Let's talk about European antisemitism

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Brent
Do not the Cherokee, Navajo, and Inuit have a right to lands of their own?

They have lands of their own, but not governments of their own.

[Brent]

My understanding was that the Cherokee and Navajo had their own autonomous governments but weren't recognized as nations like the United States is. Nunavut was created specifically for the Inuit of that region. So you are saying Israel should be a land for the Jews but governed by someone else? Are you saying the Navajo and Cherokee shouldn't have much say in their nations?

[Ned]

Originally posted by dannubis


again, and again and again...

the average european doesn't want the state of israel to be extinguished. far from it. however, most of us do not blindly believe the fact that any action taken by the israeli state is morally superior or inferior to the actions taken by palestinians.

and the big thing is that towards the state of israel a certain amount of accountablility can be applied, whereas towards shady terrorist organisations it's impossible to do this.

personally i don't mind if they blow up a terrorist attacker. i applaud the fact that sometimes they can and do get a big shot in a terrorist organisation. however, once 'collateral damage' is accepted, you have descended to the same level as terrorists. and we don't deal with terrorists, now do we ?

Dannubis, I would feel a lot more comforted if the Europeans would make statements to the effect that they support Israel's right to exist. I do not recall such a statement, if ever one was made by any European either here, or on the news.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Brent
My understanding was that the Cherokee and Navajo had their own autonomous governments but weren't recognized as nations like the United States is. Nunavut was created specifically for the Inuit of that region. So you are saying Israel should be a land for the Jews but governed by someone else? Are you saying the Navajo and Cherokee shouldn't have much say in their nations?

I don't know how it is in the 'states, but in Canada the Indian Act prevents first nations from having their own government. Nunavut was not created for the inuit, it is a province like any other which just happens to encompass the traditional lands of the inuit.


But that comment wasn't really a response to what you had just posted, because I wasn't sure if you where talking to me.

So you want to decide for the Jews what's good for them? Okay then, what's good for them?

I didn't mention anything about "deciding what's good for the jews", rather, I'm saying that jews shouldn't decide what's good for the other people who share their homeland. A jewish state is not required to have a jewish homeland.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I cannot think of any European or otherwise poster here that has expressed his wish to see Israel destroyed, which would be antizionism

Can you say the same about the French diplomatic corps and thier views on "that ****ty little country" Israel?

[Ned]

Spiffor good point on the Serbs. Very good point. My only answer is that Europeans have a history that makes their views on Jews supsect.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned


Dannubis, I would feel a lot more comforted if the Europeans would make statements to the effect that they support Israel's right to exist. I do not recall such a statement, if ever one was made by any European either here, or on the news.

The state of Israel is diplomatically recognized by all euro countries which have exchanged with Israel embassies and embassadors.

This is more convincing and useful that a wordy statement conceived by Ned.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


The state of Israel is diplomatically recognized by all euro countries which have exchanged with Israel embassies and embassadors.

This is more convincing and useful that a wordy statement conceived by Ned.

I assume this was the case as well in 1967 when the Arabs united to destroy Israel and the French, among others, embargoed Israel.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

most of us do not blindly believe the fact that any action taken by the israeli state is morally superior or inferior to the actions taken by palestinians.

do you or do you not morally equate between

a) the intentional and knowing targetting of innocent civilians

b) the (at times somwhat reckless) targetting of militants and the leaders of para-military organizations which are engaged in warfare but also (against the rules of war) hide among civilian population?

are those morally equal in your eyes?

yes

and you have dropped a few notches in my esteem by chosing your words so "carefully"

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned


I assume this was the case as well in 1967 when the Arabs united to destroy Israel and the French, among others, embargoed Israel.

After a period of relative calm, border incidents between Israel and Syria, Egypt, and Jordan increased during the early 1960s, with Palestinian guerrilla groups actively supported by Syria. In May, 1967, President Nasser, his prestige much eroded through his inaction in the face of Israeli raids, requested the withdrawal of UN forces from Egyptian territory, mobilized units in the Sinai, and closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel. Israel (which had no UN forces stationed on its territory) responded by mobilizing.

The escalation of threats and provocations continued until June 5, 1967, when Israel launched a massive air assault that crippled Arab air capability. With air superiority protecting its ground forces, Israel controlled the Sinai peninsula within three days and then concentrated on the Jordanian frontier, capturing Jerusalem's Old City (subsequently annexed), and on the Syrian border, gaining the strategic Golan Heights. The war, which ended on June 10, is known as the Six-Day War.

The Suez Canal was closed by the war, and Israel declared that it would not give up Jerusalem and that it would hold the other captured territories until significant progress had been made in Arab-Israeli relations. The end of active, conventional fighting was followed by frequent artillery duels along the frontiers and by clashes between Israelis and Palestinian guerrillas.

I dont know if Israel was embargoed, but the above description does not show that Israel was short of material, and many think that the 6 days war was a splendid military accomplishment.

And this does not change the fact that Israel had been recognized previously.

[dannubis]

ned, in 1967 israel was de facto the aggressor right ?

and in the yom kippoer war i don't recall an emargo being in place. i might be wrong though.

and there are still museums and monuments being build to commemorate the horrors of the holocaust. now, what more do you want our governements to do ?

[Edan]

ned, in 1967 israel was de facto the aggressor right

Only in a warped reality.

The Arab countries had

• Egypt had blockaded the straits of Tiran, an act of war n violation of international agreements, and threatening to cripple Israel's economy.
• Massed forces on Israel's borders, forcing Israel to put it's military on alert - something that was not feasable to continue indefinately.
• Egypt expelled UN forces from the Sinai.
• numerous terrorist raids.
• Syria regularly fired artillary at Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights.
• Their leaders made speeches vowing Israel's destruction
• Egypt had planned for an invasion of Israel that was postponed at the last minute because of pressure from the Soviet Union. Israel captured several Egyptians that had crossed it's borders and became aware of this plan.

Ned:

I assume this was the case as well in 1967 when the Arabs united to destroy Israel and the French, among others, embargoed Israel.

Including the US.

[Az]

Yeah, the US is hardly better than the europeans. They use us and the others when they can, and dump on other cases ( See: the planning of the planned invasion of Israel in 56'. )

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'd like those people who think Europeans are antisemitic (I dunno if it includes you or not) to tell us why they believe that.

It depends upon whether you mean as a continent or body politic (and since when have Europeans as a whole EVER agreed on anything) or individual anti -semites.


You would have to distinguish between religious and political anti-semitism too.

The religious anti-semitism has been there since Visigothic Iberia and Justinian's Byzantine Empire; it survived into the Dark Ages and early mediaeval period, succoured by a part of the Roman Catholic Church that in many respects transferred its fears about aspects of its own faith onto others, such as the Muslims and Jews.

It flourished in the crusading era of the newly secure Western European states, with the massacres in the German states (the Second Crusade beginning with a massacre of Jews in the Rhineland) massacres in French territory and in England.

Later on of course, the Inquisition in Spain and Italy would also persecute Jews and converted Jews.

Fortunately there were the occasional enlightened rulers, like Alfonso the Wise of Castile, individual Popes, individual bishops, archbishops and dukes, Casimir the Great of Poland, Oliver Cromwell and the citizens of the French Republic who emancipated the Jews (although their intent may have been not entirely as honourable as it may seem- they may have wanted the Jews to disappear as a distinct religious or ethnic minority in a completely French identity).

Then of course you also have the political version of anti-semitism- a product of the modernization and industrialization of Europe, with Jews being identified with capitalists, bankers, 'cosmopolitans' et cetera (this also hearkens back to the days of mediaeval/Renaissance Jewish money lenders and pawn brokers who occupied a useful position between either Christians who wanted to engage in business or Christians and Muslims who wanted to engage in business, neither of which faiths, theoretically, should profit from interest).

This took off in France and Germany and pretty much ran alongside persistent religious/racial anti-semitism in Central and Eastern Europe and European Russia.


Of course it hasn't always been just Europeans who persecuted Jews- despite greater tolerance for Jews within Islam, occasional Islamic movements/peoples (Almohads and Almoravids in the Maghreb and Spain, Mamelukes and Shi'ites and so forth) have also from time to time persecuted the Jews usually when the religious revival is freshly wrought as it were.


Then of course you have the anti-semitism you see in Australia and the United States linked with racist/Aryan/Roman Catholic political groupings and avowedly anti-Zionist leftist groups who just occasionally can't seem to tell the difference between being anti-Israel and anti- 'the Jew'.


With enemies like those, Jews clearly have something going for them.....

[Ned]

dannubis, et al., the problem with the French embargo is that Israel's equipment was primarily French, including its airforce. Had the war lasted longer, material shortages could have resulted in Israel's defeat.

The French embargo forces Israel to switch to American arms.

But the point here is that the French embargo was designed to bring Israel to its knees, or worse.