[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It's a political cartoon, you twit.

End of discussion.

-s*

And as we know no such things have ever been used for propaganda or FUD purposes.

You make no point.

Not even if you call me more names.

[macvillage.net]

[einmakom]

Originally posted by theolein:
You know, recently I posted a bit about that irritating Israeli who was in the course with me who couldn't resist insulting Swiss people in pretty bad language (saying for example that all Swiss people belong in lunatic asylums and that Swiss people are like the pig meat that they eat) in front of others in the room. He was one of those people who always knows better than everyone else and is incapable of listening to criticism but is always criticising everyone else around him. Eventually I stood up and openly reprimanded him in front of everyone else and told him that with an attitude like that he would never get a job.

He reminded me of you in a way. If you go through life explicitly looking for people who don't like you because you're a Jew/Moslem/Black/Ugly as sin, then you're going to find that life is extremely unpleasant when you find that there indeed people on this planet that won't like you for those reasons. It's called negative expectations and they often tend to be self fulfilling.

I don't go through life looking for examples, but the fact of the matter is, I can't simply allow denials of the truth to stand- if someone consistently repeats falsehoods because they comfort him, then the danger is someone who is otherwise reasonable might actually take them for truth.

That's how it is, and history has shown there's real danger in allowing such falsehoods to go unchecked. Remember, I haven't started this thread. In fact, I haven't started ANY threads in months. I'm not standing up and searching out the evil that is present and rubbing it in anyone's face, but likewise, I won't tut-tut and walk away from it either.

Your posts are normally closer to the truth than others I see in this space, but minimizing the truth of the situation is worse than overblowing it- especially when the EU commission on racism minimized the situation because they didn't like the results. You pointed Switzerland out as a shining example of being on the whole pretty free of such incidents. You had a list before you of offenses, only picked one out and said you knew of it, it wasn't that big a deal, and why would I bring it up- missing the point and omitting the fact that there are a number of very real incidents in just a short time sampling.

And to spheric, for your own benefit: I am not vmarks. Remember, I didn't get all hot and bothered over someone's username, eklipse did.

[einmakom]

James Woolsey, former CIA director writes:

http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplemen...26/art.04.html

Friday, September 26, 2003

R. JAMES WOOLSEY:
---------------------------------------We are all Jews


I sometimes get asked these days if I�m Jewish � it�s my neoconish views on defense and foreign affairs, I suppose. For a while I would just say, "No, Presbyterian,� but I�ve started saying instead, �Well, I anchor the Presbyterian wing of JINSA (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs)."


What with anti-Semitism growing in Europe and a hideous variety thereof metastasizing in the Middle East � not to speak of the American Left�s (and a small part of the Right�s) hostility to Israel, which sometimes veers off into anti-Semitism � it seems to me our Jewish friends could use a bit of solidarity these days. Today, the first day of Rosh Hashana, celebration of the Jewish New Year, is as good a time as any to explain why.


It�s not only the other two great Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam, that owe a substantial debt to Judaism, it�s the world as a whole. The reason is that between three and four millennia ago something happened in the Sinai among a tribe of refugees from Egyptian oppression that introduced the world to the concept of the rule of law � the idea that the law is not the whim of, but rather has its source above, those who rule.


This concept is at the heart of what makes decently-governed societies possible, whether you sign on to Jefferson�s formulation that we are "endowed by our Creator" with basic rights or prefer the more secular notion of natural law.


In the absence of one or the other of these bases for the notion that the rule of law somehow derives from a source above the rulers, electoral democracy can degenerate into mob rule and capitalism into theft. This supremacy of the law is what most Americans mean when they say that we have a "government of laws, not men."


Some aspects of this have gotten a bit muddled recently in the largely academic debate about whether the United States is or is not an "empire.� If the US is an empire it�s a very odd one: Countries where it has troops such as Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Germany suggest they are unhappy about that and the response is, �OK," and an offer to leave.


Nero and Napoleon would have been appalled. They would also have had a hard time understanding the travails of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. One was driven from office by the people�s elected representatives for permitting a cover-up of a clumsy political burglary. The other was impeached by the House, then acquitted in a Senate trial, for lying under oath in a deposition taken in what was essentially a sexual harassment case brought by a private citizen.


What, you may well ask, are the most powerful individuals in the world doing, if they are emperors, getting held to account by members of Congress for burglary cover-ups and by private citizens, no less, for sexual behavior?


The answer is, of course, that neither Nixon nor Clinton, indeed no American president, is even close to being an emperor. People (and smaller nations wherein an empire maintains troops) obey emperors, if they know what�s good for them, without much discussion. These two recent presidents were, instead, held to account in a distinctly non-imperial way � in pretty much the same way Elijah humbled Ahab for allowing his queen, Jezebel, to frame and execute Naboth and steal his vineyard, and in the way the prophet Nathan confronted David over his taking Bathsheba and ordering her husband, Uriah, to the front lines and certain death.


The US does not look back to Rome or France at the height of their power in determining the way to deal with those who today govern the most powerful nation in history. Thankfully, in regard to the powerful being subjected to the rule of law we are, instead, all Jews.


I�VE MAINLY been in synagogues for the bar mitzvas and bat mitzvas of friends� children. The next time you are, notice what the object of veneration is � it is the Torah, the law itself. At a point in the service it is carried, lovingly, around the congregation, greeted as an old friend. I am convinced that it is this veneration of the law � with its status above the ruler � that is at the heart of anti-Semitism.


Jews have almost always been the first target of tyrants, because their beliefs and religious practices, honed by nearly two millennia in Diaspora, clearly declare that in their view the law is above the ruler: dietary laws, the dress of the Orthodox, a propensity to contend about what is a fair interpretation of rules, all stamp Jews with this belief�s being the heart of their history and religion. As a consequence they are often the first group that dictators, secular or theocratic, feel they must suppress.


We should all reflect upon the historic reality that when anti-Semitism raises its head, the rest of us, unless we are willing to live with a foot on our neck, will be the next targets.


Jewish humor, a distinctive barrier against any propensity to self-righteousness, permeates American culture. A number of times during the Cold War, I was involved in arms control negotiations with the Soviets. No matter how bad the tension across the negotiating table during the day, Russian and American negotiators would often end up going out for dinner together. Somehow, even in the most difficult periods, the conversation frequently turned to trading jokes.


I always thought it remarkable how much Russian humor was suffused with a wry, self-deprecating, ironic tone both quite funny and somehow quite familiar to Americans. Later, finding versions of a number of these jokes and stories in Leo Rosten�s wonderful The Joys of Yiddish, I realized the source of the familiarity.


Six years ago the Immigration and Naturalization Service imprisoned eight Muslims, Iraqi freedom fighters who were refugees from Saddam, for allegedly being security threats to the US. The government�s case was worse than flimsy but it was protected by rules regarding secret evidence. After a long struggle all eight were freed, and several are now working to establish democracy in Iraq.


I was one of their lawyers. The majority of my co-counsel, all acting pro bono, were Jewish. The law is, after all, above the ruler.


To all of us, happy Rosh Hashana.


The writer was director of the Central Intelligence Agency 1993�95.



� 1995 - 2003 The Jerusalem Post. All rights reserved.

[theolein]

Originally posted by einmakom:
I don't go through life looking for examples, but the fact of the matter is, I can't simply allow denials of the truth to stand- if someone consistently repeats falsehoods because they comfort him, then the danger is someone who is otherwise reasonable might actually take them for truth.

That's how it is, and history has shown there's real danger in allowing such falsehoods to go unchecked. Remember, I haven't started this thread. In fact, I haven't started ANY threads in months. I'm not standing up and searching out the evil that is present and rubbing it in anyone's face, but likewise, I won't tut-tut and walk away from it either.

Your posts are normally closer to the truth than others I see in this space, but minimizing the truth of the situation is worse than overblowing it- especially when the EU commission on racism minimized the situation because they didn't like the results. You pointed Switzerland out as a shining example of being on the whole pretty free of such incidents. You had a list before you of offenses, only picked one out and said you knew of it, it wasn't that big a deal, and why would I bring it up- missing the point and omitting the fact that there are a number of very real incidents in just a short time sampling.

And to spheric, for your own benefit: I am not vmarks. Remember, I didn't get all hot and bothered over someone's username, eklipse did.

They way it could go:

You: They hate Jews
Me: No they don't
You: Yes they do
Me: Do not
You: Do
Me: Do not
You: Do
....
Two days and a number of hours later
....
You: Yes they do
Me frothing at the mouth with rage: Shut the fuck up already, you damn loudmouth Jew!
You: SEE, HE HATES JEWS. I TOLD YOU SO

The way it will go:

You are a thick headed bugger, if I may politely say so. Not only do you only selectively read those bits of my posts which you then twist into some major anti-semitic conspiracy, but you also post a quote from one of the most rabid warmongering bastards out there, because the fuckhead says what a nice crowd the Jews are.

I posted specifically on Switzerland, you dumbwit, because it is a European country that did NOT suffer the horrors of the Nazi era (even if it didn't exactly lose out financially from that time), and so was a good example of a country with a Jewish population that had not been exterminated in WWII and would serve as a good example of traditional anti-semitism.

I posted several posts ago that of course there are people who don't like Jews in this country, just like there are people in this country who don't like Arabs or Germans or Yugoslavians or even the French part of the country. What do you expect? Peace and brotherly love? Are you so naive? Are you trying to claim that Neo-Nazi nutjobs like the Aryan Nations in the states don't exist? Are you trying to claim that there are no Californians who supported denying illegal aliens in California drivers licences and what not? From what I have read here there are some whites in the states that think blacks are claiming too much attention.

From that would you claim that the USA is racist or what?

I'll tell you what disturbs me about the Israelis, whether they be Jews or goddamn Hare Krishnas: It's the fact that they had peace in their grasp under a man who really wanted it, Yitzchak Rabin. Yet some Ultra-Orthodox lunatic bastard blew him away and sent the whole thing along the way it has now come under a man who has a known history of not placing much worth on peace or Arab lives.

So tell me, were you one of those freaks of nature that used to scream that Rabin was selling Israel's future? Were you happy when he was kiled?

Now how's that for a question? It's about as daft as the crap you were spouting earlier on.

[einmakom]

beyond all your insults and finally reaching some admission that your country isn't perfect (and hey, they were complicit in holding stolen property for the Nazis, don't kid yourself that the country didn't suffer just because you didn't have the Austrian experience- those hands are dirty.)

I met with Rabin in January of 95. He wasn't selling our future out from under us. He was doing that which all Israelis had done before and would do since: Make every single possible effort to arrive at peace regardless of past offenses toward us, even at the expense of arming the enemy in hopes of making him an honest peace partner.

The Israeli right saw Oslo as surrender and capitulation. The Israeli left saw it as too vague, avoiding the hard issues of Jerusalem, Israeli and Palestinian refugees, right of return, the issue of a Palestinian state, and final borders.

Indeed, five years after the tragedy of Rabin's death on November 4th of 95, Barak offered solutions which addressed precisely those hard issues.

Today in Israel, there is a consensus from all sides that Oslo was a mistake and a failure, and are to blame for the situation we now find ourselves in. Would that be the same had those three bullets not been fired? I cannot say.

Oslo collapsed for a few simple reasons: One, Barak ignored the warnings Rabin made, which were to not try and solve the difficult issues, Two, because settlements grew, and Three, because Yassar Arafat resorted to violence.

But what has changed since 95? In 95, a minority of Israel was in favor of disassembling settlements in any future agreement- today, a majority is in favor. Today, even a majority of Likud members are in favor of territorial compromise.

This is the legacy of Oslo.

Don't forget that despite Rabin being known as the peacemaker that for most of his adult life he was a military man- He was the commander of the forces that liberated Jerusalem in 1948. He was the chief-of-staff who led the Israel Defense Forces to its greatest victory in 1967.

The goal then, is not to unmask the enemy. We know the face of the enemy. The goal must be to change the face of the enemy. Don't forget that for peace to occur, we need an honest peace partner willing to stop violence from within his own people. We quite nearly had that in Abu Mazen (Abbas.) Arafat undermined him.

Israel, as it has done in every past conflict, up through even today, has extended every possible olive branch and had that extension of peace spat upon. How do you go about changing the face of the enemy to one willing to come honestly to the table?

The answer is, even now, it is happening. Three years of violence have been waged against us since Arafat turned down Barak and started this war against us. At that time, he guaranteed his people that this would bring them their state. Now they begin to ask what they have gained by starting this war. America is unwilling to deal with Arafat. America says that the PA must stop terror, the very first requirement of the roadmap that was to guarantee them a state by 2005, for progress to take place. Meanwhile, Israel continues to release prisoners, as per PA demands.

Lastly.

Theolein challenges


So tell me, were you one of those freaks of nature that used to scream that Rabin was selling Israel's future? Were you happy when he was kiled?

Now how's that for a question? It's about as daft as the crap you were spouting earlier on.

At least you know it's crap coming from you. But it is far worse than anything I've told you about your country in response to your attempt to whitewash it.

The emotional response is, how dare you, you treacherous ...... I live a block from the place where Rabin stood and faced death. Every day I pass the spot where he fell. I spoke with him in 95 months before he met his end, and spoke with Peres following it, on three separate occasions. I haven't had that same privilege with Sharon, having only passed him in the halls of the Knesset in 95.

You whitewash your own country, you whitewash the EU, when the EU itself knows but won't officially publish the results, and dare accuse me of cheering the death of a person who was a military man, and a leader.

Now we know your character.

Rabin was no saint. Peres is no saint. Arafat launched this latest war after turning down negotiations. Where would Rabin have turned in the same situation? Likely to doing much what Sharon is doing: Extending the offer of peace while at the same time defending the country. It's what Barak was prepared to do, only he alienated not only the right, but the left as well. The Prime Minister must respond to the situations and threats he is faced with, and at the same time work to change the character of the enemy towards an honest peace. Today's roadmap is not dead, and delineates a timeline for peace. The Geneva accords short circuit that, despite what Nussibeh wants. Yes, working with Nussibeh would be changing the face of the enemy, but it's also working with someone who hasn't the authority to deliver on the promises he's making.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by einmakom:
beyond all your insults and finally reaching some admission that your country isn't perfect (and hey, they were complicit in holding stolen property for the Nazis, don't kid yourself that the country didn't suffer just because you didn't have the Austrian experience- those hands are dirty.)

You're trying too hard to implicate him personally in some bizarre way, einmakom:

Switzerland is not *his* country. He has lived in a number of countries, and is not even originally *from* Europe.

-s*

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You're trying too hard to implicate him personally in some bizarre way, einmakom:

Switzerland is not *his* country. He has lived in a number of countries, and is not even originally *from* Europe.

-s*

No, I'm not implicating him in the deeds of Switzerland fifty years ago. I'm holding him accountable for whitewashing the country he lives in and calls his currently.

He wants to claim Europe and Switzerland doesn't suffer from a rise in anti-semitism. It does. He claimed Switzerland didn't suffer under Nazi regime, and it wasn't an innocent actor.

The truth can be ugly, but it's still there. I don't come rubbing anyone's face in it, but I don't let anyone whitewash the truth either. It's going to be an elephant in the corner until Europeans can admit they've got a problem on their hands.

Anything else, including accusing me of cheerleading the death of a Prime Minister, is counterproductive to progress. But that's what the EU's actions to date show. It matters little what people say, and much what they do.

[theolein]

Originally posted by einmakom:
No, I'm not implicating him in the deeds of Switzerland fifty years ago. I'm holding him accountable for whitewashing the country he lives in and calls his currently.

He wants to claim Europe and Switzerland doesn't suffer from a rise in anti-semitism. It does. He claimed Switzerland didn't suffer under Nazi regime, and it wasn't an innocent actor.

The truth can be ugly, but it's still there. I don't come rubbing anyone's face in it, but I don't let anyone whitewash the truth either. It's going to be an elephant in the corner until Europeans can admit they've got a problem on their hands.

Anything else, including accusing me of cheerleading the death of a Prime Minister, is counterproductive to progress. But that's what the EU's actions to date show. It matters little what people say, and much what they do.

So, apart from your obvious inability to read, what are your other weaknesses?

For the record, dumbo, you've ignored every single thing I've written and twisted it to suite your own paranoia and inability to admit you're at fault.

I must admit that I'm kind of glad I managed to get you into a nice bit of frothing rage and I'm only sad that I couldn't watch it (got a webcam), because NOW YOU KNOW HOW I'VE BEEN FEELING FOR THE PAST SEVERAL POSTS!!!!!!!!!!

You seem so desperately in need of painting me and everyone else here in Europe as closet Nazis, with a stubborn streak that only true obsessives/paranoiacs posses, despite any and all attempts on my part using facts, logic, semantic gymnastics and finally plain and simple baiting, that I simply give up. You win. I admit it. I'm Hitler's grandson and Heinrich Himmler was my uncle. I shout "Sieg heil" from my balcony every morning and have a snappy salute.

I can only hope that you are not representative of most Israelis, because I can see how impossible it would be for Israel to ever find peace if that were the case.

[eklipse]

For no reason, here's Apu:

[einmakom]

You're frustrated, Theolein, and accuse me of the inability to read.

Get a mirror. You've been skipping and twisting my words to fit your own poor victimized feelings all the way through this thread.

Heck, you notably skipped through all the links I posted, stories I quoted, words I wrote myself, all so that you could say, "It's just those Israelis making a mountain out of a molehill, we have no problem!"

I told you that you spoke logically, but your logic was representative of facts. Then you went out on the edge and spoke simply, but simple speech was vague and not reflective of truth. Then you went off the deep end and baited me.

Then you said something truly reprehensible.

And now you're upset that I responded to it peaceably, without twisting your words at all.

Maybe it's good that you're angered. Maybe you'll look at what gets you so upset, a few words on a screen, or the fact that this is an unsafe world and despite the EU's best intentions, it cannot admit to itself in print that the EU isn't making it any safer, that it has a serious problem to reckon with.

When you settle down a bit, after you're over blaming all Israelis for holding up peace, you might re-read my post that preceded this and look at it focusing on the bits about Rabin, Peres, and how we work towards peace.

[mcsjgs]

Since this has been a hot-button thread, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Israel is in a horrible predicament now. There are only two ways I can think of to get any kind of a realistic peace. Baby steps, which seems to be the policy, often two steps forward, one step back. Sometimes two steps backward, one step forward. Or a real visionary with solid military and security roots. I don't see such a person in Israel today, but perhaps I am wrong.

The Palestinians will be a lot better off when Arafat is gone. He blew the one real chance at some kind of accord in the last 50 years, and shame on him for it. The PA leaders in back of Arafat will be more realistic and easier to deal with. But they too will have a very tough road to hoe.

Is anti-semitism a growing problem worldwide? You bet. And, once again, I am very pessimistic about it getting better any time soon. Not a Jew BTW.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by mcsjgs:

Is anti-semitism a growing problem worldwide? You bet.

I'll see your bet and raise you a fiver.

[eklipse]

If anti-Semitism is indeed an increasing phenomenon, perhaps a logical move towards combatting the problem would be to ask: 'Why?'.

[mcsjgs]

Ah, the tiger trap question.

I sense a "all stereotypes have some basis in fact" sentiment, but I could be wrong.

It would interesting to plot anti-semitism in time against economically difficult times and see if there was a correaltion statistically, but I'll leave that to younger men and women.

Scapegoats? Israel-Middle East intractible problem spilling over into the world arena? Fanned by Muslim extremists and xenephobes? Israeli prickliness? Long national traditions in some European countries coupled with an "I'm tired of hearing about the Holocaust" theme?

I don't know, but I know it comes from an ugly part of the human psyche and does not lead to good places. Ditto for minorities, women, gays, etc.

[mcsjgs]

A simple test:

Any sentence that includes the phrases "all Jews" or "most Jews" will be incorrect. I don't care if it praises or damns; it will be incorrect. Generalizations like that always lead to incorrect conclusions.

You might be able to say that in a Gallup poll "57% of Jews said such and such", but not that "most Jews said such and such" because it is impossible to get each and every Jew's say so included.

Substitute "black" "women" "gay" etc. and you will run into the same problem.

You will inevitably go from data to opinion in a generalization.

Wait though. I thought of one sentence where it will be both factual and a complete generalization:

All Jews are human beings.

Substitute Arabs, minorities, women, gays and it still works.

=======
I'll edit this slightly.

Opinion is not valueless. You could have someone in the Middle East, for example, who spoke the languages and had spent a long time in the region, and who had acccess to reams of accurate data and skill in interpreting such data.

Factoring in that person's personal bias, his or her opinion would probably be useful, perhaps even very valuable. But it would not be fact.

The problem is that 99% of the time, that is not the case with opinion. It's based on hearsay, notions, prejudices, innaccurate news reporting, and personal experiences. So I take it for what it's worth.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mcsjgs:
Since this has been a hot-button thread, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Israel is in a horrible predicament now. There are only two ways I can think of to get any kind of a realistic peace. Baby steps, which seems to be the policy, often two steps forward, one step back. Sometimes two steps backward, one step forward. Or a real visionary with solid military and security roots. I don't see such a person in Israel today, but perhaps I am wrong.

The Palestinians will be a lot better off when Arafat is gone. He blew the one real chance at some kind of accord in the last 50 years, and shame on him for it. The PA leaders in back of Arafat will be more realistic and easier to deal with. But they too will have a very tough road to hoe.

Is anti-semitism a growing problem worldwide? You bet. And, once again, I am very pessimistic about it getting better any time soon. Not a Jew BTW.

I give that post

Two of them.

One of the most sane, and truthful posts I have seen in here.

But don't expect the nay-sayers to agree.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
If anti-Semitism is indeed an increasing phenomenon, perhaps a logical move towards combatting the problem would be to ask: 'Why?'.

It's because people are hateful and evil. We are jealous beings.

I certainly hope you aren't suggesting it's the Jews fault eklipse.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I certainly hope you aren't suggesting it's the Jews fault eklipse.

No - but it's simple logic that if one accepts that there is a problem and one wants to attempt to solve it, the best way to start would be to ask why the problem is occurring in the first place (or in the case of Europe, reoccurring).

It's only through a thorough analysis of the entire problem that one can determine the best course of remedial action to take - otherwise you risk making the problem worse.

An analysis may reveal that the hatred is due to social issues in the host countries or perhaps that the wrongful actions of a Jewish minority are reflecting badly on the whole.


I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that no Jew anywhere could possibly be at fault Zimphire.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[mcsjgs]

Since all Jews are human beings, you should get a cross-section of human behavior that will mimic other human groups closely. Not identical, but close.

Anti-semitism needs myths to support itself. These myths include killing Christian babies, spreading plague, having all the money, or preventing a Middle East peace settlement. Hatred doen't need rational reasons, just reasons that at the time seem to have some very light tinge of believability.

The fallacy of anti-semitism, or racism, or gay-bashing, or misanthropy is to assume or put abnormal human behavior patterns onto groups that will not stand up to any kind of rigorous rational scrutiny.

Humans all bleed red and want more or less the same things.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
No - but it's simple logic that if one accepts that there is a problem and one wants to attempt to solve it, the best way to start would be to ask why the problem is occurring in the first place (or in the case of Europe, reoccurring).

People just like to bitch, hate, and be jealous.
THAT is the problem.

II certainly hope you aren't suggesting that no Jew anywhere could possibly be at fault Zimphire.

No, I wasn't even hinting to that. NOR was I implying it. Unlike your post.

I am saying, the problem here isn't the Jews. They did not do anything for such hatred towards them to rise.

The problem is with man. Not a specific race or culture.

[swrate]

Faults,

No country is perfect. White hands controversy

I am curious to know what the results of such a poll would have been in China, India, South-Africa South-America, Australia, as for the Middle-East, as soon as anything happens the Likoud controlling the Mossad, Metsana, are blamed in the same systematic way the Quaida is blamed for terrorism in the US.



Theolein, Einmakom,

Swiss people are not anti-Jew, they believe or dream of an equitable solution to the conflict, by favouring and sponsoring communication, between both parts.
I would like to mention that Switzerland felt threatened by the nazis. Between 1930 and 1940, they built a line of 3000 anti-tank cement blocks to stop the German invasion, from the lake all the way up to the French border, (Toblerones) and another set was built near the German border.
On this side, two fortresses (Villa Rose) were built in 1940, they look like normal houses, but are fully equipped with guns, spying facilities, and head quarters so the troops could stay there. One of the houses with false windows, over 2 meters thick walls, has been opened to the public this year.
Many Swiss families took the risk to help Jews during WWII.

One of the links posted has lots of reference to Blocher, he is racist, not just anti-Jew.
If you base your judgement on Blocher�s ideas, you are being partial because he represents a "very right" minority.
Incidents occasionally happen to all different racial/religious groups in Switzerland.


One can have friends from opposite wings, it means nothing imao, to have spoken to or to live next to�X or to Y� �rights� or �lefts�. share drinks and ideas, and �it happens- friendship.


The Jewish side needs solidarity, sure, but what about the Arab side?
Helping moderate opponents on both sides build a common project was, I think the goal of the Geneva initiative
Its easy to say Arafat resorts to violence. Many organizations from different wings are not really under his control. (Hezbollah, Hamas, Gamma Islamia,..)
None knows the face of the enemy, terrorism moves and brains use oppression as a common cause.
Identify the faces of the Quaida? I doubt it is a centrally controlled organization. It is a concept of terrorism, that�s all. If the kidnapping of the Moscou theatre had happened today, the Quaida would be automatically blamed.

The �debt� "we" owe the Jews.
Laws and tables were first edited in Babylone around 2300 BC, Hammurabi�s code is a well known example.
Abraham was from Persia, and, much later, Moses lived in Egypt before he moved to the Sinai. (about 1230BC)
Moses was not labelled Jew, he was monotheist, in comparison to the �others� polytheists�
Veneration of laws do not imao bring to anti �Semitism, as those same laws apply in all religions. The five first books of the Bible,- the Torah,- were attested much later, by Esdras, Ezzechiel and other scribes

Emperors had scandalous lives? History repeats itself. People obey them until there is a revolution, coup d��tat, war, change of political interest, jealousy, then emperors are put aside, sent to exile, executed�

If getting rid of Jews was a priority to dictators, why did Jews and Christians live in Baghdad?
I wonder if this tolerance will be possible when the shias control Iraq. As it is, many Palestinians/Syrians
are now leaving .


US as well as Israel will have to work on their diplomatic image.
Sharon and Bush are giving us.... mixed emotions.

[einmakom]

swrate:
The Jewish side needs solidarity, sure, but what about the Arab side?

What of them? They outnumber the Jews by six times.

If getting rid of Jews was a priority to dictators, why did Jews and Christians live in Baghdad?
I wonder if this tolerance will be possible when the shias control Iraq. As it is, many Palestinians/Syrians
are now leaving .

Jews left Baghdad and other countries, because being Jewish there wasn't safe. It still isn't.

Before the November 1947 UN vote, Arab delegates to the UN, in particular those of Egypt and Iraq, had hinted at their intentions in speeches, warning that Partition might endanger Jews in Arab lands, intensify antisemitism and lead to massacres of Jews. These veiled threats must have had a chilling impact on Jews in Arab lands where memories of the pro-Nazi stance of the local Arab governments and nationalists were still fresh, especially in Iraq, Syria and Egypt, as well as in Libya where Arab mobs had accepted the occupying Germans' invitation to plunder the Jews. And recall the incitement to murder Jews issued over Radio Berlin during World War II by Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem.

In Iraq, new laws made Zionism punishable by death. In Aleppo, Syria, 300 Jewish homes and 11 synagogues were burned to the ground, and half of the city's 4,000 Jews fled elsewhere. In Aden, 82 Jews were killed. Pogroms accompanied by confiscation of Jewish property and belongings was the norm in Arab countries. From 1948 on, Jewish communities that had survived in Arab countries since antiquity dwindled to a few families or became extinct.

Aproximately 600,000 Jews sought refuge in the State of Israel. Since their belongings were confiscated as the price of leaving, they arrived in Israel pennyless, but they were welcomed and quickly absorbed into Israeli society. In reality, an exchange of populations took place between Jews leaving Arab countries and Arabs leaving Jewish Palestine. But while the Jewish refugees quickly became productive citizens of their new home country of Israel, the Palestinian Arabs were forced by their politically motivated leaders to fester as "refugees" for generations.

King Hussein of Jordan even said so, "Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have not looked into the future. They have no plan or approach. They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, criminal."


As for this:

One can have friends from opposite wings, it means nothing imao, to have spoken to or to live next to�X or to Y� �rights� or �lefts�. share drinks and ideas, and �it happens- friendship.

Thank you for minimizing my experiences with Rabin and Peres. To me, they are something, and for Theolein to say the reprehensible and for you to shrug them off is wrong. The experience gives me an insight that is something you can dismiss if you please, but you'd be mistaken in doing so, so casually.

[mcsjgs]

I thought your experiences were very interesting. Do you have any thoughts on up and coming Israeli leaders in Likud or Labor? Most of us, I assume, know a lot about Sharon and Netanyahu, for example.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by einmakom:
In Iraq, new laws made Zionism punishable by death. In Aleppo, Syria, 300 Jewish homes and 11 synagogues were burned to the ground, and half of the city's 4,000 Jews fled elsewhere. In Aden, 82 Jews were killed. Pogroms accompanied by confiscation of Jewish property and belongings was the norm in Arab countries. From 1948 on, Jewish communities that had survived in Arab countries since antiquity dwindled to a few families or became extinct.

Of course, all these events occurred in a TOTAL vacuum, .........right?

[einmakom]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Of course, all these events occurred in a TOTAL vacuum, .........right?

No, the background there is that these events were not provoked, but instead happened because they were incited by the Arab leaders of those communities. The same Arab leaders who aligned themselves with Hitler and acted on the same rage and xenophobia, both before and after the UN resolution of 1947.




In a discussion of the Arab refugee problem in the UN Security Council on 4 March 1949, the Soviet delegate virtually confirmed the words of the secretary of the Arab High Council previously cited. He said: "Statements have been made on the Arab refugee question, but why should the State of Israel be blamed for the existence of that problem? When seeking to determine responsibility for the existence of the problem of the Arab refugees, we cannot fail to mention the outside forces ... They pursue their own selfish interests which have nothing in common either with the cause of peace and international security or with the interests of the Arab and Jewish peoples, and which only correspond to the aggressive designs of the leading circles of some states."

These facts make obvious nonsense out of claims that Jews were expelled from Arab countries only because the Palestinian Arabs were expelled from Palestine.

[mcsjgs]

Is it fair to say that atrocities were comitted by both sides in 1948? Not equally, just that nasty things happened, same as during the partition of India and Pakistan. Seperating populations, see Yugoslavia, is always messy.

[einmakom]

It's fair to say that with the announcement of the 1947 resolution at the end of November, war broke out.

War isn't pleasant.

But a few things happened in the course of this war that are important to note:

he flight of Arabs from the territory allotted by the UN for the Jewish State began immediately after the General Assembly decision at the end of November 1947. This wave of emigration, which lasted several weeks, comprised some thirty thousand people, chiefly well-to-do-families.

They knew that a war was imminent; they didn't doubt that the Arab armies would quickly win a sweeping victory, and they wanted to be as far as possible from the battlefield. The second wave of emigration came in the spring of 1948, after fighting had erupted between Arab irregulars and Jewish defense forces. This time the urban population was involved, and in far greater numbers - for example, some seventy thousand from Jaffa and sixty thousand from Haifa. An estimated total of over two hundred thousand Arabs emigrated in this wave, despite strenuous efforts of the Jews in various parts of the country to dissuade them from leaving. The Haifa Workers' Council, for example, published, on 28 April 1948, the following plea: "...our city flourished and developed for the good of both Jewish and Arab residents ... Do not destroy your homes with your own hands; do not bring tragedy upon yourselves by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens. By moving out you will be overtaken by poverty and humiliation. But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace, for you and your families." This appeal, however, and many similar ones, were of no avail. Most of the local Arab leaders had already managed to take flight, and directly or indirectly, they encouraged the Palestinian population from across the border to "temporarily" leave their homes.

But the largest wave of Arab refugees, three hundred thousand or more, followed the massive Arab invasion of 15 May 1948, the day after Israel's declaration of independence. The large majority of these emigrants were of the poorer strata of the Arab population, both urban and rural, the former group including day laborers such as the thousands of port workers who had come to Palestine from Syria.

Those that didn't leave kept their homes and their descendants live in Israel today.

Now, there were Jews living in the West Bank at that time. Despite claims that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are the obstacle to peace, Jews lived there for centuries before being massacred or driven out by invading Arab armies in 1948-49. And contrary to common misperceptions, Israeli settlements�which constitute less than two percent of the territories�almost never displace Palestinians.

During the course of war, things that would be atrocious in peace happen.

One definitely can say that there was not an intentional, clear policy to expel the Palestinians from their localities. The initiative came mainly from commanders in the field who either understood that it was preferable to evacuate the Arabs in order not to have "a fifth column" behind their back, or because they understood that this was expected of them.

These are the historical facts. But the Arabs started the fighting. They started shooting. Everything is dependent on the extent of hostility that the Arabs will demonstrate toward Jews and the state of Israel.

[mcsjgs]

It almost sounds as if you were there. If so, I can't imagine what it must have been like. The movie versions are very glossy and Hollywood. The reality must have been very intense. All the history books say it was a close run thing.

[christ]

Originally posted by einmakom:
...the Arabs started the fighting. They started shooting. Everything is dependent on the extent of hostility that the Arabs will demonstrate toward Jews and the state of Israel.

Presumably the Arabs started the fighting after the creation of the state of Israel. The creation that was bitterly opposed by the Arab states, and even warned of (from above)

Arab delegates to the UN, in particular those of Egypt and Iraq, had hinted at their intentions in speeches, warning that Partition might endanger Jews in Arab lands, intensify antisemitism and lead to massacres of Jews

Why is it that if someone that you agree with 'warns of the consequences' it is a 'warning', but if someone that you disagree with does the same it is a 'veiled threat'?

It is certainly a possibility that nowadays the primary object of demonstration in the Middle East is the state of Israel, and Jews are targetted as a result of this friction (creation of the state of Israel caused the friction). It is also eminently possible that the friction is caused by anti-semitism, and shows itself in anti-Israeli demonstrations (anti-semitism causes the friction).

Which of these is cause, and which is effect, is debatable, and which view you have depends largely on which side you support. This makes it difficult to examine the situation objectively, as, if you express anything other than a complete agreement with a person's point of view, you are more or less bound to be seen as sympathising with 'the other side'.

[And, in my view, the current anti-semitism (which of course does exist, in the US as well as in Europe, as does anti-<anything>ism) is likely very little to do with historical anti-semitism (unless all of the Jews in your area are still money-lenders).]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by einmakom:
It's fair to say that with the announcement of the 1947 resolution at the end of November, war broke out.

[...]

These are the historical facts. But the Arabs started the fighting. They started shooting. Everything is dependent on the extent of hostility that the Arabs will demonstrate toward Jews and the state of Israel.

At this point, I honestly don't give a FLYING FSCK "who started it". It is not up to the Arabs alone to stop fighting, because "they started it", any more than it is up to the Israelis alone to stop.

I don't mean this personally, einmakom, but anytime some major feud gets traced back to the absolute origin, there is ALWAYS pointless bickering about whose donkey ate tomatos from the wrong garden, but if the tomato owner's sister hadn't had an illicit relationship with the donkey's owner, it wouldn't have been there in the first place, so whose fault is it now, and now who started it all, anyway.

I don't know what solutions there might be for the whole schlamassel, but it seems to me that trying to trace it all back to the beginning and assign responsibility according to first fault almost fifty years ago is NOT one of the options.

-s*

[swrate]

Originally posted by einmakom:
What of them? They outnumber the Jews by six times.



Jews left Baghdad and other countries, because being Jewish there wasn't safe. It still isn't.

Before the November 1947 UN vote, Arab delegates to the UN, in particular those of Egypt and Iraq, had hinted at their intentions in speeches, warning that Partition might endanger Jews in Arab lands, intensify antisemitism and lead to massacres of Jews. These veiled threats must have had a chilling impact on Jews in Arab lands where memories of the pro-Nazi stance of the local Arab governments and nationalists were still fresh, especially in Iraq, Syria and Egypt, as well as in Libya where Arab mobs had accepted the occupying Germans' invitation to plunder the Jews. And recall the incitement to murder Jews issued over Radio Berlin during World War II by Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem.

In Iraq, new laws made Zionism punishable by death. In Aleppo, Syria, 300 Jewish homes and 11 synagogues were burned to the ground, and half of the city's 4,000 Jews fled elsewhere. In Aden, 82 Jews were killed. Pogroms accompanied by confiscation of Jewish property and belongings was the norm in Arab countries. From 1948 on, Jewish communities that had survived in Arab countries since antiquity dwindled to a few families or became extinct.

Aproximately 600,000 Jews sought refuge in the State of Israel. Since their belongings were confiscated as the price of leaving, they arrived in Israel pennyless, but they were welcomed and quickly absorbed into Israeli society. In reality, an exchange of populations took place between Jews leaving Arab countries and Arabs leaving Jewish Palestine. But while the Jewish refugees quickly became productive citizens of their new home country of Israel, the Palestinian Arabs were forced by their politically motivated leaders to fester as "refugees" for generations.

King Hussein of Jordan even said so, "Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner. They have not looked into the future. They have no plan or approach. They have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, criminal."


As for this:


Thank you for minimizing my experiences with Rabin and Peres. To me, they are something, and for Theolein to say the reprehensible and for you to shrug them off is wrong. The experience gives me an insight that is something you can dismiss if you please, but you'd be mistaken in doing so, so casually.

yes, i will have to read longer into this.
I didn't mean to be offensive in saying this,
sorrry to have made you feel that way.
I respect those many personalities who did a lot for us
in all fields
you were very lucky to meet those people.

What I meant by those words, is: one doesnt necessarely adhere to others ideas, and different wings exchanging and seing each others viewpoint with objective critiscism brings progress.


and I believe humans all have a common history

[macvillage.net]

Facts:

People LOVE war, so it continues.

Why do you think, so many Palestinians and Jews rally behind leaders who vow to continue violence, rather than use the word "peace".

When Sharon launches an attack on Civilians claiming their is a posibility a future terrorist may be among them... his public approval rating surges. They "accidentally" shot a marked UN official... and it was a record surge in public approval.

When there is another suicide rating, Arafat's ratings go up among his people as well.

People hate to admit it... but they like it.

So let it be... it's sad, but it's the sad truth.

It only happens becuase the MAJORITY on both sides allow it to, and encourage it to continue.

The people who don't like the violence, are the victims.

But the victims are a small percentage of the total population.

Sad.

If the majority of the world was a victim, perhaps peace would exist... but it's only a small portion of the world.

Same with AIDS. Despite such a disease being speculated for years, being diagnosed in the early 80's..... the Average American became aware of AIDS in the late 80's, early 90's! Almost a decade after it first broke. Why? Because until the victims were someone close... who cared? A gay guy in SF who was abandoned by his family? Who cares if he dies? Now a basketball player is going to die (Magic was the one who make AIDS a household term)... that make news.


Personally, I thought the UN worker being shot would get the UN and Britain/US to step in with the ultimatum:

Signifigant progress (as viewed by the UN security council)... or face military occupation by UN forces, and new governments installed on both sides.

Until you do that... ther is absolutely no chance on success.

As soon as one sides slows, or disarms... the other will destroy them. So nobody can do it.

Military occupation and regime change is the only way.

It's just a matter of time before enough of the right people decided that enough is enough.

[Developer]

Originally posted by BRussell:
In related news, the EU has stopped a report from coming out that detailed anti-semitism in Europe, even though they commissioned the report. Turns out they didn't like the findings.

http://eumc.eu.int/

EU anti-racism body rejects allegations of "shelved" anti-Semitism report - Report to be published in early 2004

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) rejected allegations contained in articles by the Financial Times dated 22/23 November and 24 November that it had "shelved a report on anti-Semitism in Europe because the study concluded that Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents". The EUMC is in fact continuing its research on anti-Semitism and will publish the results early next year. [...]

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Developer:
http://eumc.eu.int/

EU anti-racism body rejects allegations of "shelved" anti-Semitism report - Report to be published in early 2004

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) rejected allegations contained in articles by the Financial Times dated 22/23 November and 24 November that it had "shelved a report on anti-Semitism in Europe because the study concluded that Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents". The EUMC is in fact continuing its research on anti-Semitism and will publish the results early next year. [...]

I'd have been surprised if ANY beurocratic report was shelved in the EU.

BRussell why do you insist on villifying a beurocratic body that has no known central source. Please stop believing averything you read.

[Developer]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I'd have been surprised if ANY beurocratic report was shelved in the EU.

BRussell why do you insist on villifying a beurocratic body that has no known central source.

I've just gone to their web site again and it looks like they've published a draft now. Probably due to the shelving allegations.

(And I'm willing to bet that most that complained about the shelving won't bother to read that now.)

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Developer:
I've just gone to their web site again and it looks like they've published a draft now. Probably due to the shelving allegations.

(And I'm willing to bet that most that complained about the shelving won't bother to read that now.)

True dat.

[einmakom]

Actually, I'd read it the day it came out.

And I am pleased that it was published, although not pleased about the findings it presents.

It shows there's a very real problem, that if ignored may develop into something much more fearful.

But there's a problem with the EU when it comes to addressing things of this nature. This isn't the first publication that was at first withheld and then presented late- The EU condemnation of Mathahir's statements earlier this year was blocked by France.

Thankfully, this at least got enough attention to bring forth publication. I don't object at all to the EU doing further study, but postponing the release date for findings when the report and it's conclusions had been written looked much like shelving. Better to have done what the final result appears to be, releasing the publication and continuing study.