WP Opinion Piece Claims Europe Fixated on Israel

[laura888]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46382-2005Jan29.html

The usual claim - anti-semitism.

He claims that European polls show that some believe that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is just as bad as Hitler and the Jews - both involve extermination.

Please help me rebut this piece - I want to explain WHY Europe may feel as it does. The big one being the difference in media. But also, would you please help me understand HOW the Palestinians are treated as second class citizens in their own land.

For example, are they allowed to vote? Are they free from illegal searches?

I realize that this piece is inflamatory - but if it got airplay - it MUST be addressed.

thanks.

[Clark2008]

1. Heh. I guess the WaPo doesn't realize that Arabs are also Semetic.

eom

[Igel]

8. Yes, but words mean what people take them to mean.

Else we wouldn't be speaking English as we speak it today.

Anti-Semitic has come to mean "Anti-Jew". Zhid in Russian is the equivalent of "kyke", even though its borrowed from Yiddish Juede "Jew". In my home community, 'polak' (the Polish word for Pole) was fighting words if addressed to a Polish-American. "Jew" was an all-purpose insult; there were no actual Jews in the school, and "kyke" was a word with no referent.

If you want to say anti-Arab in English, you're forced to say "anti-Arab" and not make silly etymological arguments.

[bemildred]

2. WaPo does not care what people in Europe think.

This is all tendentious bullshit. The reasons that Europeans might
have concern about the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied
territories and elsewhere are perfectly clear to those inclined to
see, and utterly opaque to those that do not wish to see. WaPo is
propagandizing as usual.

[laura888]

3. "are perfectly clear to those inclined to"

Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't get out of the U.S. media much...

What I'm most interested in understanding is, what legal rights do Palestinians have? also, what is going on exactly with the settlements - is this a flagrant violation of some agreement?

I cannot argue this very well without clear answers to these questions...

[bemildred]

4. Geneva conventions and various UN resolutions.

"What legal rights do Palestinians have" is an interesting question,
both in the sense of formal rights and "facts on the ground", but a
rather contentious one I would think. However I can assure you that a
bit of googleing will turn up far more than you can ever read. In the
spirit of cooperation I offer this:

http://www.palestine-un.org/

Quite a lot of the original documentation WRT the questions you are asking
can be found there.

[laura888]

5. I really appreciate it!

Googling might indeed turn up what I'm looking for, but I wanted to avoid having to wade through biased info.

Better to turn to DU's experts.

[bemildred]

6. Well, I can understand that. There is a lot of drivel written about it. n

[Jim Sagle]

7. No shit, Sherlock.

[bemildred]

10. Aw C'mon Jim.

How often do I get to be "one of DU's experts"?

Here's a couple more links:

http://www.drberlin.com/palestine

http://www.drberlin.com/palestine/history.htm

[Igel]

9. The problem is that we can't know, ultimately, why people

think like they do. We can guess.

The Palestinian issue gets a lot of airplay in Europe. That Arabs can kill far more Arabs without a serious outcry is overlooked. If Sharon were a Sunni Muslim that had taken power through a coup and killed 50k Palestinians in consolidating power, we'd hear the occasional horror story in the Telegraph, and many horror stories about fascism in the Guardian. But after the butchery stopped, people would establish relations with the government, and the outrage would quickly subside. Even if 2k Palestinians were killed per year.

This isn't to be cynical and say that one shouldn't be against killing Palestinians. I'm against Palestinians killing Israelis and against Israelis killing Palestinians. But I don't even bother thinking of a solution, because I don't have all the facts, and until everybody with munitions, on both sides, agree to want peace and coexistence (or at least get defanged, so it doesn't matter what they think), I don't think it'll be doable. I condemn both sides, but IJ and Hamas more than some.

Holocaust education has caused many people to gag in Europe. France denied complicity in it. So did the Czechs, Slovaks, Danes, Dutch, ... even the Germans! A crime with no criminals, apart from "the dirty Nazis". It's one thing to teach facts, but I think some want modern Germans to feel guilty. It's like teaching (LA) Valley girls to feel guilty over slavery in the American south; it backfires.

Realpolitik has a role in it. Siding with Israel gets you trade with Israel, and condemnation from all of North Africa and most of the Middle East. It's also politically accepted to be anti-oppression, and you can't argue that Israel doesn't oppress the Palestinian population, even if many of its actions aren't necessarily intended to be oppressive.

Anti-Americanism has a role in it. It's fashionable to be anti-American. It's hard for countries to stop being empires or to lose international 'pull'; they can become bitter over it and strive to restore their greatness, adopt anti-imperialism as an ultimate virtue and say it's always immoral, or just get over it. Most don't just get over it. It's odd, in that Europeans seem to be anti-international-power while struggling to gain it. Mixed in with this is the failure of the "hyperpower" US to broker a resolution to this, even though ultimately the mess bears heavy European fingerprints (Britain, Germany, France).

And some is possibly anti-Semitism. There's not a biunique relationship between being anti-Semitic and being anti-Israel. If you're anti-Semitic, you're anti-Israel; but you can be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic. It's just frequently difficult to split that particular hair in some situations, esp. when being anti-Israel is ok, but being anti-Jew isn't.

[pelsar]

11. igil....

very well written, i believe its as good explanation without tripping over all of those "words" with double and triple meanings.

[laura888]

12. I think there's more to it than that...

...for one thing, Israel's aggressive settlement into questionable areas:

According to the UN: In 1985 the number of settlers (excluding East Jerusalem) reached 42,000 and by 1990 the number was 76,000 settlers in approximately 150 settlements, not including those in East Jerusalem. By 1995 the settler population increased to approximately 145,000 excluding East Jerusalem."

http://www.palestine-un.org/res/frindex.html

This is aggression and warlike behavior that is often discounted. How many americans know these statistics? We certainly don't get them from our media.

Also, there is the problem of the U.S. and Israel's proclamation of themselves as being for democracy and fairness when so much of their actions and inactions regarding the I/P issue demonstrates anything but.

With Bush shouting from the rooftops about "freedom" and "liberty" it is so clear that he does not intend it for Palestinians (or the Iraqis).

This hypocrisy does not sit well with intelligent and compassionate people.

[Igel]

13. Probably some of that mixed in, as well.

I'm not claiming my list was comprehensive, by any means.

In principle, Europeans should judge Israel and the Palestinians for what they are, not based on their allies.

I can't help but wonder if a bit of the anti-Israel view is also a bit of territorial sour grapes. (And here we launch into complete and total speculation.)

Poland shifted west after WWII by a hundred or two miles. The USSR sliced off a bit of Poland, Poland gobbled up a chunk of Germany. Poland picked up the residents in its eastern periphery and moved them west.

Slovenia and Italy swapped people. A bunch of Slovenes picked up house and moved east, Italians moved west. I think, but I'm not sure, that Italy lost territory.

Germans were kicked out of NW Czechoslovakia. They resettled in Germany.

France, Britain, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany all lost colonies or territorial possessions we don't like calling colonies.

Then Israel gets a chunk of territory. And then tries to take more.

[pelsar]

14. igal....

we would have to examine two worlds.....
the first of 48 and that of 67.

in 48 israel expanded and straightened out its borders, this has been called by some as "illegal" colonialism.

except that the decade of the 40's was a world of war with many countries (france and russia in particular) post war keeping with the culture of colonialism and expanding boundires. Not to mention the US/Britians occupation of Germany. Hence israels modifications was part and parcel of that world

If we skip over to 67, we'll have to take a look at other countries at war. As far as I know few western democracies were involved total war, not police actions of one sort or another, hence we'll have problem trying to compare to other "western democracies"

still its not hard to find other places of conflict, where land has been "appropriated", that dont have the micrscope that israel does: be it western sahara (morocans), china, India (kashmir), turkey (cyrus), saudi arabia (land from yemen for their wall), etc.

so the question remains...why?

btw laura888..if your going to try to act innocent, you have to be more careful with the words you choose....your far to obvious

[laura888]

15. Perhaps its not sour grapes....but fear?

And there is reason to fear, as Israel's actions are stirring up a hornet's nest in surrounding Muslim countries. It was one of the main motivations behind 9/11. If angry, radical Muslims attack the U.S. - they will surely attack Europe as well. This is not to justify their acts - just that war-like behavior (allowing thousands of settlers to move into illegal territory is definitely war-like), the price paid will be war-like behavior in return.

On the "act innocent" issue....

I was brave enough to venture into I/P where I so rarely go, hoping for knowledge. I've done this just a few times since coming to DU 2 or so years ago. Does one have to be on the same "expert" level as those who come to this forum often?

No - my tax dollars are going to support Israel and the war on terrorism. I think this gives me license to speak, even if I don't use "all the right words."

[pelsar]

16. knowledge....?

coming here for knowledge is great...but then perhaps I can suggest an open mind?

let me correct one misconception. 9/11 by al quida was guided against america because americans were on Saudi soil....nothing to do with israel. Later Osem ben laiden added the Palestinians to his list of "grievances. (check into his pre 9/11 speaches and ravings....)

but israels actions have actually little to do with the wars and massacres that happen within the muslim countries, (syria, sudan, jordan, lebanon, etc) In fact its easy to argue that the dictatorships of the arab countries simply use israel to direct anger away from them..this lesson no 1 in dictators school.

is it really israels actions that inspire the iranian TV produces to creat a series based on israeli soldiers stealing palestenian organs? or saudi newspapers writing up how jews drink palestenian blood for passover?....

[gottaB]

17. This is one area where distinctions get lost

I can say I'm against expanding the settlements, and against the prosettlement Zionist parties, against Likud, against Sharon, because those aggressive policies are unwarranted, unjust, and dangerous. But then what happens when Sharon proposes backtracking on the settlements? He wins few allies on the left outside of Israel, and inside Israel he's on shaky ground. I hope Labor takes over the government, but I don't believe it will lead to an instant reversal of opinion in Europe. No side of this conflict has a monopoly on hypocrisy and ignorance.