Let's talk about European antisemitism

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by dannubis
many muslem arabs live in europe right now. very few in the US. i can only assume that the US has been relative unwelcomming to arabs up to this point...



any chance of getting your head out of your arse in the near future ?

A lot of Arabs in Europe, as I understand it, come from former colonies (i.e. Algerians in France). AFAIK the US didn't have any Jewish colonies...

[DanS]

Originally posted by dannubis



many muslem arabs live in europe right now. very few in the US. i can only assume that the US has been relative unwelcomming to arabs up to this point...



any chance of getting your head out of your arse in the near future ?

That's a dumb analogy.

[dannubis]

no it's not.
i just used the same words as you did, but i applied them to a situation which exists in your country.
and i know it's a faulty way thinking.
but you actually believe it...

[DanS]

The US never had any Arabs to begin with, while Europe has had millions of Jews for many hundreds of years. Really, it's a retarded analogy.

Besides, more muslim Arabs are moving to the US than leaving it, further compounding the retardedness of your analogy.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Agathon

The UN also decided Israel's boundaries.

I'm a UN fan, but that was lame. It was done against the wishes of people who lived there.

Most Arab Palestinians moved in only about ten years before the Jewish Palestianians did. Grandfathering them but not the Jews in is very arbitrary. Arguing for a historical Palestinian state is just as ridiculous as arguing for a historical Jewish state.

Imagine how the people of Texas would feel if a bunch of Russians started invading their state and then had the UN recognize it as another country. They'd be hopping mad and justifiably so.

Purges aside, the Levant has had a historically sizable Jewish population for most of its existence.

But... the Israelis are there now and removing them all would be a barbaric act. What really needs to happen is for Israel to be forced back within the 1967 borders.

That's close enough to what Sharon is doing for me to support Sharon.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by DanS


The US never had any Arabs to begin with, while Europe has had millions of Jews for many hundreds of years. Really, it's a retarded analogy.

Besides, more muslim Arabs are moving to the US than leaving it, further compounding the retardedness of your analogy.

oh yes allmighty allknowing one. you are absolutely right. however,

1) after ww2, there wasn't a jewish community left in europe. and since Isreal was founded, one could assume that a large portion of the jews which fled europe and got into the us or the uk went to their new home land instead of going back to their old lives. so basically, since ww2 the situation in europe wrt the jews is the same as in the us wrt the arabs.

2) the same goes even more for europe, genious...

[Kuciwalker]

I doubt that Europe has more Jews entering than leaving.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Edan
More Articles:

Forty-eight percent of Europeans polled in Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Spain, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, and Britain said that Jews have "a particular relationship with money."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1075114458901

I can see you sensing antisemitism from such a statement (and this statement does certainly reflect the idea of the "greedy Jew" for quite a few respondents), but I think it's generally misguided. After all, if the question was asked about Americans, you'd probably have 90% agreement with the statement, without such a result showing a 90% antiamericanism. Simply because the Americans DO have a very different relationship to money than Europeans.

For once, I think you have to acknowledge that many Jews have their cultural specificities that differentiate them from other people from the same country. A very significant chunk of the Jews avoided to share the culture of the goyim for millenia, and in particular they mostly avoided mixed marriages. This behaviour is what kept the Jewish culture from disappearing suring the centuries where the Jewish populations were the weakest. The consequences remain clear today, as many (most) Jews have a strong sense of Jewish identity and culture. There's no shame about this specificity.

One of these specificities is money. The Jewish culture sees money with much less suspicion than the catholic one, for example. It is not uncommon for a Jew to speak openly about his personal fortune (and in particular, it's quite common among Cepharadim circles to display such fortune), which is different from the catholic ethos.

In short, even if this poll mirrors antisemitic tendencies for quite a few respondents, it would be very wrong to addume that all those 48% see the Jews as greedy bastards. However, they acknowledge a cultural difference (I wouldn't be surprised if many Jewish respondents responded positively as well).

In any case, I'm glad the Jpost mentioned this: "Nine percent of respondents do not "like or trust Jews,". I would have liked the newspaper to elaborate on it though.

The EU suppressed a report last year by German academics concluding that Arab gangs were largely responsible for a sudden surge in the anti-Jewish violence, allegedly because the findings were politically unpalatable.
link

You should take everything the Telegraph says with a boatload of salt. In my 'Poly experience (I was never confronted to the newspaper outside of 'Poly), I have already seen two blatant lies spread by this one. This article seems particularly biased, as this quote shows:
"It paints an alarming picture of daily life for France's 600,000 Jews, the EU's biggest community. In schools, Jewish children are beaten with impunity, and teachers dare not talk about the Holocaust for fear of provoking Muslim pupils, it said.", which is false.
Either the study they cite is bunk and partisan (which is not impossible) or the Telegraph is deliberately lying to make their point (which is likely, especially as lies are commonplace in British journalism).

quote:
A poll published Monday showed that Italians have mixed feelings about Israel and Jews, with 22 percent of those polled saying fellow Jewish citizens are not "real Italians,"

Here we find the actual racists, who are at about this proportion in many EU States. These are the guys that are an actual threat.

and 51 percent saying Jews have a different mentality and way of life from the rest of Italians.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1068446567110

Here we find the people who acknowledge the cultural differences between the Jews and the goyim of the land, of which nobody makes a mystery of. Again, if the Jews wanted to be seen as having the same mentality and way of life as the rest of Italians, they should have assimilated into Italian culture. The Jewish acocmplishment of having had their culture survive despite historical circumstances has this logical consequence that the cultures of the Italian Jews and of the Italian goyim are indeed different. Again, I don't see the antisemitism in that statement.

Anti-Semitic feeling has been revealed in a poll in Italy which shows more than 46 cent of Europeans consider Jews to have "a different mentality" from the rest of the population.
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=485085

Same comment. I don't see how it is antisemitic to say so.

Most of the reactions tend to come from politicians/leaders, and they tend to come in several flavors

Well, this is a first mistake. At least in France, there is a large ourage in civil society whenever something big happens, such as the desacration of a Jewish cemetary. Besides, ordinary crimes generally get much more attention when they have an antisemitic twist to it: an ordinary mugging would never make it to the news, but a spectacular antisemitic mugging will. Arsons of synagogues also get much more attention than arson on mosques.

I don't think this attention is merely political, but that it stems from the fact that most French people don't want to see France being an antisemitic country, which characterized our darkest years (we call Vichy France the "black years")

that there is anti-semitism, but that it's due to Israel (as if that is any kind of excuse for performing antisemitic acts in Europe)

You have to acknowledge it is, in part, a reason. At least for the most spectacular acts, although the deeper roots might come from somewhere else. The explosion of antisemitic acts between 2001 and 2002 (reported in several countries) seems pretty consistent with the new intifada to me. I agree Israel is certainly not the only one to blame for the mess.
However, the new face of antisemitism incarnated by the Muslim youth (which is the "obvious" to pretty much all of us, unlike what the Independent contends) is strongly related with some dumbass Arabs believing they're continuing the fight in the European cities they live in.

,

that it is caused by tensions from the muslim minority - which may be part of the truth, but it also ignores that polls show anti-semitic views amoung larger percentage that can be attributed to just the muslim minority

The only overly large result of antisemitism I have seen in the figures you brought up is that Italian 22%, which IMO is pretty consistent with the support of far right ideas in other countries. I strongly oppose the idea that the 46% and 51% figures you brought up mean that 46% of Europeans are even mildly antisemitic. If the medieval Jews had sacrificed their culture to successfully assimilate in the mainstream culture of the country they were living in, I'd grant you that. However, the very reason why the Jewish culture exists to this day is because most Jews have historically refused assimilation, and have kept their cultural specificities, making them having an actually different culture than other citizens of their country. It's a behaviour that can still observed to this day, as a great many Jews refuse to marry goyim (at least, in my broad circle of Jewish acquaintances). It is only a logical consequence that these cultural differences are noticed and acknowledged by the population.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Isn't that called conquest? I don't see anything wrong with that. The Arab nations picked a fight, they lost, Israel took their territory. I don't see why Israel has any duty to give the land back. Conquered nations lose territory. Where are the anti-Zionists *****ing that Poland stole German lands after WW2? Where are the people demanding that Stettin be returned? Where are those demanding that Russia return Königsberg back to Germany? When you lose wars, you lose land. I have no problem with that.

[Agathon]

Most Arab Palestinians moved in only about ten years before the Jewish Palestianians did. Grandfathering them but not the Jews in is very arbitrary. Arguing for a historical Palestinian state is just as ridiculous as arguing for a historical Jewish state.

Nice to see you fell for that. Of course nobody lived there until ten years before the Jews showed up.

And Siro is just a disgusting racist pig with that attitude.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Spiffor

For once, I think you have to acknowledge that many Jews have their cultural specificities that differentiate them from other people from the same country.

Perhaps - but taking one trait and attributing it to an entire group of people based on one's limited experience is bigorty, whether it's with Jews having a "particular relationship with money", Arabs being terrorists, or Chinese being very smart and studious.

You should take everything the Telegraph says with a boatload of salt.

The Telegraph wasn't the only one to report about the report being buried because it was politically inconvenient - it was just the first one I found that was still active.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/03/content_286895.htm

Either the study they cite is bunk and partisan (which is not impossible) or the Telegraph is deliberately lying to make their point (which is likely, especially as lies are commonplace in British journalism).

You mean, it's impossible for the report to be accurate?

Again, if the Jews wanted to be seen as having the same mentality and way of life as the rest of Italians, they should have assimilated into Italian culture.

You mean, convert to christianity?

And I'm sure there are plenty of Jewish Italians who have "assimilated" . They are still Jews, however, and yet the above comments would apply to them to.

Most of the reactions tend to come from politicians/leaders, and they tend to come in several flavors

Well, this is a first mistake.

I agree. Politians were certainly a mistake.

At least in France, there is a large ourage in civil society whenever something big happens, such as the desacration of a Jewish cemetary.

Good for you. But outrage alone doesn't solve the problem.

Arsons of synagogues also get much more attention than arson on mosques.

Well, that's not right. They should both get attention.

that there is anti-semitism, but that it's due to Israel (as if that is any kind of excuse for performing antisemitic acts in Europe)

You have to acknowledge it is, in part, a reason.

Reason? Perhaps. Excuse? Not.

It would be no better than excusing anti-Muslim attacks on 9-11. Regardless of the motivation, bigotry is bigotry.

The only overly large result of antisemitism I have seen in the figures you brought up is that Italian 22%, which IMO is pretty consistent with the support of far right ideas in other countries.

So are you blaming muslims or are you blaming the far right?

. If the medieval Jews had sacrificed their culture to successfully assimilate in the mainstream culture of the country they were living in, I'd grant you that.

Except that plenty of Jews did try to assimilate. Alfred Dreyfus, for one. It didn't help him.

[Heresson]

uh, Poland lost more territory after ww2 than it gained.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Agathon

Why was it illegal that the British took Maori land ?

Because they'd made most of the Maori British subjects and guaranteed their property rights in law.

As I understand it, it isn't the English conquest of Maori country you are against, it is what happend afterwards.

Meanwhile all these jackasses who try to equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism are fast pissing off people (including many Jews who don't like to be associated with Likud's barbarity).

I agree except from the stupidity in the comment about Likud.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

For once, I think you have to acknowledge that many Jews have their cultural specificities that differentiate them from other people from the same country. A very significant chunk of the Jews avoided to share the culture of the goyim for millenia, and in particular they mostly avoided mixed marriages. This behaviour is what kept the Jewish culture from disappearing suring the centuries where the Jewish populations were the weakest. The consequences remain clear today, as many (most) Jews have a strong sense of Jewish identity and culture. There's no shame about this specificity.

One of these specificities is money. The Jewish culture sees money with much less suspicion than the catholic one, for example. It is not uncommon for a Jew to speak openly about his personal fortune (and in particular, it's quite common among Cepharadim circles to display such fortune), which is different from the catholic ethos.

If you think that it was the jews that avioded to integrate into those communites they lived in, then you are totally wrong. It is true that they had problems with mixed marriages, but witch religious society didn't have that ? Their main problem was that they was almost without any rigths - wasn't allowed to own land etc - the only area where they were tolerated was in economics, so it was natural they got into that niche.

I think that the part about displaying wealth in catholic societies is pure BS. If that should be the case, then why are there so much archithecture in catholic countries if it is not to display the wealth of those who build it ?

[Zevico]

And Siro is just a disgusting racist pig with that attitude.

The right of conquest is not something racist. You may agree or disagree with it as you wish, but particularly in cases where the war is fought in self defense, I see little wrong with it as a punitive measure. Whether you think punitive measures are right or not is another thing entirely, and frankly that's not a matter of racism at all.