuted: "In my opinion, a disproportionate amount of the time of the Office is wasted on dealing with these wailing Jews." Only in April 1945, when the concentration camps were revealed to the world, did the historic sea change in sentiment take place.



I WOULD suggest that the first stirrings of renewed animosity towards Jews in Europe emerged in the 70s. When I made this point to an Israeli acquaintance, he observed sourly: "Yeah, when the world stopped seeing us losers on trains to the death camps." For it is, of course, the issue of Israel that has provoked some change of sentiment.

Many of the remarks that Jewish critics denounce as anti-semitic are, in reality, criticisms of Israel or its government. Five years ago, when I was editing the Evening Standard, the Board of Deputies of British Jews asked to send a delegation to my office to protest at our coverage of the Middle East. I refused, saying that I would meet at any time to discuss matters pertaining to British Jews, but that Israeli affairs were the province of the Israeli ambassador.

A month or so later, I was lunching with Vere Rothermere, then chairman of the family newspaper company. "I had a visit on your account yesterday," he said with a quixotic grin. "From the Board of Deputies. They said you wouldn't see them. They say you are anti-semitic. They warned me that the Israeli Likud wants to organise a boycott of the Evening Standard."

I asked how he had responded. "I told them that such a boycott would be a very good story for the Standard," said Lord Rothermere, which helps to explain why, as an editor, I held his family in such respect as proprietors.



IN general, across the British media, managerial attitudes are less robust. Several proprietors are fervent Zionists, while rather more take the cynical view that the Middle East is an intractable issue of no more interest to their readers than Northern Ireland. Palestinians present an unsympathetic face to the western world. Given the ferocity with which some Jewish readers respond to criticism of Israel, many executives perceive sceptical coverage of Israel's excesses as more trouble than it is worth.

In this country, only the Guardian and Independent deal thoroughly with what is taking place, and display real sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. Elsewhere a lot of space is given to apologias for Israeli conduct, some of which reveal a contempt for Palestinian human rights that invites the most baleful of historical comparisons.

It is a tribute to Israeli propaganda success that many commentators seem happy to regard as just a possible peace deal that would leave Israel in control of settlements and strategic roads in a Palestinian state. It is a measure of how far matters have gone that when Ariel Sharon announced the closure of some settlements in Gaza, it was hailed as a historic breakthrough.

In the eyes of some of us, even the Oslo accords promised no realistic prospect of a viable Palestinian society. They represented the outer limit of what Israeli liberals believed they could sell to their own nation, but they offered the Palestinians no chance of economic, social or political lift-off because the terms denied any hope of self-respect.

I reply to every reader's letter accusing me of anti-semitism because the issue seems so important. They make the cardinal error of identifying the Jewish people with the Israeli government, wilfully confusing anti-semitism and anti-Zionism. Often, they seem to demand that the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard, that allows the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu a special quota of excesses, in compensation for past sufferings.
For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from European democracies.

Charges of anti-semitism are not infrequently levelled against the growing number of Jews who express dismay about the behaviour of the Israeli government; they are "self-hating Jews", who betray their own kin. Yet surely it is those who make such cruel allegations who bring shame upon themselves.

Jewish genius through the centuries has been reflected in the highest intellectual standards. Attempts to equate anti-Zionism, or even criticism of Israeli policy, with anti-semitism reflect a pitiful intellectual sloth, an abandonment of reasoned attempts to justify Israeli actions in favour of moral blackmail. In the short run, such intimidation is not unsuccessful, especially in America. Yet in the long term, grave consequences may ensue. In much of the world, including Europe, a huge head of steam is building against Israeli behaviour.

More than a few governments are cooperating less than wholeheartedly with America's war on terror because they are unwilling to be associated with what they see as an unholy alliance of the Sharon and Bush governments. One of Germany's most distinguished postwar leaders expressed to me a few months ago his frustration that, as a German, he is unable to vent his feelings about the wickedness of what is being done in Israel's name.

I feel a commitment to the Jewish people, founded on awareness partly of their history, partly of their genius. Yet I see no reason why this should prevent me from asserting that the policies of Sharon and Netanyahu bring shame upon Israel.

It is ironic that Israel's domestic critics -- former intelligence chiefs and serving fighter pilots -- have shown themselves much braver than overseas Jews. If Israel persists with its current policies, and Jewish lobbies around the world continue to express solidarity with repression of the Palestinians, then genuine anti-semitism is bound to increase. Herein lies the lobbyists' recklessness. By insisting that those who denounce the Israeli state's behaviour are enemies of the Jewish people, they seek to impose a grotesque choice.

The Israeli government's behaviour to the Palestinians breeds a despair that finds its only outlet in terrorism. No one can ever criticise the Jewish diaspora for asserting Israel's right to exist. But the most important service the world's Jews can render to Israel today is to persuade its people that the only plausible result of their government's behaviour is a terrible loneliness in the world.

Max Hastings is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the London Evening Standard

comment@guardian.co.uk

[Womble]

Ahh, the stuff the guys from the Guardian come up with. If Jews are hated, it must be something they did, there's no way the haters can possibly be responsible for hating. Always blame the victims, its the safest way.

[takeo]

perhaps you didn't read the article, it doesn't say or imply Jews are responsible for antisemitism, but it says the abuse of the victimhood-status does sustain antisemitism. Worldwar two and the Holocaust should not be abused for political reasons in the middle-Eastern conflict, by neither side.

[goliath]

Always Dear Takeo , find something which it's bringing water to his mil.

Media are telling to all the countries of the world and for years and years ,what the people must think about the Israeo/Pal conflict ,and THIS is refuelling a serious resurgence of anti-Semitism adding a new layer over the innumerable old one.
Takeo Israel will never yield the way you hope.

[Mil]

Takeo, the Israeli/Pal conflict would not even make the evening news if Jews were not involved. There are much worse things happening in the world and especially in the Arab world that make this particular conflict pale in comparison. Anti-semitism is a direct creation of Europe and of European culture rather that of Israeli Jews.

Of course one must concur with the author, including me, that Israeli government makes mistakes and sometimes very unpopular moves, however, which government doesn't? Hell Austria or Poland with much larger population and with no less problems get much less world attention then Israel. The horrible human rights violations in Latvia get almost zero attention and the conflict in Chechnya gets almost no visability. It really makes me laugh when the BBC makes Sharon alleged inditment for fraudelant election money front page news, an event which is basically an internal Israeli matter and not relevant to anything (there are thousands of such things happening all over the democratic world including France) and somewhere on some obsecure link mentions that president of Lithuania (an EU country!!!) gets impeached (a first such act in an EU history)!!!! Both of the latter events happened at the same time.

Whatever Israel does is under the microscope and there are a few reasons for that:
1. Israel is a JEWISH STATE or state full of Jews
2. Anything that has to do with Jews (even the dumbest things) makes news
3. Israel is a free country

Europe is still living through its anti-semitic self otherwise Israel would never have the attention it currently recieves. Read the Guardian and see how many times there are news about France or Russia with 45 and 160 million population respectively and Israel with 6 million. I really doubt that there is less interesting things happening in Russia then in Israel. One Chechnya would make loud news stories every day. However, no one is interested in Russia but everyone is interested in ISRAEL for it being a JEWISH state. I really hope you understand this.

[KettleWhistle]

I really hope you understand this.

LOL

[Womble]

perhaps you didn't read the article, it doesn't say or imply Jews are responsible for antisemitism, but it says the abuse of the victimhood-status does sustain antisemitism. Worldwar two and the Holocaust should not be abused for political reasons in the middle-Eastern conflict, by neither side.
Actually no. Perhaps YOU didn't read the article, because it says, and I quote:

it is, of course, the issue of Israel that has provoked some change of sentiment

The general points this article makes are that:
1) Israel's actions against the Palestinians legitimizes anti-Zionism
2)Diaspora Jews too often confuse anti-Zionism for anti-Semitism and invoke Holocaust and since anti-Zionism is legitimate, such misrepresentation allows anti-Semitism to go mainstream as well.

Now, these claims stand on a number of false assumptions:

1)Anti-Zionism is not concerned as much with Israel's actions as it is with the fact of Israel's existence. Which, as noted by Martin Luther King in his famous essay, already constitutes anti-Semitism, as it implies that the Jews are the only nation in the world who has no right for independence. (Which naturally leads to the question often asked by the neo-Nazis- if a national expression of the nation is illegitimate, what does it say about this nation? Can you see my point now, Takeo?)

2)The writer seems to suggest that anti-Zionism should only concern the Israeli Jews and never the Diaspora Jews. I can even quote:

Five years ago, when I was editing the Evening Standard, the Board of Deputies of British Jews asked to send a delegation to my office to protest at our coverage of the Middle East. I refused, saying that I would meet at any time to discuss matters pertaining to British Jews, but that Israeli affairs were the province of the Israeli ambassador.

In other words, "know your place, Jew". The British Jews should only be concerned with what happens in their own backyard. What he is saying here is that either the Jews specifically or subnational groups and diasporas in general should not be allowed to have a say in the host nation's politics. In both versions, it discriminates against the Jews (either just them or them AND other minorities), depriving them of the right to have an equal voice on all political issues in the country whose citizenship they hold.

3)In reality, it is not that common for the Israelis to play the Holocaust card. The Holocaust poses a certain ideological problem for Zionism and for the Israeli mindset, and the Israelis are normally quite reluctant to portray themselves as victims.

4)As it's been noted by Mil, when the journalists talk about how the Arab-Israeli conflict fuels anti-Semitism, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it is the media that keeps the magnifying glass over Israel 24/7/365. The scale of the Israeli-Palestinian violence is simply incomparable with any other conflict that occasionally makes front pages- whether it is Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda or Kosovo. Neither the number of casualties nor the size of the population involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is anywhere close to an average African civil war.

5)Finally, anti-Zionism all too often uses methods and rhetorics of the good old anti-Semitism. It has become too convenient a disguise- and I see no reason why it should not be addressed as anti-Semitism whenever there are valid grounds for it.

[Luke90]

I don't agree with the article, but it does show how both sides of the argument see the media as biased against them.

[Reffo]

"For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from European democracies."

Maybe so, but the opposite is also true ! Many critics of Israel also use the trump of accusing supporters of Israel that they have no better argument than the above. This achieves two objectives: Firstly it discredits supporters of Israel as intolerant people without credibility, and secondly it stifles debate before it even begins.

The writer of this article betrays his bias by the sentence: "... Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump:.....". Instead of saying "Israelis", he should have said "Some Israelis". He may or may not have meant it but the effect of his sentence is to generalise that ALL Israelis use this trump card. That is just plainly untrue !

[Reffo]

"In this country, only the Guardian and Independent deal thoroughly with what is taking place, and display real sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. Elsewhere a lot of space is given to apologias for Israeli conduct, some of which reveal a contempt for Palestinian human rights that invites the most baleful of historical comparisons."

Both these papers are ardent uncritical supporters of the Palestinian cause. I don't think I have ever seen a single article in which they ever supported Israel ! The fact that the author makes the above statement betrays which way he himself is biased !

[Reffo]

Ahh, the stuff the guys from the Guardian come up with. If Jews are hated, it must be something they did, there's no way the haters can possibly be responsible for hating. Always blame the victims, its the safest way.Very true !

[Reffo]

"Often, they seem to demand that the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard, that allows the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu a special quota of excesses, in compensation for past sufferings."

Unfortunately, the opposite is true ! Thanks to the strangle hold of the Arab nations on the UN General Assembly, Israel IS being judged by special standards. Unfortunately, these "special standards" DON'T favour Israel ! The extract below sums up the sorry state of affairs in the UN when it comes to the topic of Israel:

Renowned international human rights expert Professor Anne Bayefsky submitted to the New York Times an op-ed about the highly selective -- and discriminatory -- agenda of the UN Human Rights Commission and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs). She included in her piece a description of what she termed the Commission's “strategy of diversion,” referring to the fact that 15% of the group's time and 30% of its country-specific resolutions have targeted Israel.

I think that most reasonable people would wonder whether it is appropriate for Israel to be on the topic nearly one third of the time when there are much worse trouble spots, human rights violations and occupied countries in the world, such as:

Sudan
Chechnia
Tibet
Columbia
Congo
Other African trouble spots
Just about all the Arab countries (human rights violations)
The Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan
Sri Lanka
The insurgency in Aceh against Indonesia
The Ivory Coast
Many more, too numerous to list fully


......and Israel is on the topic 30% of the time.....???? Disgraceful !

[Luke90]

Rightly or wrongly, Israel is much more significant in international politics than those other areas.

[Reffo]

Rightly or wrongly, Israel is much more significant in international politics than those other areas.Why ?

[Luke90]

Well islamic terrorism is one of the major world issues at the moment and many islamic terrorists cite the situation as one of the main reasons for their actions.

[Reffo]

Agreed, but you just confirmed my earlier statement that:
Unfortunately, the opposite is true ! Thanks to the strangle hold of the Arab nations on the UN General Assembly, Israel IS being judged by special standards. Unfortunately, these "special standards" DON'T favour Israel ! The extract below sums up the sorry state of affairs in the UN when it comes to the topic of Israel:

Which is contrary to the statement made in the article that:
"Often, they seem to demand that the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard, that allows the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu a special quota of excesses, in compensation for past sufferings."

[KettleWhistle]

This article is just an apologetic piece that essentially says, it is OK for news media to create anti-Israeli propaganda. The author makes several assumptions to justify that view:
(1) Anti-Semitism is wrong
(2) Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, but mere criticism of Israeli government's policies
(3) (hence) anti-Zionism is OK

The author goes the distance of defining anti-Semitism for us:

genuine anti-semitism -- racial antipathy towards Jews

Well, that's fair enough. But he doesn't do the same for anti-Zionism. Rather he portrays is as being something along the lines of criticism:
Attempts to equate anti-Zionism, or even criticism of Israeli policy, with anti-semitism reflect a pitiful intellectual sloth

So let's define anti-Zionism. I would define it as movement that opposes the existence of a Jewish state and activities that are intended to harm Israel. When it comes to media, the word describes propaganda that attacks Jews as a nation. Sure it is not outright blatant expression of anti-Semitism, but one can make a strong case for calling it subtle anti-Semitism.

And even there, many of the old themes are being reworked to be used against the Jewish national collective. While there are no accusations of blood libel, even big time media outlets like BBC run fictitious stories of IDF soldiers supposedly being given orders to target Pal children. The words are different, but the meaning is the same: "Jews" kill gentile children. During the U.S. elections several respected British and French papers published articles about "enormous powers" of Jewish lobbies, which essentially mimicked the old "Jews control the world claim." And those are just a few examples.

Interestingly, this Guardian editor does not even hide his bias towards Israel:
In this country, only the Guardian and Independent deal thoroughly with what is taking place, and display real sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians.
Sorry, but it is not a job of news organizations to display sympathy. Rather, they are supposed, and ought to be expected, to present material objectively. Yet, Hastings who already admitted to be biased against Israel, has the gall to state the following:
Elsewhere a lot of space is given to apologias for Israeli conduct, some of which reveal a contempt for Palestinian human rights that invites the most baleful of historical comparisons. It is a tribute to Israeli propaganda success...
I would really like to see this "Israeli propaganda" and apologias for Israeli conduct, which generally are mere restrained attempts to defend itself, all of which fully comply with the international law.

And then we have another expose of bias and distortion of reality: It is a tribute to Israeli propaganda success that many commentators seem happy to regard as just a possible peace deal that would leave Israel in control of settlements and strategic roads in a Palestinian state. It is a measure of how far matters have gone that when Ariel Sharon announced the closure of some settlements in Gaza, it was hailed as a historic breakthrough.

Not only does he try to delegitimize Israel's fully legitimate claim to some of the disputed territories, as stated in UN Security Council Resolution 242, but also blames Israel for ending up with some of the roads, most of which Israel have built. Maybe some persons don't believe that new roads can built by the Palestinians as needed, but there is no question of obvious bias and distortion in that statement, as is in the following:
In the eyes of some of us, even the Oslo accords promised no realistic prospect of a viable Palestinian society. They represented the outer limit of what Israeli liberals believed they could sell to their own nation, but they offered the Palestinians no chance of economic, social or political lift-off because the terms denied any hope of self-respect.

There are numerous other issues where he clearly exposes his anti-Israeli bias, but these should be enough to indicate that the materials this author publishes come from a deeply-embedded belief that Israel is in the wrong, and is the only party that needs to be "criticized." The term for such behavior is “bias,” and it is one that the author does not even try to hide.

More importantly, few, if any of the claims presented above are true criticisms. Rather, they are propaganda intended to delegitimize Israel. True criticisms of Sharon or Netanyahu would include explanations and consequences of their policies. They would include an analysis that would present positions of the Palestinian leadership, as well as some poll data where applicable. More so, they would rely on reality, rather than fiction, rumors and speculations, all of which are typically selected to cast Israel in negative light. Yet, what gets published is typically the anti-Israeli propaganda.

So while some may disagree with the above definition of anti-Zionism, the one that exposes it as an expression of anti-Semitism, a careful peruse of this letter should leave no doubts about the obvious one-sidedness of the author. And that begs another question: should the newspapers promote a political agenda? And can we trust news sources that do that? I think the answers to that are obvious.

[Reffo]

Well islamic terrorism is one of the major world issues at the moment and many islamic terrorists cite the situation as one of the main reasons for their actions.Read this post: Click Here Very enlightening !

[Luke90]

I wasn't suggesting that it was the source of all the region's problems or even the majority, just that it has more international significance than other problems.

[Zlatorog]

KW, take a look at this Ben Hur is Zionist Propaganda (http://www.cardamon.org/NAAP_Lecture/naaplecture.htm) Who are these idiots?

AntiZionism, before it spread to West Germany in 68!

In 1967 Yugoslavia, together with member states of the Warsaw Pact, broke off diplomatic relations with Israel following the Six-Day War. Moreover, it became the leading advocate of anti-Zionism in the non-aligned movement and was practically the loudest critic of Israel outside the Arab-Muslim world. Actual antisemitism under the guise of “anti-Zionism” was in fact of limited importance. Despite the fact that anti-Israelism nearly gained the status of state ideology at the time when this policy was at its peak, efforts were regularly made to express reservation toward antisemitism. Unlike the situation in other Warsaw Pact countries, local Jewish communities and its Federation maintained open relations with Israel and Jewish organizations.

[Mediocrates]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050302/325/fdkzh.html






The board was singled out for criticism in an official report delivered by Lord Hutton which centred on one reporter's allegation that the government had "sexed up" evidence of Iraqi weapons programmes to justify its participation in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The report's release prompted BBC Director-General Greg Dyke and Chairman Gavyn Davies to resign.

"The current model of governance is unsustainable. ... The BBC governors, with their dual role of managing the BBC, but also holding it to account, will be replaced by two bodies, each with a clearly defined role," Jowell told Parliament.

An external BBC Trust, headed by current board of governors chairman Michael Grade, "will be the custodian of the BBC's purposes, the licence fee and the public interest," she said.

A separate executive board "will be accountable to the Trust for the delivery of the BBC's services". Critics of the BBC, including the opposition Conservative Party, complained that the proposed changes were purely cosmetic and would do little to improve oversight.

[Luke90]

A strange article to post in a thread about anti-semitism :p

[Mediocrates]

No its about the BBC long criticised for being light on news and long on agendized slanted agitprop. The Beeb who attempted to appease its critics in the past by appointing its own ombudsman. The Beeb who it turns out is not capable of objective self policing.

[Luke90]

I was joking, I'm perfectly aware of your dislike of the BBC.

[Mil]

READ AND WEEP Ladies and Gents on human rights violations based on pure racism happening in our neiborhood nation of Latvia; a recent EU addition. I think the BBC or Guardian should post an article and follow this particular situation very closely!!!!!!!! Please concetrate on paragraph #18 and please read it VERY CAREFULLY!!!!!

This is a UNHCHR report on human rights violations in Latvia - right before it was admitted into the EU.




http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(SymbolSearch)/c9778e6288fa75bdc1256e000050cb71?Opendocument


Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Latvia. 06/11/2003.
CCPR/CO/79/LVA. (Concluding Observations/Comments)


16. While noting the measures taken by the State party to make the naturalization process more accessible and increase the rate of naturalization of non-citizens, the Committee is concerned about the limited results of these policies, with many candidates not even initiating the procedure. The Committee takes note of the different reasons underlying this phenomenon, but considers that it has adverse consequences in terms of enjoyment of Covenant rights, and that the State party has a positive duty to ensure and protect those rights. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned at the possible obstacles posed by the requirement to pass a language examination,

The State party should further strengthen its efforts to effectively address the lack of applications for naturalization as well as possible obstacles posed by the requirement to pass a language examination, in order to ensure full compliance with articles 2 of the Covenant.

17. The Committee is concerned at the low level of registration as citizens of children born in Latvia after 21 August 1991, to non-citizen parents (Article 24).

The State party should take all necessary measures to further encourage registration of children as citizens.

18. With regard to the status of non-citizens, the Committee notes the policy of the Government to further social integration through naturalization. However, the Committee is concerned about the large proportion of non-citizens in the State party, who by law are treated neither as foreigners nor as stateless persons but as distinct category of persons with long-lasting and effective ties to Latvia, in many respects comparable to citizens but in other respects without the rights that come with full citizenship.(Mil: they forgot to say that it is ethnic based descrimination against all non-ethnic Latvians which make over 40%!!!! of the population in this EU COUNTRY!!! Luke, does it remind you of some other minority of your and of general European concern? The Committee expresses its concern over the perpetuation of a situation of exclusion, resulting in lack of effective enjoyment of many Covenant rights by the non-citizen segment of the population, including political rights, the possibility to occupy certain state and public positions, the possibility to exercise certain professions in the private sector, restrictions in the area of ownership of agricultural land, as well as social benefits (Article 26).

The State party should prevent the perpetuation of a situation where a considerable part of the population is classified as "non-citizens". In the interim, the State party should facilitate the integration process by enabling non-citizens who are long-term residents of Latvia to participate in local elections and to limit the number of other restrictions on non-citizens [ in order to facilitate participation of non-citizens in public life in Latvia.

19. The Committee is concerned about the impact of the state language policy on the full enjoyment of rights stipulated in the Covenant. Areas of concern include the possible negative impact of the requirement to communicate in Latvian except under limited conditions, on access of non-Latvian speakers to public institutions and communication with public authorities (Articles 26).

The State party should take all necessary measures to prevent negative effects of this policy on the rights of individuals under the Covenant, and, if required, adopt measures such as the further development of translation services.

20. While noting the explanation provided by the State party for the adoption of the Education Law of 1998, particularly the gradual transition to Latvian as the language of instruction, the Committee remains concerned about the impact of the current timelimit on the move to Latvian as the language of instruction, in particular in secondary schools, on Russian speakers and other minorities. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about the distinction made in providing state support to private schools based on the language of instruction (Articles 26, 27).

The State party should take all necessary measures to prevent negative effects on minorities of the transition to Latvian as the language of instruction. It should also ensure that if state subsidies are provided to private schools, they are provided in a non-discriminatory manner.

21. The Committee is concerned about the social and economic situation of the Roma minority and its impact on the full enjoyment of their rights under the Covenant, as well as the potentially negative effect on them of the present regulations regarding the entry of ethnic origin in passports and identity documents. (Articles 2, 26, 27).

The State party should take steps to remove obstacles to the practical enjoyment by the Roma of their rights under the Covenant, and, in particular, abolish the provisions allowing for entry of ethnic origin in passports and identity documents.

22. The State party should widely publicize the present examination of its second periodic report by the Committee and, in particular, these concluding observations.

23. The State party is asked, pursuant to rule 70, paragraph 5, of the Committee's rules of procedure, to forward information within 12 months on the implementation of the Committee's recommendations regarding naturalization (para. 16), the status of non-citizens (para. 18), state language policy (para. 19) and the education law (para. 20). The Committee requests that information concerning the remainder of its recommendations be included in the third periodic report, to be presented by 1 November 2008.





Any UN resolutions yet or any internal EU debates on the issue of Human Rights violations in Latvia??? Shame on EU for admitting Latvia into EU!!!!!

[Mil]

More on Human Rights Violations in Latvia


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ln.mid.ru/ns-reuro.nsf/ZUstrana/432569D80022027EC3256F50004FB3D9?opendocument

Russian MFA Information and Press Department Commentary Regarding a Media Question About Latvian Supreme Court Decision on Great Patriotic War Veteran Nikolai Tess


2437-18-11-2004


Question: A few days ago, the Supreme Court of Latvia upheld an earlier Kurzeme District Court sentence, by which an 83-year-old Russian citizen, invalid and Great Patriotic War veteran, Nikolai Vladimirovich Tess, was given a two-year suspended term of deprivation of freedom for his alleged involvement in "genocide against the Latvian people." How could the Russian MFA comment on these actions of the Latvian authorities?

Commentary: The decision has only confirmed what became clear from the very beginning of this trial: the case against Nikolai Tess is fabricated and bears a politically induced character. It will be recalled that Tess is accused of drawing up lists of persons for administrative deportations by law enforcement bodies of the Latvian SSR in the 1940s. Victims were absent at the court hearings, and the supposed witnesses could not even confirm the indirect culpability of the accused.

It was in view of the impossibility of getting a fair trial under the national legal system that Nikolai Tess was compelled to apply to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). On December 12, 2002, the ECHR in its ruling on Tess' suit against Latvia indicated that Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms "prohibits retroactive application of criminal legislation to the detriment an accused." Nevertheless, on December 16, 2003, the Kurzeme District Court sentenced Tess to a two-year suspended prison term. Tess appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Latvia, seeking a verdict of not guilty, but in the course of the appeal consideration on November 11, 2004, the sentence was left unchanged.

The unlawful sentencing of an obviously innocent person that we witness in this case is a serious violation of the norms of international law. Particularly arrogant is the fact that even after Latvia's entry into the European Union the legal values immutable in a democratic society - legality and a court's impartiality - are being sacrificed to the evident political engagement of the Latvian Themis.

Tess' lawyers are planning to file a cassation appeal with the Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court and again appeal in this case to the ECHR.

Russia will continue to render Tess, just as the other veterans being judicially prosecuted in Latvia, necessary assistance, including legal support.


November 18, 2004

[Luke90]

Any UN resolutions yet or any internal EU debates on the issue of Human Rights violations in Latvia???
Possibly, I have no idea.

I think the BBC or Guardian should post an article and follow this particular situation very closely!!!!!!!!
I haven't checked the Guardian but the BBC certainly does have articles on it.

[Mediocrates]

Speaking of which

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005100313,00.html

[Mediocrates]

Oh well at any case it really doesn't matter. The Guardian and its ilk have a kind of feedback relationship with their readers the same as any agitprop. One feeds the other in a self congratulatory orgy of violent agreement. It stopped being 'news' and became essentially a glorified Op-Ed page. Which is fine, I've said this before, one doesn't flip to the back of section A of the Wall St. Journal if one wants to hear an opinion to the left of Mussolini. We know that, that's what it's there for, to give the John Birchers something to drool over. But for the most part they limit their childcare to that section and the rest of the paper, with the possible exception of page 1, right side, above the fold is a dry factual paper. I just wish that the Guardian and other house organs of the radical left would just cop to it, link arms and sing songs of revolutionary fervor as we march into the bright shining destiny of new Marxists Socialist world man.


Everybody !!!!!!!

http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/russian/lyrics/political/SovietUnionNationalAnthem_RedArmyChorus.mp3

[Reffo]

I wasn't suggesting that it was the source of all the region's problems or even the majority, just that it has more international significance than other problems.Yes, and the point that I was making was that the reason "that it has more international significance" is because the Arabs make it so and the majority of the others in the UN General Assembly let them get away with it instead of trying to solve other major/important problems (which is the purpose of this "August Body" in the first place).

In other words, instead of doing their job, they are too busy pontificating about Israel because the Arabs want this to be so. It's another way of saying that the "Lunatics are Running the Asylum".

[Mil]

Posted by Med:


Everybody !!!!!!!

http://www.funet.fi/pub/culture/rus...dArmyChorus.mp3


:)

[Luke90]

Speaking of which
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005100313,00.html
Sometimes a slip of the tongue is purely and simply a slip of the tongue.

[Mediocrates]

Q: How many Germans does it take to change a lightbulb?








A: Invade Poland!!

[KettleWhistle]

KW, take a look at this Ben Hur is Zionist Propaganda (http://www.cardamon.org/NAAP_Lecture/naaplecture.htm) Who are these idiots?

These idiots are the New Jersey Chapter of the ISM--a radical pro-Palestinian organization. I can understand that some countries with a totalitarian regime may produce such propaganda, but it really boggles the mind that people from free societies would create something like this to demonize some people.

On the other hand, it is peculiar, that even in their well-versed lies it is easy to spot plenty of outright stupidity. I really liked this one, taken from the first cartoon on that page: "Concise Zionist-English Dictionary: ...(3) House demolitions are not ethnic cleansing."

I guess these people must consider houses to be an ethnicity.

[Luke90]

Woops!
And, of course, sometimes it isn't.

[Reffo]

Extract from Takeo's posted article, written by by Max Hastings:
"For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from European democracies."

OK it’s true that some Jews/Israelis do level the Anti-Semitism charge to some people some of the time. Does that make them unfair or wrong ? The answer is sometimes yes and sometimes not, depending on what was said by the other party. So how can you tell whether charging someone’s position is Ant-Semitic or not ? Here are a few principles and examples:

The best way to test whether something is Ant-Semitic or not, is to substitute another race, or nationality for the word “Jew” “Zionist” or “Israel” in the sentence or statement which is being criticized to be Anti-Semitic. If the resultant sentence/statement now sounds racist, then the charge of Anti-Semitism is valid. Otherwise it isn’t valid. Now let’s apply this test to a famous real life example, the famous UN resolution which equated Zionism to Racism. This resolution was instigated by some Arab nations, in the Seventies, and was backed up by the Communist Block. It is fair to say that the instigators of this bill and it’s supporters knew full well what the term “Zionism” meant. Essentially it means that Jews have an aspiration to a national home land in their ancestral home which was known by it’s ancient name as Zion. In other words, Jews have an aspiration for self determination. Now, substitute the term “Palestinian Self Determination” to the word “Zionism”, the UN resolution would read:
” Palestinian Self Determination is racism”

The originators of the draft would call such a resolution as racist yet they were perfectly happy to apply it to Israelis/Jews. The double standard is obvious and the UN to it’s credit eventually rescinded this shameful resolution (after quite a few years).

Here are a few other general principles to apply in order to determine whether a criticism is Anti-Semitic or not. Anti Israel/Jewish statements ARE Anti-Semitic when:


The statement uses stereotyping of Jews or Israelis (for example: hooked noses, usurers, money lenders etc)
A statement uses adverse generalizations (for example: “all Jews or all Israelis are greedy and rich, capitalists, conspirators etc)
Level the classic Nazi or historical Anti-Semitic libels (for example: Jews poison wells, the elders of the Protocols of Zion, murder of non Jewish children etc)
They deny the Jewish Holocaust
They accuse Jews/Israelis/Zionists of behaving like Nazis (no need to use the word 'Nazi' in order to say something bad)
Claim that Jews control the world
Claims that Jews are to blame for the hatred against them

[Luke90]

As someone who's been accused of anti-semitism on this forum (for the most ridiculous of reasons) I wish some people would take notice of those points.

[Mediocrates]

OK you win, there is no such thing as antisemitism. I'll just call it blind retarded ignorant bigotry. Happy now?

[Luke90]

Not what I'm arguing at all and you know it.
I've never said or done or thought anything anti-semitic in my life, let alone on this forum, yet because I didn't agree with them people accused me of it.

[Mediocrates]

Fine, there's no such thing, or, if there is, it has to be so narrowly defined and requires such a mass of corraborating evidence that it's like a needle in a haystack then. It's a man bites dog story. I support that view as well and we can just call it garden variety hate. I actually advocated this years ago when someone asked me if it was spelled 'anti Semitism' and I corrected them and told them it's 'antisemitism' as in there is nothing special about Jewhate - it's just everyday hate, maybe a little lazier than most because it's so convenient.I am perfectly fine with people spitting in my face and telling me it's a cleansing rain. Really, I am.

[Luke90]

It's not a needle in a haystack unfortunately, but it isn't the majority of the european hay like some people seem to think.

[Mediocrates]

Look it really doesn't matter either way. A great big EU - 456 million people, 1 million Jews. If that's how the EU-ans spend their free time, wailing and gnashing over a people few if any have ever met first or even second hand then it it's no skin off anyone's noses but their own. I mean if I spent my time shaking my fist at God and bemoaning the Evil Eskimo threat to North Carolina, I'm the only one who would be wasting his time and looking stupid. In the end the only relations that Israel needs with the EU are economic. They have never supported Israel politically or diplomatically, at best they've been a passive obstacle and the fine folk of Europe have for the most part stopped pogromming their few remaining local Jews. In 2 generations there won't be much of a Jewish population anywhere in Europe at all and Israel and Europe can be trading partners the same way that Israel and any other state or states are trading partners. The fact that the EU wants to shove political force down Israel's throat and that political relationship is in their minds completely one way is really just a symptom of how the EU views itself politically on the world's stage. It's easy to pick on Israel and proclaim the EU is the great big force in the world. I mean, who else are they going to stand up to or stand up for? So here is what I propose; deemphasize political relations and increase trade relations. Destaff the embassies and focus on improving economic ties.

[Luke90]

A great big EU - 456 million people, 1 million Jews. If that's how the EU-ans spend their free time, wailing and gnashing over a people few if any have ever met first or even second hand then it it's no skin off anyone's noses but their own.
But my point is that only a small minority do that.

[Mira]

Extract from Takeo's posted article, written by by Max Hastings:
"For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from European democracies."

I'll be really honest about this topic. I'm really not trying to wax philosophical here, but I don't think Max Hastings has a clue. Israelis don't exploit the Holocaust in order to deflect international criticism on its policies toward the Palestinians. I've heard that claim before and I've looked for evidence of its validity, but what I really see happening is a lot of non-Israelis raising the issue in the way that he did as a pre-emptive attack to intimidate Israelis and diaspora Jews in preparation for launching a campaign to villify Israel. At the same time, I think remarks like those from Max Hastings obscure how the Holocuast does factor into the psychology of at least some movements that are prominent in Israeli politics, like Religious Zionism. Even with the founding of the Jewish State, reparations, Holocaust memorials, and normalization with European countries that took part in the genocide, the Jewish people as a whole still haven't recovered from the trauma of the permanent loss of some 6,000,000 Jewish lives and the complete annihilation of so many vibrant Jewish communities. The trauma is even more acute for Jews who want to maintain some kind of belief in the religious tennants of Judaism and make sense of a God who would allow such a thing to happen. Why? [looking up towards the sky]

I think a lot of people underestimate the psycological impact of winning the 1967 war for at least some Jews. To be a witness to the remarkable rebirth of the Jewish soverign State, to see with your own eyes the ingathering of the exiles from all over the world, and then the victory of Israel that led to the capture of the biblical lands, to finally be able to pray at the Kotel, which was after close to twenty centuries once again in our hands....it's hard not to see how these events could result in some Messianic fervor. And while most Jews won't admit it, part of that fervor is shaped by that psychological trauma that hasn't figured out how to deal with a permanent loss of the scale that we experienced. This is in my belief, part of the underpinnings of religious zionism, and why it had such a strong appeal for a certain segmant of world Jewry following the 1967 war. In saying this, I don't want to overlook the fact that until very recently, the Palestinians had no intention of making peace with "the Zionists," and many still don't, or the very real security threats that Israel faced and continues to face and how that factors into how much land Israel legitimately thinks it needs to retain for the sake of national security.

And it also doesn't address how Palestinian psychology factors into the equation. Most of the pro-Palestinian camp seem to want to obscure the fact that Palestinian national identity is a recent construction. And I'm always amazed at how much the Palestinians borrow from the Jewish narrative. The Palestinians have made their "Nabka" the Palestinian holocaust. The same way that some Jews have not been able to deal with the permanent loss from the holocaust, many Palestinians still don't seem capable of dealing with the creation of Israel and the permanent loss that resulted from the Nabka. That is why along with the creation of an independent Palestine, the "right of return" figures so heavily into the Palestinian narrative. A "right of return" for not only Palestinians who actually left or were forced to leave during 1948, but for all of the children and their children's children...to homes that those children have never even seen and in most cases no longer exist, to a place that no longer physically resembles what existed over 50 years ago, and a country that is dedicated to developing Jewish national culture. This is the country that they want to "return" to? How can they even pledge an allegiance to such a place and why would Israel accept a large influx of people like that? The Palestinians know that they cannot defeat Israel militarily and we are all aware of the staged approach to "reclaiming" the entire land. But the world doesn't seem to want to really confront the psychology that is motivating Palestinian national aspirations. And I wonder how there can ever really be peace as long as these aspects of our respective identities aren't addressed and reconciled somehow?

[Reffo]

It's not a needle in a haystack unfortunately, but it isn't the majority of the european hay like some people seem to think.Luke, for whatever it's worth, having read many of your posts I did not see anything as antisemitic in them (I have said so before). I also take your word that you don't have any antisemitic thoughts.

Having said that, I think that there is more to antisemitism than just the above dot points. IMO, antisemitism is a vague emotional state, brought about by a constant bombardment of negative information about Jews from an early age. The result is that many people are conditioned to relate negatively towards Jews. Sometimes they are not even be aware of it, some of those people even proudly declare that they deplore any form of racism including antisemitism ! So how does one distinguish between such people and other non antisemitic people who may criticize Jews/Israel from time to time ? Well, it’s not always easy because such people often rationalize that they don’t hate Jews, they are only against Israel. As a general guide, antisemites tend to adopt a relentless negative attitude towards things that are Jewish (for example Israel), they tend to be critical of just about everything that they do (or don’t do). The key point is that many of their criticisms are irrational and unfair, again a good test is to substitute some other country (maybe their own) instead of Israel and see if the criticism would stand up to scrutiny if the other country had to put up with Israel’s situation. Another test is the extent of their pre-occupation with Israel/Jews. Many antisemites tend to act as if all the worlds problems can be attributed to Jews/Israel. An example is the poll conducted in Europe, about a year or so ago, which resulted in the majority of Europeans indicating that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace (or something like that). Another example is a recent poll in Germany in which about 60% of Germans felt that Israel is behaving no better towards the Palestinians than Nazi Germany behaved towards the Jews. I think that the European media (not all, but many papers such as the Guardian) bears a great deal of responsibility for this. They have been guilty of spreading incessant negative, biased and unfair information bout Israel for at lest thirty years. The problem is not that they spread negative information but that they tend to not balance this with at least some good stories as well. Their news tend to be simplistic, one dimensional and without context.

[Luke90]

I suppose part of the problem with diagnosing anti-semitism on a board like this is that you can't know whether people treat Israel differently from other countries because other countries don't get discussed very much.

[Leon]

A grotesque choice

Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a resurgence of anti-semitism

The useful Dhimmi is back.

Well rest easy - illogical hatred and voilence against Jews in Europe and N Ameirca is somehow justified or easily explained because of Israeli govt policies.

Next we will here that black people and gays fuel their own hatred.

Attacks against Muslims after S11?

[Leon]

I suppose part of the problem with diagnosing anti-semitism on a board like this is that you can't know whether people treat Israel differently from other countries because other countries don't get discussed very much.

Have lil chat with the mayor of your capital in regards to that.

[Reffo]

I suppose part of the problem with diagnosing anti-semitism on a board like this is that you can't know whether people treat Israel differently from other countries because other countries don't get discussed very much.Oh.... but they do! How do you explain this ?

"Old UN Resolution: Zionism=Racism"

the poll conducted in Europe, about a year or so ago, which resulted in the majority of Europeans indicating that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace "

"a recent poll in Germany in which about 60% of Germans felt that Israel is behaving no better towards the Palestinians than Nazi Germany behaved towards the Jews."

"Renowned international human rights expert Professor Anne Bayefsky submitted to the New York Times an op-ed about the highly selective -- and discriminatory -- agenda of the UN Human Rights Commission and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs). She included in her piece a description of what she termed the Commission's “strategy of diversion,” referring to the fact that 15% of the group's time and 30% of its country-specific resolutions have targeted Israel."

It all boils down to the fact that a lot of people/politicians seem to judge Israel by different standards and they exaggarate the problems and threats in relation to Israel as compared to other nations and troublespots such as N. Korea, Sudan, China, Russia, various Arab nations, other African/Asian/South Amercian troublespots. Israel discussed nearly a third of the time in the UN ? Israel being the greatest threat (not the Palestinians or N Korea or Iran) ? Israel equated to Nazi Germany (where are the gas ovens, crematoria and industrialised state based murder factories?) Give me a break ....

[Luke90]

I was talking about people on this board really.

[Mediocrates]

It breaks down into a few groups. People like takeo accept that it exists and blames the Jews for it. Other people claim that it doesn't exist in any significant degree at all. Others see it everywhere. And others are somewhere in the midst of all of that.

[Reffo]

I was talking about people on this board really.Woops ! I goofed.....Silly me :)

[Luke90]

It breaks down into a few groups. People like takeo accept that it exists and blames the Jews for it. Other people claim that it doesn't exist in any significant degree at all. Others see it everywhere. And others are somewhere in the midst of all of that.
Since we're on the subject I think I should make it clear that I'm not in any of those 3 camps. Though I probably convey the impression of being in the "barely real" camp because I like to argue with people who I think are seeing it in situations where it isn't.

[Canajew]

Just wanted to pipe in and say that I am impressed with the quality of this discussion.

Takeo's post of an article blaming Jews for antisemitism was dealt with on its (very weak) merits and the contents of the article were thoroughly discussed and dissected, and anyone with half a brain who comes here now would be able to read this thread and see how manipulative and obscene the Guardian article actually is.


and takeo, have we learned anything?

[SteveK]

On the subject of anti-semitism...

I toured the UN at the age of 14. I have not been back since to check up on something of which is a vague memory to me. That was 38 years ago. I think I saw in the area of the General Assembly a rather prominent presentation of that quote from the Prophet Isaiah (2:4) : something along this line:


They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, and they will learn war no longer


When I was 14, I was in awe of this institution. Is this Biblical passage still displayed prominently there? Was it ever? Did I imagine seeing it?

Perhaps, did the UN management take it down and out of sight during renovations to cater to their prefered guests, as the NY watering hole for these snake eyed camel drivers?

[redcake]

"snake eyed camel drivers"

Sickening. In a thread about Anti-Semitism no less.

[takeo]

Takeo, the Israeli/Pal conflict would not even make the evening news if Jews were not involved. There are much worse things happening in the world and especially in the Arab world that make this particular conflict pale in comparison. Anti-semitism is a direct creation of Europe and of European culture rather that of Israeli Jews.

Of course one must concur with the author, including me, that Israeli government makes mistakes and sometimes very unpopular moves, however, which government doesn't? Hell Austria or Poland with much larger population and with no less problems get much less world attention then Israel. The horrible human rights violations in Latvia get almost zero attention and the conflict in Chechnya gets almost no visability. It really makes me laugh when the BBC makes Sharon alleged inditment for fraudelant election money front page news, an event which is basically an internal Israeli matter and not relevant to anything (there are thousands of such things happening all over the democratic world including France) and somewhere on some obsecure link mentions that president of Lithuania (an EU country!!!) gets impeached (a first such act in an EU history)!!!! Both of the latter events happened at the same time.

Whatever Israel does is under the microscope and there are a few reasons for that:
1. Israel is a JEWISH STATE or state full of Jews
2. Anything that has to do with Jews (even the dumbest things) makes news
3. Israel is a free country

Europe is still living through its anti-semitic self otherwise Israel would never have the attention it currently recieves. Read the Guardian and see how many times there are news about France or Russia with 45 and 160 million population respectively and Israel with 6 million. I really doubt that there is less interesting things happening in Russia then in Israel. One Chechnya would make loud news stories every day. However, no one is interested in Russia but everyone is interested in ISRAEL for it being a JEWISH state. I really hope you understand this.

I think as well Israel gets disproportionate attention in the western media (including American media) but I doubt very much it's because of anti-semitism. In france, if one thing is for sure, anti-Arab racism is much stronger than anti-semitism, so according to your logic attention for Arab countries derives from anti-Arab racism? I rather think the disproportionate attention is due to a combination of many factors: first of all Jews are an important and powerfull group in leading western countries such as France, GB and the US. And Jews, wether leftist or rightist, will most of the times be interested in what happens in Israel, as this site proves as well. Furthermore, due to the recent history and Holocaust, Israel logically gets more attention than any other nation in similar conditions not as crucial to our recent history.
Furthermore, Israel is situated in a very strategically region that has been a troublespot for decades and a main source for oil AND major focus of the foreign policy of the US, Russia and Europe since decades.
That's also the reason why Iraq gets a disproportionated share of the international newscoverage. Furthermore countries like France or GB which have a large share of Jews and Arabs, will naturally dedicate more attention to this conflict, whereas they don't have as much affinity with, let's say, the conflict in Nepal or the civil war in Colombia (however if you look at spanish television Colombia is almost every day in the news) or the war of independance of Banda Atjeh... etc.

[takeo]

Now, these claims stand on a number of false assumptions:

1)Anti-Zionism is not concerned as much with Israel's actions as it is with the fact of Israel's existence. Which, as noted by Martin Luther King in his famous essay, already constitutes anti-Semitism, as it implies that the Jews are the only nation in the world who has no right for independence. (Which naturally leads to the question often asked by the neo-Nazis- if a national expression of the nation is illegitimate, what does it say about this nation? Can you see my point now, Takeo?)

I'm not an anti-zionist, yet even anti-zionists aren't necessarily anti-semitic, there are quite some Jewish anti-zionists such as Chomsky. Not every nation has a state, the gypsies don't have one, for example, black-Americans don't have one, for example, Mayas don't have one etc. . I think the idea that every people should have its own state derives from the 19th century and was the base for quite some bloodspilling in the Balcans and elsewhere in the world. The french revolution, the first constitution in Europe to give Jews civil rights, is based on civic apartenance, not on one's language, religion or bloodties, not on chauvinist feelings.








2)The writer seems to suggest that anti-Zionism should only concern the Israeli Jews and never the Diaspora Jews. I can even quote:

Five years ago, when I was editing the Evening Standard, the Board of Deputies of British Jews asked to send a delegation to my office to protest at our coverage of the Middle East. I refused, saying that I would meet at any time to discuss matters pertaining to British Jews, but that Israeli affairs were the province of the Israeli ambassador.

It wasn't anti-zionism but an issue which directly matters the Israeli state, since the paper was criticising Israeli policy.

In other words, "know your place, Jew".

actually, it was more "know your place, Brit"




The British Jews should only be concerned with what happens in their own backyard.

He only wants to answer to criticism from official Israeli instances, which is a usual reaction.


What he is saying here is that either the Jews specifically or subnational groups and diasporas in general should not be allowed to have a say in the host nation's politics.

no, what he's saying is that he only wants to answer to an official reaction and those Brits weren't representing the Israeli state as such.

In both versions, it discriminates against the Jews (either just them or them AND other minorities), depriving them of the right to have an equal voice on all political issues in the country whose citizenship they hold.

come on, this conclusion is really over the edge, many newspapers don't give any reaction at all to criticism unless it has an official caracter. But anyway, now we're at it, my mother still has Russian citizenship, but she's not going to claim to represent Russia in one or another way. If you live in another country you're not as closely connected to the situation in your motherland (or the nation whos nationality you hold), I think this is just obvious.



3)In reality, it is not that common for the Israelis to play the Holocaust card. The Holocaust poses a certain ideological problem for Zionism and for the Israeli mindset, and the Israelis are normally quite reluctant to portray themselves as victims.

that's right, luckily so, but some political circles, especially in the US and on this board, abuse the Holocaust to defend Israeli policy. But in Israel as well there are the extremist settlers who frequently compare rabin and now even Sharon to Hitler and more commonly Arafat was frequently compared to Hitler even if such comparisons are really an insult to the history of the Jewish people. Of course you don't have to be a Nobel price winner to understand that such abuse can only play in the advantage of holocaust-deniers and revisionists.



4)As it's been noted by Mil, when the journalists talk about how the Arab-Israeli conflict fuels anti-Semitism, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it is the media that keeps the magnifying glass over Israel 24/7/365. The scale of the Israeli-Palestinian violence is simply incomparable with any other conflict that occasionally makes front pages- whether it is Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda or Kosovo. Neither the number of casualties nor the size of the population involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is anywhere close to an average African civil war.

I've already answered this above. I just want to add that altough this conflict doesn't compare to other more bloody conflicts nevertheless the fate of the palestinians, dispersed all over the Arab world and denied their own land, is very symbolic.


5)Finally, anti-Zionism all too often uses methods and rhetorics of the good old anti-Semitism.

yes, sometimes, that's right, altough you can not generalise, on average, I think most European anti-zionists, and I know quite some are not antismitic. On the Arab side I agree the two go hand in hand.

It has become too convenient a disguise- and I see no reason why it should not be addressed as anti-Semitism whenever there are valid grounds for it.

whenever there are valid grounds for it, yes, but not always. It's too easy to to just call any criticism against the policy of Israel anti-semitic, as many posters on this site do. I hope you'll agree with me it's not fair and not helping the struggle against real anti-semitism.

The question is not so simple, some real antisemites use criticism against Israel as a disguise for their antisemitism which has become a taboo in contemporary Europe. But I think those are only a small minority of the criticisers of Israel, certainly in Europe and certainly in leftist circles.
The Arab world is another matter, yet even there it would not be exaggerated to state that antisemitism is closely linked to the policy of Israel in the region, and not vice versa, as arabs identify jews with the state of Israel, much more than Western Europeans do.


Eastern Europe is also another matter, there's some traditional antisemitism still very strong, and there I think antizionism is more often than not a disguise for some degree of antisemitism (for example poles do not like Jews, yet they also condamn the Holocaust and the nazi's in the strongest possible terms), even in communist circles. But Russia is an exception, Putin's policy towards Israel is based on geo-politics and nothing else.

[redcake]

Associating Israel with the Holocaust or some notion of a Jewish power is in itself antisemitic. The Zionist movement, and Israels foundations predate the Holocaust. Rationalizing that people merely fixate on Jews because they're successfull swirves the reality that people are still fixating because JEWS are involved. Otherwise, millions of dollars would be pumped into stopping the attrocities in the Sudan, instead of stopping some fiction "slavery" in Israel.

[takeo]

Associating Israel with the Holocaust or some notion of a Jewish power is in itself antisemitic. The Zionist movement, and Israels foundations predate the Holocaust. Rationalizing that people merely fixate on Jews because they're successfull swirves the reality that people are still fixating because JEWS are involved. Otherwise, millions of dollars would be pumped into stopping the attrocities in the Sudan, instead of stopping some fiction "slavery" in Israel.

Even Sudan gets more attention than the war in Congo for example which killed over two million people, because Sudan is a muslim nation and on the black list of the Bush-regime and rich in oil. You see politics is always involved, wether you like it or not.
I don't think it's antisemitism, it just happens because Israel has quite some ties to Europe and the West in general. That's also the reason why the conflict in Bosnia received much more attention than the conflict in, let's say Chechnia. You can call it racist or discrimination, but that's how it works.

[Reffo]

Not every nation has a state, the gypsies don't have one, for exampleYes… and look how badly they are being treated by many so called civilized Europeans who are so good at preaching to Israel…

nevertheless the fate of the palestinians, dispersed all over the Arab world and denied their own land, is very symbolic.I can understand the Palestinians being preoccupied by it but why are the extreme lefties putting this above all real injustices in the world ? Actually my earlier post amplifies this further Click Here, I would be most interested in your reaction.

[KettleWhistle]

I'm not an anti-zionist,
Yes you are.
yet even anti-zionists aren't necessarily anti-semitic,
Yes, they are.
there are quite some Jewish anti-zionists such as Chomsky.
Chomsky is an anti-Semite.
black-Americans don't have one
Yes they do. It's called U.S.A.
, for example, Mayas don't have one etc.
Yes they do. It's called Mexico.
The french revolution, the first constitution in Europe to give Jews civil rights, is based on civic apartenance, not on one's language, religion or bloodties, not on chauvinist feelings.
And why should we care about those French barbarians?

[Womble]

I'm not an anti-zionist, yet even anti-zionists aren't necessarily anti-semitic, there are quite some Jewish anti-zionists such as Chomsky.
There are also Jewish anti-Semites. Like Chomsky, or Robert Fisher, or Michael Neumann. One does not automatically rule out the other. As my favorite saying goes, saying that a Jew cannot be an anti-Semite is like saying that humans cannot be cannibals- they're not supposed to be, but some are.


Not every nation has a state, the gypsies don't have one, for example,
That's because they never asked for one.


black-Americans don't have one, for example,
Again, did they ever ask? Ah yes, some did. They went back to their ancestral African land and established the state now known as Liberia, I believe.


Mayas don't have one etc.
There aren't enough of them to form a state. And again, if they were to make the demand...


. I think the idea that every people should have its own state derives from the 19th century and was the base for quite some bloodspilling in the Balcans and elsewhere in the world. The french revolution, the first constitution in Europe to give Jews civil rights, is based on civic apartenance, not on one's language, religion or bloodties, not on chauvinist feelings.
Actually, the idea that every nation deserves to rule itself and not be dominated by stronger neighbors is an integral part of today's international law. It is one of the fundamentals of the UN Charter, and what it derives from is the basic idea of justice.


It wasn't anti-zionism but an issue which directly matters the Israeli state, since the paper was criticising Israeli policy.
No, it was extreme arrogance of a man who refuses to recognize other people's right to choose their self-identification.


actually, it was more "know your place, Brit"
Makes no difference. He demanded that the British Jews choose between being Jewish and being British, which is in itself an example of anti-Semitism. Try asking a Native American to stop caring for the Native Americans, see what they tell you.


He only wants to answer to criticism from official Israeli instances, which is a usual reaction.
Oh no, he was answering to the British Jews, not to the Israeli officials, most of whom are probably unaware of his existence at all.


no, what he's saying is that he only wants to answer to an official reaction and those Brits weren't representing the Israeli state as such.
They were representing themselves, of course. But they had every right to ask him. Any subnational group cares about their metropoly, and banning them from caring about it is a plainly anti-democratic attempt of suppressing people's identity. You can't twist it any other way.


come on, this conclusion is really over the edge, many newspapers don't give any reaction at all to criticism unless it has an official caracter.
They have a right to not react. I have the right to draw conclusions. ;)


But anyway, now we're at it, my mother still has Russian citizenship, but she's not going to claim to represent Russia in one or another way.
It is her personal choice.


If you live in another country you're not as closely connected to the situation in your motherland (or the nation whos nationality you hold), I think this is just obvious.
Many expatriates (Russian, Turkish, Arab, Armenian) actively lobby the interests of their home countries, and I see nothing wrong with that unless doing so harms the host country in one way or another.


that's right, luckily so, but some political circles, especially in the US and on this board, abuse the Holocaust to defend Israeli policy.
Examples, please. I've heard this hollow charge too many times. It is far more often being brought up pre-emptively to delegitimize the pro-Israeli debators, like in this article.


But in Israel as well there are the extremist settlers who frequently compare rabin and now even Sharon to Hitler
Yup, that is moronic. But that is not what the article implied, he was talking about something very different.


and more commonly Arafat was frequently compared to Hitler even if such comparisons are really an insult to the history of the Jewish people.
I never agreed with it too much- but strictly speaking, such comparison does have grounds. It's called emphasising the historical connection. You see, the PLO ideology is largely Nazi influenced. Arafat often proudly traced his ideological (and also biological) heritage to Haj Amin AL-Husseini, the founder of the Palestinian national movement, who had a gruppenfuhrer rank in the SS and spent the whole of World war II in Berlin recruiting several divisions of Muslim soldiers for Hitler and conducting anti-Jewish propaganda.


Of course you don't have to be a Nobel price winner to understand that such abuse can only play in the advantage of holocaust-deniers and revisionists.
...and anti-Zionists. How strange that these three traits all too often combine themselves in the same persons, eh?


I just want to add that altough this conflict doesn't compare to other more bloody conflicts nevertheless the fate of the palestinians, dispersed all over the Arab world and denied their own land, is very symbolic.
Symbolic of what?


yes, sometimes, that's right, altough you can not generalise, on average, I think most European anti-zionists, and I know quite some are not antismitic. On the Arab side I agree the two go hand in hand.
Many Europeans are not conscious anti-Semites, but only because they don't realise what conclusions inevitably follow from the views they hold. Often all it takes is a little push- and an otherwise intelligent person begins spouting unbelievable balderdash about "Jewish lobby", "Jewish power" and such. Why, just this morning a certain vehemently anti-racist young man arguing with me about the Holocaust compensations issue, produced the following piece:

I don't think any young jews really care about what happened to their predecessors, they just want something to still have against the world.

He actually took offense when I showed him that he is actually repeating a classic neo-Nazi thesis. Him? An anti-Semite? How can it be??? :rolleyes:


whenever there are valid grounds for it, yes, but not always. It's too easy to to just call any criticism against the policy of Israel anti-semitic, as many posters on this site do. I hope you'll agree with me it's not fair and not helping the struggle against real anti-semitism.
Of course it's not. But anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism must be addressed as anti-Semitism. Period.


The question is not so simple, some real antisemites use criticism against Israel as a disguise for their antisemitism which has become a taboo in contemporary Europe. But I think those are only a small minority of the criticisers of Israel, certainly in Europe and certainly in leftist circles.
Well not much argument here, except that I don't find the said minority to be all that small if we count the subconscious anti-Semites- and yes, they exist. A while ago, a French person who went out of his way to prove the opposite to me, came back saying I was right.


The Arab world is another matter, yet even there it would not be exaggerated to state that antisemitism is closely linked to the policy of Israel in the region, and not vice versa, as arabs identify jews with the state of Israel, much more than Western Europeans do.
Well they sure have strange ways of criticizing Israel. Their most popular proofs of the Jewish evilness are Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion- hardly Israel related.


Eastern Europe is also another matter, there's some traditional antisemitism still very strong, and there I think antizionism is more often than not a disguise for some degree of antisemitism (for example poles do not like Jews, yet they also condamn the Holocaust and the nazi's in the strongest possible terms), even in communist circles.
Actually, the Eastern Europe surprised me in a good way in this regard. It is the least anti-Israeli part of Europe, and with the exception of Poland and Romania, anti-Semitic tendencies are very weak there, especially in the Czech Republic. Partly it is because the Communist Jew bashing now has a reverse effect- Jew bashers are being associated with the much hated Communists. A truly divine irony, hehehe...

[Womble]

Even Sudan gets more attention than the war in Congo for example which killed over two million people, because Sudan is a muslim nation and on the black list of the Bush-regime and rich in oil. You see politics is always involved, wether you like it or not.
. The war in Sudan got attention because it escalated from just another civil war into a huge slaughter with millions of refugees. And the attention it got was very brief, Sudan related headlines are already rare, while Israel is still on the news every time a bullet is fired in Rafah.


I don't think it's antisemitism, it just happens because Israel has quite some ties to Europe and the West in general.
Doesn't make it any more fair, does it?

[Canajew]

I'm not an anti-zionist, yet even anti-zionists aren't necessarily anti-semitic, there are quite some Jewish anti-zionists such as Chomsky. Not every nation has a state, the gypsies don't have one, for example, black-Americans don't have one, for example, Mayas don't have one etc. . I think the idea that every people should have its own state derives from the 19th century and was the base for quite some bloodspilling in the Balcans and elsewhere in the world. The french revolution, the first constitution in Europe to give Jews civil rights, is based on civic apartenance, not on one's language, religion or bloodties, not on chauvinist feelings.


I'll just point out here that France has sold out both its Jews and the Jews at every opportunity. From the Dreyfus affair, which brought France's strong but suppressed anti-semitism out in full flair and convinced the early zionists that the French paradigm was flawed, to French complicity with the Germans in selling out its Jews to send them to the death camps to France's quick abandonment of Israel when Arabs threatened France's economic interests, the french example is perfectly illustrative of exactly WHY it is important that Jews have their own state.

This pinnacle of inclusion which you so proudly talk about failed its Jews many many times, as it is largely failing them now.

If we are to be safe, we must protect ourselves. The French at least have proven many times that when it comes to protecting Jews or the larger self interest of its majority population, it is not really a close call.

[danholo]

Unfortunately people don't understand the necessity of POWER and some just take it too far...

History is proof that Jews need power. Now that it has come in the form of a state, "critics" of Israel claim that Israel has gone too far its own POWER. Even exceptions are made into rules continually. Not seldomly I hear that "Israel bombs Palestinians daily to get one man with no regard to innocent life."

I can name one incident durin this intifada where Israel made a grave mistake by using such firepower to get Salah Shehade two years back. The target was eliminated but so were 15 innocent people. It happened once, but to the "critics" it happens daily...

[KettleWhistle]

I never agreed with it too much- but strictly speaking, such comparison does have grounds. It's called emphasising the historical connection. You see, the PLO ideology is largely Nazi influenced. Arafat often proudly traced his ideological (and also biological) heritage to Haj Amin AL-Husseini, the founder of the Palestinian national movement, who had a gruppenfuhrer rank in the SS and spent the whole of World war II in Berlin recruiting several divisions of Muslim soldiers for Hitler and conducting anti-Jewish propaganda.
The major difference between Arafat and Hitler is the former's lack of power to execute a similar plan.

[Leon]

. The war in Sudan got attention because it escalated from just another civil war into a huge slaughter with millions of refugees. And the attention it got was very brief, Sudan related headlines are already rare, while Israel is still on the news every time a bullet is fired in Rafah.


Doesn't make it any more fair, does it?

This tiny AFP article in the Sydney morning Herald only made it to the back pages of the newspaper. All other Australian media outlets and broadcasters did not report this:


Darfur death toll tops 180,000, says UN
March 15, 2005 - 10:31AM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Darfur-death-toll-tops-180000-says-UN/2005/03/15/1110649165859.html

Email to a friend Printer format
More than 180,000 people have been killed in the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region in the past 18 months, UN humanitarian affairs chief Jan Egeland told AFP today.

On average, at least 10,000 people have died each month over the past 18 months, the UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs said in an interview.

The UN had previously said at least 70,000 people had been killed in Darfur but Egeland said last week this figure was out of date, without giving a new estimate.

"It has been at least 10,000 ... on average, of preventable deaths since the emergency became a big emergency, which was towards the end of 2003," Egeland said.

Egeland, who added that "preventable" deaths included those from disease and malnutrition, said it has been about a year and a half since events in Darfur snowballed to become a full-blown crisis.

"If you say for the last 18 months, 10,000 a month, that's 180,000," Egeland said.

"It could be just as well more than 200,000 but I think 10,000 a month ... is a reasonable figure".

[Leon]

As for Arab-Israeli conflict - thats always the top story for the day. Arab muslims murdering + massacring 10,000 christians a month not to mention Islamic massacres of innocents in other countries isnt considered the real funamental issue/problem of our world today...as Tony Blair would say...but the naughty Jews "persecuting poor innocnet muslims" is.

Hey Takeo, why arent christians attacking muslims in europe and America over this?

10,000 a month at the hands of Islamist ARab fanatics. In a space of 18 months the toll is 180,000 dead. In total over 1 million people have died.

Sixty years of conflict b/w the Arabs and Israel - a good 25-30,000 are dead. Current 5 year intifada: under 4,000 from both sides.

[defari]

Good point Leon.
:( @ Sudan. Horrible.

[Luke90]

Sudan related headlines are already rare, while Israel is still on the news every time a bullet is fired in Rafah.
It isn't the most scientific survey in the world but anyway:
I searched google news for Sudan and for Israel.
Sudan produced 10,000 results and Israel 50,000.
There is also a similar ratio on BBC News searches (1200 against 3800).
That is a significant difference but the gulf doesn't seem to be as huge as you were suggesting and the coverage seems to be of the same order of magnitude.


In a space of 18 months
Sixty years of conflict
Surely that in itself is part of the reason for the difference in coverage.

[Mediocrates]

This proves my "White People Don't Want to Vacation There" theory of international conflict. The amount of outrage expressed about the oppression of poor peaceful peaceloving people of peace is directly proportional to the interest expressed in having them eventually serve you drinks poolside.

[Leon]

Luke, can you explain what is.

[Reffo]

That is a significant difference but the gulf doesn't seem to be as huge as you were suggesting and the coverage seems to be of the same order of magnitude.
In a space of 18 months

Quote:
Sixty years of conflict

Surely that in itself is part of the reason for the difference in coverageTrue, but you are forgetting something that should be of overriding importance and that is the relative casualties and deaths. In this regard Sudan is way ahead, by several orders of magnitude (I think I heard figures along the lines of possibly 1 million people were in danger of starving to death in Sudan). So you can see how some of us are scandalised by the fact that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is given a significantly greater coverage. I for one am scandalised for two reasons. Firstly, as a supporter of Israel, I resent the fact that Israel tends to be under the magnifying glass to such an extent and often for the wrong reasons. Secondly, as a human being, it is shameful that the suffering of the black in Sudan seems to be discounted, it is as if humanity says: "the lives of black Sudanese are less important than that of Palestinian Arabs". Luke, do you really think that is appropriate ? Conversely, one might say that the focus on Israel/Palestine is greater because Jews are involved !

[takeo]

Yes… and look how badly they are being treated by many so called civilized Europeans who are so good at preaching to Israel….

Eastern Europeans they are, who mistrat gypsies. So bad? Many easterneuropean gypsies take advantage of our social system without contributing anything in return.

[takeo]

Unfortunately, the opposite is true ! Thanks to the strangle hold of the Arab nations on the UN General Assembly, Israel IS being judged by special standards. Unfortunately, these "special standards" DON'T favour Israel ! The extract below sums up the sorry state of affairs in the UN when it comes to the topic of Israel:

Renowned international human rights expert Professor Anne Bayefsky submitted to the New York Times an op-ed about the highly selective -- and discriminatory -- agenda of the UN Human Rights Commission and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs). She included in her piece a description of what she termed the Commission's “strategy of diversion,” referring to the fact that 15% of the group's time and 30% of its country-specific resolutions have targeted Israel.

I think that most reasonable people would wonder whether it is appropriate for Israel to be on the topic nearly one third of the time when there are much worse trouble spots, human rights violations and occupied countries in the world, such as:

Sudan
Chechnia
Tibet
Columbia
Congo
Other African trouble spots
Just about all the Arab countries (human rights violations)
The Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan
Sri Lanka
The insurgency in Aceh against Indonesia
The Ivory Coast
Many more, too numerous to list fully


......and Israel is on the topic 30% of the time.....???? Disgraceful !

because Israel has always been in the hotspots of international media, as well as on the priority list of both the West as well as the muslim world for all reasons I explained already.


One part it benefits Israel, this special status, Israel is the first recipient of the US in the world per inhabitant, it can just violate dozens of UN-resolutions without consequences, on the other part it gives Israel a lot of bad publicity and a bad image. But on the whole, international attention for this conflict benefitted Israel. Just suppose, Israel didn't receive nukes from France and other sophisticated weapons from the US, Israel would be nihilated. Suppose there wasn't Oslo, Clinton, Bush, troika, the big 5, etc. to help solving the question. perhaps you would be delighted Israel could handle the palestinians much harsher, comparable to what the russians are doing in Chechnia. But be aware that in that case Israel would be all alone in its struggle against much of the Arab world and there wouldn't be as much resources and gifts to solve the problem, Israel would be solely responsible for the wellbeing of millions of palestinians without economic prospectives. So I think the advantage far outweights the disadvantages of international attention.


But the conflict isn't as innocent as it seems, even compared to above examples, after all Israel is still occupying lands not belonging to Israel, which makes it an international conflict. In the world there are only two similar cases, East Timor, which also received similar amounts of attention, and South Sahara, which last years seems to be forgotten by the international community, but is somehow similar to what is happening in the occupied territories (colonisation for example).
You can dismiss tibet, the Dalai Lama just declared he wants Tibet to remain a part of China, profiting from the economic boom in this country.

[takeo]

There are also Jewish anti-Semites. Like Chomsky, or Robert Fisher, or Michael Neumann.

They are not antisemitic (I don't know Michael Neumann)


One does not automatically rule out the other.

not necessarily, but as far as I remember Chomsky doesn't hate the Jewish people nor his origins and never wrote or said so.





Actually, the idea that every nation deserves to rule itself and not be dominated by stronger neighbors is an integral part of today's international law. It is one of the fundamentals of the UN Charter, and what it derives from is the basic idea of justice.

what is "nation", is it a people bound by blood ties, or a community of civilians who can have different etnic and religious backgrounds?




Makes no difference. He demanded that the British Jews choose between being Jewish and being British, which is in itself an example of anti-Semitism.

all he did was refusing to comment to any but official criticisers.

Try asking a Native American to stop caring for the Native Americans, see what they tell you.

what's the relevance? If they were Jews, Israeli's or bulgarians, he refused to comment to any but official replies.




They were representing themselves, of course. But they had every right to ask him. Any subnational group cares about their metropoly, and banning them from caring about it is a plainly anti-democratic attempt of suppressing people's identity. You can't twist it any other way.

he didn't ban them from caring, he just refused to answer them, a perfectly democratic right he exercised.



It is her personal choice.

yes and I think it's a wise choice, I think by the way anyone, wether he's of Russian, Israeli, or whatever origin has the right to care for any country.
According to your logic noone except Arabs are permitted to care for the situation in Iraq.



Many expatriates (Russian, Turkish, Arab, Armenian) actively lobby the interests of their home countries, and I see nothing wrong with that unless doing so harms the host country in one way or another.

I'm not sure it is in the advantage of the home countries, not always. Usually expatriates have lost the touch with their home country and they don't make the right decisions. Iraqi expatriates for examples were responsible for much of the WMD lies, Elsalvadorian expatriates who returned were responsible for the biggest wave in organised crime since independance, Cuban expatriates are responsible for the heavy US-embargo against Cuba, African expatriates in Paris usually buy everything valuable in their country of origin and bring it back to france, they are also responsible for quite some meddling and coups.




Examples, please. I've heard this hollow charge too many times. It is far more often being brought up pre-emptively to delegitimize the pro-Israeli debators, like in this article.

make a quick search on this site, how many times Iraq or even France has been compared with nazi-germany for example while any such analogy is just plain BS.



I never agreed with it too much- but strictly speaking, such comparison does have grounds. It's called emphasising the historical connection. You see, the PLO ideology is largely Nazi influenced. Arafat often proudly traced his ideological (and also biological) heritage to Haj Amin AL-Husseini, the founder of the Palestinian national movement, who had a gruppenfuhrer rank in the SS and spent the whole of World war II in Berlin recruiting several divisions of Muslim soldiers for Hitler and conducting anti-Jewish propaganda.

I've heard this all too often, but the reality is that Arafat was the first palestinian leader to sign peace with Israel, something the radicals on both sides can't forgive him.


...and anti-Zionists. How strange that these three traits all too often combine themselves in the same persons, eh?

not always, for example here in France the Front National is quite antisemitic but at the same time they defend Israel it it's fight against the Arabs.




Symbolic of what?

comparable to the plight of the Jewish people for so many centuries for example... and also those refugee camps make a strong impression, if you know most if not all of these people have their origin in what has now become Israel. One simply can't deny the fact Israel is built on etnic cleansing. (direct by deporting people and indirect by refusing to refugees to return home)



Many Europeans are not conscious anti-Semites, but only because they don't realise what conclusions inevitably follow from the views they hold. Often all it takes is a little push- and an otherwise intelligent person begins spouting unbelievable balderdash about "Jewish lobby", "Jewish power" and such.

actually I think such ideas exist about any people, muslims especially (as you can notice on this board). It only takes a little push to call French "frogs" in the US, to make jokes about blacks, or for us to make fun of Americans, gypsies, etc. I think it's part of the human nature.


Why, just this morning a certain vehemently anti-racist young man arguing with me about the Holocaust compensations issue, produced the following piece:

I don't think any young jews really care about what happened to their predecessors, they just want something to still have against the world.

as I said such negative ideas exist about every people.


He actually took offense when I showed him that he is actually repeating a classic neo-Nazi thesis. Him? An anti-Semite? How can it be???

If you scratch hard enough even you can be a racist I'm sure, everyone likes to criticise "the other" once in a while, I don't take offense at such statements, I just disagree that's all.




Of course it's not. But anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism must be addressed as anti-Semitism. Period.

that's right, but it doesn't mean all anti-zionism is antisemitism. period.




Well not much argument here, except that I don't find the said minority to be all that small if we count the subconscious anti-Semites- and yes, they exist. A while ago, a French person who went out of his way to prove the opposite to me, came back saying I was right.

perhaps, altough compared with other minorities, I think Jews in the West can't complain about racism, even unconcious racism. perhaps you're a racist too, how would you react if your daughther came home with an Arab? Wouldn't you be at least unconcious a bit worried?




Well they sure have strange ways of criticizing Israel. Their most popular proofs of the Jewish evilness are Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion- hardly Israel related.

but of course the popularity of those works is directly related to the situation between israel and the palestinians. An enviroment of hate creates such reactions.



Actually, the Eastern Europe surprised me in a good way in this regard. It is the least anti-Israeli part of Europe, and with the exception of Poland and Romania, anti-Semitic tendencies are very weak there, especially in the Czech Republic. Partly it is because the Communist Jew bashing now has a reverse effect- Jew bashers are being associated with the much hated Communists. A truly divine irony, hehehe...

oh come on, another example that foreign policy of a country towards Israel is absolutely unrelated to their feeling about Jews. Many Eastern European nations are still openly antisemitic, unlike any country in Western Europe, and I think you can ask the many other Russian Jews on this site. And I don't think it's because of communism, it's much deeper roots, many rightwing poles for example told me the current socialist government of Poland is "Judeo-bolshevist" (because some ministers are Jewish and not catholic), altough I didn't find any Pole who liked nazism, many told me the departure of the Jews was one of the positive consequences of WWII. And even the Polish exhibition in Auschwitz doesn't mention the Holocaust a single time, as if only poles died in Auschwitz.

[KettleWhistle]

Suppose there wasn't Oslo, Clinton, Bush, troika, the big 5, etc. to help solving the question. perhaps you would be delighted Israel could handle the palestinians much harsher, comparable to what the russians are doing in Chechnia.

Not "much harsher." The Arabs would've been kicked out from the Land of Israel and to where they belong, borders would be closed, and Jews would be living in peace. And no comparisons to Chechnya here. Russians are occupying Chechnya. "Palestinian" Arabs are occupying the Land of Israel.

They are not antisemitic (I don't know Michael Neumann)
Yes, they are anti-Semitic.

[takeo]

Not "much harsher." The Arabs would've been kicked out from the Land of Israel and to where they belong, borders would be closed, and Jews would be living in peace. And no comparisons to Chechnya here. Russians are occupying Chechnya. "Palestinian" Arabs are occupying the Land of Israel.

Chechnia is a part of Russia, Gaza and the WB aren't a part of Israel. How can people who lived there since many generations occupy a land is beyond reason, but I won't argue with you.
So basically what you're saying is that without international attention Israel would have commited a genocide which on turn would have provoked the entire Arab and muslim world to turn against Israel, and without internationa protection this would have resulted in another genocide, this time of the Israeli people. So, in short, israel as well as the palestinians should be very happy with all the attention they're getting...

[KettleWhistle]

Chechnia is a part of Russia, Gaza and the WB aren't a part of Israel. How can people who lived there since many generations occupy a land is beyond reason, but I won't argue with you.
So basically what you're saying is that without international attention Israel would have commited a genocide which on turn would have provoked the entire Arab and muslim world to turn against Israel, and without internationa protection this would have resulted in another genocide, this time of the Israeli people. So, in short, israel as well as the palestinians should be very happy with all the attention they're getting...

Chechnya is a part of Russia because of Russian colonial expantion. The Chechens neither like Russia, nor want to be a part of it.

And no, there wouldn't have been any genocide. They would've simply been herded and thrown out of the country BACK to where they came from, i.e. to Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and other Arab countries. The entire Arab and Muslim world is against Israel anyway, so it really wouldn't have mattered, especially because Jews make better soldiers, and that's what really counts on the battlefield.

[takeo]

Chechnya is a part of Russia because of Russian colonial expantion. The Chechens neither like Russia, nor want to be a part of it.

And no, there wouldn't have been any genocide. They would've simply been herded and thrown out of the country BACK to where they came from, i.e. to Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and other Arab countries. The entire Arab and Muslim world is against Israel anyway, so it really wouldn't have mattered, especially because Jews make better soldiers, and that's what really counts on the battlefield.

Palestinians don't like to be part of Israel either. They however wouldn't just leave on command, barricade their houses and fight back, I think not a single palestinian would leave, so in reality this option would be a genocide...
jews make better soldiers but faced with an overwelming force and WITHOUT sophisticated weapons Israel would be lost.

[KettleWhistle]

Palestinians don't like to be part of Israel either. They however wouldn't just leave on command, barricade their houses and fight back, I think not a single palestinian would leave, so in reality this option would be a genocide...
jews make better soldiers but faced with an overwelming force and WITHOUT sophisticated weapons Israel would be lost.

Nobody wants them to be a part of Israel, and there is no need for any genocide. Like I told you, they would've been herded, marched to the border, and their Arab brethen would be dealing with them. Since there wouldn't have been any Arabs in Israel, there wouldn't have been any problems with buying weapons and such in the long term. In the short term, the only real Arab army up until 60s was Jordanian, for all others it would be about 50 to 150 dead Arab for every Jewish soldier. Not a problem really. Plus the Arabs would've had their hands full dealing with the "Palestinians."

[takeo]

]Nobody wants them to be a part of Israel, and there is no need for any genocide. Like I told you, they would've been herded, marched to the border, and their Arab brethen would be dealing with them.

And like I told you, they would not cooperate, making the whole operation a bloodbath.

Since there wouldn't have been any Arabs in Israel, there wouldn't have been any problems with buying weapons and such in the long term. In the short term, the only real Arab army up until 60s was Jordanian, for all others it would be about 50 to 150 dead Arab for every Jewish soldier. Not a problem really. Plus the Arabs would've had their hands full dealing with the "Palestinians."

perhaps that's why Israel almost lost the 1973 war, WITH much more sophisticated weapons.

[KettleWhistle]

And like I told you, they would not cooperate, making the whole operation a bloodbath.

Their cooperation would not be required. When there is choice between life and death, people, naturally, chose life. There wouldn't have been any bloodbath.

[takeo]

Their cooperation would not be required. When there is choice between life and death, people, naturally, chose life. There wouldn't have been any bloodbath.

I'm not sure palestinians would, perhaps their wife and children would leave but not the men. They would put up a fight, and since many palestinian families have rifle arms these days the consequences are quite predictable . You know how Palestinians are, they love martyrship.

[KettleWhistle]

Wrong again. When the residents of Lot were expelled in 1948 or 1949, not sure which year exactly it was, they were simply walked out in a column, and escorted out of Israeli territory.

[takeo]

Wrong again. When the residents of Lot were expelled in 1948 or 1949, not sure which year exactly it was, they were simply walked out in a column, and escorted out of Israeli territory.

times have changed, palestinians faced with all the problems have become adherants of a certain death cultus. But at least you're honest!

[Reffo]

Article by Max Hastings:
"Often, they seem to demand that the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard, that allows the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu a special quota of excesses, in compensation for past sufferings."

Unfortunately, the opposite is true ! Thanks to the strangle hold of the Arab nations on the UN General Assembly, Israel IS being judged by special standards. Unfortunately, these "special standards" DON'T favour Israel ! The extract below sums up the sorry state of affairs in the UN when it comes to the topic of Israel:

because Israel has always been in the hotspots of international media, as well as on the priority list of both the West as well as the muslim world for all reasons I explained already.

So Takeo, according to Max Hastings Israel is "judged by special lenient standards" but it turns out, as you acknowledge, that in fact the opposite is true in the UN and by the media. Thanks, that's all I wanted to confirm.

One part it benefits Israel, this special status, Israel is the first recipient of the US in the world per inhabitant, it can just violate dozens of UN-resolutions without consequencesYou mean the same UN that is unhealthily obsessed by Israel, at the exclusion of much worse trouble spots, because it is dominated by Arab and Muslim nations who are "so impartial" in this conflict ? And you give credence to them ?

Just suppose, Israel didn't receive nukes from FranceHuh ...? You mean they helped to build a nuclear reactor. That's not the same as "receiving nukes".

after all Israel is still occupying lands not belonging to Israel, which makes it an international conflict.You mean like Russia is occupying the Northern Islands of Japan (since WWII) and China is occupying Tibet ? Nobody seems to want to talk about that .....

You can dismiss tibet, the Dalai Lama just declared he wants Tibet to remain a part of ChinaYou mean he gave up after this many years ? There was not much interest about this in the UN even before this, perhaps thats why he gave up ?

Takeo, you seem to hold the UN in such high esteem. Pity you and your protogees don't extend the same respect to them when the vote favoured Israel. The Arabs certainly ignored the UN when they attacked the Jewish state in 1948 even though the UN declared Israel's existence in 1947. There seemed to be no respect for the UN then.....That is the root cause of this conflict, not the occupation and not the rest of the nonsensical propaganda that is perpetrated by the Arabs and their cronies

[Reffo]

Eastern Europeans they are, who mistrat gypsies. So bad? Many easterneuropean gypsies take advantage of our social system without contributing anything in return.Oh.....so once again the victims are to blame.....OK now I understand why they "should be treated as second class citizens". But maybe......if they too had their own country then everyone would be better off ? What d'ya think huh..... ?

[Zamir_Etzioni]

I knew a certain former Nazi soldier as a patient.
I came to know him quite well.
I asked him what he thought about Hitler.
He said, "He was crazy, I would have killed him myself if I could have."
He maintained this belief, until, one day, on his death bed he motioned me over, and barely able to whisper said, "Zamir, you know what's wrong with this country?"
I said, "No, Hans, what's wrong with this country?"
His eyes grew round and large, and his last words were, "The Jews! The Jews!"

I think it has something to do with jealousy, ignorance and obsession.

Anti-Semitism has always been with us, and it has nothing to do with "oppression" of Palestinians.

[Reffo]

said, "Zamir, you know what's wrong with this country?"
I said, "No, Hans, what's wrong with this country?"
His eyes grew round and large, and his last words were, "The Jews! The Jews!"Although I do believe in God, I don't really believe in life after death, heaven or hell. Nevertheless, when I hear a story like this, I almost wish that there was hell and that people like Hans head straight there....

[takeo]

So Takeo, according to Max Hastings Israel is "judged by special lenient standards" but it turns out, as you acknowledge, that in fact the opposite is true in the UN and by the media. Thanks, that's all I wanted to confirm.

In the media, yes, Israel is judged by a different standard, partly because of history, partly because it is considered a Western democracy, which should have a higher standard than the neighbouring countries. In the UN I don't see much difference between Morocco occupying southern Sahara, Indonesia occupying Eastern timor and Israel. Perhaps more resolutions, but the content of those resolutions were the same as other countries in similar situations. However, Israel is clearly threated with a different standard concerning nukes and WMD's, which Israel illegally possesses as everyone aknowledges, and compared to Iraq for example, or even Syria.




You mean the same UN that is unhealthily obsessed by Israel, at the exclusion of much worse trouble spots, because it is dominated by Arab and Muslim nations who are "so impartial" in this conflict ? And you give credence to them ?

The UN isn't dominated by Arab and Muslim nations, that's a myth. Not one is a permanent member of the UNSC, and institutions as the Worldbank, UNICEF, etc. are all dominated by Europe and the US, not by muslim countries.


Huh ...? You mean they helped to build a nuclear reactor. That's not the same as "receiving nukes".

technically not, however it gave sufficient information for Israel to be able to build nukes themselves. That's also why the US is so concerned about Russian nuclear assistence to Iran, even if both sides claim it's not for military purposes.


You mean like Russia is occupying the Northern Islands of Japan (since WWII) and China is occupying Tibet ? Nobody seems to want to talk about that .....

Nope, the Russian "occupation" of the Kirilles as well as the chinese "occupation" of Tibet has been recognised by the UN and by each and every nation recognising China and Russia, except Japan and India (a part of Tibet they claim for themselves). Noone either is doubting the Russian claim on Kaliningrad. Tibet was officially always a part of China even in the first part of the 20th century, the KMT-government never accepted Tibet's independance, and if you see the symbols of Taiwan, you'll see Tibet is included. And recently even the Dalai Lama recognised Tibet should remain part of China and profits from the economical boom in China. Perhaps he too is aiming at reconciliation with china and returning to his home city.





You mean he gave up after this many years ? There was not much interest about this in the UN even before this, perhaps thats why he gave up ?

No, I think he knows China is helping Tibet to devellop, one of the least devellopped parts of the world in 1949. Tibetans too benefit from the chinese economic boom, and as long as they can remain their culture (which is the case, altough the Dalai Lama is concerned with chinese immigration to large cities) there doesn't appear to be much resentment as in the past.
And, honestly, even if the UN wished t do something about Tibet, what could they do? china is a permanent member with veto-power (partly also thanks to the US) and noone is going to bomb or boycott China, including the US. the war in Iraq was a terrible violation of the UN-charter, but what did the UN? Nothing, because the US is too powerfull to be punished.



Takeo, you seem to hold the UN in such high esteem. Pity you and your protogees don't extend the same respect to them when the vote favoured Israel. The Arabs certainly ignored the UN when they attacked the Jewish state in 1948 even though the UN declared Israel's existence in 1947.

That was a mistake and a crime against international law, which I said on various occasions. But of course Israel took advantage of its status as a victim to commit warcrimes such as the etnic cleansing.

There seemed to be no respect for the UN then.....[b]That is the root cause of this conflict, not the occupation and not the rest of the nonsensical propaganda that is perpetrated by the Arabs and their cronies.

There is no respect for the UN by neither side. If Israel would have carried out every UN-resolution I'm sure the UN and the world community would be on israel's side, as it was during the 1948 war.

[takeo]

Oh.....so once again the victims are to blame.....OK now I understand why they "should be treated as second class citizens". But maybe......if they too had their own country then everyone would be better off ? What d'ya think huh..... ?

perhaps if Eastern Europeans start to threat them as equal citizens that would be a start, giving them propper education and opportunities. And they too would have to cooperate of course. Giving them their own country, and where would that be? Would you voluntarily give up a part of Israel or the US to the gypsies?

[goliath]

perhaps if Eastern Europeans start to threat them as equal citizens that would be a start, giving them propper education and opportunities. And they too would have to cooperate of course. Giving them their own country, and where would that be? Would you voluntarily give up a part of Israel or the US to the gypsies?
Bad reference example ,the Gypsies never desired to get a part of a country and neither their country ,they only ever wanted to be free and not chased or killed by other people; and they don't desire to be educated and get a job in a factory ,it's not their philosophy at all , some of them became very good autodidact , and very powerfull ,but that was a choice, not kind of slavery.

[Reffo]

However, Israel is clearly threated with a different standard concerning nukes and WMD's, which Israel illegally possesses as everyone aknowledges, and compared to Iraq for example, or even Syria. Unlike those countries, Israel never signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty. By not signing this treaty, they missed out on some advntages that Syria and Iraq were afforded but on the other hand it means that it was never illegal for non signatory countries to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, if you accuse Israel of having developed their nuclear weapons illegally then you better accuse the rest of the nuclear nations (like France, Russia, China, England, the USA, India and Pakistan) of developing their nuclear arsenal illegally as well.

The UN isn't dominated by Arab and Muslim nations, that's a myth. Not one is a permanent member of the UNSC, and institutions as the Worldbank, UNICEF, etc. are all dominated by Europe and the US, not by muslim countries. Are you saying that the in the UN General Assembly the Arabs don't have an automatic voting block consisting of all the Arab, Muslim and non aligned nations ? And that they have not used this voting block to treat Israel unfairly at every opportunity ? So tell me what was your opinion of the famous UN resolution which equated zionism with racism ?

Nope, the Russian "occupation" of the Kirilles as well as the chinese "occupation" of Tibet has been recognised by the UN and by each and every nation recognising China and Russia, except Japan and India (a part of Tibet they claim for themselves). Noone either is doubting the Russian claim on Kaliningrad. Tibet was officially always a part of China even in the first part of the 20th century, the KMT-government never accepted Tibet's independance, and if you see the symbols of Taiwan, you'll see Tibet is included. And recently even the Dalai Lama recognised Tibet should remain part of China and profits from the economical boom in China. Perhaps he too is aiming at reconciliation with china and returning to his home city. Well, that just proves the hypocisy of the UN. When major powers like Russia and China occopy territories of other countries (especially Russia's occupation of the Northern Islands of Japan which was always Japanese territory and was only occupied by Russia at the end of WWII), their occupation is not challenged, but when small countries like Israel occupy territories after a defensive war, "All Hell Breaks Loose" in the UN because of the influence of the Arab countries.

Takeo, you seem to hold the UN in such high esteem. Pity you and your protogees don't extend the same respect to them when the vote favoured Israel. The Arabs certainly ignored the UN when they attacked the Jewish state in 1948 even though the UN declared Israel's existence in 1947.

That was a mistake and a crime against international law, which I said on various occasions. But of course Israel took advantage of its status as a victim to commit warcrimes such as the etnic cleansing. "The term ethnic cleansing" is a serious charge. So can you tell me what in what way the Israelis did worse things to the Arabs than what the Arabs did to the Israelis ? Can you also tell me whether as a result of the Arab "crime against international law" they were condemned ? or whether anyone ever recognises this as the root cause of the ongoing conflict ?

There is no respect for the UN by neither side. If Israel would have carried out every UN-resolution I'm sure the UN and the world community would be on israel's side, as it was during the 1948 war.Firstly, in the years after the 1948 war, even before 1956, the communist block turned against Israel even though Israel was only defending itself. The UN did nothing to prevent Arab terrorism during those years, but Israel was always condemned in the UN when it retaliated. If Israel would have complied with all the unjust UN resolutions that were promoted by the Arabs and their crony nations, Israel would have been defeated and destroyed by the Arabs a long time ago and the Arabs and their apologists of today would be looking for other scape goats to blame for their troubles.

[Mediocrates]

This was a thread about antisemitism not about takeo's wild fantasies about the pernicious worlwide Jew. At any rate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/27/wcan27.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/27/ixworld.html

[Reffo]

Retards

[takeo]

Reffo] Unlike those countries, Israel never signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty. By not signing this treaty, they missed out on some advntages that Syria and Iraq were afforded but on the other hand it means that it was never illegal for non signatory countries to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, if you accuse Israel of having developed their nuclear weapons illegally then you better accuse the rest of the nuclear nations (like France, Russia, China, England, the USA, India and Pakistan) of developing their nuclear arsenal illegally as well.

ok, well I believe North Korea didn't sign the non proliferation treaty either, and Iran is willing to withdraw from it. So according to your logic they can now, like Israel, devellop nukes undisturbed...


Are you saying that the in the UN General Assembly the Arabs don't have an automatic voting block consisting of all the Arab, Muslim and non aligned nations ? And that they have not used this voting block to treat Israel unfairly at every opportunity ? So tell me what was your opinion of the famous UN resolution which equated zionism with racism ?

Are you telling me the weight of this non-alligned muslim dominated block is heavier than the combined weight of all Western nations and Japan and are you telling me the US never used their disproportionate weight in the UN to FAVOR Israel? You see discrimination of Israel works both ways. Besides muslim states in similar positions such as morocco or indonesia were threated similarly.



Well, that just proves the hypocisy of the UN. When major powers like Russia and China occopy territories of other countries (especially Russia's occupation of the Northern Islands of Japan which was always Japanese territory and was only occupied by Russia at the end of WWII), their occupation is not challenged, but when small countries like Israel occupy territories after a defensive war, "All Hell Breaks Loose" in the UN because of the influence of the Arab countries.

Not only countries like Israel but also Morocco, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. etc.



"The term ethnic cleansing" is a serious charge. So can you tell me what in what way the Israelis did worse things to the Arabs than what the Arabs did to the Israelis ?

It isn't the point, the point is Israel evicted palestinians forcefully from their houses and refused war refugees reentry to their lands and houses. This is etnic cleansing. And whatever decision Arab leaders took, it never legitimises etnic cleansing.



Firstly, in the years after the 1948 war, even before 1956, the communist block turned against Israel even though Israel was only defending itself. The UN did nothing to prevent Arab terrorism during those years, but Israel was always condemned in the UN when it retaliated.

The 1956 invasion was about Suez, not about terrorism. And not only the communist block denounced this invasion but equally the US. Terrorism was a relatively small problem other countries had to face as well, however full scale military invasion is a matter for the UN.




If Israel would have complied with all the unjust UN resolutions that were promoted by the Arabs and their crony nations, Israel would have been defeated and destroyed by the Arabs a long time ago and the Arabs and their apologists of today would be looking for other scape goats to blame for their troubles.

Says who? I think Israel would have been peacefully integrated in the middle East region, and today Israel would be smaller but peacefull.

[Womble]

ok, well I believe North Korea didn't sign the non proliferation treaty either, and Iran is willing to withdraw from it. So according to your logic they can now, like Israel, devellop nukes undisturbed...
Iran is developing nukes while still under the treaty.


Are you telling me the weight of this non-alligned muslim dominated block is heavier than the combined weight of all Western nations and Japan
Yes, of course. The Arab countries alone have 20+ votes in the UN General Assembly. The NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) is much bigger though, have a look (http://www.nam.gov.za/background/members.htm). Now, how many Western states are there?


and are you telling me the US never used their disproportionate weight in the UN to FAVOR Israel?
They have used their veto right as a Security Council permanent member, yes. But not to "favor" Israel, but rather to bring some balance into the picture by blocking the most vicious attacks.


You see discrimination of Israel works both ways.
It does not. In the case of Israel, almost the whole of the UN attacks us like rabid dogs, while only a handful of loyal friends stand by us.Not exactly "both ways".


Besides muslim states in similar positions such as morocco or indonesia were threated similarly.
Not quite. They have never been condemned so frequently and treated as unfairly as Israel was. Hell, the UN holds an annual "day of solidarity with the Palestinian people", during which they invite the enemies of Israel to give a speech of why Israel should not exist. Remind me of an annual day of solidarity with Western Sahara or East Timor.


Not only countries like Israel but also Morocco, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. etc.
Oh please. Neither of those is even remotely comparable. Neither of those was a defensive war, for one. Yugoslavia case was no occupation by any standards, that's another. Neither Morocco nor Indonesia were that big an issue in the UN, that's one more for you.


It isn't the point, the point is Israel evicted palestinians forcefully from their houses and refused war refugees reentry to their lands and houses.
Because the war has never been formally over- and because the said refugees has never, to this day, expressed the will and the desire to become loyal Israeli citizens, quite the contrary. Not to mention that the "forcefully evicted" charge is far from truth.


This is etnic cleansing. And whatever decision Arab leaders took, it never legitimises etnic cleansing
Hmm, even if they decide to exploit the refugees as a weapon to be used against Israel? It certainly justifies not allowing them back in, you know.


The 1956 invasion was about Suez, not about terrorism.
Half-true. It was about Suez for France and Britain, with whom Israel had then formed an alliance of convenience. For Israel though, it was about destroying the "fedayeen" bases in the Sinai peninsula.


Terrorism was a relatively small problem other countries had to face as well, however full scale military invasion is a matter for the UN.
When attacks on one country originate from the territory of another, and the host country refuses to deal with the problem, it constitutes a valid casus belli that the UN cannot possibly overrule.


I think Israel would have been peacefully integrated in the middle East region, and today Israel would be smaller but peacefull.
Name me a single country in the Middle East that has lived peacefully in the Middle East for the last 50 years. And name me a non-Arab state that was "peacefully integrated" into the Arab world.

[Reffo]

ok, well I believe North Korea didn't sign the non proliferation treaty either, and Iran is willing to withdraw from it. So according to your logic they can now, like Israel, devellop nukes undisturbed... As Womble says, Iran already signed and received the consequent benefits associated with being a signatory, so they can't just back out and not adhere to their commitments. I am not sure about whether North Korea was a signatory to the NPT but they definitely had a bilateral contractual agreement with the US (initiated by Clinton) whereby they received massive aid in return for not developing nuclear weapons. Israel on the other hand never had such agreements with anyone.
Are you telling me the weight of this non-alligned muslim dominated block is heavier than the combined weight of all Western nations and Japan and are you telling me the US never used their disproportionate weight in the UN to FAVOR Israel? You see discrimination of Israel works both ways. Besides Muslim states in similar positions such as morocco or indonesia were threated similarly.All I said was that the Arabs are part of a large voting block which also has influence on relatively neutral nations. Consequently, they have the ability to dominate the agenda, I never said that they have a MAJORITY vote. As proof, I asked you to explain to me how come that they were able to pass the racist: "Zionism = Racism" vote in the General Assembly ? You never answered this.
Not only countries like Israel but also Morocco, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. etc.None of those was on the UN agenda 30% of the time. Only Israel was discussed that frequently. I know ……. You will just say that Israel constitutes the single biggest threat to world peace …… I suppose you are one of the many Europeans who feels that way about Israel ?
It isn't the point, the point is Israel evicted palestinians forcefully from their houses and refused war refugees reentry to their lands and houses. This is etnic cleansing. And whatever decision Arab leaders took, it never legitimises etnic cleansingI know, the point is always to BASH Israel and remind us of all the wrongs that it perpetrates and the point is also to IGNORE any wrongdoings of the Arabs and Palestinians which have a lot to do with provoking Israel into doing some of the things that it’s being accused of……
The 1956 invasion was about Suez, not about terrorism. And not only the communist block denounced this invasion but equally the US. Terrorism was a relatively small problem other countries had to face as well, however full scale military invasion is a matter for the UN.There you go again Takeo, you have totally ignored what I was saying which is:
Firstly, in the years after the 1948 war, even before 1956, the communist block turned against Israel even though Israel was only defending itself. The UN did nothing to prevent Arab terrorism during those years, but Israel was always condemned in the UN when it retaliated. I said this in response to your earlier post:
There is no respect for the UN by neither side. If Israel would have carried out every UN-resolution I'm sure the UN and the world community would be on israel's side, as it was during the 1948 warThe point that I was trying to make is that even though BETWEEN 1948 and 1956 (AND EVEN BEFORE 1956) Israel was only trying to defend itself and even though it had to repel a war of aggression in 1948, the Communist block switched sides and started supporting the Arabs, for their own political reasons. And please don’t tell me that they did this because they were altruistic.
Says who? I think Israel would have been peacefully integrated in the middle East region, and today Israel would be smaller but peacefull.There you go again asserting your OPINIONS …. Certainly that’s what you SUPPOSE would have happened …….I certainly doubt it because Israel hardly ever gets kudos for what it does right……those things tend to be ignored and it only gets reminded about all the other things that it’s “still doing wrong”…….that’s the pattern in the UN my friend, and you know it…….And you know tht The Palestinians would have used every concession to their advantge in order to defeat Israel.....That's always what they have done when they WERE given some concessions in the past....

[Mediocrates]

and it was created by a French poster I thought I'd toss this in. A discussion of the future of French Jewry

http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=250

(note you may have to register but it is free)

Is There a Future for French Jewry
SHMUEL TRIGANO

Of the countries hardest hit by the current outbreak of anti-Semitism in Europe, France poses a particular dilemma. For contrary to much of what is said today about anti-Jewish sentiment in France, its roots are to be found not in any specific Israeli policy with respect to the Palestinians. Rather, they lie deep within the French body politic. For this reason, it is a profound error to argue, as many have, that the problem will be resolved through a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or that any of the conventional methods--such as increased law enforcement or public-awareness campaigns--will succeed in defeating it. Indeed, the current outbreak of anti-Semitism in France is little more than a symptom of a far deeper crisis confronting French Jewry.

To understand the problem of Jewish life in France today, we must recall that political Zionism was itself conceived in Paris. As a young reporter covering the Dreyfus Affair in 1894, Theodor Herzl saw clearly how untenable was the condition of the Jew in modern Europe. For the Emancipation, he understood, had been only a partial solution to the Jewish problem: It had granted Jews full civil rights, but did not secure their future as a religious, national, or ethnic collective. In other words, it had made room for the Jewish individual, but not for Jewish peoplehood.


...about 16 pages

[Mediocrates]

This unfavorable social climate has its counterpart in the political realm. Neither the government nor public opinion condemned the spate of anti-Semitic attacks when it began in 2001. Indeed, socialist Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine believed the attacks to be understandable in light of Israel’s policies: “One shouldn’t necessarily be surprised that young French people from immigrant families feel compassion for the Palestinians and get agitated when they see what is happening.”10

Then, in 2001, came the leak of a report to the Socialist Party by the researcher Pascal Boniface, who advised the party to stop courting Jews and favor the more electorally profitable Arab constituency. The resulting scandal exposed the significance of a new element in the French political landscape: An Arab-Muslim electorate, politically far more powerful than the Jews, and many times larger.

The new Muslim political force also has important implications for French foreign policy: One cannot help but see the shadow of a domestic political exigency in France’s resolutely anti-American, pro-Arab policies during the war in Iraq. The virulent strain of anti-Americanism present in French public opinion, nearly always accompanied by a fervent display of anti-Zionism, works to unite the Arab immigrants and the “French”--to the exclusion of the Jews. Deputy Minister of Urban Affairs Jean Louis Borloo unabashedly celebrated this state of affairs in 2003. “It is extraordinary how the entire immigrant community is in line with the French position,” he declared. “It is from here that we may build the future. Let us take advantage of this really wonderful new era of ‘Frenchness.’”11




VI





All this leads to the conclusion that the postwar model of Jewish identity in France has simply ceased to exist, and no new model has arisen to replace it. The question must then be asked: Is Jewish renewal in France still possible? It is exceedingly difficult to answer in the affirmative. As French political culture moves ever further away from the centralized model, the possibility of a unique communal framework which will include the majority of French Jews seems increasingly remote. Religious renewal has gone in the direction of ultra-Orthodoxy, which is largely cut off from the wider Jewish community, and non-religious Jews have failed to establish institutions of cultural transmission, such as colleges, journals, or youth movements. Pro-Israel activists lack communal and institutional support. The next generation of French Jewish leadership is nowhere to be found.

Even if there were a force for Jewish renewal, its success would necessarily depend on a change in the basic political conditions in France--something that seems extremely unlikely, at least for the time being. The movement toward decentralization, combined with the trend toward European unification, has meant the continuous erosion of the authority of central bodies in France--and therefore of the political culture upon which the old model of Jewish communal identification, and communal legitimacy, was based. This erosion is further accelerated by the addition of between five million and ten million Arab immigrants to French society--a demographic shift that has paved the way for a sharp increase in anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment. While French Jews know that there is little hope of a political and cultural change of heart that would legitimize their communitarian identity, they understand that any challenge to what is left of the country’s centralist tradition might result in the legitimization of the politically powerful Arab-Muslim community. Jewish communal life in France, therefore, is in a no-win situation.

The Jews of France are rapidly approaching a crossroads. If not today, then tomorrow, they will face an impossible choice: Either they revert to the prewar model of Jewish identity, in which their peoplehood is sacrificed to an individualistic definition of Judaism, and at the same time hope that France overcomes the combined forces of decentralization and Arab communal self-assertion so as to re-establish the conditions which made this option possible in the first place; or they can affirm their Jewish peoplehood by choosing to live more complete Jewish lives somewhere other than France. One thing is certain: If they choose the latter option, the Jewish state will be there to welcome them.