Uri Avnery

[Alfred]

Takeo:

To be fair, I do detect a De Gaullist over-reaction in your arguments…and I think this reaction is affecting your analysis of Iraq’s potential danger to the world.


France helped us win our Revolution against England, but France really did not care for the US per se. It was the British they were fighting, and if the little upstart US could help France tweak the nose of the haughty British, then so be it. So through French hatred for the English, we benefited. But thank you nevertheless, as you really did help us during the late 1700’s. This historical strategy is coming back as we speak…. except with different players.

De Gaulle felt that he had been insulted by the British and Americans during WW2 and went out of his way to divorce himself from the Anglo-Americans after that war. To keep France an independent country he “tweaked” the nose of his former allies as often as he could. He did this knowing two things: 1) that America and Britain were not a direct threat, and 2) that no matter how much he tweaked our noses, that we would help France if the Soviets invaded. So, sitting in perfect safety, with American and British forces playing the major part in protecting France from invasion; France blustered, complained, threatened and was basically a pain in the butt for NATO during the entire Cold War.

Today, France sees the power of America (and to a lesser extent the UK) as out of control. That is, out of France’s control. France does not fear the US or the UK, but France is jealous of American power. France does fear Germany however, and France has spent years to successfully neutralize the great German masses, which they can somewhat control through the guise of the European Union. They cannot control America however, and that is driving them mad. So, France pushes the UN as much as they can to try to control America. Or better yet, what they see as the Anglo-American imperialism… or better yet, non-French imperialism. This is very irritating for France.

The first step for France then, is to try to get America to take orders from the United Nations. There will be lots of pretty words and pontifications, but France needs America to be controlled. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were willing to accept UN sovereignty, but Reagan, Bush and Bush were not. This is why they and the other socialist states in Europe hate Bush so much. Bush is not one to fall under the spell of International Socialism under the guise of the European Union, nor is he willing to let a bunch of petty, anti-American diplomats in the UN dictate to America.

If the UN is unable to control the US then France will try to ally themselves with the more reputable government’s of the world such as: Russia, the Arab countries, China, North Korea, Cuba et. al. The goal being to provide a block against Anglo-American power, which France sees as the devil incarnate. This actually may transpire in the future.

Most of these countries see the truth that France really would add very little to their ambitions. France is trying to find a strong, big brother that France can order around. France has Germany under their wing for the most part, but Germany is no longer a strong, big brother as measured in world terms. China would chuckle that France can help them in their Far Eastern ambitions. Russia is leery that France would like to start things that Russia would have to finish. So it is with the Arabs that France can make their play, tweak American noses and regain the attention they crave. Israel is the unfortunate pawn in this “war.” For France is really at war with Anglo-America, and they have been for 50 years.

Ah, I must leave now. I will continue this tomorrow

[takeo]

no problem, but there's a difference between political disagreement and insults, it's the difference between polite and rude people...

michaelc, i used the sf-example just to show the American perception of the world...
And the US is NOT the world power, but you're right, i would resent any imperialistic power trying to rule the world. Born in the 18th and 19th century i would probably resent the Brittish empire and support the American war of independance, as we did by the way.

Actually the US hegemony and unilateralism is helping the Islamists. The Taliban could only be defeated because China, europe, Russia even iran participated in its defeat and helped to outroot al-quaida, the US alone could not have managed it. That's why i am convinced that the us will fail in Iraq as well. Too many opposition. even if the military campaign succeeds there still will be a lot of opposition, inside and outside iraq, to the us-occupation. Something like Israel is facing currently.

[Rob]

Here's your answer.

Europe and Africa's Hatred of America
by David Harsanyi (June 20, 2002)



Summary: Dollars they desire; free-market capitalism they dread.

[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM] It's become painfully apparent that the world is becoming the United States’ responsibility. Clean water, rudimentary healthcare and decent housing for the world’s destitute all fall on our collective shoulders.

"If this country doesn't get help, doesn't get the sense of a new beginning," said the faux humanitarian and rock star Bono on his recent fact-finding trip to Ghana with US Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill. "You (Americans) come back in five years and they'll be throwing rocks at the bus."

Ironically, when the first Dunkin’ Donuts opens it’s doors in Accra, Ghanaians will undoubtedly grumble about the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and the loss of their unique cultural heritage.

Dollars they desire; free-market capitalism they dread.

This isn’t merely a third-world trait. European nations are eager to take the dollar but terrified of the cultural consequences. Big Macs and Nike sneakers have become the anti-serum to European cultural identity. A decade after the liberation Eastern Europe in a decisive yet costly Cold War victory, the nations that gained the most have inexplicably joined Western Europeans in harsh unbalanced criticism U.S.

In a recent television interview, a Russian man confirmed the feelings of many Europeans when he explained that Americans were arrogant and George Bush, in the midst of his European tour, was a "cowboy," a simpleton who didn’t consider the world’s view when making decisions. "Many Europeans regard George W. Bush as a gun-toting, semi-articulate cowboy whose bellicosity extends far beyond the battlefield and whose unilateralism is damaging everything from trade to the environment," wrote the Times of London.

What would Europeans have us do? Vote for politicians who are concerned with the future of Hungary or Latvia? Don’t the French, Germans and Polish all vote in their own interests? When Russia sells hazardous military technology to Iran, one of the world’s most belligerent states, is Vladimir Putin taking U.S. foreign policy into consideration or is he simply serving the perceived interests of Russia? Never mind that so-called American bellicosity is usually the consequence of having to fix similar European mistakes.

Europeans hate the United States for many of the same reasons its citizens love it: prosperity, family and flag -– and yes, even cowboys. We provide clear-cut answers to complex questions. Europeans, striving to forge a single political identity to counter American power in the guise of the crisis-riddled EU, have become so self-involved that any international action or policy that doesn’t meet with their instant approval, whether it be military (Iraq) or economic (tariffs) is branded unilateralist.

France's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hubert Védrine, goes as far as describes the U.S. as a hyperpuissance, a post-Cold War hyperpower, one that has political, military, economic domination over the world without competitor, acting exclusively for it’s own gains.

Cowboys have the self-confidence to act when necessary. Europeans do not. What they do have is a misguided phobia of Americanization. What they view as a vulgar, barren wasteland devoid of ideas or refinement, is in fact the extension of the Western standards they invented.

In the United States, one can pick up Chinese takeout and not fret that their offspring will show up in a traditional Cantonese cheongsam dress ten years from now. A teenager can sport brand new French-made Adidas sneakers, wearing a beret and his parents will still force him to take French in high school. Conversely, in Paris, no soul would humiliate themselves and speak or write in English. Here in New York, one has to wade through Korean, German, Russian and Spanish to wheedle money out of the ATM just to buy an Italian style vendi cappuccino and biscotti at Starbucks.

In progressive France, a farmer named Jose Bove shot to fame as an anti-globalization activist after destroying a McDonald's restaurant to show his opposition to fast food. One wonders if a man stormed into a Dallas supermarket and stomped on every croissandwich in the place, would the incident get any press?

Here in America, you "oppose" fast food by not buying any.

But let’s take a closer look at this fast food giant. The first European McDonalds opened in 1971 in Zaandam, Netherlands. Now, the Netherlands has over 200 McDonalds and pays the salary of over 20,000 employees. None of them are American. All in all they serve an average of 4 million customers a week. The Strasbourg McDonald’s restaurant opened in France on September 17, 1979. Today there are 760 restaurants with 30,000 employees throughout France. Overall, McDonalds has locations in 121 countries all over the world, employing countless locals, injecting millions into local economies.

Hardly sounds like a clandestine plot for world domination.

When Bono, an Irishman, whose band U2 has sold over a hundred million albums the past 20 years and could probably buy Ghana, tries to convince the United States that aiding Africa with additional billions of American dollars is a moral imperative, he has no interest in importing what comes with, namely our culture and political morality. In fact, Bono warns us that Africa will hate us if we don’t unconditionally transfer untold amounts. While that may be true, history has also proven that if we do give, they’ll hate us anyway.

[Rob]

Takeo, you're really something. You come to a Jewish message board and you use a quote by marx On the Jewish Question
in your signature which you use for show your disdain for Jews and then you cry when you are treated rudely. What a hypocrite. Just like an Anti-Semite who complains about being called an Anti-Semite while making Anti-Semitic statements.

[takeo]

alfred, i posted a long reply to your post but i made a copy/paste mistake and it disappeared !

[takeo]

de gaulle's "overreaction", proud and independance protected France against us and german slavery. he made mistakes as well but that's another subject. He was a genius in international politics.

france could have been the thirth world-power, a kind of strong western european yugoslavia, and even more independant if he would have established special ties with the soviet-union. According to internal documents found in his archive he was prepared to do so, but was afraid of the very powerfull internal communist movement in France.

Today, France sees the power of America (and to a lesser extent the UK) as out of control. That is, out of France’s control. France does not fear the US or the UK, but France is jealous of American power. France does fear Germany however, and France has spent years to successfully neutralize the great German masses, which they can somewhat control through the guise of the European Union. They cannot control America however, and that is driving them mad. So, France pushes the UN as much as they can to try to control America. Or better yet, what they see as the Anglo-American imperialism… or better yet, non-French imperialism. This is very irritating for France.

france doesn't want to controll the us, it wants to limit us-omnipotence. Germany and Francehave become strategic allies, germany even pays a part of the French military program. The UK is finished, both its military and economy are less than france's (it becomes clear when you cross the channel, especially among the lower classes), it is just a European watchdog for the us.
yes, French imperialism exists as well, for example in africa, and i am against all imperialism, but currently we have to choose to least of two evils, as us-imperialism is clearly more powerfull and more dangerous than the French one. but it is possible that in the future, when europe would again become more powerfull than the us, the european left will side with the us on some topics.
we did so twice, when the us was opposed to European colonialism in Africa and asia, in the 50's, for the sake of its own interests, and of course during the second world-war.

The first step for France then, is to try to get America to take orders from the United Nations. There will be lots of pretty words and pontifications, but France needs America to be controlled. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were willing to accept UN sovereignty, but Reagan, Bush and Bush were not. This is why they and the other socialist states in Europe hate Bush so much. Bush is not one to fall under the spell of International Socialism under the guise of the European Union, nor is he willing to let a bunch of petty, anti-American diplomats in the UN dictate to America.

If the UN is unable to control the US then France will try to ally themselves with the more reputable government’s of the world such as: Russia, the Arab countries, China, North Korea, Cuba et. al. The goal being to provide a block against Anglo-American power, which France sees as the devil incarnate. This actually may transpire in the future.

the uS committed itself to conduct according to the rules and laws of the un, nobody forced you to become member or stay member of the un... but if you urge iraq to act along the lines of the un while doing exactly the opposite yourself, you shouldn't be surprised to loose some credibility and support...
clinton and carter were committed to us-imperialism as well, but a lot smarter than Bush. Actually Bush is a gift from heaven for all those who hate the us, he is someone you just love the hate, the perfect boogyman.
Clinton gathered a lot of allies, which benefitted the us-economy and strategic goals. He was a perfect actor, and many people even European leftist intellectuals, believed he was really committed to freedom, democracy and human rights (he wasn't of course, but the retorics of bush are so much more obviously hypocrit that people spontanuously start laughing if he talks about "democracy" "human rights" or "iraq must be committed to the un-resolutions", you can see in his expression that he finds it funny as well!!!) Since bush came to power, and take some decisions which made the us a roghue state, for not fullfilling its commitments, such as kyoto and other unilateral decisions, arab nations do no longer want to help the us during its attacks on iraq, European help for cuba has doubled and talks about Europe starting its own military alliance have only increased. the prospects of peace and us-influence over the middle east vanished as well. the war in kosovo would currently not have been possible. Also anti-us retorics are a lot more popular now all over the world than some years ago. Coincidence? i don't think so!
by the way Europe isn't socialist, it is social-democratic at most. (still a difference to the us hardcore capitalism, as the living standard is generally higher and a lot less people are poor than in the us) there are only a few socialist countries in europe, belarus and moldova, and possibly finland to some extent.

Yes, we must cooperate with China and Russia. We should have done so a long time ago. Fortunately Bush is helping us to do so, he is moving Europe, China and Russia closer together. Thank you, mr. president!
Of course we still have a long way to go, it depends upon Europe if the us remains the only superpower or not. We can abolish nato, start our own military wing, oppose the us more actively than today, increase cooperation with Russia, china, etc. etc.
Why are China and Russia more reputable than the us? As far as i know they have not invaded thirth countries in the last decade... so clearly less dangerous than the us.
The goal is to limit the us-hegemony, it is not a matter of "evil", if you studied history of international relations, you should know that this is a normal reaction. The us even sided with mao tse tsoung and the Khmer Rouge to limit the Soviet influence in Asia! Talk about real-politics!
Do you expect us to just accept us-dictates? Would you accept dictates from another power??? Woulnd't you cooperate with other nations if France would be a hegemonistic world-power???
By the way our help for Cuba is not unique nor evil. if you compare the human rights situation in Cuba it is clearly better than in us-allies such as Guatemala and others(i visited both, i can assure you, but if you don't believe me just check ai-reports)
Not only Europe is helping Cuba and condamning the embargo, which is a breach of international law, and limiting the freedom of us-citizens, but even your closest friends Canada and UK. The US can't just impose its will on Cuba nor on any other country. That's imperialism. when france does so in an african country (but not with the same brutal methods as the us), i condamn it as well.

Most of these countries see the truth that France really would add very little to their ambitions. France is trying to find a strong, big brother that France can order around. France has Germany under their wing for the most part, but Germany is no longer a strong, big brother as measured in world terms. China would chuckle that France can help them in their Far Eastern ambitions. Russia is leery that France would like to start things that Russia would have to finish. So it is with the Arabs that France can make their play, tweak American noses and regain the attention they crave. Israel is the unfortunate pawn in this “war.” For France is really at war with Anglo-America, and they have been for 50 years.

France does not want to rule Asia, it expanded its trade relations, and has excellent relations with China and Vietnam. France is giving devellopment aid and trade incentives, which is far more effective than the brutal us-methods. Currently our influence in a lot of asian countries is more important than the us-influence. China already has a strategic relationship with Europe, and especially france. the only thing that harmed our relations was the war in kosovo, but that seem to be history by now.
France also has a good relation with most middle eastern countries. With syria and iran as well, which gives us a key-position in the much-needed reconciliation in the middle east. the us on the contrary had a similar constructive engagement policy in iran, but the bush-administration burned all their ties and previous efforts.
we have urged Iran, trough economic incentives and diplomatic influence, to renounce terror and weaken its internal oppression. this had positive results, and we have done a lot more for weakening fundamentalism in iran than the us ever accomplished.(if you know iranian politics you know what i mean) The same in libia and syria.
US-dominance in the middle east is what really caused most of the problems there, and what caused israel to just ignore un-resolutions and go on with the occupation. both the European AND the soviet-policy in the middle-east were too weak and passive opposed to very active us-engagement.


Clinton aknowledged that us only can remain a superpower with allies, especially with the first economic power on earth, Europe, there was a common understanding between the us and Europe, the us would not cross certain limits and consider european interests as well, while Europe would in return accept American military hegemony. US do no longer commit itself to its part of the deal, so the basis for inter-atlantic cooperation is eroding. Is it arrogance, too much self-confidence, foolishness, greed or megalomania? possibly a combination of all.

[takeo]

hey i am entitled to a political opinion as much as you are. at least in a democracy. no need to become rude! I've obviously never shown any disdain for Jews (if i did, can you quote me???), while you openly showed disdain for France and Arab countries, you're a biased hypocrite little fellow.

about the article: it is totally besides the point, it is not about Mc donalds or sneakers, not even about the use of the dollar as a currency. When my little nephew comes to visit me, we go to the McDonalds as he loves that kind of food, some in France do not want to visit mcdonalds, i'm not into that kind of childish symbolic stuff, Mcdonalds is not responsible nor representative for the policy of Bush and co.
It is about economic and political oppression and unequality, that's the problem, and that's why so many people oppose and despise the us all over the globe!!!

By the way what thirth world countries ask is not us or European help, but equal and fair economic treaties, an equal chance to build their own industry, own companies. The WTO has forced them to open all trade-barriers and open their economy for western companies, while no such requierement was imposed on the rich countries. (some exceptions such as China who negociated their own favorable deal because of their economic and political strenght) The result is domination of the thirth world markets by western companies, and low prices for primary products.

A decade after the liberation Eastern Europe in a decisive yet costly Cold War victory, the nations that gained the most have inexplicably joined Western Europeans in harsh unbalanced criticism U.S.

Kosovo did a lot of harm to the us-image in Eastern Europe, for its own interests the us sided with a bunch of islamic fundamentalist terrorists in Kosovo and bosnia (Western Europe too by the way). the fall of the soviet-union was a total disaster for most soviet-citizens, as the russian economy got colonised. fortunately putin is a stronger leader than yeltsin, yet not strong enough. The us by the way signed many treaties with Russia to disarm, but, surprise, only Russia disarmed, not the us, while the us is helping terrorist-harbouring countries such as Georgia to oppose russian influence.

tarifs: when Europe imposed tarifs on us-products, the us reaction was a lot harsher than european reaction to us-tarifss on European products... don't blame Europe for what you're doing as well.

France's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hubert Védrine, goes as far as describes the U.S. as a hyperpuissance, a post-Cold War hyperpower, one that has political, military, economic domination over the world without competitor, acting exclusively for it’s own gains.

isn't that what the us is trying to achieve???

In the United States, one can pick up Chinese takeout and not fret that their offspring will show up in a traditional Cantonese cheongsam dress ten years from now. A teenager can sport brand new French-made Adidas sneakers, wearing a beret and his parents will still force him to take French in high school. Conversely, in Paris, no soul would humiliate themselves and speak or write in English. Here in New York, one has to wade through Korean, German, Russian and Spanish to wheedle money out of the ATM just to buy an Italian style vendi cappuccino and biscotti at Starbucks.

a load of cr**, my English is less than perfect but for sure a lot better than your French! and i'm not the only one in Paris speaking and writing some English...
And here in paris we have every possible nationality, cuisine and products as well.

Yet what happened to Uri Avnery???

[Miriam]

Originally posted by takeo


Yet what happened to Uri Avnery???

The SOB is alive and kicking. Why?


Btw., Takeo, why do you think is it that of all (significant) European countries it is France that is home to the worst anti-Israel frenzy?

[Mediocrates]

So basically tak, we know what they are, we're just haggling about the price. Now that's fine as the world's oldest profession goes and even for international relations, but don't pretend it's some kind of high minded ideal or that you live under the aegis of Pericles or something like that. In lieu of projecting power and influence you've decided that those things are worthless for the anyone to engage in. So you deal. You deal with anyone who will deal with you. Don't pretend there is some complicated motive behind it. Because there is not. There is only trade and self interest. In simple terms you can't influence the world in any other meaningful way. So you've decided that all those other ways are 'evil'.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
So basically tak, we know what they are, we're just haggling about the price. Now that's fine as the world's oldest profession goes and even for international relations, but don't pretend it's some kind of high minded ideal or that you live under the aegis of Pericles or something like that. In lieu of projecting power and influence you've decided that those things are worthless for the anyone to engage in. So you deal. You deal with anyone who will deal with you. Don't pretend there is some complicated motive behind it. Because there is not. There is only trade and self interest. In simple terms you can't influence the world in any other meaningful way. So you've decided that all those other ways are 'evil'.

Well now, I WAS gathering my energies for some longwinded reply to Takeo, but this reply of yours pretty much stole any thunder I could've mustered so I think that I'll just say ME TOO and leave it at that for the moment.

If Takeo gets out of line again, which of course he will, I will (say with a Schwarznegger accent!) "be back".

[Rob]

hey i am entitled to a political opinion as much as you are. at least in a democracy. no need to become rude! I've obviously never shown any disdain for Jews (if i did, can you quote me???), while you openly showed disdain for France and Arab countries, you're a biased hypocrite little fellow.

The only hypocrite is you. Am I biased? Yes I am. Are you biased? Yes you are. The big difference is you try to hide your bias. Of course you show disdain for Jews by using a signature line about The Jewish Question Sounds a lot like the Nazis line about The Jewish Problem You are free to post your opinions all you like. You do not have a right to respect. That is something you earn. I don't know what others think about you however I think you're a fraud.

I'm a simple man. I may not be as eloquent as other people here. I call a spade a spade. I won't play your game of semantics.

[takeo]

The SOB is alive and kicking. Why?
Btw., Takeo, why do you think is it that of all (significant) European countries it is France that is home to the worst anti-Israel frenzy?

Well, perhaps because
France is the most critical of all western european countries to the us, and the US is the only thing what is holding back European countries to condamn Israel.

So basically tak, we know what they are, we're just haggling about the price. Now that's fine as the world's oldest profession goes and even for international relations, but don't pretend it's some kind of high minded ideal or that you live under the aegis of Pericles or something like that. In lieu of projecting power and influence you've decided that those things are worthless for the anyone to engage in. So you deal. You deal with anyone who will deal with you. Don't pretend there is some complicated motive behind it. Because there is not. There is only trade and self interest. In simple terms you can't influence the world in any other meaningful way. So you've decided that all those other ways are 'evil'.

I think that's a wrong interpretation of what i wrote in my last posts.
Yes, economy is the fundament of international politics, and it would be hypocrisy to deny this, it isn't prostitution to care in the first place for ones own socio-economic position, that's life, but there's more.
During the 20th century some international laws, conventions, etc. have been signed to prevent intolerable things such as wars, childprostitution, occupation, colonisation, human rights violations, etc.
These have been violated by the US and Israel, and by some Arab states as well.

And at the same time many people on the left are contributing their life for a better world, more equal, honest, wealthy (bbut for all of them), etc. Those people, whereever they come from, are currently at the side of the Europeans and other powers in the world to prevent a crime by the US, bombing and invading Iraq.

The only hypocrite is you. Am I biased? Yes I am. Are you biased? Yes you are. The big difference is you try to hide your bias. Of course you show disdain for Jews by using a signature line about The Jewish Question Sounds a lot like the Nazis line about The Jewish Problem You are free to post your opinions all you like. You do not have a right to respect. That is something you earn. I don't know what others think about you however I think you're a fraud.

I'm a simple man. I may not be as eloquent as other people here. I call a spade a spade. I won't play your game of semantics.

There are other ways to criticise people, have you never been educated not to curse and become violent? You're the kind of man that would beat up anyone in a fight in a pub or bar if drunk (or even sober)...
It's not because you do not like my opinion that i have no right to respect, every human being has a right to respect, even you.
by the way "the jewish question" is written by a Jew, and i don't see any problem in the formulation " the Jewish question", as there's the "arab question" the "french question" , the "american question" etc. . Some people made it their job to search for anti-semitism anywhere anytime even when they do not understand the true meaning what's happening.
the Arabs had a terrible recent history as well, being colonised and discriminated by Europeans and westerners for centuries. The gypsies have a history even worse compared to the Jews, the Irish, etc. Many people have a reason to distrust and search for signs of racism, discrimination, etc.
In some cases these are true, but in many cases it's just oversensability or even abuse. (such as the Arab in our street steeling a handbag and blaming the police of being racist, or the Georgian Jews accusing the justice of anti-semitism because a case was started against their illegal transactions...)

[Mediocrates]

takeo
During the 20th century some international laws, conventions, etc. have been signed to prevent intolerable things such as wars, childprostitution, occupation, colonisation, human rights violations, etc.

Well my cynical answer would be that international law is like obesity. A disease of affluence.

But the real answer is that some of those things are noble but they stand outside of enforceability. They have to exist within the context of the bigger picture. It's pointless to look at this activity as simple action-punishment transactions, as a call and response. The point to even attempting a resolution is to understand how everyone's long run outcome is improved. And nothing you've said mirroring the endless agendized racist U inspired littany of condemnations has ever taken that long view. Never. You want a Palestinian state but at the expense of Israel, at the very least and probably at the price of no Israel at all. So laws are fine things but many many laws are wrong, illegal, immoral and unfair. To say that they are fair and just by virtue of their mere existence is probably a mind set of the worst abuses of tyranny and genocide of the 20th century.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by takeo


Well, perhaps because
France is the most critical of all western european countries to the us, and the US is the only thing what is holding back European countries to condamn Israel.

Which boils down to Israel-bashing as proxy anti-Americanism. Isn't it a bit cheap, given the relative size and power of the countries in question?

Besides, European countries are democracies, if I may remind you of this. The US may influence the governments in some way or other, but hardly the general public. To put the question more precisely: why does the Average Jacques mind Israel more than the Average John, the Average Fritz, the Average Giovanni, etc.?

[Miriam]

Originally posted by Rob

Of course you show disdain for Jews by using a signature line about The Jewish Question Sounds a lot like the Nazis line about The Jewish Problem

The expression "Jewish Question" is not necessarily antisemitic, more a somewhat bookish 19th century tradition. Actually it's part of the title of my favourite essay on antisemitism.