Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe

Franz Von Peppercorn

1641 wrote: »

Are you on for understatement of the century? They don't bluster a bit. Look at the Wikipedia Page linked below, eg, Section 8 The Charter. Or the treatment of their own people - 9.6, 10.3, 10.4.


If Israel were posing that kind of threat, given their firepower, they could have done it by now.

Edit: Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Yeh and a two year old threatened to kill me once. The threat to Palestinians obviously far greater, in particular from the Israeli right wing.

One thing not mentioned here is that a lot of the new fascist movements in Europe, in the UK in particular tend to march with the Israeli flag. It’s is Europe’s Muslim population that has to fear the right in Europe, and in the U.S. and other places like New Zealand. As Ilhan Omar is finding out, some of the right wing rhetoric is related to her mild critiques of Islam.

1641

Danzy wrote: »

No, in reality neither side want a settlement.
I think that Israel viewed the 90s peace process as a time buying exercise.

The Palestinian side couldn't sell the reality of a 2 State deal.

I think you may well be right on both scores - certainly with the current leadership on each side.

So it will probable drag on and on. In the longer term this may serve the Palestinian side better than the Israeli one.

Franz Von Peppercorn

1641 wrote: »

I suspect that historically it is lucky that they never settled here in large numbers - both for their sakes and our own reputation. It is unlikely that the ugly European anti-semitism would have passed us by. Our Ambassador to Berlin at the time of Kristalnacht (1938) described Jews as "undesirables" who were involved in pornography, abortion and the "international white slave traffic". He thought our immigration policy was "inordinately liberal towards the wrong sort of people" (Jews).


We did have a nasty pogram in Limerick when a group of Lithuanian jews settled there. It seems to have united almost everyone - priests , politicicians, businesses and ordinary Joes. Arthur Griffith (Sinn Fein founder) stuck his oar in too. Michael Davitt of the Land League tried to offer reason but was ignored. Here is a link to an account :


https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-limerick-pogrom-1904/

Pogrom my arse. Barely a boycott. Later on Dublin and Cork had Jewish mayors before any US city.

James Brown

Igotadose wrote: »

Uhh, yeah, I can just see Hamas being the most tolerant and cooperative bunch of lads should the hostilities drop off. But do tell, how with Hamas launching rockets and goading their followers into attacking troops, will this happen? And if Hamas backs off, what do you think their Iranian backers will do to them?

You're gone off and a tangent there. I asked would Hamas be so 'antisemite' as was alleged were it not for Israels treatment of Palestinians?
You're not addressing that.

1641 wrote: »

They don't pose such a threat because of the imbalance in armoury. They have often spoken of their intention. It is murder on a grand scale and the total destruction of Israel.

Monkey see Monkey do? Israel is a criminal regime run by a hateful man.

1641

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Yeh and a two year old threatened to kill me once. The threat to Palestinians obviously far greater, in particular from the Israeli right wing.
.

Are you seriously suggesting that if the Israelis dropped their arms at the Gaza border and gave Hamas access across the frontier that carnage wouldn't follow? Where are you detecting signs of this pacific intention ? It would be akin to the ISIS treatment of the Yazidis (but probably without the sexual enslavement).

Danzy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're gone off and a tangent there. I asked would Hamas be so 'antisemite' as was alleged were it not for Israels treatment of Palestinians?
You're not addressing that.



.

Without a shadow of a doubt, they are following their faith strictly and their Prophet was obsessed with hating Jews.

Igotadose

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're gone off and a tangent there. I asked would Hamas be so 'antisemite' as was alleged were it not for Israels treatment of Palestinians?
You're not addressing that.

Do you believe their behavior is solely driven by Israeli actions towards Palestinians? Or do you believe it's inimical to them?

You believe the former. I believe the latter - they exist to destroy Israel, as was pointed out they'll sacrifice their own (Palestinians) in support of that. If they were so concerned about the plight of their fellow Palestinians, why do they do violence towards them?

1641

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're gone off and a tangent there. I asked would Hamas be so 'antisemite' as was alleged were it not for Israels treatment of Palestinians?
You're not addressing that.

Monkey see Monkey do? Israel is a criminal regime run by a hateful man.

Hamas may not be so anti-semite if Israel ceased to exist - their stated aim.


A criminal regime - like as opposed to Hamas ? How is the rule of law in Gaza?

James Brown

Igotadose wrote: »

Do you believe their behavior is solely driven by Israeli actions towards Palestinians? Or do you believe it's inimical to them?

You believe the former. I believe the latter - they exist to destroy Israel, as was pointed out they'll sacrifice their own (Palestinians) in support of that. If they were so concerned about the plight of their fellow Palestinians, why do they do violence towards them?

I believe Israel, in it's creation and constant land grabbing and murdering brings it upon itself. I think they do exist to attack/destroy Israel. But that does not make them 'blatantly anti-semite' as was alleged. Blatantly anti-Israel.

James Brown

1641 wrote: »

Hamas may not be so anti-semite if Israel ceased to exist - their stated aim.


A criminal regime - like as opposed to Hamas ? How is the rule of law in Gaza?

Nope. You're confusing antisemetism with a hate for Israel. I'm suggesting the've a problem with Israel likely not all jews and would certainly not exist or have issues if not for Israeli actions.

You see Hamas are supposed to be a terrorist organisation. Like Israel behaves, but not supported by Trump.

storker

Count Down wrote: »

A question I've asked many times and have never received a satisfactory answer: Why, in the last few hundred years, are the Jews the most persecuted race in Europe?
There must be a good reason.

There's an explanation, and it's been given already. but it's not a good reason.

Wibbs

1641 wrote: »

We did have a nasty pogram in Limerick when a group of Lithuanian jews settled there. It seems to have united almost everyone - priests , politicicians, businesses and ordinary Joes.

To be fair 1641 the Limerick pogrom while a nasty and sad piece of shabby business between two local communities(both pretty poor too), it was nothing compared to European pogroms. Nobody died, a few Jewish families left, while others remained. Of those that left a fair few were welcomed by the people of Cork(as they were making their way to the US) and settled there. Though we've had Israeli shills on boards before pointing to as an example of "our deep seated antisemitism". :rolleyes: Consider in the same year, or near enough if memory serves(though they had them the regular) a pogrom in Kiev had nearly two hundred Jewish people murdered, many more injured and raped and hundreds of homes burnt to the ground. In wider Russia over all for that period thousands of Jews were murdered over a couple of years. They were a national and annual sport in that part of the world for a good while.

1641

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I believe Israel, in it's creation and constant land grabbing and murdering brings it upon itself. I think they do exist to attack/destroy Israel. But that does not make them 'blatantly anti-semite' as was alleged. Blatantly anti-Israel.

Like I (and others) have said before - all critics of Israeli actions and policies are not anti-semite - criticism is legitimate. But all anti-semites are critics of Israel. Which category do you think you belong to?

Franz Von Peppercorn

1641 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that if the Israelis dropped their arms at the Gaza border and gave Hamas access across the frontier that carnage wouldn't follow? Where are you detecting signs of this pacific intention ?

If I was seriously suggesting that here is how I would put it.

"I believe that I the Israelis dropped their arms at the Gaza border and gave Hamas access across the frontier that carnage wouldn't follow". But I said nothing like that. I said the greatest existential threat was to the the Palestinians. The parties to the right of Likud either want to extend Israel proper to the West Bank, thus denying the Arabs citizenship rights in the West Bank ( and therefore Israel proper since that is the only way to do it), or to expel all Palestinians. The latter is popular with a plurality, and almost a majority, of Jewish Israelis.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/

It would be akin to the ISIS treatment of the Yazidis (but probably without the sexual enslavement).

Equating Hamas with ISIS seems to me to verge on Islamophobia. Of course they don't do themselves much favours in their rhetoric, but if we are to judge all Palestinians by Hamas we might as well judge all muslims by ISIS.

1641

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair 1641 the Limerick pogrom while a nasty and sad piece of shabby business between two local communities(both pretty poor too), it was nothing compared to European pogroms. Nobody died, a few Jewish families left, while others remained. Of those that left a fair few were welcomed by the people of Cork(as they were making their way to the US) and settled there. Though we've had Israeli shills on boards before pointing to as an example of "our deep seated antisemitism". :rolleyes: Consider in the same year, or near enough if memory serves(though they had them the regular) a pogrom in Kiev had nearly two hundred Jewish people murdered, many more injured and raped and hundreds of homes burnt to the ground. In wider Russia over all for that period thousands of Jews were murdered over a couple of years. They were a national and annual sport in that part of the world for a good while.

Take your point - but we did have a tiny Jewish population compared to Eastern Europe. I am not sure things wouldn't have been much worse otherwise. And the thing about Limerick is that it seems to have had quite widespread sectional support (not just the poor and deprived), with the same old prejudices trotted out.

James Brown

1641 wrote: »

Like I (and others) have said before - all critics of Israeli actions and policies are not anti-semite - criticism is legitimate. But all anti-semites are critics of Israel. Which category do you think you belong to?

I would like to see Israel treated like a pariah by the international community until it seeks peace and ceases all criminality. But I like Fiddler on the Roof and live among some very nice Jewish people and Muslims too. All decent folk.
Your question suggests you're not as clear minded on the anti-Israel not being anti-semetic as you like to sell it.
You see me post anything negative about the jewish faith or it's followers then come at me.

1641

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If I was seriously suggesting that here is how I would put it.

Equating Hamas with ISIS seems to me to verge on Islamophobia. Of course they don't do themselves much favours in their rhetoric, but if we are to judge all Palestinians by Hamas we might as well judge all muslims by ISIS.

There is a lot of similarity in statements between the two groups in terme if bloodthirstyness - and there are plenty of Hamas statements:


On August 10, 2012, Ahmad Bahr, Deputy Speaker of the Hamas Parliament, stated in a sermon that aired on Al-Aqsa TV:
"If the enemy sets foot on a single square inch of Islamic land, Jihad becomes an individual duty, incumbent on every Muslim, male or female. A woman may set out [on Jihad] without her husband's permission, and a servant without his master's permission. Why? In order to annihilate those Jews. ... O Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. O Allah, count them one by one, and kill them all, without leaving a single one".



I am quite prepared to criticise Israeli government, policies and actions. But the Israeli critics seem to regard it all as one-sided - and blind themselves to the threat the Israeli citizen faces (without Israeli strong defences in place).

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

............



I am quite prepared to criticise Israeli government, policies and actions. But the Israeli critics seem to regard it all as one-sided - and blind themselves to the threat the Israeli citizen faces (without Israeli strong defences in place).

Their state is aggressively colonising areas outside their internationally recognised borders. The result of that is of course a violent threat.

1641

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would like to see Israel treated like a pariah by the international community until it seeks peace and ceases all criminality. But I like Fiddler on the Roof and live among some very nice Jewish people and Muslims too. All decent folk.
Your question suggests you're not as clear minded on the anti-Israel not being anti-semetic as you like to sell it.
You see me post anything negative about the jewish faith or it's followers then come at me.

It ain't about the Jewish faith - many Jews are secular anyway. But you seem relentless in criticising Israel while supporting a group who aims to violently destroy Israel and its Jewish inhabitants (eg "I believe Israel, in it's creation and constant land grabbing and murdering brings it upon itself. I think they do exist to attack/destroy Israel. But that does not make them 'blatantly anti-semite' as was alleged. Blatantly anti-Israel." )



From the International Holocaust Alliance definition of anti semitism :

1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/what-is-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-and-why-has-labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

It ain't about the Jewish faith - many Jews are secular anyway. But you seem relentless in criticising Israel while supporting a group who aims to violently destroy Israel and its Jewish inhabitants (eg "I believe Israel, in it's creation and constant land grabbing and murdering brings it upon itself. I think they do exist to attack/destroy Israel. But that does not make them 'blatantly anti-semite' as was alleged. Blatantly anti-Israel."  )



From the International Holocaust Alliance definition of anti semitism :

1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/what-is-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-and-why-has-labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511

Hamas are a minority political grouping in charge of Gaza. The majority of the Palestinian population live under Israeli/Fatah control. In that light, it seems rather mistaken to bring up Hamas as some form of justification for Israeli actions - particularily in regard to settlement/colony building and its attendant "security".

Franz Von Peppercorn

1641 wrote: »

It ain't about the Jewish faith - many Jews are secular anyway. But you seem relentless in criticising Israel while supporting a group who aims to violently destroy Israel and its Jewish inhabitants (eg "I believe Israel, in it's creation and constant land grabbing and murdering brings it upon itself. I think they do exist to attack/destroy Israel. But that does not make them 'blatantly anti-semite' as was alleged. Blatantly anti-Israel." )



From the International Holocaust Alliance definition of anti semitism :

1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/what-is-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-and-why-has-labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511

Jewish self determination means a majority Jewish state based on controlled immigration and keeping a Jewish majority I assume.

James Brown

1641 wrote: »

It ain't about the Jewish faith - many Jews are secular anyway. But you seem relentless in criticising Israel while supporting a group who aims to violently destroy Israel and its Jewish inhabitants (eg "I believe Israel, in it's creation and constant land grabbing and murdering brings it upon itself. I think they do exist to attack/destroy Israel. But that does not make them 'blatantly anti-semite' as was alleged. Blatantly anti-Israel." )



From the International Holocaust Alliance definition of anti semitism :

1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/what-is-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-and-why-has-labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511

I support what now? Where did I say I support Hamas? The suggestion was Hamas were 'blatantly anti-semite'. I'm suggesting they are blatantly anti-Israel most likely. They do not have issue with Israel because the majority are Jewish I would imagine, more based on Israel actions in the area. Israel created a need for Hamas by some. That's how these things generally go.

None of which applies to me.
I thought Israel and the Jewish people weren't the same thing, now they are? Sounds like something BiBi might have penned.
Quote my double standards? I inferred they were the same as the Israeli regime, that's pretty much the opposite. Also what nation have I held to different standards?
You allege I support Hamas from your own fantasy.

I think any rise in anti-semitism/muslim/immigration is fed and used by self interested parties to distract from policies and turn people against each other. It's a tool. The systems we work within don't work for us. Case in point, Ireland with a growing economy but record breaking societal crises. Looking for minorities to blame is the oldest trick in the book.

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

No history should fear debate.

No history should fear honest debate. When it comes to crypto-fascist scum they're more interested in sowing doubt and signal-boosting than putting forward a cogent counter-argument.

1641

Odhinn wrote: »

Hamas are a minority political grouping in charge of Gaza. The majority of the Palestinian population live under Israeli/Fatah control. In that light, it seems rather mistaken to bring up Hamas as some form of justification for Israeli actions - particularily in regard to settlement/colony building and its attendant "security".

And where did I defend settlement. I explicitly said oppose it as I do other other Israeli policies and actions. But I absolutely support Israels right to exist and for Israelis to live in security. Hamas rule ruthlessy in Gaza and are ruthless and relentless in their aims.

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

And where did I defend settlement. I explicitly said oppose it as I do other other Israeli policies and actions. But I absolutely support Israels right to exist and for Israelis to live in security. Hamas rule ruthlessy in Gaza and are ruthless and relentless in their aims.

...but to concentrate on Hamas as the "go to " bogeyman lends them a notoriety they don't deserve. Israel acted much as does now before Hamas was founded. The vast majority of Israelis do live in security - the same cannot be said for the Palestinian population.

1641

Odhinn wrote: »

.. The vast majority of Israelis do live in security - the same cannot be said for the Palestinian population.

But why/how do they live is security ? Because they are well defended. If they were not they would not be living at all - or certainly not in Israel.

jmayo

super_furry wrote: »

People are always looking for someone or something convinent to blame for their ****ty lives. It's horrible but with the rise of far right populism, Jewish people always seem to be in the firing line.

Oh so it has been the Far Right in France that has been forcing thousands (50,000) of Jews to leave for Israel since around 2000 ?

Someone better tell the family of 85-year-old Holocaust survivor, Mireille Knoll, killed in her Parisian appartment or perhaps the families of Yohan Cohen, 22; Yoav Hattab, 21; Phillipe Braham, 45, and Francois-Michel Saada sluaghtered in a Parisian Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket ?

From NY Times.

Nearly 40 percent of violent acts classified as racially or religiously motivated were committed against Jews in 2017, though Jews make up less than 1 percent of France’s population.

Grayson wrote: »

How is it that when the OP specifically mentions Romania you jump to islam.

Antisemitism in europe has been a problem for hundreds of years. It caused the industrialised killing of millions. There's a photo of a graveyard with swastikas in it. Yet you and others are willing to ignore all this so you can grind your own personal axes against islam. And laugh whilst doing it.

Ehhh maybe you should actually do some research before launching on your high horse.
That picture is actually from a graveyard outside Strasborg France in 2018, not Romania and the biggest reason for attacks on Jews in France has been found to be islamists.

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I love the way when antisemitism is mentioned, there's always a goodly constituency of people who rock up and try to shoehorn it into their own pet agenda.

"It's the muslims"
"It's the left"
"It's the right".

FFS. Are you only interested in it if it's your own personal bogeymen who're responsible?

It is all of the above.

Anyone that dresses this up as just far right is fooking deluded, and as another poster said disenginous.

Yes the Far right is on the rise in Central/Eastern Europe, and anyone of a Neo Nazi bent is of course anti-semitic, but Jews are facing very real threats from other two groups in other parts of Europe.

Yellow Vests have attacked Jews in France.
The Labour party in the UK has been found to be tolerating anti-semities.

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

But why/how do they live is security ? Because they are well defended. If they were not they would not be living at all - or certainly not in Israel.

That, and the fact that Fatah has blocked armed resistance, though without fully engaging with alternative means of struggle.

1641

Odhinn wrote: »

...but to concentrate on Hamas as the "go to " bogeyman lends them a notoriety they don't deserve. Israel acted much as does now before Hamas was founded..

Why do they not deserve it ? they are dangerous, ruthless and relentless. What about the treatment of their own people who dare show any dissent?


Israel from its inception after the 1948 United Nations resolution has faced threats from one force or another threatening to destroy it and throw its people "into the sea". It has always had to be ready and able to defend itself. It was established after the Jewish holocaust in Europe. How do you think they should have responded - "well, lets see - they probably won't do what they say they are going to do".


But I have many criticisms of Israel, including settlements. It is a complex situation with no apparent settlement in sight. How come the Israeli critics on here seem to focus exclusively on Israel alone? What about any criticism of the Palestinian side ? There were the ongoing stated aims (and related actions) to throw the Israelis unto the sea long before thier were any west bank settlements. Is this purely a good guys v bad guys show?

1641

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Jewish self determination means a majority Jewish state based on controlled immigration and keeping a Jewish majority I assume.

If there is ever going to be a two state solution I think it does. If Israel is not Jewish it will not be a safe haven for Jews. But Arab citizens live there safely and have civil rights - and representation in Parliament. Is this perfect ? No. But tell me, how do you think a Jew would fare living in Gaza? Do any Arab states in the Middle East welcome Jewish settlers? Or what about Iran?

James Brown

1641 wrote: »

And where did I defend settlement. I explicitly said oppose it as I do other other Israeli policies and actions. But I absolutely support Israels right to exist and for Israelis to live in security. Hamas rule ruthlessy in Gaza and are ruthless and relentless in their aims.

But Israel contradicts itself. Secure where exactly? The ever expanding border is part of the problem. Claiming a need to secure stolen land from the people you are stealing it from is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Hamas are terrorists. What is Israel when is carries out same on a much larger scale on stolen land?

1641

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I support what now? Where did I say I support Hamas? The suggestion was Hamas were 'blatantly anti-semite'. I'm suggesting they are blatantly anti-Israel most likely.
.

Maybe I misunderstood some of their Charter:


"You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They (JEWS) were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."


Or the words of one of their represenatives, Marwan Abu Ras (for example, there are plenty more):

"The Jews are behind each and every catastrophe on the face of the Earth. This is not open to debate. This is not a temporal thing, but goes back to days of yore. They concocted so many conspiracies and betrayed rulers and nations so many times that the people harbor hatred towards them. ... Throughout history – from Nebuchadnezzar until modern times. ... They slayed the prophets, and so on. ... Any catastrophe on the face of this Earth – the Jews must be behind it".


Nah, they don't sound anti-semite.

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

Why do they not deserve it ? they are dangerous, ruthless and relentless. What about the treatment of their own people who dare show any dissent?

They are militarily no real threat whatsoever. Yes they treat their own badly.

1641 wrote: »

Israel from its inception after the 1948 United Nations resolution has faced threats from one force or another threatening to destroy it and throw its people "into the sea". It has always had to be ready and able to defend itself. It was established after the Jewish holocaust in Europe. How do you think they should have responded - "well, lets see - they probably won't do what they say they are going to do".

Since 1967 however, Israel has been the aggressor by building colonies outside its borders.

1641 wrote: »

But I have many criticisms of Israel, including settlements. It is a complex situation with no apparent settlement in sight. How come the Israeli critics on here seem to focus exclusively on Israel alone? What about any criticism of the Palestinian side ? There were the ongoing stated aims (and related actions) to throw the Israelis unto the sea long before thier were any west bank settlements. Is this purely a good guys v bad guys show?

Regardless of whatever Palestinian groupings exist, colonial expansion is an aggressive and active policy which removes any moral "high ground" Israelis might imagine their state had.

Danzy

What relevance to antisemitism in Europe has Israel?

Odhinn

Danzy wrote: »

What relevance to antisemitism in Europe has Israel?

There's a few thicks that seem to believe that Israel is representative of every Jew.

hatrickpatrick

Igotadose wrote: »

The issue here, is Europe and the rise of antisemitism there. Personally don't think it's a rise, it's just a continuation of antisemitic tendencies in European character, driven by politics and religion. Nothing to do with settlements - you can complain about settlements and Israeli government policy all you want, that has nothing to do with painting swastikas on headstones in Romania.

I fully agree. The problem is that so many people conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and these are then lumped together to justify the statement "anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe".

For example, can anyone cite specific instances of anti-Semitism which members of UK's Labour party are accused of - which are not related to condemnation of Israel?

hatrickpatrick

markodaly wrote: »

The fact that people equate Jewishness or Jews in general to Israel is a form of anti-Semitism.

There is no evidence that Jews are part of some hive mind.

Nobody is suggesting that they are - except, ironically, those who accuse society of anti-Semitism themselves! Most people who despise Israel do not conflate it with Jews in general, but surely when they get accused of anti-Semitism by others, it's those others who are guilty of conflating Israel with Jews in general?

1641

Odhinn wrote: »

1They are militarily no real threat whatsoever. Yes they treat their own badly.

2. Since 1967 however, Israel has been the aggressor by building colonies outside its borders.

3 Regardless of whatever Palestinian groupings exist, colonial expansion is an aggressive and active policy which removes any moral "high ground" Israelis might imagine their state had.

Again , and in the context of a thread on European anti-semitism for which some posters have referred to Israel as an "explanation" (or justification?), I ask why the relentless one-sided focus on the Israeli wrongs or perceived wrongs, without any acknowledgement of the the threat they have continually faced, the wrongs on the other side, or the complexity of the situation generally ? Most people have no difficulty acknowleding Israeli wrongs but there are a significant contingent who will never accept or acknowledge wrongs against Israel or wrongs that make resolution more difficult.

As regards your points above.
1 We have been over this before. Hamas are a serious threat. So far, at least, that threat has been contained by superior Israeli strength.


2. The settlements didn't start until the seventies and I thing they are wrong. Many criticise Israel for it. As regards aggression there were numerous ongoing attacks by various Palestinian factions and groups right through the 70s and 80s such as the Munich massacre. You are not forgetting the Yom Kippur War launched by an alliance of Arab states in 1973? Or the documented atrocieties committed by both the Syrian and Egyptian armies during that campaign? (see section 3 in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War ). I am not saying this because I am painting the Israelis as good and the Arabs/Palestinians as bad, but again because I am baffled by the one-sided anti-Israeli narratve that is constantly being put out - mainly by some leftists - a narrative that, unwittingly or not, feeds anti-semitism.


3. I think it is clear that both sides see themselves as being on the moral high ground. But looking at it form the outside it seems to me that both sides are on morally very uneven ground. Yet from certain sections of the left we have a constant demonisation of Israel while a blind eye is turned to the moral and political failings of the other side. Why is this?

hatrickpatrick

Danzy wrote: »

https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/277657/what-the-eu-survey-reveals-about-european-anti-semitism

A survey from the EU Agency on Fundamental rights.

That such a post as mine is even considered contentious at this stage is pretty amazing.

None so blind as ..., denial is not just...

That you had to ask is mind ****ing blowing.

I agree, and I'll take the card if it comes my way. The attempts to completely derail this thread by disallowing the discussion of any context whatsoever are a depressing repression to the old-style of Boards discussions - this is AH, not the Politics forum. Discussions here aren't supposed to be railroaded in this manner, we're supposed to have more freedom to meander and draw in relevant segues.

As usual, the restrictions and warnings are being targeted at those on the opposite side of the debate to myself, but I have no interest in participating in a debate in which the opposition cannot voice their opinions because of a chilling effect.

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

Again , and in the context of a thread on European anti-semitism for which some posters have referred to Israel as an "explanation" (or justification?), I ask why the relentless one-sided focus on the Israeli wrongs or perceived wrongs, without any acknowledgement of the the threat they have continually faced, the wrongs on the other side, or the complexity of the situation generally ? Most people have no difficulty acknowleding Israeli wrongs but there are a significant contingent who will never accept or acknowledge wrongs against Israel or wrongs that make resolution more difficult.

The fact that certain palestinian factions are unacceptable in the light of European liberal values in no way jusitifies Israeli expansionism. As long as Israel is working towards a colonial and expansionist end, it cannot claim any "moral" high ground.

hatrickpatrick

1641 wrote: »

Again , and in the context of a thread on European anti-semitism for which some posters have referred to Israel as an "explanation" (or justification?), I ask why the relentless one-sided focus on the Israeli wrongs or perceived wrongs, without any acknowledgement of the the threat they have continually faced, the wrongs on the other side, or the complexity of the situation generally ? Most people have no difficulty acknowleding Israeli wrongs but there are a significant contingent who will never accept or acknowledge wrongs against Israel or wrongs that make resolution more difficult.

From an Irish perspective, the party which uses force to exert control over a geographical region without the consent of its existing inhabitants is almost always going to be considered "the bad guy", and people will be a lot more forgiving of actions taken by the occupied party in an attempt to fight back. Given our history, this shouldn't be too difficult to understand? Israel is a strong party using its strength to impose its rule over a geographical region in which the people do not want Israel to rule. The historical parallels should be obvious. People regard Israel as the greater evil than the Palestinians in exactly the same way as many regard the British Army as the greater evil than the IRA.

hatrickpatrick

1641 wrote: »

Again , and in the context of a thread on European anti-semitism for which some posters have referred to Israel as an "explanation" (or justification?), I ask why the relentless one-sided focus on the Israeli wrongs or perceived wrongs, without any acknowledgement of the the threat they have continually faced, the wrongs on the other side, or the complexity of the situation generally ? Most people have no difficulty acknowleding Israeli wrongs but there are a significant contingent who will never accept or acknowledge wrongs against Israel or wrongs that make resolution more difficult.

As regards your points above.
1 We have been over this before. Hamas are a serious threat. So far, at least, that threat has been contained by superior Israeli strength.


2. The settlements didn't start until the seventies and I thing they are wrong. Many criticise Israel for it. As regards aggression there were numerous ongoing attacks by various Palestinian factions and groups right through the 70s and 80s such as the Munich massacre. You are not forgetting the Yom Kippur War launched by an alliance of Arab states in 1973? Or the documented atrocieties committed by both the Syrian and Egyptian armies during that campaign? (see section 3 in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War ). I am not saying this because I am painting the Israelis as good and the Arabs/Palestinians as bad, but again because I am baffled by the one-sided anti-Israeli narratve that is constantly being put out - mainly by some leftists - a narrative that, unwittingly or not, feeds anti-semitism.


3. I think it is clear that both sides see themselves as being on the moral high ground. But looking at it form the outside it seems to me that both sides are on morally very uneven ground. Yet from certain sections of the left we have a constant demonisation of Israel while a blind eye is turned to the moral and political failings of the other side. Why is this?

The hostility to Israel from Arab states in attacking Israel early on in its existence came from the same place that the hostility towards Northern Ireland as a part of the UK came from with Republicans throughout the 20th century - Britain took the region by force and then partitioned it without the consent of the majority of the people. The fact that this pissed people off and led to numerous wars shouldn't surprise anyone - Britain's policy of partitioning former colonies led to civil wars almost every single time they attempted it.

This is why, although I support Israel's right to exist in this day and age because several generations have now been born there through no fault of their own, the idea that the initial wars were automatically wrong or immoral has always confused me. From the point of view of the Arabs, the Brits basically took a huge slice of their land and gave it away without their permission. Is it really surprising that they'd be willing to wage war in order to win it back? This shouldn't be such a complicated thing to understand from an Irish perspective.

Israel has a right to exist now for the same reason that NI has a right to self-determination today - because there are now multiple generations of people who are established there. That does not mean that the creation of Israel was a moral right, or that the original attempts by the neighbouring regions to oppose it were morally wrong or rooted in anything like racism. Britain partitioned the land and told a bunch of foreigners that they could move in without any reference to the people already living there and what they wanted. Everywhere in the world this was tried by the British Empire, it led to a civil war. Every single time.

1641

Odhinn wrote: »

The fact that certain palestinian factions are unacceptable in the light of European liberal values in no way jusitifies Israeli expansionism. As long as Israel is working towards a colonial and expansionist end, it cannot claim any "moral" high ground.

And who has been justifying Israeli expansionism ? Who is referring to Israeli moral high ground?



Now can you tell me - why the relentless one-sided focus on Israel wrongs without reference to the existential threat they face? Or the life and death threat they face from groups like Hamas? (please dont tell me again they are weak - they are relatively weak because Israel is relatively stronger).


Are you prepared to offer any balance in your criticism or analysis ?

1641

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

From an Irish perspective, the party which uses force to exert control over a geographical region without the consent of its existing inhabitants is almost always going to be considered "the bad guy", and people will be a lot more forgiving of actions taken by the occupied party in an attempt to fight back. Given our history, this shouldn't be too difficult to understand? Israel is a strong party using its strength to impose its rule over a geographical region in which the people do not want Israel to rule. The historical parallels should be obvious. People regard Israel as the greater evil than the Palestinians in exactly the same way as many regard the British Army as the greater evil than the IRA.

Ok - You are living out your Irish republicanism by projecting it on to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Which group would Hamas be ?

hatrickpatrick

1641 wrote: »

Ok - You are living out your Irish republicanism by projecting it on to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Which group would Hamas be ?

I'd have thought Hamas (and other Palestinian militant groups) were obvious synonymous with the IRA and related groups in this context. They've done unspeakable things which they should rightly be condemned for, but the underlying context is that their side is fighting for freedom from a foreign oppressor, while the other side is literally fighting for "we want to oppress you and maintain unjust power over you, and we're willing to murder your people to get it".

In that context, while what Hamas and others do is indeed appalling and horrific, it can never be considered as morally wrong as what Israel is doing. Because the crucial difference is, while the actions are equally immoral, the reasons behind those actions are not. One side is fighting for power it does not deserve or have any legitimate claim to, the other side is fighting because it rejects the imposition of that power.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

Guys no point in debating these hasbara trolls, they just want you going around in circles. You are dealing with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-C3voZwpM

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/guide-dealing-zionist-trolls-and-their-facts

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_Internet_propaganda

If you are interested in doing something about the Palestinians plight, I recommend joining http://ipsc.ie who must be doing something right as they got banned from Israel

SEPT 23 1989

In a war you will never win would you just keep firing home made rockets and stones at it?

Futile exercise

1641

hatrickpatrick wrote:

In that context, while what Hamas and others do is indeed appalling and horrific, it can never be considered as morally wrong as what Israel is doing. Because the crucial difference is, while the actions are equally immoral, the reasons behind those actions are not. One side is fighting for power it does not deserve or have any legitimate claim to, the other side is fighting because it rejects the imposition of that power.

But the analogy does not hold up.Leaving aside the settlements (which I disagree with) Israel since its inception has had to fight for its Survival. As far as Hamas are concerned they explicitly have made clear that their aim is the annilihation of Israel and the Jews theirin, not the end of settlement. On the other frontier Iran have stated a similar aim and have their front, Hizbollah, on the border. Even the PLO are demanding the " right of return" ( the end of Israel by other means). Some of them (PLO) might prepared to settle for less but they almost certainly couldn't sell it.

I have no idea what the solution might be and there seems no end in sight. My concern here is that the relentless and grossly simplistic narrative by some of Israel bad and Palestinians good feeds the sick and dangerous evil of anti-semitism. It is not about criticism of Israeli actions but about the one-sided blaming of Israel only.

Anyway, what about finding another location to continue the glorious battle for Irish independence? Maybe Cyprus where the military might of Turkey is occupying the northern half for over 40 years and bringing in settlers?
The Brits were there too so you might find a way of working the Irish struggle into it.
But, of course, we never hear of Cyprus, or the other ongoing occupations. It couldn't be because there are no Jews to blame, could it?

Danzy

Shelby Abundant Rank wrote: »

Guys no point in debating these hasbara trolls, they just want you going around in circles. You are dealing with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-C3voZwpM

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/guide-dealing-zionist-trolls-and-their-facts

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_Internet_propaganda

If you are interested in doing something about the Palestinians plight, I recommend joining http://ipsc.ie who must be doing something right as they got banned from Israel

Ohh vey, the goyim know.

hatrickpatrick

1641 wrote: »

But the analogy does not hold up.Leaving aside the settlements (which I disagree with) Israel since its inception has had to fight for its Survival. As far as Hamas are concerned they explicitly have made clear that their aim is the annilihation of Israel and the Jews theirin, not the end of settlement. On the other frontier Iran have stated a similar aim and have their front, Hizbollah, on the border. Even the PLO are demanding the " right of return" ( the end of Israel by other means). Some of them (PLO) might prepared to settle for less but they almost certainly couldn't sell it.

I have no idea what the solution might be and there seems no end in sight. My concern here is that the relentless and grossly simplistic narrative by some of Israel bad and Palestinians good feeds the sick and dangerous evil of anti-semitism. It is not about criticism of Israeli actions but about the one-sided blaming of Israel only.

But this is the point I'm making - Israel's inception was not necessarily a valid thing. The creation of the state was an action undertaken by the British on land they had no legitimate claim to. So while I personally believe that Israel has a right to exist by virtue of there being innocent people born there after the initial creation of the state, many do not share this view - and I do not believe the view that Israel is itself an illegitimate entity by virtue of how it came into existence, as an unacceptable political viewpoint to hold. I don't personally agree with it, but it's a perfectly legitimate and valid thing for someone to believe. If someone believes that military action to oppose Israel's creation was justified - in the same way that many believed in the past that military action to oppose Northern Ireland's annexation from the Republic was justified - that's a valid and legitimate viewpoint, not fringe extremism.

Regarding why people are more forgiving of Palestinian violence than Israeli, let me give you another analogy. Let's suppose that after the creation of Northern Ireland, which already pissed huge numbers of Irish people off - coupled with the rampant discrimination against Irish people in that region (both of which are things which happened and still happen with Israel as well as here), the Unionists in NI had, in response to IRA actions, used military force to violently occupy Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan.

Now imagine that they not only imposed their own British government rule in those counties, but started demolishing homes owned by Irish people, at the point of a gun, and allowing Unionists to move in to and live on those lands, leaving the Irish inhabitants homeless with nowhere to go.

In that scenario, I'm pretty sure there would be widespread support for the IRA, and far more willingness to forgive the IRA's murders of British civilians than the Brits'' violence against Irish people in those counties. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if a general "blow the f*ckers to sh!t" mentality became quite mainstream here in the Republic, as opposed to only being a view held by fringe lunatics.

That, in my view, is what's happening with the Israel / Palestine conflict and I think that answers your question as to why people are more forgiving of Palestinian atrocities than Israeli ones.

Anyway, what about finding another location to continue the glorious battle for Irish independence? Maybe Cyprus where the military might of Turkey is occupying the northern half for over 40 years and bringing in settlers?
The Brits were there too so you might find a way of working the Irish struggle into it.
But, of course, we never hear of Cyprus, or the other ongoing occupations. It couldn't be because there are no Jews to blame, could it?

Personally I feel the same way about Turkey's actions in Cyprus as I do about Israeli settlements, the difference is that almost nobody mainstream takes the opposing view so it doesn't come up as a point of debate. The Israel one is a red herring as far as these things go because they have the unwavering support of the "Freedom and Democracy" USA. That's what makes this conflict in particular so unbelievably infuriating. And in the context of this thread, I highly doubt I'd get accused of Islamophobia for being 100% opposed to Turkey's ongoing occupation of Northern Cyprus. Nobody equates that with "oh, you just hate Muslims", and yet being vehemently opposed to Israel's actions will immediately invite allegations of anti-Semitism.