Editor of New Republic on Euro anti-semitism

[Adalbertus]

lord of the mark,

The general accusations of antisemitism in Europe are generally little helpful and many Europeans (me included) feel rightaway offended by this. Most Europeans I know worry a lot about the situation in the ME. The "minor" terracts outside ME usually are targetted to Europe because it is closer than the US. Of course, when some Arabs plan a big thing like 9-11 (or 11-9 for Americans?) are more effective in the US.
If the ME finally explodes, there will be millions of refugees in Europe, and they'll probably have to stay far longer than the Yugoslavian refugees. Thats about our own concern.

Also many try to get a differentated understanding of the situation. This, and trying to understand both sides, and the different movements on each side, is necessary to get any solution to the conflict. This doesn't necessarily mean that one agrees with everything. Much of the European support for Palestinians went into constructing an infrastructure. The reason is [personal opinion] that the ME problem can only be solved in "fighting for heads". Which means to draw as many as possible to the side of peace - Palestinians as well as Israelis. For this it is important that people have a perspective for their life. This requires infrastructure, jobs etc. It is also necessary to get a decent school system. The big problem in Palestine is that while usually better educated people are less violent, most of sucide bombers had an above Palestinian's average education. Therefore, something has to be changed in the school system. [/personal opinion]
Another reason why Europeans think a bit different is that European history isn't exclusively the holocaust. The happenings of the Third Reich are the result of a nationalism which started (latest) with the French Revolution and resulted in Wars which were more and more humilating for the looser. The German consequence (i. e. of the Reichswehr) of WWI was to be better prepared for the next war, and thus a small group secretly worked out plans for quite large an army. Which Hitler gratefully used when he came to power. And if the Generals have had the power to rule the political side of the war, the world would have been different (not necessarily better). Anyway, it is scaring enough for me to hear from Jewish people that they drew just the same consequence - which caused one of the most horrible wars of mankind - from WWII. Europe came to peace, partly pressed by the cold war, but essentially through mutual respect and personal friendships of the right persons at the right time (De Gaulle - Adenauer, Kohl - Gorbachew, only to name two). It is from this twofold experience that many here criticise Sharon, not because of his attempts to root out a threat to Israel but because he uses methods that produce more and more hatred.

He expects cooperation from a President he arrested. How should this work? He expects a stop of all suicide bombings before negotiations. As far as I see the situation, Arafat has no or only little influence on Hamas, and they (Hamas) have not the least interest in peace. So they will continue bombing. Insisting on a stop of bombings therefore means that he doesn't seriously want to negotiate. [personal opinion] It is a hard thing, but even if everything would run ideally for peace in ME, I fear that Hamas will try bombing for the next three decades. It's only possible to reduce them to a sort of (modern) IRA who still tries to bomb but doesn't utterly ruin the relations between Ireland and the UK. At the moment, Arafat has no real power in Palestine. I think initially, i. e. in the first months following Oslo, he tried to use his police to contain terrorism, but he was loosing support among the Palestinians like nobodys business. He basically failed as president, and nowadays I think he just says what the people he's talking to want to hear. Anyway, I think it should be Israel's interest to increase the fraction of Palestinians who want to live in peace with Israel. I haven't seen any move of Sharon which wouldn't drive more previously rather peaceful Palestinians to terrorism.
Another point is that many of the "peace offerings" on both sides include a decision on the state of Jerusalem. IIRC, this was explicitly excluded in the Oslo negotiations, which was a brilliant thing in my opinion. The emotional bonds of both sides to Jerusalem are extremely strong, which is very understandable (Islam understands itself as the fulfillment of Judaism in a similar way as Christianity does. So the claim for Jerusalem is very natural for them). As heated as the situation is at the moment, there is no hope for a final solution of the Jerusalem problem which could entirely satisfy both sides. [/personal opinion]

Away from ME to Europe again. As you certainly know Europe has to deal with right-wing extremist movements. In Germany it was worse a few years ago, now it is in France and Italy, and there are many people who fight against xenophoby and racism. And not only (in European terms) lefties. With the general accusation of antisemitism you are backstabbering exactly those people who fight against it. And you are also attacking "indifferent" people who simply don't have a special inclination towards or aversion against Jews or Israel. Accusing them will turn them towards antisemitism much more effectively than any neo-Nazi could do. The central committee of the German Jews plays a very unfortunate role in this respect. If it were only for them, I probably would be antisemite. It is my knowledge of the bitter consequences in the holocaust that I am not.

Please take this into account when discussing. You don't help through general accusations. It will make things worse and will work exactly in the direction you are arguing against. Again from my German view: When I was at school, I very often got the impression that one tried to implement a collective feeling of guilt about the holocaust (mainly due to left-wing people, but also the above-mentioned central committee). This is a very dangerous thing. I am fortunately Christian and I am fortunately grown up in an environment where one understood that Christianity provides a liberation of guilt. So I had the freedom to look through these affairs. But many of those indoctrinated in this way and who were not able to perceive this problem and/or are not able to cope with feelings of guilt effectively are driven to denying the holocaust and being extremist right-wing. Others joined anti-fascist circles and did not realise that the most important thing an anti-fascist needs is a fascist to be against. (And in fact as I saw it, the anti-fascist grew strong in Germany just before the neo-fascists did).

One final thing more specifically to the discussions on Apolyton: There are many people who defend positions of Israel's policy which other people regard as bad (and in many cases it's about that these positions are regarded as contraproductive to Israeli's interests if you define them as peacefully living in their own country). This gives a lot of posts which argue against Israel's policy. I haven't seen any post who seriously defended suicide bombers (No, I don't feel better if someone tries do do so ). So there is no reason to argue against. Arafat's politics (see above) is simply non-existant and therefore also difficult to argue against. In the effect, one might perceive a bias against Israel which doesn't exist.

[Roland]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I was not trolling. i read a powerful piece, and thought i would share it here. I must admit that anti-semitism in Europe is something i post about alot - i lost a great-grandparent to european anti-semitism, and my wife lost 3 of 4 grandparents to it. It matters to me.

If it really matters to you then you should understand how this comes across. Let's turn the table on some of those quotes.

"But that is not enough for anti-germany, anti-german Jews...."

"The headquarters of anti-german Israel today, just as during the Holy empire, is [insert town]"

In the original:

"But that is not enough for anti-Israel, anti-Jewish Europe..."
"The headquarters of anti-Semitic Europe today, just as during the Third Republic, is Paris."

Really nice stereotypes... You think this his is the correct opinion ? Well, here's mine. Israel has a right to exist. Israel is a democracy in a sea of the most moronic dictatorships this earth has to offer. I want the full Herzl quote about Salzburg at our court building*. I've been demonstrating against Haider's xenophobic motion. And along comes this pathetic little adrenalin-pumped ****head with his stereotypes and calls me anti-Israel, anti-jewish just to make his sorry ass feel better. And you expect me to take his drivel seriously ?

Israel and parts of America are currently getting into a hysteria where they see europe as full of antisemites who burn synagogues, see Arafat as a saint and jubilate at every suicide bombing. And while this illusion may serve certain interests, you are doing really no one a favour with that.

* "In Salzburg I've spent some of the most pleasant times of my life. And I would have loved to stay in this beautiful town, but as a jew, I could have never become a judge."

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Ave Krishna ! Ave Arafat !

[TCO]

I liked this thread better when it had been jacked into a market research thread...

So Ming, who does the best research/analysis (segmentation, etc.)? Do ad firms do any of their own? How would they compare to a speciality firm or to company's marketing hacks? How is the analysis from research firms? Are they just good at sampling/surveying? Or can they think strategically about how to use the data?

[TCO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
TNR IS, I think consistently the best opinion/analysis mag in the states. Peretz, the editor/publisher, does allow himself the liberty of being emotional/polemical on issues effecting Jews and Israel. I would point out however that the mag is not hardline on Israel - they generally oppose Likud, and have had some scathing anti-Likud articles in the past. They have tended to be sceptical of Pere's vision of a "new middle east", in large part because of the economic determinism they see behind it - they tend to be VERY hardline about the primacy of the political over the economic - so even though they often support liberal policies, they are intellectually very anti-marxist. The very influential literary editor, Leon Weiseltier, is Jewish, and is married to a Sunni muslim.

These magazines are small but influential. In particular the editors,columnists, and reporters of the mainstream press - the Wash Post, the New York Time, the Boston Globe, the WSJ, the networks, etc tend to read them. Persuasive arguments in them can impact the entire national dialogue.

I thought the points made were interesting, and expected that some might respond substantively.

LOTM

TNR is a decent magazine. Roland just doesn't like that peice. I don't like everything in The Economist either. But I agree that it at least tries to be smart...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
lord of the mark,

The general accusations of antisemitism in Europe are generally little helpful and many Europeans (me included) feel rightaway offended by this. Most Europeans I know worry a lot about the situation in the ME. .

I agree that Europeans sometimes have a more nuanced picture of foreign policy. I don't always think this is better.


1. How much do commercial interests in N Af and Arabia affect French policy? In particular, I wonder about the French sale of nuclear reacotr components to Iraq. (like why would Saddam need nuc power... ) and biotech equipment (proven to be used for anthrax growth in 95-96).

2. To what extent do you think Europeans benefit from not having to leadership responsability? a. Europe can both rely on America and blame it...as in the Serbian War. b. Europe doesn't exist as a monolith. So there is no ultimate European foriegn policy...thus each country can do what it wants and go off in different directions that will not really be hels accountable.

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by GP

I agree that Europeans sometimes have a more nuanced picture of foreign policy. I don't always think this is better.

It certainly makes things more difficult at first but IMHO this is the only way not to bring conflicts to a point where nuking both opponents is the only solution.

Originally posted by GP 1. How much do commercial interests in N Af and Arabia affect French policy? In particular, I wonder about the French sale of nuclear reacotr components to Iraq. (like why would Saddam need nuc power... ) and biotech equipment (proven to be used for anthrax growth in 95-96).

I think I'll have to change something in my sig. I'm not French, I'm living in France. Germany doesn't import much more than oil from Arabian countries (which is a lot otoh). We still have sufficient supplies of sand. As long as the OPEC acts as homogeneously as it does now, there is no problem to boycott e. g. Iraq, because there are many other countries who like to sell. Of course German Industry wants to sell stuff. And there are more problems. Of course there are severe restrictions on exporting weapons to Arabic countries, but some clever guys sometimes find a way around this. One scandal every two years or so, in that respect. Another problem are the dual-use goods which can be employed for doing good to the population but also used to produce weapons. A lot of equipment used in nuclear weapon factories fall into this. One tries to contain this problem, but a redeclaration of things is so easy. (One more funny example: A French institute needed test tubes which were fire resistant. Only manufacturer was in Jena, Germany. Of course, after WWI, there was an embargo on German goods in France. Therefore, the tubes were closed on their top and declared as "Air from Germany". Scientific purposes, of course. In France then, the glass-blowers were occupied to open the tubes ...)

Originally posted by GP 2. To what extent do you think Europeans benefit from not having to leadership responsability? a. Europe can both rely on America and blame it...as in the Serbian War. b. Europe doesn't exist as a monolith. So there is no ultimate European foriegn policy...thus each country can do what it wants and go off in different directions that will not really be hels accountable.

On the one hand, it is very easy for Europe. On the other hand, I think Europe is not yet ready to assume this large-scale responsibility. In Europe, there is an experiment going on, called European Union, which is in my eyes historically unique. To unite, in some way or the other, the exact shape of what it will be is all but clear, independent and souvereign nations in a peaceful way. I think this is something great, for all mankind, but it leads to Europe being occupied with itself very much. The idea of a common European foreign policy is not that old, 10 years perhaps. To take full-scale responsibility in something like the ME or Ex-Yugoslavia conflict seems to be a bit much for something which is not really stable in itself. Therefore, simply blaming the US for everything that went wrong is unfair. On the other hand, I think a constructive criticism is legal in any situation.

[Roland]

GP:

"I agree that Europeans sometimes have a more nuanced picture of foreign policy. I don't always think this is better."

Well you can overdo it, and underdo it. There is a tendency in this US admin to use good vs evil rhetoric, and friends or foe politics - rarely in line with each other, see Pakistan.

"How much do commercial interests in N Af and Arabia affect French policy?"

Important, but the overriding concern is not to have anarchy or a fundamentalist regime at the other side of the med. So France is heavily supporting the algerian regime for that reason.

"Europe doesn't exist as a monolith. So there is no ultimate European foriegn policy...thus each country can do what it wants..."

The first part is quite correct, although the CFSP is making progress. The second is not really true; for example trade issues are an exclusive community matter, and there are political limits to how far a member state can go out of line with the consensus.

[TCO]

Ming, did you think about using Proceedings or Shipmate (or other service equivalents)?