Europe and "Those People"

[Ned]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

Ned, to answer your question : yes Le Pen is quite antisemitic. Sympathizer of his party has been involved in jews graves desecration, and he was the one that said that gaz chambers were "a detail".
Hearing that you see more antisemitism to the left is quite surprising for me, 'cause AFAIK, I only encountered racism from right-winged people. Though it was a right-only turn of mind.

Akka, Now this is where it gets weird. In America, anti-Israeli, indeed anti-Semetic, hatred is coming larglely, if not exclusively, from the left. Campuses across American have witnessed demonstrations against Israel and in favor of Palestine. The left calls Sharon a Nazi and worse. Arafat is praised.

In contrast, the conservatives here in the U.S. are now the loudest and strongest supporters of Israel. Christians, particularly fundamentalist Christians, have declared "solidarity."

If you see an American here on the boards arguing in favor of Israel, that American probably is not a liberal. And vis-a-versa if the argument is made in favor of the Palestinians.

But if I understand you correctly, anti-Semitism in Europe is coming from the right. Le Pen and his ilk would like to see the Israeli's driven into the sea, or at least given a taste of what they "deserve."

I don't get it.

Ned

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ned
Akka, Now this is where it gets weird. In America, anti-Israeli, indeed anti-Semetic, hatred is coming larglely, if not exclusively, from the left. Campuses across American have witnessed demonstrations against Israel and in favor of Palestine. The left calls Sharon a Nazi and worse. Arafat is praised.

In contrast, the conservatives here in the U.S. are now the loudest and strongest supporters of Israel. Christians, particularly fundamentalist Christians, have declared "solidarity."

If you see an American here on the boards arguing in favor of Israel, that American probably is not a liberal. And vis-a-versa if the argument is made in favor of the Palestinians.

But if I understand you correctly, anti-Semitism in Europe is coming from the right. Le Pen and his ilk would like to see the Israeli's driven into the sea, or at least given a taste of what they "deserve."

I don't get it.

Ned

Don't mix antisemitic with anti-Israël, and you will get it.

[notyoueither]

Ned. Many people on these boards who are from Europe and who are against Israel's actions are from the left. To think that the Israelis are being too harsh with the Palestinians does not make them anti-Semetic in and of itself.

It is not uncommon for people on the left to identify with the underdog. They are now perceiving the Pals to be oppressed. That will get their dander up in a hurry. What many of them miss or ignore, is that it is the Pals own leadership and many Pals themselves who provoke the oppression. They don't care about that. They care about the oppression.

That some of them may have anti-Semetic leanings is possible, but it is not necessary for some of their views.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Don't mix antisemitic with anti-Israël, and you will get it.

Akka, What do you mean by this? In France, the Neo-nazi's can both be anti-Semetic and pro-Israeli, and average Frenchman can be anti-Israeli and not anti-Semetic?

I still don't get it.

Ned

[laurentius]

I think the point is that the same people who are now marching against monsieur Le Pen have been/would march against israeli action against pals...

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you see an American here on the boards arguing in favor of Israel, that American probably is not a liberal. And vis-a-versa if the argument is made in favor of the Palestinians.

I buck the trend .

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ned


Akka, What do you mean by this? In France, the Neo-nazi's can both be anti-Semetic and pro-Israeli, and average Frenchman can be anti-Israeli and not anti-Semetic?

I still don't get it.

Ned

That is.
I don't get how you don't get it
Antisemetic is racism. Anti-Israël is politics. Both are clearly different things, just like I can condemn a governmental decision of the Germany, USA, Italy, etc. and still not be racist against Germans, Americans, Italians and so on.

Personnally, I think that Israël was acting, since the assassination of Rabbin, in a way that could only end in a new war. They were provocative, they humiliated the Pals, and they were only wanting to negociate through force. Hence I am condemning the actions of Israël. Now, WHY this would make me any kind of racist ? It's just opinion on politics.

[Ned]

Akka, I grant you, for the moment, that one can be against Israeli policy without being anti-Semitic because one's true desire is to see Israel safe, secure and at peace with its neighbors.

But what about the avowed anti-Semite, neo-Nazi being in favor of Israel. Does that make sense?

Ned

[Akka]

Akka, I grant you, for the moment, that one can be against Israeli policy without being anti-Semitic because one's true desire is to see Israel safe, secure and at peace with its neighbors.

Well, just for the sake of the argument... Someone can wish the utter destruction for Israël and still not be racist. He can just think that this territory belongs to Pals and that they are the one that should be in control. Or he can trust that it would be best for the balance of power in ME that Israël disappear. Or he can believe that the 999 pleas of the Three Gods of Apolyton will plague the Earth if Israël survive. Well, all in all, a STATE is not a RACE, and it's two very different things to A) blame a state and to B) consider that someone is worth less than one other just because he was born at one place and not another, from certain parents and not another.

But what about the avowed anti-Semite, neo-Nazi being in favor of Israel. Does that make sense?

It CAN makes sense.
Right-winged extremist can be antisemitic, but as long as Israël is on a faraway land, then it keeps the Jews far from they, hence they don't care anymore. And the way Israël is dealing with the Pals (brute force, police and military control, etc) is the kind of policy they approve.
Example : the now infamous Le Pen, who is a notorious racist and whose political carreer was full of disguised view on how Arabs and Blacks are inferiors to Whites, was the one who made a friendly trip to Bagdad during the months before the Desert Storm operation.
Because Saddam Hussein was an Arabic-like man, sure, but he was also a "friend of arms" about the way he was ruling his country.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Well, just for the sake of the argument... Someone can wish the utter destruction for Israël and still not be racist. He can just think that this territory belongs to Pals and that they are the one that should be in control. Or he can trust that it would be best for the balance of power in ME that Israël disappear. Or he can believe that the 999 pleas of the Three Gods of Apolyton will plague the Earth if Israël survive. Well, all in all, a STATE is not a RACE, and it's two very different things to A) blame a state and to B) consider that someone is worth less than one other just because he was born at one place and not another, from certain parents and not another.



It CAN makes sense.
Right-winged extremist can be antisemitic, but as long as Israël is on a faraway land, then it keeps the Jews far from they, hence they don't care anymore. And the way Israël is dealing with the Pals (brute force, police and military control, etc) is the kind of policy they approve.
Example : the now infamous Le Pen, who is a notorious racist and whose political carreer was full of disguised view on how Arabs and Blacks are inferiors to Whites, was the one who made a friendly trip to Bagdad during the months before the Desert Storm operation.
Because Saddam Hussein was an Arabic-like man, sure, but he was also a "friend of arms" about the way he was ruling his country.

Akka, OK, let's put this in perspective. France once had sister states in the ME, the Crusader states. I could imagine that a Frenchmen could decide to end his support of those states without being "racist" because the citizens of those states could always return to France. However, the same is not true of Israel. The Jews have nowhere to go.

Ned

[Heresson]

"Poland was, however, occupying former German territories with a majority German population. Wasn't Germany justified in attacking Poland to free their German brothers from a humiliating Polish occupation? "

You are ignorant, Drake, to say it in most gentle way. Primo, Germans weren't majority in no Polish region. They were majority in Gdañsk (Danzig) but that city didn't belong in to Poland and in fact Poles were persecuted there. They were majority in some of industrial Silesian cities, but villages around were Polish, as well as villages and smaller cities in German part of Upper Silesia and Mazury, and part of Pomorze region. You also don't distinguish occupation and owning of a land.

British/French guaranties for Poland were sth completely different than American support for Israel. Germans were a possible threat for France and Britain too, while Palestinians are no threat to America.
And France/Britain didn't do what they were supposed to do accrording to the deal in year 1939, while American help for Israel
is real. Additionally, Poles haven't immigrated to their territory and they, not Germans, were autochtons.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ned


Akka, OK, let's put this in perspective. France once had sister states in the ME, the Crusader states. I could imagine that a Frenchmen could decide to end his support of those states without being "racist" because the citizens of those states could always return to France. However, the same is not true of Israel. The Jews have nowhere to go.

Ned

I was talking "for the sake of the argument" like I told it in the very first line.
Though, the creation of Israël was a mistake. You just can't come on a land and claim it yours. I think that what should have been done is not "Israël", but a new state named Palestine where Jews AND autochtons could have felt at home. It would not have been a "Jewish state", it would have been a state were Jewish people would be able to go and says "it's my country". Well, the difference is subtle, but fundamental.

I think that one of the main problem is that being Jews is either/both being part of the Jewish people and/or being of the Judaïc religion. A people can have a state, not a religion.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by red_jon


I'm doing it in history for a-level. Protestants emigrated there a few hundred yeas ago and Britain invaded Ireland. Ireland remains under British rule with the Act of Union in 1801. Several failed uprisings, revolutions, etc, later, Britain finally pushes the Home Rule Act in 1914, to grant the Irish and independant state. However, the people in the north are British and wish to remain art of the UK. In the end the Irish were given their own country and the Northern Irish remained in the UK. All is fair, the populace voted for this. However, the IRA think that the Northern Irish should be forced to join the Republic and decided the best way to do this is by bombing British civilians. Americans fund them, feeling the Irish are an 'oppressed people'.

NATIVE AMERICANS, ANYONE?

During the struggle for independence large numbers of protestant Irish moved to the Ulster area, enough to tip the scales in favor of remaining part of the UK when the plebescite was held. This has always been a sore spot in the minds of Ulster Catholics, they feel that the vote should only have counted those who had lived there before the war.
Not all Irish protestants are descended from immigrants. The reformation came to Ireland just like the rest of the world. In the 19th century many Irish protestants found it to their advantage to claim Scottish or English ancestry.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I was talking "for the sake of the argument" like I told it in the very first line.
Though, the creation of Israël was a mistake. You just can't come on a land and claim it yours. I think that what should have been done is not "Israël", but a new state named Palestine where Jews AND autochtons could have felt at home. It would not have been a "Jewish state", it would have been a state were Jewish people would be able to go and says "it's my country". Well, the difference is subtle, but fundamental.

I think that one of the main problem is that being Jews is either/both being part of the Jewish people and/or being of the Judaïc religion. A people can have a state, not a religion.

Akka, As opposed to the French in 1099, the Jewish army did not land on the shores of Palestine and take the land by force. They formed the state of Israel from local residents who were Jewish and who were under attack, at the time they formed the state, by the non Jewish residents of Palestine. The egalitarian concepts you propose may have been the better course, but they were not possible given the conditions at the time, nor were they offered to the Jews of Palestine as an alternative.

Ned

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson
"Poland was, however, occupying former German territories with a majority German population. Wasn't Germany justified in attacking Poland to free their German brothers from a humiliating Polish occupation? "

You are ignorant, Drake, to say it in most gentle way. Primo, Germans weren't majority in no Polish region. They were majority in Gdañsk (Danzig) but that city didn't belong in to Poland and in fact Poles were persecuted there. They were majority in some of industrial Silesian cities, but villages around were Polish, as well as villages and smaller cities in German part of Upper Silesia and Mazury, and part of Pomorze region. You also don't distinguish occupation and owning of a land.

British/French guaranties for Poland were sth completely different than American support for Israel. Germans were a possible threat for France and Britain too, while Palestinians are no threat to America.
And France/Britain didn't do what they were supposed to do accrording to the deal in year 1939, while American help for Israel
is real. Additionally, Poles haven't immigrated to their territory and they, not Germans, were autochtons.

Heresson, if you know, did UK and French treaties with Poland guarantee Poland's security only from German attack? Otherwise the declaration of war on only Germany, and not the co-invader, the USSR, was "illegal," albeit, real-politik.

Ned