Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe

1641

Odhinn wrote: »

They offered to essentially ditch it years ago.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12263095

Yes , possibly The Fatah/PA were. But notice they quickly denied it. Hamas, etc, offered no such concessions.The PA being seen to accept this would have left them very exposed within the Palestinian Camp.


But do I think that Israel should stop settlements and worker harder towards an agreement ? Yes. Does this mean that the Israelis are simply the bad guys and the Palestinian side simply the good guys? No. You still seem to be holding to the reverse narrative.

There does not seem to be any sign of a peace deal that either side could sell to their own camp.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Well done. Perhaps if the Arabs weren't so foolish to launch not just one but three attacks on Israel, they would still have their 1948 borders, as mandated by the UN.

They launched a war and lost, 3 times. Bit late to try and get your money back from the bookies after your horse lost a race.
(Maybe while we are at it, should as for German repatriation of land, lost after WWII?)

The ordinary Palestinian should pay the price of decisions made by authoritarian regimes?

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

Have a look at the turn of this thread as one example.
The OP was about the rise of Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe and we have the usual lurkers pilling on and pissing about Israel as if Israel and Jews are one hive mind.

That is an example of anti-Semitism right in this very thread.

A quick glance at the thread and you drove it in that direction with the attacks on the Labour Party. Which isn’t in Eastern Europe and some of which are related to the left wing criticisms of Israel. 1641 took that ball and ran with it.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

The ordinary Palestinian should pay the price of decisions made by authoritarian regimes?

Not what I said.

However, perhaps you are onto something. Maybe if those living in Gaza stopped being fooled and tricked by Hamas, and those in the West Bank elected better leaders perhaps they would not be in this mess. There is a huge lack of good leadership in the Arab world, unfortunately.

Remember the times, when woke millennials celebrated the fall of Mubarak in 2011, only for the Muslim Brotherhood to take power via democratic means..... how did that go? Oh yea, the same woke Millenials were a year or two later pleased that the military generals took over power in Egypt. Democracy is not all sunshine, lollypops and decaf lattes.

THAT is the main issue in the Arab world today. Not some pissing contest about Israel or the Palestinians, although I know its the Arkle type hobby horse for many a woke person.

Blueshoe

I'll tell you what's also on the rise in Europe.
Immigration from outside Europe

jmayo

Danzy wrote: »

What relevance to antisemitism in Europe has Israel?

It has huge bearing because people conflate Israelis and Jews.
Israel is seen as the Jewish state.

Ever notice how muslim extremists even older organisations like PLO, Black September, etc would have targeted Jews in their attacks rather than just Israelis.

Odhinn wrote: »

The ordinary Palestinian should pay the price of decisions made by authoritarian regimes?

Jaysus odhinn what age are you ?

Should ordinary Germans have paid any price for Hitler in that case.

Better tell the Poles to get to fook out of Danzig and Wrocław and give it back to the ordinary Germans. :rolleyes:

markodaly

jmayo wrote: »

Jaysus odhinn what age are you ?

Should ordinary Germans have paid any price for Hitler in that case.

Better tell the Poles to get to fook out of Danzig and Wrocław and give it back to the ordinary Germans. :rolleyes:

How about this?
Should the ordinary person residing in Ulster pay the price of the PIRA campaign of violence and the British **** up of that particular situation?

I guess that was different.

cameramonkey

markodaly wrote: »

Well done. Perhaps if the Arabs weren't so foolish to launch not just one but three attacks on Israel, they would still have their 1948 borders, as mandated by the UN.

They launched a war and lost, 3 times. Bit late to try and get your money back from the bookies after your horse lost a race.
(Maybe while we are at it, should as for German repatriation of land, lost after WWII?)

And again, I am no fan of the settlements in particular but in many ways, their leaders led them terribly for the past 50 years.

The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their lands and murder of many predated these wars. To compare the murder of men , women and children and ethnically cleansing people from their homes to a bet in the bookies is going too far.

Grayson

markodaly wrote: »

This is of course true. Hamas are just a bunch of Islamic thugs with primative weapons who prey on the weak to do their bidding. Gaza has yet to have any elections since they took power and we will be waiting a while yet for any change of power in that place.

The thing people dont like to countenance is that Israel is in a geographic that is a tinderbox. Who would have thought 5-6 years ago Syria would turn out like it did and ISIS would form a serious threat to the stability of the Middle East. We see the manifestation of extreme right-wing Islam in ISIS. Burning non-believers in cages, throwing gays of buildings.... all within earshot of Israel. Things move fast in that region.

Israel look beyond its borders and see threats, from would be strong men or clerics using populism to bring them electoral success and attacking Israel is very popular in that part of the world (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt says hi!). Add in a nuclear Iran, an arms race between ****e and Sunni, proxy wars all over the place, it is not surprising that Israel is paranoid, given the history of the Jews being ****ed about the place for 4 thousand years and the fact they are surrounded on all sides that people who, given the right environment and option, would hack them to pieces if enabled to do so.

Israel is thinking in centuries and millennia here and does not give a damm about the sensibilities of some wannabe woke Millenials in Ireland or elsewhere. This is not to justify the settlements or the overzealous IDF but simply they do what they deem is necessary to survive.

That's all true. But it doesn't warrant the collective punishment of the palestinian people and the expanded settlement building. Israel could actually go some way to reducing tensions by working towards resolving that conflict.
But they have no desire to and they don't care about the conditions the millions of palestinians live in.

The experience of jews in europe before and during WW2 goes some way to explaining why they are like that but it doesn't excuse it. The simple fact is that it's wrong. Millions are living under occupation and it's never going to end.

Mad_maxx

markodaly wrote: »

This is of course true. Hamas are just a bunch of Islamic thugs with primative weapons who prey on the weak to do their bidding. Gaza has yet to have any elections since they took power and we will be waiting a while yet for any change of power in that place.

The thing people dont like to countenance is that Israel is in a geographic that is a tinderbox. Who would have thought 5-6 years ago Syria would turn out like it did and ISIS would form a serious threat to the stability of the Middle East. We see the manifestation of extreme right-wing Islam in ISIS. Burning non-believers in cages, throwing gays of buildings.... all within earshot of Israel. Things move fast in that region.

Israel look beyond its borders and see threats, from would be strong men or clerics using populism to bring them electoral success and attacking Israel is very popular in that part of the world (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt says hi!). Add in a nuclear Iran, an arms race between ****e and Sunni, proxy wars all over the place, it is not surprising that Israel is paranoid, given the history of the Jews being ****ed about the place for 4 thousand years and the fact they are surrounded on all sides that people who, given the right environment and option, would hack them to pieces if enabled to do so.

Israel is thinking in centuries and millennia here and does not give a damm about the sensibilities of some wannabe woke Millenials in Ireland or elsewhere. This is not to justify the settlements or the overzealous IDF but simply they do what they deem is necessary to survive.

Israel is an expansionist state, they have the unequivocal backing of the most powerful country in the world and as such Israel is effectively the most powerful country in the world, if any country attacked Israel in a meaningful way, America would pile in

Snickers Man

1641 wrote: »

"Usury" was forbidden as sinful by the Church up until the 16th Century. It had gradually been creeping in for a hundred or so years before that (eg, the Medicis). Then a speciallly convened group of Jesuit theologians found a way of justifying it and the ban disappeared.


In earlier centuries, and in want of alternatives, people turned to Jews for their money lending needs. They were happy to get it but not always happy to re-pay it. A way out was to demonise the "moneylending Jew" with whatever accusations. The law was more likely to favour the "christian" accuser in such situations. Witness the caricature of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice.

.

The relevant passage is Deuteronomy 23: 19-20

The link above is to the King James version but you can choose any translation you like. It basically says you can not lend to one of "your own" while demanding interest but you can do so to a "foreigner".

So in medieval Europe, where there was a need for capital to invest but no reliable means of securing it other than through charging interest, which was sinful, you needed "godless" outsiders to provide it. And of course, such providers wouldn't dream of lending money to their own people on such terms but were happy to do so to their own "godless" outsiders.
Convenient, huh?

Nothing, to my mind, is clearer evidence that the Bible is man made than this passage here. It is the most typical, fallible human emotion to believe that "only foreigners" behave in a certain less than perfect way. We good people don't do that sort of thing.

riffmongous

markodaly wrote: »

Not what I said.

However, perhaps you are onto something. Maybe if those living in Gaza stopped being fooled and tricked by Hamas, and those in the West Bank elected better leaders perhaps they would not be in this mess. There is a huge lack of good leadership in the Arab world, unfortunately.

Remember the times, when woke millennials celebrated the fall of Mubarak in 2011, only for the Muslim Brotherhood to take power via democratic means..... how did that go? Oh yea, the same woke Millenials were a year or two later pleased that the military generals took over power in Egypt. Democracy is not all sunshine, lollypops and decaf lattes.

THAT is the main issue in the Arab world today. Not some pissing contest about Israel or the Palestinians, although I know its the Arkle type hobby horse for many a woke person.

That is some pile of shiite

hatrickpatrick

@1641, would you suggest that there was "fault on both sides" in The Troubles? Because I think many would argue that while the IRA did absolutely appalling and unforgivable things, just as the Palestinian side has, the fault lay entirely with the British side for their intentional policies of systemic oppression of and discrimination against Catholics and Irish people in Northern Ireland.

Similarly, both sides in the Israel / Palestine conflict have done atrocious things, but nobody forced Israel to expel Palestinians from their homes during the 1948 war, or to steal what didn't belong to it in 1967 - and justify both actions using ancient religious bullsh!t. That was a political choice which they made, and it has laid the foundation for the entire modern conflict as it exists today. Therefore, while both sides have done bad things, the fault lies with Israel, because Israel chose to behave like an imperialistic state when it made those choices.

Nobody put a gun to any Israeli Prime Minister's head and told him "solve your housing crisis by building illegal settlements on land which you took by force and drove civilians out of using violence". They chose to do it, because they believed from a combination of right wing "might is right" dogma and ancient religious bullsh!t, that they had a moral right to do so. It's as simple as that.

Igotadose

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Similarly, both sides in the Israel / Palestine conflict have done atrocious things, but nobody forced Israel to expel Palestinians from their homes during the 1948 war, or to steal what didn't belong to it in 1967 - and justify both actions using ancient religious bullsh!t. That was a political choice which they made, and it has laid the foundation for the entire modern conflict as it exists today. Therefore, while both sides have done bad things, the fault lies with Israel, because Israel chose to behave like an imperialistic state when it made those choices.

The Palestinians could have stayed. Many did.

Mad_maxx

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

@1641, would you suggest that there was "fault on both sides" in The Troubles? Because I think many would argue that while the IRA did absolutely appalling and unforgivable things, just as the Palestinian side has, the fault lay entirely with the British side for their intentional policies of systemic oppression of and discrimination against Catholics and Irish people in Northern Ireland.

Similarly, both sides in the Israel / Palestine conflict have done atrocious things, but nobody forced Israel to expel Palestinians from their homes during the 1948 war, or to steal what didn't belong to it in 1967 - and justify both actions using ancient religious bullsh!t. That was a political choice which they made, and it has laid the foundation for the entire modern conflict as it exists today. Therefore, while both sides have done bad things, the fault lies with Israel, because Israel chose to behave like an imperialistic state when it made those choices.

Nobody put a gun to any Israeli Prime Minister's head and told him "solve your housing crisis by building illegal settlements on land which you took by force and drove civilians out of using violence". They chose to do it, because they believed from a combination of right wing "might is right" dogma and ancient religious bullsh!t, that they had a moral right to do so. It's as simple as that.

No comparison between what the Israelis meet out to the Palestinians and what Catholics in Northern Ireland endured, not defending the wrongs of ulster unionists but they were kindly by comparison

hatrickpatrick

Mad_maxx wrote: »

No comparison between what the Israelis meet out to the Palestinians and what Catholics in Northern Ireland endured, not defending the wrongs of ulster unionists but they were kindly by comparison

I agree (although I'd argue that "kindly by comparison is overkill when you factor in the multiple atrocities committed by the British Army and RUC), but this basically proves exactly the point I've been making - to ask why so many Irish people demonise the Israeli side and are more forgiving to the Palestinian side is ridiculous, the answer should be so obvious as to require no explanation.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Not what I said.

However, perhaps you are onto something. Maybe if those living in Gaza stopped being fooled and tricked by Hamas, and those in the West Bank elected better leaders perhaps they would not be in this mess.

Do please explain how.

Of all things, on the Belfast Telegraph website this evening these guys in Derry's Bogside seem to be particularly vile pieces of work. For all the legitimate nuance that can and should be made between opposition to the enormous inhumanity being inflicted upon the Palestinians and the enormous evil of old-fashioned hatred of Jews, it's all the one to these Derry embarrassments. Is the highlighted stuff below illegal, or does it constitute freedom of speech? It is definitely in the category of old-fashioned Fr John Creagh/Oliver J. Flanagan antisemitism as in the op. It's a pity the faces of these troglodytes are hidden because it's now getting international headlines and Derry, a lovely city with lovely people, comes across very badly.

1. Irish Times, 'PSNI investigating remarks made to Jewish author in Derry'

2. Jewish News, Police investigate ‘Hitler didn’t kill enough Jews’ video filmed in Derry pub

3. BBC, PSNI probes anti-Semitic remarks in pub

"You have a lot of Palestinian flags here? Why do you support them?" he asks the drinkers.

"Because we hate the f***ing Jews," he was told by one man present.

"The Israelis are child-murdering scum.

"They stole their land and killed their children."

One of the group shouted: "The only thing Hitler did wrong was he didn't kill enough f***ing Jews."

To laughter from his mates, the man, wearing an orange hi-vis jacket, repeated his claim, adding: "They're the scourge of the world, the scourge of the Earth."

Tenenbom was recording in Derry for part of a documentary series he was making on Brexit...

markodaly

cameramonkey wrote: »

The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their lands and murder of many predated these wars. To compare the murder of men , women and children and ethnically cleansing people from their homes to a bet in the bookies is going too far.

Here we go with more lies.
Israeli Jews were ethnically cleansing Palatentians before 1948, was it?

markodaly

Grayson wrote: »

That's all true. But it doesn't warrant the collective punishment of the palestinian people and the expanded settlement building. Israel could actually go some way to reducing tensions by working towards resolving that conflict.
But they have no desire to and they don't care about the conditions the millions of palestinians live in.

The experience of jews in europe before and during WW2 goes some way to explaining why they are like that but it doesn't excuse it. The simple fact is that it's wrong. Millions are living under occupation and it's never going to end.

I somewhat agree. I explicitly stated my opposition to building further settlements in the West Bank, in an earlier post.
I was just giving my opinion on why Israel does not care what we think. They have bigger fish to fry.

markodaly

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Israel is an expansionist state, they have the unequivocal backing of the most powerful country in the world and as such Israel is effectively the most powerful country in the world, if any country attacked Israel in a meaningful way, America would pile in

Not sure about that. Israel is well capable of looking after its own defense in how. They were at war 3 times in the past number of decades and won them all without American military intervention.

markodaly

riffmongous wrote: »

That is some pile of shiite

A great rebuttal.
What I said is all true, but people wont admit it.

Snickers Man

markodaly wrote: »

Here we go with more lies.
Israeli Jews were ethnically cleansing Palatentians before 1948, was it?

Yes, actually. Go check the timeline.

Massacre at Deir Yassin: April 12th 1948. As part of an overall plan, called Plan Dalet, to "secure" Jerusalem and as much territory as possible outside of that allocated to the new Jewish state by the UN Partition plan, the Haganah/Irgun/SternGang(Lehi) systematically expelled indigenous Arabs from villages considered to be strategically important. The most notorious massacre took place at Deir Yassin, today a suburb of Jerusalem called Givat Shaul, when several hundred people were killed and numerous women raped by Zionist fighters.

I use the term "zionist fighters" deliberately because they weren't called Israelis then. The state of Israel wasn't declared until a month later, (May 14th, or Iyar 5th, if you prefer) and it was only after that that external Arab "Armies" invaded.

Only one of the "Arab armies" was worthy of the name, the TransJordanian Arab Legion, equipped and officered by the British, and they defeated the Israelis wherever they came up against them in that war.

So, yes. The zionists/Israelis were teh first to commit wholesale "ethnic cleansing" in 1948. Apart from evicting many Arab tenant farmers off their land over the previous 50 years or so having bought it from under them.

Does pointing all that out make me an Anti-Semite?

markodaly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Similarly, both sides in the Israel / Palestine conflict have done atrocious things, but nobody forced Israel to expel Palestinians from their homes during the 1948 war, or to steal what didn't belong to it in 1967 - and justify both actions using ancient religious bullsh!t. That was a political choice which they made, and it has laid the foundation for the entire modern conflict as it exists today. Therefore, while both sides have done bad things, the fault lies with Israel, because Israel chose to behave like an imperialistic state when it made those choices.
.

While I agree with your point about Settlements this above I disagree with.

Let us not forget what actually happened in 1948. The UN General Assembly voted to agree to create the state of Israel and an Independent Arab state after British withdrawal.
The Zionists at the time accepted the plan while Palestinian nationalists didn't. The reasons for this was at its core anti-Semitic. (Jews at the time were refugees and they didn't want them seeking asylum in Israel to being a modern analogy to it)

When the plan was accepted by the UN General Assembly, a civil war broke out.
The first of these attacks were in Jaffa, carried out by Palestinian Nationals who boarded buses and shot down unarmed civilians, thus proceeding to an escalation of violence.

Regardless, the Jewish militias (Haganah) that were formed ad hoc at first to defend themselves and wage a fight in this civil war morphed into the Israeli army.
Militarily they won this civil war and declared the state of Israel in May 1948 by Ben-Gurion.

That was the 1st phase. When the British Mandate officially ended (they just wanted out), a coalition of Arab neighbors joined up and attacked the newly formed state.
Again, the Arabs lost, and lost badly...

Which brings me to my point. The two-state solution was on the table in 1948. It was Palestinian nationalists who choose not to accept this UN-mandated solution. It was their Arab neighbors who took up the fight on their behalf and lost, not only in 1948 but also in 1967. Most of those lands conquered were also handed back.

As I said, they were terribly led. They backed the wrong horse and lost (many times). No point crying to the bookies about the bets you made when your horse continues to lose. History is littered with losers who backed the wrong horse.

markodaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

Yes, actually. Go check the timeline.

Do you mean when they (Ben-Gurion and his militias) were fighting a civil war?
Anyone can cherry-pick an incident here or there, as there were plenty of violence and massacres on both side during this war.

Remember, it was they that accepted the UN Mandate for Palestine. They were happy with a two-state solution in 1948, the Palestinians weren't. Hence that civil war, hence the Arab League intervening after...

markodaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

Massacre at Deir Yassin: April 12th 1948. As part of an overall plan, called Plan Dalet, to "secure" Jerusalem and as much territory as possible outside of that allocated to the new Jewish state by the UN Partition plan, the Haganah/Irgun/SternGang(Lehi) systematically expelled indigenous Arabs from villages considered to be strategically important. The most notorious massacre took place at Deir Yassin, today a suburb of Jerusalem called Givat Shaul, when several hundred people were killed and numerous women raped by Zionist fighters.

Fact checking this makes it not true. Several hundred usually means more than two or many.
In fact the death toll was 107.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

The incident was also condemned by the leadership of the Haganah and not a sanctioned action by them.

And no, it was not the first drawing of blood. As I mentioned the entire civil war was kicked off by Palestinian nationalists boarding buses in Jewish areas of Jaffa and gunning down all on board.

The Zionists were happy to accept the 1948 plan, the Palestinian nationalists were not and choose to resit via violence. The rest is, as they say, is history.

Snickers Man

markodaly wrote: »

Remember, it was they that accepted the UN Mandate for Palestine. They were happy with a two-state solution in 1948, the Palestinians weren't. Hence that civil war, hence the Arab League intervening after...

There is the great lie told by Israel and its supporters: we accepted the UN partition plan; the Arabs didn't.

As I already demonstrated, Zionist expansion outside the limits of the UN partition plan had already started before the state of Israel existed. The Zionists(subsequently called the Israelis) accepted the principle of the UN plan to create a Jewish state in part of Palestine; they never accepted its boundaries.

They still don't.

Snickers Man

markodaly wrote: »

Fact checking this makes it not true. Several hundred usually means more than two or many.
In fact the death toll was 107.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

the total number is disputed, as even that link you posted makes clear. Even some of the Jewish terrorists who took part in the attack claimed to have killed more than 200 Arabs.

markodaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

There is the great lie told by Israel and its supporters: we accepted the UN partition plan; the Arabs didn't.

Well, it is a fact, unfortunately for you.

As I already demonstrated, Zionist expansion outside the limits of the UN partition plan had already started before the state of Israel existed. The Zionists(subsequently called the Israelis) accepted the principle of the UN plan to create a Jewish state in part of Palestine; they never accepted its boundaries.

This is a lie actually. The Zionist movement as a majority accepted the partition plan, which included the then borders. The accepted the whole plan, while Palestinian nationalists refused it as they "indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

Why did they refuse?

markodaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

the total number is disputed, as even that link you posted makes clear. Even some of the Jewish terrorists who took part in the attack claimed to have killed more than 200 Arabs.

Hillarious, I show you that the death toll is officially recognised as much less than you claim and you double down on it.

The official death toll is 107. Much much much less than several hundred.
Peddle your fake news somewhere else.