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

[DinoDoc]

4. The Government of Israel has the right - indeed has the duty - to protect its citizens. But what we are witnessing will not serve that end. For this is not an anti-terrorist operation - it is perilously close to war.

This quote for starters. The various groups that the PA has created or allowed to fester certainly see themselves to be at war with Israel and to deny that a state of war exists with them simply because they don't happen to conform to the traditional definitions of a soldier is dangerous in the extreme.

[Bereta_Eder]

*Echo echo echo *
Such as?

[DinoDoc]

Zorba, I just told you.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

4. The Government of Israel has the right - indeed has the duty - to protect its citizens. But what we are witnessing will not serve that end. For this is not an anti-terrorist operation - it is perilously close to war.

This quote for starters. The various groups that the PA has created or allowed to fester certainly see themselves to be at war with Israel and to deny that a state of war exists with them simply because they don't happen to conform to the traditional definitions of a soldier is dangerous in the extreme.

PA and terrorism links have not been proven.
By destroying the only representation the palestinians have you destabilize the region further and plunge the Pals deeper into slavery.

(Since they REMAIN occupied or have you forgotten?)

[Roland]

This quote for starters.

It simply says that war (or if you take a broader definition of war like in "war on drugs", make that "all out military-style war") will not serve the security of Israeli citizens. That's a debatable view, but hardly "trying to deny reality".

What else (arg: "starters")?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by paiktis22
PA and terrorism links have not been proven.

Do you truely think that a bomb belt factory of the size that had been destroyed in Jenin would have been able to have been set up much less be in existance for as long as it was without to support, passive or otherwise, of the PA?

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

I quite agree. They should first do a quick strike against the PA of the type that the US did against Libya combined with a unilateral pullout from the territories. If Arafat fails to get the message then, ... well I don't think that Arafat would want to contemplate what would happen to him specifically in that eventuality.

[Roland]

"Do you truely think that a bomb belt factory of the size that had been destroyed in Jenin..."

While the absence of links is highly implausible, I'm curious as to how you could have verified this Israeli claim ?

[DinoDoc]

It simply says that war ... will not serve the security of Israeli citizens. That's a debatable view, but hardly "trying to deny reality".

Roland, a state of war already exists in Israel and it had already been in existance for quite sometime by the time Solana made his statement.

What else (arg: "starters")?

Save for the statement regarding the battle at Jenin, they all seem to be predicated of the hope that a state of war that was already in existance at the time that they made thier statement could be avoided.

For the sake of fairness, I will have to say that I happen to agree with the 19 April 2002 statement. The battle at Jenin does need to be investigated by an impartial tribunal, if only to put the rumors of a massacre to rest one way or the other.

Edit: I don't see why Arafat deserves any better treatment than what the British gave Michael Collins.

[Adam Smith]

Just a few thoughts.

First, the polls I have seen show the US Jewish community split nearly equally over whether they do or do not support the Israeli incursion into the West Bank. I will try to dig up the link if I have time.

Second, the language of the EU declarations could be seen by some as putting much more of the onus on the Israelis than the Plaestinians. Consider

The Palestinian Authority must convincingly and relentlessly pursue its efforts to stamp out terrorism.

versus

But the military response that we are witnessing in the occupied territories is intolerable and must be halted immediately.

The fact that the French foreign minister is quoted as saying that "most of the problems in the world are caused by that ****ty little country" meaning Israel, does not help.

Third, there are numerous other actions the EU could take on the Arab side to help the situation. For example, diverting or suspending funding for PAL educational efforts which are used to incite hatred toward Israel; or encouraging arab countries to repudiate the 1973 Khartoum Resolution which calls for the destruction of Israel.

I don't think any of these necessarily rise to the level of anti-semitism. That may have been driven by domestic political considerations, and I think Peres knows better. But you can at least understand where the Israelis are coming from on this.

EDIT: The most convincing thing the EU, US, or anybody else could do is come up with a specific, viable alternatave to the current disaster.

Paiktis:

PA and terrorism links have not been proven.

Just what would you consider as proof? I think it si safe to say that any reasonable person would have strong suspicions which would be very dificult to allay. The kindest thing I could say is that if the PALs want a settlement they at least have to bring to the table the ability and willingness to stop terroracts, which I think we all can agree are launched from their territory.

[Bereta_Eder]

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?

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...)

[Carver]

Israel's Greed

Israel's continuing thirst for land belonging to others is the core of the middle-east "problem". Israel's 1967 borders already cover 78% of Palestine. For Israel to argue that they need to negotiate over the remaining 22% is without merit. It is Israel that must learn terrorism and violence do not pay. Israel must give up all the land it stole during the 1967 war of aggression.

Peres doesn't need to teach anyone about the holocaust. The Israeli government needs to remind itself of the ethnic cleansing of the 1940s and wonder why it has ethnic cleansing proponents in its own government.

[Roland]

"Roland, a state of war already exists in Israel and it had already been in existance for quite sometime by the time Solana made his statement."

"...they all seem to be predicated of the hope that a state of war that was already in existance...."

So the only problem is the definition of "war" ?
Define "war". The Red Army Faction was convinced it was in a state of "war" with the german state. Not every violent conflict is a war.

It's quite pointless. Would you feel better if it said from "low intensity warfare" to "all out war" ? Why is that important?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
The Red Army Faction was convinced it was in a state of "war" with the german state. Not every violent conflict is a war.

I would say that the current conflict is most comparable to the state of war that existed between the British government and the IRA for much of its history.

Why is that important?

Because as it stands now the EU appears perfectly content to let moral outrage substitute itself for an effective response.

[Roland]

AS:

"....the language of the EU declarations could be seen by some as putting much more of the onus on the Israelis than the Plaestinians."

True. Although 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".

"The fact that the French foreign minister is quoted as saying that "most of the problems in the world are caused by that ****ty little country" meaning Israel, does not help."

Vedrine ? He is "quoted" by whom ?

"For example, diverting or suspending funding for PAL educational efforts which are used to incite hatred toward Israel;"

Well the abuse of funds for those propaganda infested books was investigated. Not sure how it all turned out, but the worst charge you can gather from that is bureaucratic inertia.

"encouraging arab countries to repudiate the 1973 Khartoum Resolution which calls for the destruction of Israel."

Good. Or make economic ties dependent on an end to the most insane propaganda. On this one though, I have to wonder - one of the most generous funders of the palestinians is Saudi Arabia. The US says pretty much... nothing about it. Does exactly nothing. Just that it is not construed into an antijewish policy bias.

"But you can at least understand where the Israelis are coming from on this."

I can't really understand it, apart from a sort of siege syndrome.

[Roland]

DinoDoc:

"I would say that the current conflict is most comparable to the state of war that existed between the British government and the IRA for much of its history."

The provisional IRA since ~1970 ? That's not a war in my book. The guerilla war that lead to irish independence in 1922, ok.

"Because as it stands now the EU appears perfectly content to let moral outrage substitute itself for an effective response."

You are interpreting your own bias into the statements. Can you turn that into a rational argument ? How is that charge related to the definition of war ?