illegal/ IMO.
See one of your logical jumps in this statement?
My personal list of countries which are threats to world peace:
North Korea
USA
Israel
That’s it, I am an Anti-Semite!!!
from the same poll:
74% of the people in the Netherlands believe Israel poses the biggest threat to world peace.
According to the Eurobarometer poll, based on interviews with 500 people in each of the 15 EU states, some 59 percent of Europeans replied “yes” when asked whether or not Israel presents a threat to peace in the world.
A total of 53 percent said Iran, North Korea and the United States pose a threat,
followed by 52 percent for Iraq,
50 percent for Afghanistan
and 48 percent for Pakistan.
After that came Syria on 37 percent;
Libya on 36 percent; Saudi Arabia on 36 percent;
China on 30 percent;
India on 22 percent;
Russia on 21 percent
Im from Europe and I cant understand how anyone except Israel and the US could possibly threaten world peace. No other nation on the list except for Russia (somewhat dormant now) has the leverage to affect Europes peace. N Korea could fling a few nukes around and the ensuing havoc would probably never touch Icelandic shores.
My list:
Israel (antagonizing Muslims to the extent where anti Israeli sentiments pave way for anti western sentiments + backyard nukes/dirty bombs)
ChickenHawk governed US
Anyway the way Europe is portrayed in this thread is mind bogglingly stupid. I’ve got no jews to beat up. There are probably less than 10 in the whole country for crying out loud. If the raging anti jewish sentiment as portrayed in this thread by some posters, blanket bashing Europe, was true they would be mobbed to the extent where I couldnt get a punch in.
I agree with your list, YourOldBuddy, but I added North Korea because IMO things could turn bad when the economic situation gets so bad that the regime doesn’t see any “sensitive alternatives” to an unprovoked attack to SK anymore.
I don’t know, I’m not too surprised by the poll results.
First point - the poll didn’t ask “which of these countries do you like” ? So I’m not sure I understand the ‘hurt feelings’ reactions.
Second point - I take “threaten world Peace” to mean - possibly be at the root of a global conflict.
If you consider means, opportunity, and motive there aren’t too many contenders left for Most Likely to Threaten World peace.
The US makes the list by a combination of military power and, lately, a bellicose attitude.
Israel makes the list as a (putative) nuclear power with a lot of enemies, and the US behind it (this kind of alliance was instrumental in triggering WWI).
The ‘axis of evil’ countries don’t make it because their military capabilities are small (globally speaking), and they don’t have any major military powers backing them.
I’m a little surprised though at China and Russia getting a free pass - I assume this is because they haven’t been getting much media attention.
Were France and the UK (substantial military/ nuclear) on the list ?
I don’t think that France, or China would be so stupid to risk an attack which could provoke a major war. The only provocation France is able to do is some nuclear explosions which Chirac ordered to celebrate his election. China would have already “integrated” Taiwan if it really wanted to.
The UK wouldn’t do anything w/o the US, so basically the US merits to be on the list, not the UK.
Russia concentrates its forces to its own sphere of influence (Chechenya etc.).
Quite simply, Jews left north african countries following the creation of Israel and later, the decolonization. According to a book I'm checking, 405 000 of north african Jews left for Israel, 270 000 for the USA and 260 000 for France (plus 100 000 to Canada, and some others to various other countries, but in much more limited numbers).
Sephardic Jews were granted french citizenship in the north african colonies (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia), contrarily to the muslims, and, at least in Algeria, were essentially integrated to the population of the french settlers when these countries became independant. Those who hadn't already moved to Israel came to France along with the settlers of french descent. That's the people who are called "pied-noirs" (black foot...one foot in Africa, one foot in Europe). And the stereotypical "pied-noir", as depicted in movies, etc..is a Jew.
Before WWII, french Jews were azkenazis. There were, apparently, 165 000 of them, and roughly 150 000 of them survived the war (for those who would think these figures don’t match with the number of Jews deported from France, I add that the wide majority of deported Jews were foreign refugees and not french citizens). Part of them left to Israel following the war, but on the other hand, some dozens thousands Jews from eastern Europe settled in France after WWII.
Actually, there’s still quite a number of them, but they tend to be much less noticeable than the sephardic Jews (much less religious on the overall, less tendancy to “live amongst themselves”…for instance the synagogue in my street only receive Jews descendant from people coming from a specifical town in Algeria…not much in the way of traditions, not very present in the “typically jewish” activities, like the fabrics and cloths business in Paris, etc…) So, though I don’t have any figure, there are probably more azkenazis than it seems at first glance. Perhaps a 1/3-2/3 repartition, but that’s just a wild guess.
As for them being poor, not particulary. Actually, I even was totally unaware of the presence of a significant Jewish population in the disfranchised subburban neighborhoods (mainly populated by immigrants) we were talking about before this recent rise of antisemitic attacks.
I should add that Israel have up to 200 nukes
Are people here aware of “Operation Samson”, which is the final resolution by Israel in the absence of any other solution to its ongoing conflict with the Arabs. An “all-out annihilation” strategy. But that is not their only scenario-strategy involving atomic weaponds.
**
From the politicians, not much, IMO, apart from words. There are some initiatives taken from time to time, but with a quite limited scope and effect. In the medias, though of course it depends on their overall stance (From instance, the dayly “Liberation” tends to be filled with articles about issues related to racism), it generally receive attention only when there’s some high profile case, while actually, what these people face is most often “everyday racism”, like denial of jobs, of appartments to rent, of entrance in night clubs, etc…
Similar events are a long way from receiving the same coverage in the medias when the target is muslim/arab than when it’s jewish. For instance a muslim building defaced with graffitis won’t even be mentionned, while a synagogue similarily defaced will be. Probably partly due to the jewish community being more united and reactive, but probably mostly due to anti-arab racism being too ordinary to be news-worthy.
Actually, I really don’t think so. Nationalism really isn’t very common here, except in the extreme-right fringe. Even patriotism tends to be frowned upon, on the overall, precisely because it’s often associated with the extreme-right. You won’t find many people publically flaunting about their patriotism. You won’t see any french flags, except on public buildings, etc…(The exception being of course soccer competitions).
The “old style nationalism” you’re refering to got such a bad rap following WWII that it’s really rare. And as for churches, in France at least, the catholic church (since it’s by far the most common religion) doesn’t offer any support to nationalism. I would even say : at the contrary.
The issue is plainly usual racism. People don’t like immigrants, especially immigrants with a different skin color, a different culture, etc…They’re affraid of “being invaded”, “becoming a muslim country within a couple of generation”, think that immigrants are taking their jobs, that most criminals are “arabs”, etc…
“necessary evil” is exxagerated. And actually, from the point of view of people who rants against immigrants, they’d rather be perceived as an UNnecessary evil. But, on the overall, I would say that a lot of french people indeed don’t perceive France as being a “nation of immigrants”, despite it being often stressed in schools, by politicians, intelectuals, etc…
I would add also that France is strongly faithful to the “integration” model of immigration, and very opposed to the “multi-cultural” model of anglo-saxon countries.
Also, though racism against arabs and africans is quite wisepread, it’s not the case concerning Asians.
From reading how the survey was worded, this is being grossly misrepresented. What they appear to have asked was “Do these countries represent a threat?” That in no way suggests that Israel represents the biggest threat no matter how you twist it. For instance, if person X thinks that Syria and Iran are huge threats, but that Israel is also a lesser destabilizing force, that person would have been in the tally for Israel. That’s hardly a radical viewpoint, and the results should be interpreted as such.
All this means is that mainstream opinion is against Israel, as well as the US and several militant Islamic nations. I’m not seeing anti-semitism, just a general disregard for the whole state of affairs at the moment and everyone involved in it.
Though I do agree with the general idea appearing in your quote (The USA being perceived as the supreme incarnation of liberalism, hence getting for this reson a lot of beating…from leftists, from people opposed to globalization, etc…, a criticism against the US being relatively often a way of saying “See how liberalism is just messed up”, though of course it definitely isn’t the only reason the USA are blamed), I totally disagree with the situation being equivalent concerning Israel, because Israel absolutely isn’t perceived in the same way.
If you replace “USA” by “Israel” in your quote, as you’re proposing, it just doesn’t make sense anymore.
OK - checking back in as promised (if anyone is still interested…)- coudn’t even get on the board last night 
The Ha’Aretz quote Eolbo found interesting (95% of anti-semitic actions in France originate in the Arab/Muslim community) indeed originated from the Foreign Ministry. The writer, however, took pains to make clear that the source was “The professional level” (that is - long term civil servants, not political appointments) within the Ministry. Basically, IMO, his way of saying that he trusts the source to be relatively unslanted…
The writer, BTW, is Akiva Eldar - who is well-respected, and usually gets his facts right.
Can’t resist - Cite? 
(particualrs of “Operation Samson”, that is)
And I think the poll that brought up the original OP was taken by someone who didn’t take Statistics 101, then reported by someone who flunked Journalism 101… Essentially worthless, even if it did start a good discussion here.
Dan Abarbanel
I’ll have to agree with Dan on that one.
IMO the reason why 59 percent of participants in that poll said Israel was a threat to world peace is quite simply the fact that the country is on the news every second day, being at the center of major unrest and violence - a violence that is spreading across the globe. Whether this is Israel’s fault is an entirely different question, and as far as I know this question was not asked in the poll.
It was a journalist’s decision to shape this into a headline saying Israel was perceived by Europeans to be “the biggest threat to world peace”. This is not really substantiated by the poll result.
The fact that some dopers, especially those from the US, will jump at the headline and yell “anti-semitism” does not come as much of a surprise. After all this is a welcome opportunity for some Europe-bashing which has become fashionable in recent times, mainly because Americans seem to believe they are being bashed by the Europeans in the first place. (This is rather childish if you want my opinion.)
As for the anti-semitism question: I consider myself to be a rather open-eyed person (not wide-eyed though), and I fail to see any significant increase in anti-semitism in my country (which is Germany). On the conrary - any remark that is perceived to be anti-semitic will cause people to at least frown at you. If you should be holding an office and that remark becomes public, you’re in trouble. This week a high rankng general of the German military was sacked because he had shown some support of a German MOP, who had held a speech that was unfairly critical of the jews. Had it been muslims, hindus or anyone else that speech was about, I am sure the general would still have his job.