Are European leaders anti-Semitic

[clairobscur]

Fair question. It’s because I was faulting the French leadership for their lack of strong statements and their lack of strong actions. One cannot post examples of what’s missing.

Ok…since there are articles about this issue everyday since the attacks began, I’m going to take yesterday’s paper, in search for some statements…Well it’s about the attack against a Jewish soccer team :

The mayor of the town of Bondy where it happened: “an act extremely serious”

Jospin, the prime minister “an abject action”

E. Guigou, minister of employment “express her indignation”

Nothing from the president in this article, so I take the paper from the day before. Chirac said: “These attacks, whatever could be their origin, are shameful for our country. The racial or religious hatred, whatever form it could take, must be repressed with an exemplary firmness. the authority of the state must be without weakness”
So, if “must be repressed with an exemplary firmness and without weakness” isn’t a strong statement, what exactly is? If “abject” isn’t a sufficiently strong word, what will be?

And please note that these are the very first quotes I found in the paper, so concerning your unability to “post examples of what’s missing” : either you’ve been unable to find any statement by a french (or european) leader, and in this case, you should say “I’ve no clue about what french leaders have said so i’ve no opinion about their stance”, either you have found statements which prove your point about their antisemitism and you should be able to post them.

Try again. I’m sure that in some 5 minutes long speech strongly condemning the attacks, you’ll be able to find a couple of sentences which, interpreted in your usual biaised way, will show that actually the speaker don’t care at all (sorry…not that he don’t care…that he’s antisemitic, since it’s your stance)
Now, let’s come to the “strong actions”. Can you tell me what actions should have been implemented, in your opinion which haven’t been? Since you apparently know that the french government didn’t do what it should have, it should be an easy question…(unless you’ve have actually no clue about that…but it this case, you certainly wouldn’t make this kind of statements, would you?)

That’s interesting. I wonder whether BETAR is actually associated with or controlled by the State of Israel
Otherwise it seems like an insult to Israel for Chirac to have assumed that the Israeli envoy could control these BETAR thugs.

I’ve no clue about the Betar apart the fact that they engage in streetfights and I don’t know about what Chirac talked with the Israeli representant. I guess you don’t really know, either.

Also, it seems as though Chirac was equating Jews with Israel.

From the quote you posted, he would have asked the ambassador to “control the activities of pro-israeli activist”. It doesn’t appear to me as equating “jews” and “israelis” (contrarily to the author of the article you posted to support your point, as already noted…so why would it be a problem when Chirac does since it’s not a problem when a journalist you agree with does, anyway?)

One would assume that the representant of Israel can have some influence on the “pro-israeli activists” in France. But once again I don’t know what was discussed. Actually, I don’t know anything apart from the two lines you posted, since I wasn’t aware that Chirac had summoned the ambassador on this issue.

And you didn’t respond about the totally idiotic “logic” of the journalist who “see the situation pretty much like you” (or perhaps you sharing his opinion is a hint about your own logic). You didn’t explain why french leaders=european leaders, either.
Well…I guess I’m going to stop answering to your posts since it’s a waste of time. Last time I argued with you, you called me antisemitic, because I criticized Israel, and according to you criticism about Israel is only a cover way to express antisemitism. So, by this standart, I guess that a lot of “european leaders” could be antisemitic too, indeed…

[december]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**The mayor of the town of Bondy where it happened: “an act extremely serious”

Jospin, the prime minister “an abject action”

E. Guigou, minister of employment “express her indignation”

Nothing from the president in this article, so I take the paper from the day before. Chirac said: “These attacks, whatever could be their origin, are shameful for our country. The racial or religious hatred, whatever form it could take, must be repressed with an exemplary firmness. the authority of the state must be without weakness”

**No doubt it’s partially a matter of style, but I would not consider these statements strong. To call it “abject” and to express indignation do not directly indicate a focus on the perpetrators. Chirac seems to see key victim of the attacks as France, who surrered embarassment. Where was his sympathy for the actual victims?

IMHO a strong statement would be,
"Terrorists have been attacking ciitzens of France. My heart goes out to the victims and to all Jews, who must feel terrorized by these attacks. We will spare no effort to capture the evil people who perpetrated these attacks and we will punish them to the full extent of the law."

Furthermore, I would have liked this statement to have been made as soon as the attacks began, rather than trying to ignore them for a considerable period of time.

New, let’s come to the “strong actions”. Can you tell me what actions should have been implemented, in your opinion which haven’t been? Since you apparently know that the french government didn’t do what it should have, it should be an easy question…(unless you’ve have actually no clue about that…but it this case, you certainly wouldn’t make this kind of statements, would you?)

Fair point. You are correct that I have little direct knowledge of the actions.

I based my statement on various things I read that seemed to not to indicate any particular urgency. Various special law enforcement actions may have been taken for all I know.

Examples I can imagine to demonstrate a high degree of action might be:

– The government could make it known that they were investigating various suspected groups.

– They could have offered a reward for information.

– They could have made it known that they were assigning a particular special police unit to investigate.

I’ve no clue about the Betar apart the fact that they engage in streetfights and I don’t know about what Chirac talked with the Israeli representant. I guess you don’t really know, either.

You know more about them than I do.

From the quote you posted, he would have asked the ambassador to “control the activities of pro-israeli activist”. It doesn’t appear to me as equating “jews” and “israelis” (contrarily to the author of the article you posted to support your point, as already noted…so why would it be a problem when Chirac does since it’s not a problem when a journalist you agree with does, anyway?) One would assume that the representant of Israel can have some influence on the “pro-israeli activists” in France.

You may have a point. Perhaps Chirac assmed that the violence was pro-Israel, although it may have been to attak French Arabs who BETAR beleived were attacking French Jews.

Actually, I don’t know anything apart from the two lines you posted, since I wasn’t aware that Chirac had summoned the ambassador on this issue.

I had the posted the link to a Saudi newspaper. It is http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=14234

And you didn’t respond about the totally idiotic “logic” of the journalist who “see the situation pretty much like you” (or perhaps you sharing his opinion is a hint about your own logic).

Yes, I do share his opinion, at least as a suspician. These attacks are a purely French prblem. French citizens (probalby ARabs) are attacking French Jewish citizens. NOw, with BETAR, the reverse is also occurring. I suspect Chirac is trying to shift some of the blame. However, it’s just one possible interpretation of events, which you are free to disagree with.

You didn’t explain why french leaders=european leaders, either.

I didn’t mean to focus on France when I posted the OP, but events there pushed me in that direction.

Well…I guess I’m going to stop answering to your posts since it’s a waste of time.

I hope you will continue to post, even though we disagree. Anyhow I thank for for the posts you have made.

]Last time I argued with you, you called me antisemitic, because I criticized Israel, and according to you criticism about Israel is only a cover way to express antisemitism.

I apologize for having said that. It was an unfair comment.

[december]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**Oh, and by the way, why are you refering only to the situation in France? Isn’t your post about “EUROPEAN” leaders? **

In fairness to France, similar attacks are now taking place in the Ukraine http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=151986

This site http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2000-1/general_analysis.htm has a lenthy study showing that attacks against Jews have been widespread sinde the beginning of the current intifada in 2000.

[clairobscur]

No doubt it’s partially a matter of style, but I would not consider these statements strong. To call it “abject” and to express indignation do not directly indicate a focus on the perpetrators. Chirac seems to see key victim of the attacks as France, who surrered embarassment. Where was his sympathy for the actual victims?

IMHO a strong statement would be,
“Terrorists have been attacking ciitzens of France. My heart goes out to the victims and to all Jews, who must feel terrorized by these attacks. We will spare no effort to capture the evil people who perpetrated these attacks and we will punish them to the full extent of the law.”

And what about “must be repressed with an exemplary firmness”, then? Doesn’t that fit your bill about focusing on the perpetrators?

And anyway, the President, the prime minister, etc…made tons of statements about this issue. I just poorly translated the first one I found in the paper. So, if you really want to know what exactly has been said by french politicians, how they expressed their sympathy, indignation or what they intended to do, search your self. I’m not going to try to find any statement made by french officials on this issue during the last two weeks.

you know, the problem with your stance is that you assume that the french politicians said nothing. When I post an example, you then try to find what is missing in the statement (for instance sympathy for the victims) and then assume that they never expressed it, just because they don’t in these two lines I quoted.

I could do exactly the same thing, accusing anybody of anything and then waiting for proof that he’s not guilty. If you had followed the french news recently, listened to politicians speechs on the french TV, radio, papers, etc and had come to the conclusion that the french politicians were uncaring and even antisemitic then you could argue about it. But you readily admit that you’ve no clue and nevertheless it doesn’t prevent you from making accusations. You don’t know what they said, so in your mind it means that they said nothing.

Furthermore, I would have liked this statement to have been made as soon as the attacks began, rather than trying to ignore them for a considerable period of time.

Are you serious? Do you actually believe they made no statements after the first attack against a synagogue? Once again, the fact that you don’t know what they said doesn’t mean that they said nothing. Do you watch the french TV, read the french papers? If not, how do you know what french politicians say or don’t say? Your accusations are once again baseless

Fair point. You are correct that I have little direct knowledge of the actions.

Which didn’t prevent you from stating that the actions you had no knowledge about were unadequate or insufficient… :rolling eyes:

Examples I can imagine to demonstrate a high degree of action might be:

– The government could make it known that they were investigating various suspected groups.

Seriously,do you believe that there are no investigations? Do you even believe that the authorities didn’t state clearly that they’ll thoroughly investigate the matter? In what world do you believe I live?

They could have offered a reward for information

Perhaps it could be efficient, but offering rewards is never done in France. It has nothing to do with this crime being deemed not serious enough.

They could have made it known that they were assigning a particular special police unit to investigate

I’ve absolutely no clue about which police units are investigating. Do you know it?

Anyway, we’re here debatting about how the investigations should be conducted in France. This is very remotely related to your stance “are european politicians antisemitic?” “Is the french police efficient?” would be a better thread title if this is the issue at hand.

You may have a point. Perhaps Chirac assmed that the violence was pro-Israel, although it may have been to attak French Arabs who BETAR beleived were attacking French Jews.

They attacked people in a freaking airport where they specially come to to beat the crap out of pro-palestinians. It’s not like they were trying to defend someone. Anyway, the BETAR isn’t a major concern, here. I wrote about them because they were responsible for the only recent example I knew involving Jewish activists, in response to some post of yours.

Yes, I do share his opinion, at least as a suspician. These attacks are a purely French problem. French citizens (probalby ARabs) are attacking French Jewish citizens. NOw, with BETAR, the reverse is also occurring. I suspect Chirac is trying to shift some of the blame.

Instead of suspecting it, why don’t you give an example of Chirac trying to shift the blame? My understanding is that on this board you’re expected to back your accusations with cites. So, I’m waiting for your cite about Chirac shifting the blame. And I don’t mean some random illogical article where the author “suspect” than an unknow “official” could hold the Jews responsible for the attacks. I mean an actual quote from Chirac where he shifts the blame.

And once again, this Betar thing is anecdotal. It’s not like there was a raging war between french jews and muslims.

However, it’s just one possible interpretation of events, which you are free to disagree with.

It’s not an interpretation of events, since you made abundantly clear you didn’t know the “events” at the first place.

I didn’t mean to focus on France when I posted the OP, but events there pushed me in that direction.

Then, since you didn’t intend to focus on France, please explain now why “euopean leaders” are antisemitic. Even assuming that you would be able to prove that french leaders actually are, it wouldn’t make your statement about european leaders true.

[clairobscur]

In fairness to France, similar attacks are now taking place in the Ukraine

You got me wrong. I wasn’t saying that you were unfair to France. I just wanted to point out that you can state anything about european leaders while refereing only to the situation in France.

And by the way, there has been attacks against buildings in Belgium and Netherlands too, and against people in Germany.

[kase]

Yes, there has been attacks to buildings in the Netherlands. And I’m deeply ashamed of it. The perpetrators are in prison now.

As for following the Dutch news; You wouldn’t understand it. That’s why we translate our newspapers in English.

I’ve never seen a translated French page. I could give links as to what Chirac did and didn’t do, but they’re in French.

Did you know that the site of the French embassy in Holland is **only ** in French? [and doesn’t work at all…]

How the heck are we supposed to give you cites when the French can’t speak the world language?

[DSeid]

Here is the difficult part:

There is a very long history of antisemitism in this world. The Holocaust is too “ancient history” for you? I personally have been callled “Jewboy” and attacked. What I’ve overheard when no one knew there was anyone listening proves to me that it is still pervasive. What prominent figures say behind closed doors that later leak out (see, for example, the Graham-Nixon tapes) illustrates how much there is.

Some “anti-Israel” views are just not so thinly veiled anti-Jew rhetoric. It gives the Jew-hater cover to express their views. Some is debatable criticism of the actions of a political entity.

But, boy, I think that it is understandable that after having survived two thousand years of pograms and a concentrated modern effort to exterminate us, that such bending over backwards enthusism to understand the point of view of a group whose longterm stated and acted on goal had been the death of all Israelis and who has leaders who have called for attacks on Jews across the world … well seeing not so subtle antisemitism there may be understandable. Posters who distort the history to justify terrorist attacks on Jews as signs of a root problem caused by Jews … sometimes the world is out to get even the paranoid.

As to European leaders, again, I see their actions (and nonactions) as reprehensible but motivated by a cynical self-interest and a self-love … but to judge Europe in light of its history is unavoidable.

[december]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**And by the way, there has been attacks against buildings in Belgium and Netherlands too, and against people in Germany. **

That’s true. And, there was a synogogue bombing in Tunisa recently. These attacks are becoming common.

Some countries seem to have a double standard where Israel is concerned. E.g., what will be the reaction to Dutch Government Resigns Over Report on Srebrenica Massacre

The Dutch government announced its resignation Tuesday, bending to pressure after a report blamed political leaders in part for failing to prevent the Serb massacre of Muslims during the 1995 fall of the Bosnian town of Srebrenica.

The announcement was made by Prime Minister Wim Kok, who also headed the government in 1995, when Bosnian Serb forces stormed past outgunned Dutch peacekeepers and overran the U.N.-declared ``safe zone,’’ killing some 7,500 Muslims.

Belgium has accused Sharon of war crimes for not preventing a massacre in 1982. In that case also, Sharon was not accused of conducting the massacre.

Will Belgium now accuse Holland of war crimes?

[clairobscur]

I’ve never seen a translated French page. I could give links as to what Chirac did and didn’t do, but they’re in French.

How the heck are we supposed to give you cites when the French can’t speak the world language?

But then, if one is unable to find what Chirac said or didn’t say, one shouldn’t argue about it.
And it’s exactly what december has been doing. He has no clue about what Chirac said but nevertheless he states that he said nothing or that what he said wasn’t appropriate.

For instance, I’ve absolutely no clue about what has been said in the Netherlands about the attack you mentionned. But I’m going to state : “The Queen has made racist comments”. Just because I feel like saying that.

The fact that cites are easy to find or not is irrelevant. The issue is that december is convinced that european leaders in general and french leaders in particular are antisemitic, hence Chirac must be antisemitic, hence he certainly said nothing or if he said something it must have been inapropriate.

[clairobscur]

Belgium has accused Sharon of war crimes for not preventing a massacre in 1982. In that case also, Sharon was not accused of conducting the massacre.

Will Belgium now accuse Holland of war crimes?

Belgium doesn’t accuse anybody of anything. Belgium passed a law which allow prosecution of war crimes irrelevant of where they happened or by whom they were commited.

People bear complaint against Sharon, hence a Belgian court began investigations (I hope what I’m writing makes some sense, since I’ve no clue about the english legal vocabulary). If someone intend to bear complaint against a dutch official, the Belgian courts will do the same (I assume some mininal evidences must be provided to support the complaints. There’s probably some kind of screening).