I think you’ve hit it right on the head there yojimbo. december isn’t trying to give a reasoned argument, he is making a general point about anti-semitism that may, or may not, exist.
Unfortunately, in MHO at least, the argument is weakened by a refusal to accept that there are two sides (at least!) to the story.
Oh, and by the way, I’m Jewish and from Europe - before december launches an attack on my position…
December, don’t try to play a ‘logic’ critique with me. You’re going to look stupid.
No, premise 2 is your strawman, december, and a piss-poor one at that.
Rather, I was drawing attention to uses of the same logic in re some level of funding = responsbility, unbounded.
I made to characterizations in re the truth or untruth of the US connexions, for example. Several, I would agree with.
Try again, december, but don’t try the sad little straw men.
Earth to december, you’ve spinning the phrase.
Oh this is rich.
Relying on reporting by NYT and WP, as well as the FT. They all used similar characterizations, long on assertion, short on fact.
A critical review here;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37447-2002May5.html
From the later:
But of course, december believes what confirms his beliefs.
**One of us is missing the point.
EU says Israel’s claims “lack evidence.” Can this be true? The only ways the EU could know their statement to be true are:
The EU has reviewed all of Israel’s alleged evidence and found it worthless or insufficient.
Israel’s evidence can be presumed to be worthless on general reasoning.
The article makes it clear that #1 hasn’t happened. Gary’s metaphor about Adolph Hitler is a way of arguing #2, but Gary seems to have backed away from that position.
So, Gary Kumquat, how do you justify the EU saying that Israel’s claims lack evidence? How do they know this?
A charitable interpretation: Maybe the EU statement meant only that the EU hadn’t seen evidence of their funds being used for terror. Maybe the statement that Israel “lacks evidence” is a bad translation. 
I answered this question YES several posts back. I pointed out that the US now intends to do something about misuse of the money. That’s what I think Condoleezza Rice means by her call for “transparancy.”
OTOH, the EU has so far pretended that this problem doesn’t exist.
Ah yes, the typical december argument.
So December, on what substantive basis–excluding the bald faced assertions from Op-Ed pages do you have for your “far greater effort” (on a Europe wide basis) assertion. It rather looks to me like yet another one of your non-rational-I-believe-it-becuase-it-affirms-my-cause-of-the-moment assertions which we have become ever so familiar with here. Rather recalls your ludicrous ‘argumentation’ in regards to welfare and terror.
In re the EU issue, your retort really boggles the mind. Truly. The EU clearly has read the report, there is the evidence which Israel has presented. They clearly find it wanting, indeed as the NYT and WP articles make clear, there is quite a lot of connecting the dots on a basis of a certain policy goal that Sharon has.
And we are to take this as the gospel truth.
December, one of the things I don’t understand about your OP is this:
Would you care to explain what Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have to do with the EU providing funds to the PA?
Why did you use those two organisations as a starting point to this debate?
because those two groups have suggested that Israel has a less than stellar record on HR issues currently.,
Thanks for the answer wring.
Call me dumb, but I still don’t see what the activities of two independant human rights groups has to do with the EU providing funds to the PA.
As I see it, the OP can be summed up as; “Because A and B are complaining about C, let’s look at what D are doing.”
well, again attempting to answer for the OP - it amounts to
“don’t ask about/talk about/do anything about” wrongness committed by party A until after you’ve totally cleaned up wrongnesses committed by party B.
It’s the global equivalent of “mooo-ooooooom, he hit be first”
I know about the enormous effort made here in the US, because it was front page news for weeks. My judgment of the European effort is less certain. From what I’ve read and from some discussions on another thread, it seemed that the European response was less dramatic. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary if you like. If you’d like to get deeply into this specific question, maybe we should start a new thread.
I think we all knew that the “welfare causes terrorism” was a bit of a joke. At least CalMeacham got it; as he correctly said, “this is one of those insidious things – an assertion with some truth to it, but a premise that is grossly oversimplified.” In other words, it’s designed to make one think outside the box.
Collounsbury, as I pointed out previously, there are tell-tale signals that an assertion is unsupported. The word “clearly” another of those.
You ask why I deduce that the EU hasn’t read the report. [ul][li]Sharon brought it to the US just this week to show to Bush. []The newspapers said nothing about the EU getting a copy. []In fact, the EU spokesman said they had asked for information, but not received it. Furthermore, if the EU had read the report, they’d say, “We have read the report, and we disagree, because…”[/ul][/li]Please explain why you think they “clearly” read it.
BTW, on[another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=d22bf15534c850bae9049c
f5047bf662&threadid=113099), you said there was “disinformation on all sides.” Sam Stone asked you, “Collounsbury, do you have some evidence of the disinformation that Israel has been spouting from Jenin?” You neither backed up your assertion nor withdraw it.
As you say, it’s not relevant to the point of this debate. It was merely an explanation of my motivation. Accusations of massacres and war crimes were flying around; I thought the EU deserved a turn in the barrel.
BTW an article I read pointed out that the US support for the Palestinians was paid via the UN agency. I had the impression from one of the cites that the EU may have been donating some money directly to the Palestinian Authority. Does anyone know the facts?
december you made the original assertion US/EU response, with US being decidedly stronger, and have been asked to provide substance to that. your response of
is non responsive.
either bring objective evidence to support it, or retract your statement.
your ‘thoughts’ about what you’ve ‘read somewhere’ are not substantive proof of anything. and we’re all pretty damned tired of explaining it to you.
You make an assertion.
you prove it.
I make an assertion.
I’m prepared to back it up with data, evidence, cites. so is everyone else.
Uh, december? The EU guys haven’t seen the evidence yet. So, they said that they lacked evidence that their donations were diverted to terrorism. The EU guys never claimed that there was no such evidence, or that they had seen the evidence and found it to be incorrect. They said they LACKED it. See? Very simple really.
When Israel hands over the evidence, (or sends it to the US, who sends it to the EU) then they can evaluate the evidence. Until then, they have no evidence.
Now, why did Collounsbury say that he wouldn’t be surprised to find that donated money had been diverted to terrorist schemes? Because donated money of this kind is stolen all the time! There is always a certain amount of graft. People are claimed to be on a payroll when they actually don’t exist. Supplies are purchased at a high price, and the seller gives a kickback to the guy writing the checks. Supposedly competitive bids actually go to somebody’s nephew. And on and on. When you hand out money people are going to try to get some of it into their pockets.
And when you consider all the terrorists that operate over there, and the level of sympathy for the terrorists within the PA, then it wouldn’t be very surprising that money for food, medicine and textbooks wound up in the hands of terrorists.
All that is a far cry from claiming that Europe supports suicide bombers.
wring, you’re beating a dead horse. AFAIK, no doper disagrees with my contention. Not one. If any do disagree, let’s start another thread, where I will get the data to prove that:
The attacks on Jews have not been headline news throughout Europe for several weeks.
The attacks have not been the #1 talking point of European leaders.
Europeans have not captured virtually all the attackers. (In fact, they’ve hardly captured any of them.)
I must have missed something. Why’s december the red-headed stepchild?
Assume, for a moment, that MAYBE funds from the EU are funneled into Palestinian terrorism by whatever means.
If the possibilty, however small, exists, the EU has a responsilbity to make sure they are not used in such a fashion. If they do not, they are quite culpable for the result. There is probably a cutoff point, I have no idea where it lies, where one could reasonably assume the money is being used properly.
So. Does the EU have any guarantees its hands are clean, or are they tossing money into the void with no safeguards?
**You mean “Uh, Collounbury.” He’s the one who said the EU guys had seen the evidence. You’re agreeing with me.
Clever theory, but with some problem:
The EU said Israel had no evidence: “Wiegand said that the Israeli claims lacked evidence…” (from C’s cite)
The EU statement fooled someone as smart and educated as our friend Collounbury, so it was insuffciently clear, to say the least.
First, mea culpa, I fucked up on the EU issue, having misread the stories. No fault but my own.
Which contention? The one where you assert that Europe as a whole has done less than the US in re… the church bombings?
I certainly would disagree that such a blanket statement is sustainable given my reading of the Europress.
You have what basis for the assertion, and what relationship between attacks and news? I presume december has suffered a massive upgrading in his linguistic skills to be able to make such characterizations.
??? Again where is this coming from, Euro press and gov speakers have been positively obsessing about the ‘rising wave of intolerance’ --various phrasing are found.
I’d like to know from where we get this overall characterization. But, december old man, these things sometimes take time in democratic nations where leads have to be developed. E.g. the church bombings or other analagous events in the USA have taken months to solve. I point you, for example, to the abortion clinic bombers, some of whom remain uncaught.
If you’ll excuse me, I’ll turn first to the question I had to ask you three times to get an answer
Answer
So in light of the fact you accept the US has also donated money to the PA, your OP becomes:
Would you care to answer that OP, December, or would you perhaps view it as a simplistic, biased rant without any basis in fact?
As to your other ‘points’
Well we agree on that at least
And no I haven’t backed away from that reasoning. If someone refuses to deliver their evidence for an allegation, I fail to see why it’s blustering to say there is a lack of evidence. Why would they hesitate to hand over such evidence?
Please read all the above posts, in particular Yojimbo’s very pertinent link, from which I’m going to quote more as it’s extremely relevant
If it weren’t for my fear of provoking a mods wrath, I’d post the whole article - please do go and read it (odds of December doing this - not good)
EU (just like the US) donates money to PA. Serious allegation made that this money is being misused. EU says the claim is a serious matter, promises to investigate it, asks for evidence. Israel do not provide their evidence.
Please tell me which of the above chain of events you think is wrong?
>> Assume, for a moment, that MAYBE funds from the EU are funneled into Palestinian terrorism by whatever means.
Um, barton, that’s not the way we do things around here. We do not “assume” things. If december wants us to consider the implications of X, then he better be prepared to show X is true.
SO far we have an Israeli accusation without support. The EU has said the money is contributed in two ways: specific projects and general contribution throutgh the IMF. The specific projects are tightly controlled and the IMF funds are a pool to which many other countries, including the US, contribute and Israel cannot be held responsible if there is lack of control there. Now the ball is clearly in the Israeli court. It is up to Israel to prove this is not true. As long as Israel does not show any proof that this is not true The declaration of the EU should be taken at face value.
>> AFAIK, no doper disagrees with my contention. Not one.
[d]december**, speak for yourself and let the rest of us speak for ourselves, ok? I disagree with your contention, I am just getting tired of arguing with you as I consider it a waste of time.
Gary Kumquat – Weigand said that Israel claims to have evidence and also said that Israel lacks evidence. Thus, he appears to have pre-judged that Israel’s evidence is inadequate. He also implicitly criticized Israel’s case by alluding to another accusation he says Israel made about the CIA.
Note that the EU says they have “rigorous controls,” which implies that they acknowlege their responsibility to oversee how their money is spent. They can’t fulfill their responsibility by blaming Israel.
[sub]Europe blaming Israel – Why does that sound familiar?[/sub]
BTW AFAIK Israel hasn’t refused to share their info with the EU, they just haven’t shared it yet.
A week ago the US was in the same position as the EU is today. We knew that Israel claimed to have evidence, but we hadn’t seen it yet. But, no US official was foolish enough to say “Israel lacks evidence.”
As to the US role, I do think we deserve some blame, too. However, as I said earlier, AFAIK US aid to the Palestinians all goes via the UN relief agency, UNRWA. It’s the UN’s responsibility to monitor the use of that money. However, I believe the EU also provides money directly to the Palestinians, which they monitor.
Barton, thank you for your support. Your mention of a “possibilty, however small” was an understatement. After all, the bombs actually got built; somebody’s money must have paid for them.
december, this is a really stupid game. really, very stupid.
1- Israel announces they have evidence money from the Eu ended up being used for the wrong purpose but they show no evidence nor do they specify anything. They just make a broad and unsupported accusation.
2- The EU says that cannot be as they have strict controls in place.
As long as Israel does not make the accusation more specific and presents evidence to support it, there is nothing to discuss. It is not admissible to assume things and you are asumming a whole lot.
If you want me to give you my opinion on How much blame does Europe deserve for financially supporting suicide bombers? please give me some fucking detail and evidence of how exactly Europe is supporting suicide bombers.
You just throw out the unsupported accusation and ask us to discuss it like it is the unconstested truth. I am fucking sick and tired of your throwing out unsupported accusations. Provide the proof or do us a favor and shut the hell up for a while.