The EU's position on the ME conflict is anti-Israel/antisemitic ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
The guerilla war that lead to irish independence in 1922, ok.

Which is comparable to the current conflict, terrorist actions and all. The major difference being the lack of a Palestinian equivilant to Michael Collins.

Can you turn that into a rational argument?

Possibly. The fact that the EU refuses to acknowlege that a state of war exists between Israel and the various terrorist factions opperating openly in PA territory is immaterial to the situation at hand. They seem to be wanting Israel to follow the example the US laid down in its response to Al Qaeda pre-9/11 and substitute moral outrage for an effective response to the military attacks being launched against its territory.

[Roland]

"Which is comparable to the current conflict, terrorist actions and all."

With the partial Israeli reoccupation, yes. Before and after that, no.

"They seem to be wanting Israel to follow the example the US laid down in its response to Al Qaeda pre-9/11 and substitute moral outrage for an effective response to the military attacks being launched against its territory."

The point is that the "response" is counter-productive, which IMO is a legitimate judgment. Also, the situation is quite different, unless there have been some secret US occupations and settlements in Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan.

[Bereta_Eder]

I bet most americans don't even know that the Palestinians are an enslaved peoples. And if they know they don't care.
What they need is a good nuking.

(OK last troll )

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
With the partial Israeli reoccupation, yes. Before and after that, no.

Why not? Did the IRA not consider itself to be armed force opposing the foreign occupation of its country? Did they not cultivate deaths among the civilian population along with physical and psychological intimidation of that same population as a way to disrupt the British authorities and influence thier policy?

What is substantially different between the conflict then and the conflict now aside from the unfortunate absence of someone willing to make a compromise on the Palestinian side?

Also, the situation is quite different,

How so? The US was faced with an armed force making military strikes against it and allowed itself to either be content with merely voicing moral outrage over the attacks or in making half-hearted retaliations against them.

I'm curious. What would the EU have Israel do to respond to military attacks in its territory?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why not? Did the IRA not consider itself to be armed force opposing the foreign occupation of its country? Did they not cultivate deaths among the civilian population along with physical and psychological intimidation of that same population as a way to disrupt the British authorities and influence thier policy?

The difference is that the British did not bulldoze Northern Ireland, killing innocent civilian women and children. Or perhaps the difference is that the majority of the population regarded themselves as British and did not want the British to leave. Or perhaps it was that the terrorists had US funding....

Look how the British treated Adams (who acknowledged links to the IRA terrorist organisations) and compare that to how the Israelis treat Arafat (who in public at least claims to condemn terrorism).

[Eli]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Look how the British treated Adams (who acknowledged links to the IRA terrorist organisations) and compare that to how the Israelis treat Arafat (who in public at least claims to condemn terrorism).

The Brits gave the IRA 40,000 guns?

[Ecthy]

Israel gave Arafat 40,000 guns?

[Eli]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Israel gave Arafat 40,000 guns?

Yes.
So that our partner for peace will be able to control the terrorist organizations.
This could be funny, if not the hundreds of dead Jews.

[Bereta_Eder]

why do you keep putting settlers in the occupied territories?

[Adam Smith]

Roland:

the different phrasing may just be because the PA has no 100 % control over terrorism, hence "efforts" (and there were some at the time, even i just for show), while Israel can simply order a withdrawal, hence "immediately".

An entirely reasonable explanation, though I am sure the PA could do much more if they tried.

Vedrine ? He is "quoted" by whom ?

The comment appeared in last week's Newsweek, quoted through Reuters I think. Reuters apparently overheard the comment and reported it. The comment was attributed by title, not by name, so I cannot be 100 percent sure it was Vedrine.

one of the most generous funders of the palestinians is Saudi Arabia. The US says pretty much... nothing about it. Does exactly nothing.

The US probably says nothing in public, since that might be construed by other Arabs as meddling on the behalf of the Israelis. But I bet there are private discussions in parallel with US requests to reduce support to fundamentalist religious schools.

[Bereta_Eder]

why do you keep putting settlers in the occupied territories?

[Plan Austral]

Silence greets the new anti-Semitism
I personally really liked and agreed with this article, thought I would post it.

..............................

Silence greets the new anti-Semitism
And Israel left to fight alone again
By MICHELE MANDEL -- Toronto Sun

These are frightening, frustrating times to be a Jew.

Isolated, reviled, condemned in a topsy-turvy world where most politicians and journalists lay all the blame for the Middle East crisis at our door.

Anti-semitism is alive and well and living in the 21st century. Of course, now it is all couched in anti-Israel rhetoric, the new cover for the old malady, and somehow socially acceptable. But it is not only in the one-sided media that I hear its echoes. Its very real manifestations are being played out in firebomb attacks on synagogues and community centres and Jewish school buses around the world. And where are the politicians and religious leaders? Deathly quiet.

When Muslim Canadians were being targeted after Sept. 11, there were rightful cries of outrage. Not for us. Anglican Archbishop Michael Peers, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, issues a one-sided indictment of Israel. Other churches do the same. Not one of them has said a word about the global wave of anti-Semitism that has raised its ugly head across Europe and here at home.

In Saskatoon a synagogue is firebombed and in Ottawa a synagogue is desecrated. In Toronto, a community centre and a Jewish agency that helps developmentally disabled adults are defaced. An arsonist breaks into the Anshei Minsk Synagogue in Kensington Market, one of the oldest synagogues in Toronto, and sets afire 2,000 Jewish holy books, just as the Nazis did in the 1930s. And a Jewish heart surgeon has his shoulder broken after he is shoved into a parked car during an anti-Israel demonstration on Bloor St.

And listen to the deafening silence.

THUGS AND ARSONISTS

In Europe, the birthplace of modern anti-Semitism, it rages with alarming impunity. Especially brazen in France, which has the largest Muslim community in Europe, Jewish institutions, cemeteries, schools and synagogues have been attacked by thugs and arsonists. Five French synagogues were firebombed last week alone. A school bus filled with Jewish children was stoned and another was torched. And the government, too afraid of angering its large Muslim population, does little to stop it.

In Germany, two rabbis visiting from the United States were beaten by a group of six in Berlin after being asked "Are you a Jew?" The same scene has been replayed in Belgium, Caracas, Casablanca and Helsinki, and there are no international demands for the anti-Semitism to stop.

And then there is the situation in Israel.

For weeks, Palestinian homicide bombers strapped with dynamite have targeted crowds of vulnerable civilians. Day after day after day, in pizza parlours and ice cream shops and discos. My, how quiet the world is. Where is the condemnation from church groups? Where are the non-Jewish protesters?

Babies are ripped to shreds outside a synagogue after a bat mitzvah. Families just like mine sit down at the Passover seder and 26 men, women and children are blown to tiny pieces of bone and flesh. Where is the United Nations then?

When Israel finally retaliates, when they attempt to put an end to the vicious reign of terror by hunting for militants encouraged by Yasser Arafat, the world suddenly erupts in anger. Why must Israel turn the other cheek for Jewish lives, while the United States rightly launches an offensive to root out the terrorists who took American lives Sept. 11?

Ah, the pundits argue, Israel is the source of all this terrorism. If only they would leave the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, peace would reign. The apologists offer up a reprehensible justification for the homicide bombing -- that it is somehow the only route left to the desperate Palestinians anxious for a homeland.

'A HUGE LIE'

But as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times notes, "That is a huge lie." The Palestinians were offered a state in 1947 and again in 2000 and it seems that on both occasions, nothing short of all of Israel was enough. More than 50 years ago, the UN partitioned the land into Israel and Palestine. Jewish leaders accepted the narrow territory. The Arab response was to launch an immediate war against the tiny Jewish state. Until Israel captured the territories in a defensive war in 1967, Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt held Gaza and neither nation did a thing to establish a homeland for the Palestinians.

Ancient history? Then let's talk about the summer of 2000. Almost everyone agrees there should be a Palestinian state and at Camp David, Israel agreed, offering to return up to 96% of the West Bank and Gaza and more dramatically, East Jerusalem. Incredibly, it was still not enough. Yasser Arafat not only refused it outright, but he strangely offered no counter-proposal for negotiation. But then Arafat has always believed a nation must "be born in blood."

So instead, he offered his suicide package -- the current bloody intifada that has now raged since Sept. 2000.

Yet the world keeps telling us that it is Israel -- and the Jews -- who must bear the blame.

[Jaakko]

Interestingly, the Brits could have used force to destroy most of the IRA cells in the later years of the troubles in NI, but chose not to. Instead, they created a situation where they could stop most of the attacks before they took place, then waited until the IRA finally realised they could not win the struggle through violence.

Had the Brits been as heavy-handed as the Israelis, I doubt there would be any kind of peace in Northern Ireland right now. Getting provoked easily is IMO by far Israel's greatest failing, it has enabled (together with Arafat's various failings) the terrorists to gain operate and gain support with impunity. Could it be that this is what EU leaders see as well?

I recall an ex-british intelligence officer writing somewhere on the net that several countries' armies have taken Israel's responses to terrorist attacks as a guide on how not to conduct such operations. Anyone know if there's any truth to it?


Edit: BTW, even though Kublai-Khan's article would have us think otherwise, there have been no attacks on Jews in Finland. The only incident has been a false bomb threat in a synagogue. While that's in itself shameful enough, I'm happy that no one's been physically harmed. I think the skinheads and other rabble here are more interested in hurting black people...

[Chris 62]

See Roland?
It's not just me that believes this and is talking about it.

Originally posted by paiktis22
Anti-semitism my ass.

Typical responce by you when confronted by this.

So the americans have problems understanding why Europe supports Palestinians. US think tanks have come up with an "easy" explanation: anti-semitism.
There, think anti-semitism and don't you go torture your pretty head

What a simplistic and foolish answer.
You have been told time and again it was the pals who started this, that refuse to live in peace, and have broken every single treaty and agreement ever signed, yet you continue to blame Israel for the problem.
Since we don't think you have an IQ of 50, the only other rational explanation is your anti-semetic.
Unless you care to explain why you support the side that never compromises and swears to wipe out the Jews.

PA and terrorism links have not been proven.

Men in the PA authority have admitted they also belong to Hamas.
The links sure have been proven, open your eyes.

By destroying the only representation the palestinians have you destabilize the region further and plunge the Pals deeper into slavery.

That's a funny thing to say, "slavery".
Just what exactly are these "slaves" producing for Israel?

The Jews feel they can't deal with Arafat because he has broken every agreement he ever made with them.
Just look at the Oslo accords he signed, for example.

(Since they REMAIN occupied or have you forgotten?)

Either you have forgotten, or you don't know, they NEVER were Palestian lands.
They REJECTED the UN partion of 29 novermber 1947, and NEVER accepted it, so they NEVER had title to ANY land.
Sorry to disillusion you, but LEAGALLY Israel doesn't have to give them squat, and is withen it's rights to police the area ANY way they chose.

When the Palestinians have their own state are not under Israeli occupation then you can hold them accountable much easier. As long as they are not a free people and are denied their right to representation with whom are yougoing to doyour negotiations with?

They denied THEMSELVES of such rights, these were not taken from them by Isreal.
When you start a genocidal war, as the Pals did, and lose, you forgo future claims old boy.

And again PA links with terrorism have not been proven. (unless you deem rumours or Israeli announcements which end with "I am sorry we didn't kill more Terrosists/Palestinians" (Israeli Justice Minister) facts...)

Again, they have.
Only YOU seem to deny it.
I wonder why?

I bet most americans don't even know that the Palestinians are an enslaved peoples. And if they know they don't care.

The dumb Bastards did it to themselves.
They are now reaping what they sowed in 48, 56, 67, 73, and all the years inbetween that they committed terror acts.
It's people like YOU my friend, they try to deny history, that need to get in the know.

why do you keep putting settlers in the occupied territories?

Your right, they should kick those Pals out, they have no right to be there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Interestingly, the Brits could have used force to destroy most of the IRA cells in the later years of the troubles in NI,

Interestingly, the Brits could have squashed the IRA at its genesis by not executing the leaders of the Eastern Rebellion which in effect cannonized them as martyrs to the nationalist cause. But that's neither here nor there.

Instead, they created a situation where they could stop most of the attacks before they took place,

I completely endorse putting a fence around the territories. However that is the sole extent of what can be done to prevent attacks short of instituting a real occupational government on the Palestinians in that regard, IMO.

Had the Brits been as heavy-handed as the Israelis,

That's the problem. During the time period we are talking about, the Brits and thier Orange allies were quite heavy handed in thier response to the IRA and the Catholic population. It was what sustained the movement inspite of thier counter-productive methods.

We can legitimately argue the effectiveness with which Israel chooses to prosecute the war it finds itself in but to argue that Israel lacks the right to defend itself, as the EU seems to be doing, is beyond foolish.