Do Europeans think Israeli moral leverage re the Holocaust is about played out?

Great Debates
121

Transfering your population to an occupied territory is in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva convention.

**

The most certainly should be allowed to. Why are you jumping to conclusions? Jews should be allowed to live anywhere in Palestine/Israel as equals of Palestinians. Not as oppressors. My personal preferred solution for the conflict is Israel equalizing Palestinian Israeli rights and then annexing the territories, granting the Palestinians citizenship.

Actually, this is incorrect. They most certainly are displacing Palestinians with the settlements. Have you not heard the same stories of home demolitions and land expropriation due to settlements needing “security zones” or the new security (a.k.a. apartheid) wall going up? The right to transfer your population comes with annexation, and annexation comes with making Palestinians Israelis. For as long as Israel is there as a military occupier- for as long as Israel’s civil administration does not extend into the territories, the settlements are wrong.

Also incorrect. Read the US State Department 2002 Report on Human Rights Practices: Israel and the Occupied Territories, any report from Adalah, or the findings of the UN Committee Deeply Concerned about Persisting Inequalities between Jewish and Arab Citizens of Israel (google for any of the above) for more information. Most fraglantly, 80% of the land of Israel cannot be leased as it falls under Israel Lands Administration control, which is charted to use the land for the benefit of Jews only.

Personally, I oppose making another Palestinian State, for there is already a state in Palestine: Israel. (The answer of Jordan is mere trickery based on what was once defined as Palestine.) It’s time Israel annexes the territories and shares power with Palestinians. In a true democracy.

122

Actually, you haven’t “cited” anything.

123

Maybie I havent been reading this topic well enough, but I would like to see some hard facts and/or statistics regarding the rise of anti semitism in Europe. Some say its at epidemic proportions while others seem to think its a mostly Belgian/French problem.

Rumsfeld zero tolerance prescription for Europe is silly because Europe has gone out of its way to give hard sentences for hate crimes and has banned Neo Nazi parties and media. The US has not gone to the same length.

It has already been established that Anti Semitism is on the rise in the US as well. Maybie the Americans in the group can offer an explanation that might be matched to the European case. In a recent ADL study 17% of Americans were shown to have racist opinions of Jews.

124

Yes from the way some Americans talk about it, you’d think it was the 1930’s all overe again, Its not. The truth is from what I know from speaking to Jews from the US and Europe I would say it is worse in the US than in most of Europe (though in Russia, Eastern Germany and other old Soviet-bloc countries and maybe France probably not).

The BBC, Chris Patten and even the academic boycott is the wrong place to look for antisemtism in Europe, really we should be talking about Nick Griffin, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Jorge Heider and their politcal parties.

125

I’d hereby like to apologize to JonBodner for confusing him with December. JonB didnt link to LGF. Someone suggested that it was the same writer and I think that is root to my confusion. Sry again.

126

Guinastasia-Here are some cites for you

Jerusalem Post 11/2/02-LONDON European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten has turned down a leading European legislator who wants an investigation into alleged illegal use of EU aid to the Palestinian Authority.

MC-I checked your site and find it amusing that the EU conveniently whipped through an audit of itself! talk about a conflict of interest. it welcomes an independent audit but that requires the assent of 157 member of the EU parliament.

But to continue cites
From the Simon Wiesenthal Center (I assume this is not considered a far right wing group): Member of Parliament Tam Dalyell, Father of the House, (Labor’s senior MP) accused Prime Minister Blair of “being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers.” Dalyell named Lord Levy, Tony Blair’s personal envoy on the Middle East, Peter Mandelson, whose father was Jewish, and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary who has Jewish ancestry, as three of the leading figures who influenced Mr. Blair’s policies on Iraq. Mr. Dalyell also claimed the Prime Minister was indirectly influenced by Jews in the Bush Administration including Richard Perle, a Pentagon advisor, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, and Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

A prominent Greek professor from the London School of Economics, Nikos Mouzelis, wrote an article published in the Sunday edition of To Vima, the largest Greek newspaper, blaming the Jews for the crisis in the Middle East and for the lack of peace in the world.

12/2/02 The Guardian: Dr Oren Yiftachel, a left-wing Israeli academic at Ben Gurion University, complained that an article he had co-authored with a Palestinian was initially rejected by the respected British journal Political Geography. He said it was returned to him unopened with a note stating that Political Geography could not accept a submission from Israel.
Mr Yiftachel said that, after months of negotiation, the article is to be published but only after he agreed to make substantial revisions, including making a comparison between his homeland and apartheid South Africa.

Again, the question posed is what constitutes anti-semitism as opposed to anti-zionism.
And why is the BBC and academics the “wrong” place to look for anti-semitism? only the right is capable of it?

the bottom line is there has been a rise in anti-semitic acts in europe and i’m all ears if you can provide a better reason than the huge rise in anti-israeli rhetoric and activities.

BTW, too many are wasting their breath arguing who is responsible for what atrocity and who is more deserving of a country. Israel is not going away and the Palestinians will get a country from the west bank and gaza strip. doesn’t matter what side you favor, that’s what is happening w/many fits and starts.

127

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by bugg *
**Transfering your population to an occupied territory is in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva convention.

**

Actually they are by international law “disputed”, not “occupied” territories. these territories were illegally annexed by egypt and jordan following the 1948 war.
As to other points regarding israeli immigration policy favoring jews, every sovereign country can set its own. funny, i don’t hear anyone foaming at the mouth that saudi arabia not only prohibits non-muslims from immigrating but deems any expression of a non-muslim faith as a crime.

israel should be held to the same standard as any other country as anything else is biased. does the differing standards in the middle east stem from israel being the sole democracy in the region, so we expect more, or do we just expect less from the arabs?

128

YourOldBuddy asks for hard facts about the rise of antisemitism. The following might suffice:

A Tel Aviv University report.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2002-3/general.htm

The entire report makes for an interesting read.

How pervasive is old-style anti-semitism in Europe today? The Anti-Defamation League offers the following survey of current European beliefs. Worse than in the US.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4185_13.asp

This is a problem.

MC Violent attacks aginst Jews is actually down in the US. Also per the Tel Aviv report, http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/usa.htm

which is not to say that anti-semitism is not alive and well here.

129

Well… no… the fourth geneva convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war.

Then why is there an objection to the settlements?

I’ve heard stories that couldn’t be backed up, yes. The only credible stories I’ve heard of housing being demolished are cases of houses being used as bases and hideouts for terrorist activities.

Actually, only 8% of the land in Israel is privately owned, and actually, in that 8% one organization is the Arab Waqf, which owns land for the exclusive benefit of Muslim Arabs. The remaining 92% is managed by the Land Management Authority, and can be leased to anyone. As a matter of policy, any Arab citizen is eligible to lease government land.

Given that the Palestinian leadership & extremists groups, along with much of the Arabic world, are only now even acknowledging that Israel has a right to exist, how realistic do you think that solution is?

I just don’t see that as practical when so much hatred of Jews is still so prevalent in the culture.

130

jaybo states wisely

My read on history is that a Jewish homeland restored was just. That Arabs in the area (soon to become Palestinians) had a just claim and that so did Jews who had been there and did Jews who had returned as well. Arabs fled: some because they reasonably felt that the Jews would soon be destroyed, killed, and otherwise driven out by an impending overwhelming Arab attack, some out of fear and a few were directly driven out. Arab Jews fled Arab lands were they had lived for many hundreds of years, also out of fear and under attack. Both left property behind.

Some of you may feel that Israel’s creation was a UN mistake. So be it, we’ll disagree. But Israel is and the Palestinian people are. Were do they go from here?

a) More of the same. Israeli adminstrations bulldozing homes and accepting innocents being killed in a desperate attempt to provide some semblence of security. Palestinians blowing up schoolkids with schoolkids and living without any reasonable hope for the future. Bad for both, worse for the Palestinians.

b) Seperation. Israel provides for its security by giving most of the territory to the PA seperated by a fairly impervious security fence. Not great for Israel but worse for Palestine. They have the land but a hard go for economic success with it without Israeli involvement. (And the charge of “apartheid” is quite specious. No more apartheid than the US keeping its borders secure.)

c) The death of Israel as a Jewish state. This entails the so called Right to Return or annexation (with citizenship) of the occupied lands. Jews would be a minority and Israel could even become another Islamic country with Jews treated the way Jews are usually treated in such lands. Great for the Palestinians, awful for Israelis.

d) A Palestinian country on most of the Gaza strip and the West Bank with a presence in East Jerus’lm and an Israel, each independent but cooperative. Good for both. Allows both to work together for a better future. Hmmm. Both need to give up on things that they feel they deserve, but in return get peace security and a chance for an economic boom time for countries.

Which do you realisticly endorse?

131

So what is in dispute here ? You say Arabs fled voluntarily. I say they were forced out by bloody military operations. Then you give a cite that supports the fact that the village was a victim of an organized military attack ? You prove yourself wrong. Your cite even establishes that hundreds fled the attack. So whats the deal here ? They left voluntarily ? No. They fled from an army. Just like I said, the old legend about Palestinians leaving voluntarily is crap. There are plenty of facts to support that fact, even your own biased cite admits that. Can you support a position that anyone fled Der Yassin voluntarily ?

And you ascribe hatred of Jews as the primary obstacle to establishing a homeland ? I guess if it had been Tibetan monks taking the land to form New Tibet they would have just handed it over and left thier homes. Get a clue man.

132

When will we see a forum devoted to the Tibetans who lost their land to a Chinese invasion and continue to suffer since 1959? I guess only Richard Gere cares in the western world.

come on everyone, get off the palestinian soapbox and get back to good old fashioned european anti-semitism.

133

**
They are, are they? Do you have one ruling of any international body that affirms this? Because I can count plenty of UN, ICRC, and Amnesty International reports that all regard the territories as occupied. I know what you’re getting at, however, that the last authority to be internationally recognized as soverign there is now defunct (Syrian provence of the Ottoman Empire) but the “facts on the ground” so to speak are military occupation. Perhaps the lack of any existing soverign party enables Israel to annex the territories unilaterally (as I argue they’re in the process of doing) but to do so requires they grant citizenship to the Palestinians. But instead, they use tanks to control the population, and take the land but not the people.

**
The big difference here is that Saudi Arabia did not expell/deny return to 750,000 non-Muslims who are now living in camps trying to return. If anyone was expelled when it became Muslim, then for as long as they maintained their claim I would have been advocating their cause. However, they’re not around anymore, so I can’t argue for them: Palestinians are around.

I do not acknoweldge Israel to be a true democracy. It is only a democracy for its Jewish citizens only. Palestinian Israelis are systematically discriminated against, and millions of other Palestinians are denied Israeli citizenship, despite the fact that the land they’re living on (West Bank and to a lesser extent Gaza) has been apparently annexed. Israel maintains a Jewish majority inside the 1949 Armistice line only because it denies the refugees who fled during the war their internationally-recognized right to return.
Israel is being held to higher standards than the very few countries that do worse things simply because the American media glorifies Israel as infalliable and Israel is the prime recipient of US aid. Why do you suggest it’s okay for Israel to be singled out for aid, yet not for scrutiny?

134

**
I’m glad you recognize this, because few people do. The question of whether or not Zionist actions from 1948-2003 was just is largely a question of theory; I do not make an attempt to fully answer it. The question is, indeed, where we go from here.

**
I don’t like how you described this, but it is indeed the right answer. The assumption that Jews would become persecuted, or even second-class citizens, is offensive. It ignores the history of coexistance between Palestinians and Jews (see the Jewish Palestinian population for proof) and it also ignores the fact that should this happen today, the power would remain in the hands of the IDF, Shin Bet, and Mossad. Do you honestly think that Palestinians could, or would, seize enough power to go from becoming the oppressed to the oppressors? If they tried, the result would be a huge civil war, and given the current power distribution it would clearly be a loss for Palestinians. Then, those who were imprisoned or exiled for attempting to oppress would receive zero sympathy from the rest of the world.

It’s also not very factually accurate to say that Jews would become a minority. If it happened now, the country would be split roughly 50/50 between Jewish and non-Jewish (a diverse group, but largely Palestinian Muslim Arab) citizens. Constitutions exist to prevent majorities from oppressing minorities, and indeed a strongly worded constitution and international support and monitoring could ensure that power is shared fairly and that shifts in power happen slowly enough to be done successfully. A constitution could also allow for a new immigration law, one that allows for equal numbers of Palestinians and Jews to return home. Provinces could exist to handle municipal needs, with government responding for what the people needed, and even enabling things like everyone to have their own area with they can display their own flag or sing their own anthem. National unity would be built through the mutual struggle to develop a country where power is shared justly and fairly, and I have no doubt that a mandatory civil service/military requirement would help forge this new national identity.

Even if there are no regional provinces, Jewish organization will continue to exist through organizations that would lose their official role in the government (in this plan comes an end to all discriminatory laws, such as the laws that prevent non-Jews from leasing 80% of the land of Israel) but could continue to provide valuable social services for Jews.

You were too quick to write this option off, given that I have talken to Israelis and Palestinians personally who both support it. The PLO would have settled for this arrangement decades ago, and when Arafat first called for two states in 1978, he said he would “renounce any and all violent means to enlarge the territority of the [Palestinian] state” and “I would reserve the right, of course, to use nonviolent means, that is to say, diplomatic and democratic means, to bring about the eventual unification of all of Palestine.” Clearly his eye has always been on either a single secular state or a federation of states amounting to a single state, and applying any sort of fair standards to the problem will make most people come to the same conclusion.

This plan would also please many extremists without too much trouble: they get all of Palestine, they get all of Israel. And all they have to do is share it.

135

I am in agreement here. Israel is not a western democracy. The voting population is and has been manipulated by military force and national policy. Furthermore, the amount of religious influence on the government puts Israel more in the realm of a theocracy.

When holding Israel up as a model western democracy it is also important to note that Israel is currently a nation entirely dependant on foreign aid. There is almost zero foriegn investment in Israel and the military that is the only thing between Israel and Palestinians taking back what belongs to them is also completely dependant on foreign aid.

As for the good ol’ Europen anti - semitism, see my previous post full of questions that no one wants to answer. Take the quiz and see what your definition of anti - semitism is.

136

bugg,

Do a little more reading on the status of Jews in Arab lands past and present and read up a little on the history of how Jews were treated in Palestine before 1948. You have a little bit of rose in your glasses.

Anyway, the death of Israel as a state with a Jewish identity is not a realistic option. At least not in the near term. (I can see a possible long-term confederation between Israel and Palestine leading to a future secular entity at some distant future point as a remote possibility.)

Also your portrayal of the condition of Arab Israelis is more than a bit unfair. Yes, there is discrimination, no doubt. Arabs are poorer and less well educated in Israel and some of that is a result of institutional bias … similar to the state of affairs for minorities in the US and no worse. No excuses, it needs to improve, but Arab-Israelis have more rights and educational opportunity than Arabs in almost any Arab country (see the UN Arab Development Report for some figures). I say “almost” just to hedge, maybe there is one. Israeli Arabs vote freely, have representation in the Knesset, access to the courts, and so on. They are indeed part of a representational democracy.

137

The vast majority of Arabs fled either voluntarily, or Some were forced out, when they violented resisted the establishment of the state of Israel. In this specific example, there was an unfortunate incident where people were killed after Arabs feigned surrender and they opened fire in return. But they certainly didn’t set out to massacre the resident population.

This proves nothing wrong… the linked article explains clearly why Deir Yassin was a target, and explains the events that transpired.

This was one specific example… it certainly doesn’t support a claim that ALL Arabic residents of these territories were forced off their land in “bloody military operations”. This was a very volatile time, and there were horrid events on both sides, to be sure… but exagerating and misrepresenting the events does nothing to help the current peace process.

138

Come on, it is a democracy like it or not. while i agree that the israeli arab are treated like second class citizens in some ways, they vote and have a stake in the process. and there is some legitimate concerns about arab citizenry’s loyalty. before jumping on this, note that bedouins and druse participate in the military because they have accepted israel, warts and all. the arab citizenry in some measure have been understandably conflicted. this is complex and trying to reduce it to simplistic terms just doesn’t work. and again, until there is official annexation which now will never happen, focus on the future, not the past.

a good friend of mine who lived a decade in the middle east says the arabs in general accept that israel is here to stay but will not recognize it until the palestinian issue is solved. so let’s get past it and get back to european antisemitism.

139

couldn’t find your previous post of the quiz. how about reposting please.

140

With all due respect, that’s simply bullshit. Israel is as much a democracy as the United States or the countries of Western Europe. It has regular, free elections, all adult Israelis are allowed to vote, there are multiple parties who have equal access to the polls, and there is a free and independent press which is often critical of government policy.

As for the Palestinians, why should they be allowed back? They don’t live in Israel anymore…they left. It’s not up to them whether or not they should be allowed into Israel. My great-grandfather was German. Does that give me some natural right to live in Germany? If the German government wants to allow me to live there, great, but it’s not my country anymore. It’s the German’s country. I’m sorry for the Palestinians who lost their homes in 1949. Heck, I’m sorry for the Sudenten Germans who lost their homes in 1946. But 1949 was 54 years ago. Before too long, there won’t even be any Palestinians who lived in Israel proper. It’s time for them to let it go. That’s the only way peace will happen. This “one state” scenario wouldn’t work. The Israelis don’t want the Palestinians to be Israeli, and frankly, the Palestinians don’t want to be Israeli either. If you haven’t noticed, the Palestinians don’t like the Israelis very much…they never have. Since 1949, Palestinians have been committing acts of terrorism against Israel. If they want a state, let them set one up in the West Bank and Gaza…it seems to be what most Israelis and Palestinians want. Hopefully, with two states, both sides can improve relations with each other, and actually move toward friendship.