[petehammer]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Naw, people hated the US before that. People were saying the same venomous things when Clinton was in office.

Really? I was under the impression that Europe LOVED Clinton and thought it ridiculous that we tried to oust him with sex charges. Clinton was a great diplomat to our allies.

Have you missed our allies disappearing since Bush took office? If so, ask Lerk for a newspaper, any newspaper.

For the first time EVER in recent history (AFAIK) when Shroeder was re-elected, Bush did not call to congratulate him. Yup, childish passive-aggression.

[christ]

Originally posted by einmakom:
well, you shouted him down nicely- without contradicting a single word of what he had to say. Interesting way to debate....

Who shouted who down?

[nas t. ho]

Originally posted by einmakom:

Of course, the far-left wackos of Israeli politics (shalom achshav, et al) aren't much fans of Sharon, but they're generally pro-Israel.
...

yeah, and all the others who hate his guts are staunch anti-semites

try again...

[AutoJC]

Yeah, those peaceful Muslims!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
100% nonsense. Most of the people who like Sharon like him because he is anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist, or because they are pro-Israel massacring the Palestinians.

Biggest way to stop Israel "Massacring" Palestinians is to have them stop being terrorist drones.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nas t. ho:
great job zimph! i have yet meeting one peoples who is morer ignorance then u.

I take it you've never met yourself.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Really? I was under the impression that Europe LOVED Clinton and thought it ridiculous that we tried to oust him with sex charges. Clinton was a great diplomat to our allies.

I am sure you were under that impression. I heard all kinds of slanderous things being said about him and the country at the time by foreigners.

People tend to forget this.

Oh and Clinton's little sexacapade really embarrassed this country. Having a sexual predator as a President and all.

Have you missed our allies disappearing since Bush took office? If so, ask Lerk for a newspaper, any newspaper.

Our allies are no different.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Yeah, those peaceful Muslims!

Looks like the Koreshian sect of the Muslim world.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh and Clinton's little sexacapade really embarrassed this country. Having a sexual predator as a President and all.

How often do you need to be told that quite the opposite was the case?

That it was Kenneth Starr who made moralin-soaked American politics the absolute laughing-stock of the world?

-s*

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
How often do you need to be told that quite the opposite was the case?

That it was Kenneth Starr who made moralin-soaked American politics the absolute laughing-stock of the world?

-s*

Blame the prosecutor, not the person whose bad actions inspired prosecution?

That's nearly as bad as blaming the victim.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Blame the prosecutor, not the person whose bad actions inspired prosecution?

That's nearly as bad as blaming the victim.

Bullshit.

Clinton got a blowjob. In any civilized country on the planet, the news either wouldn't have reported it (politicians' sex lives have been more or less taboo in Germany for fifty years, for example), or the public would have tut-tutted and "naughty boy"-ed him, wondering what it might mean for his family, and that would have been the end of it.

It wasn't until Kenneth Starr's investigation that the whole affair became a public affair, and the world collectively shook its head at such bigotted idiocy wasting so many millions of dollars over nobody's business.

You want to blame Paul, or better yet, Jesus, for "inspiring" the crusades or the IRA?

I'm sure you blame Mohammed for Islamist terrorism, as well.

Most of us were *relieved* to hear of an American president since Kennedy who actually *had* a sex life.

I'm not kidding, either.

-s*

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Bullshit.

Clinton got a blowjob. In any civilized country on the planet, the news either wouldn't have reported it (politicians' sex lives have been more or less taboo in Germany for fifty years, for example), or the public would have tut-tutted and "naughty boy"-ed him, wondering what it might mean for his family, and that would have been the end of it.

It wasn't until Kenneth Starr's investigation that the whole affair became a public affair, and the world collectively shook its head at such bigotted idiocy wasting so many millions of dollars over nobody's business.

You want to blame Paul, or better yet, Jesus, for "inspiring" the crusades or the IRA?

I'm sure you blame Mohammed for Islamist terrorism, as well.

Most of us were *relieved* to hear of an American president since Kennedy who actually *had* a sex life.

I'm not kidding, either.

-s*

FDR had two mistresses. Big deal. I don't care about it. I don't care about Mr. Clinton's sex acts and peccadilloes in office--

What was embarrassing to Americans was the fact that the President was being charged with a very serious crime, rape. So a special prosecutor was appointed, and he did his job, part of which was finding incidents that described the character of the man, and contributed to the possibility of him as a rapist, by looking for incidents of sexual harrasment. That Clinton perjured himself in the process, and along the way revealed himself to be a person who had harrassed women in the past, and was on trial for allegedly raping a woman was absolutely embarrassing outside of the US.

Remember, Mr. Starr was doing the job he was appointed to do. Mr. Clinton got himself in that situation by believing himself to be above the law, both when he allegedly committed the original act of rape, and when he tried to excuse himself from being tried for it, because as President he said he was too busy.

The rest of your post is just ludicrous baiting and you know it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by einmakom:
What I was embarrassed about was the fact that the President was being charged with a very serious crime, rape. So a special prosecutor was appointed, and he did his job, part of which was finding incidents that described the character of the man, and contributed to the possibility of him as a rapist, by looking for incidents of sexual harrasment. That Clinton perjured himself in the process, and along the way revealed himself to be a person who had harrassed women in the past, and was on trial for allegedly raping a woman was absolutely embarrassing outside of the US.

That's some kinda amazing revisionism there.

[einmakom]

So you have no recollection of the Paula Jones allegation? At the time of his appointment as Whitewater independent counsel, Starr, a $1 million-a-year Washington attorney with the high-powered firm of Kirkland & Ellis, was advising the Paula Jones camp on her sexual harassment suit against Clinton and offered to write a friend-of-the-court brief on her behalf.

Why would he need to write an amici brief? Because Jones had challenged Clinton's claim of immunity from civil suits while in office. Seven months of legal stonewalling.

Starr's pursuit of Lewinsky for eight months was something he did at Janet Reno's request, because his original appointment was as Independent Counsel for investigation into Whitewater. Starr asked for and received permission to expand his investigation into perjury and obstruction of justice allegations related to the Monica Lewinsky matter.

Another witness who cooperated with Starr is Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer, who claims that Clinton groped her during her November 1993 visit to the Oval Office. Clinton denied it under oath in his deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit.

[Spliffdaddy]

"That's some kinda amazing revisionism there."


It's a damn sight closer to the truth than saying Clinton lied about a blow job.

He committed purjury in order to avoid prosecution for sexual harassment.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by einmakom:
The rest of your post is just ludicrous baiting and you know it.

Actually, vmarks, I stand absolutely by my post.

Blaming a peccadillo for inspiring someone to TOTALLY blow something (excuse the pun) out of proportion, only to expose his utter bigotry by making sure that every American had access to explicit pornography (oh, the moral outrage, indeed!) is not at all dissimilar to the two examples I posted.

And it is absolutely true that a president who has a sex life was a real relief to Europeans after Prozac zombies like the Ray-guns and Bushes.

It is also absolutely true that politicians' sex lives are, for the most part, taboo for German journalists. There's a tacit agreement that private matters of politicians are nobody's business, even if there's a lot of "open secrets" known among journalists. I'm quite certain that this is the case in France as well.

In fact, threatening to publicize alleged details about Hamburg's mayor's sex life *immediately* got our Senator of Inner Affairs fired. Years overdue for other reasons, but threatening use of private matters for a political mudslinging match was the final intolerable straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

-s*

[Spliffdaddy]

I know a lot of guys that have character and integrity. None of them cheat on the wives or grope female co-workers.

Therefore, they don't have to hide their private lives.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I know a lot of guys that have character and integrity. None of them cheat on the wives or grope female co-workers.

Therefore, they don't have to hide their private lives.

It doesn't have any bearing upon how well they do their jobs, though, does it.

-s*

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It doesn't have any bearing upon how well they do their jobs, though, does it.

-s*

Only if their job requires integrity and character.


I think my point is that if an elected official is willing to lie to and cheat on his spouse - do you honestly believe he'll tell YOU the truth?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by einmakom:
So you have no recollection of the Paula Jones allegation? At the time of his appointment as Whitewater independent counsel, Starr, a $1 million-a-year Washington attorney with the high-powered firm of Kirkland & Ellis, was advising the Paula Jones camp on her sexual harassment suit against Clinton and offered to write a friend-of-the-court brief on her behalf.

Why would he need to write an amici brief? Because Jones had challenged Clinton's claim of immunity from civil suits while in office. Seven months of legal stonewalling.

Starr's pursuit of Lewinsky for eight months was something he did at Janet Reno's request, because his original appointment was as Independent Counsel for investigation into Whitewater. Starr asked for and received permission to expand his investigation into perjury and obstruction of justice allegations related to the Monica Lewinsky matter.

Another witness who cooperated with Starr is Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer, who claims that Clinton groped her during her November 1993 visit to the Oval Office. Clinton denied it under oath in his deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit.

Well at least my post inspired you to do a little quick internet research. With your new found expertise, go back and read your previous post. I can spot about 3 factual errors per sentence. It's really quite amazing. A special prosecutor was assigned to investigate Clinton's character because he was on trial for rape? It just makes my head spin.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Only if their job requires integrity and character.


I think my point is that if an elected official is willing to lie to and cheat on his spouse - do you honestly believe he'll tell YOU the truth?

If you honestly believe that people who, in 40 or 50 years of marriage, have cheated on their spouses at some point are unfit for office, I *guarantee* you that you can throw at least 80% of Congress right out the door immediately.

Spouses that will NEVER cheat on each other in 40 or 50 years of marriage are exceptions, not the rule.

Some will separate, but most will work through it and get on with their lives.

-s*

[einmakom]

And it would be nice if it were still taboo in the States- but Clinton forced it into the open by claiming to be immune from civil suit.

Ms. Paula Jones, employee of then-governor Clinton, brought suit to recover $700,000 in damages from the President, alleging that he had made "abhorrent" sexual advances to her while she was in his employ in 1991. Ms. Jones further charged that her rejection of those advances resulted in punishment by her supervisors in the state job which she held at the time. The President's claim of presidential immunity from civil damages litigation was rejected by a unanimous Supreme Court in its decision of May 27th of this year. The Court held that the claim of immunity for unofficial acts was without foundation in precedent or the doctrine of the separation of powers.


The Court further rejected the claim that exposure to lawsuits would place an unacceptable burden upon the ability of the President to perform his official duties.

As much as I'd like it to have been inappropriate for press, the President cannot be immune to civil suits brought by other citizens, and Jones, seeking justice, along with Clinton seeking to forestall justice, both forced the issue into the open.

The burden must lie with the President to demonstrate why his office mandates his immunity from the law.

Press coverage was a necessary by-product of this- you can make an argument that the press went gleefully overboard, but they aren't irresponsible for covering the legal actions that brought Lewinsky, Clinton's alleged harrasment, and perjury to the public.

In fact, the US press has a long established history of scandal-mongering, including Presidential sex lives: One of the first papers in the nation broke the story about Thomas Jefferson having had children by one of his slaves- a scandal if there ever were one, when he broke the story in 1802.

More examples of such accusations against Presidents and their first ladies?

During Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign, his wife died of a heart attack shortly after reading vicious attacks on her character in a partisan pamphlet called "Truth's Advocate." Grover Cleveland was dogged throughout his tenures in office by rumors that he'd fathered an illegitimate child and then abandoned both the mother and child ("Ma, Ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha"). When President Woodrow Wilson remarried in 1915, a "suspiciously" short time after the death of his first wife, Ellen, rumors spread that Wilson had killed her. John Fr�mont, the 1856 Republican presidential candidate, was suspected of being a cannibal.

The public's turning of a blind eye to presidential peccadilloes -- which has certainly been the case for President Clinton -- is also not without precedent. Almost every president or presidential candidate has been accused of some egregious flaw -- whether it be alcoholism, philandering or murder -- and in most cases the rumors have made little difference at the polls. The country paid little heed to Ulysses S. Grant's drinking problem, for example.

There's a shifting reaction of the media, from the enthusiastic embrace of gossip by a multitude of partisan rags to the more rigid journalistic standards that newspapers adopted when they had to answer to advertisers.

Whether or not people pay attention to such rumors depends - Take Woodrow Wilson. He didn't murder his first wife, but people were upset when they realized that he wasn't sitting in the White House mourning her, that he was courting another lady. That meant that rather than sitting around worrying about World War I, he was sleeping with his fianc�e. That upset people.

Similarly- at the same time Clinton was harrassing Willey and sneaking around with Lewinsky, he was bombing Iraq. Which was he paying more attention to?

Everything old is new again.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by einmakom:
And it would be nice if it were still taboo in the States- but Clinton forced it into the open by claiming to be immune from civil suit.

Ms. Paula Jones, employee of then-governor Clinton, brought suit to recover $700,000 in damages from the President, alleging that he had made "abhorrent" sexual advances to her while she was in his employ in 1991. Ms. Jones further charged that her rejection of those advances resulted in punishment by her supervisors in the state job which she held at the time. The President's claim of presidential immunity from civil damages litigation was rejected by a unanimous Supreme Court in its decision of May 27th of this year. The Court held that the claim of immunity for unofficial acts was without foundation in precedent or the doctrine of the separation of powers.


The Court further rejected the claim that exposure to lawsuits would place an unacceptable burden upon the ability of the President to perform his official duties.

[...]

Everything old is new again.

When the timing is right, yes.

Does anybody anywhere seriously believe that the Paula Jones episode was anything other than a timed publicity stunt designed to a) make a couple of people a shitload of money, b) smear Clinton, if possible right out of office, and c) make a couple more people a shitload of money?

Seriously?

-s*

[einmakom]

Actually, quite a lot of people do.

Additionally, quite a lot of people believe Jaunita Broderick's charge of rape by Clinton.

As a lot of people believe Kathleen Willey's groping allegation.

As a lot of people believe all kinds of cockamamie things-
However, Mr. Clinton's own behavior with countless women who claim to have been mistreated by him would indicate that it is reasonable to be suspicious of him. If Ms. Broderick had walked into or called a rape crisis center and spoke with a counselor about her rape, (but left out the identity of the rapist), they never would have doubted her allegation. Because some people so revere Mr. Clinton as President, they are unwilling to consider a harsh possibility.

We're pretty far afield of the original topic of this thread.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by einmakom:
We're pretty far afield of the original topic of this thread.

That's because the original topic was pretty much wrapped up near the top of this page.

All that was missing was a couple of people's explicitly stating that they agreed, but since their statements were pretty much clear and they couldn't explicitly admit that the thread was over, we got a Clinton thread instead.

This is normal, and no cause for alarm.

-s*

[BRussell]

OK, here's an attempt to get back on this topic.

This cartoon showing Sharon eating a baby won first prize in a British political cartoon competition.

It looks like it's from 1930s Nazi propaganda.



Article.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by BRussell:
This cartoon showing Sharon eating a baby won first prize in a British political cartoon competition.

It looks like it's from 1930s Nazi propaganda.

It looks like 'Saturn eating his children' by Goya:

[einmakom]

One of the problems is that a poll which asks which country poses the biggest threat to world peace can be lacking in nuance. I'm willing to extend tosome Europeans the benefit of the doubt and assume that when they said Israel, what they really meant is that the failure to come to a lasting and peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the top threat to world peace; this in itself is not a demonstration of anti-Semitism but of misplaced priorities at a time when North Korea and Iran are playing nuclear poker. Other Europeans have been taught to detest Israel by propaganda campaigns led primarily by the left, which range from boycotts of Israeli academics to blood libel in pro-Palestinian solidarity ads. Europeans persuaded to take an anti-Israel stance by these movements may not themselves be anti-Semitic, but the orchestrators of the propaganda arguably are. When Tamir says that Israel is failing in public diplomacy, he's not being hopelessly naive: Israel and her allies need to fight and win on the propaganda front to counter the misinformation campaign by Europe's far left.



These issues aside, Sharansky is right in that an unhealthy number of European politicians feel comfortable mocking Israel as a "shitty little country" (among other things) or launching attacks on Jewry to score political points (a common theme in post-Communist Eastern Europe, sadly), and you don't have to be Marvin Hier to believe that anti-Semitism may be stronger in Europe today than any time since the Soviet-inspired "anti-Zionist" campaigns reached their peak on the left in the late 1960s.

http://www.matthewstinson.com/blog/archives/000954.html

-- not a news source, and not intended as such, but decent commentary in this case.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by einmakom:
http://www.matthewstinson.com/blog/archives/000954.html

-- not a news source, and not intended as such, but decent commentary in this case.

It doesn't change anything about the fact that anti-Israeli != anti-Semitic, no matter what the honourable Mr. Sharon or his equally extremist terrorist opponents may believe or spout publicly.

-s*

[BRussell]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
It looks like 'Saturn eating his children' by Goya:

Wow, good call.

[einmakom]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/sharansky.html

And it doesn't change the fact that the EU's own commission on racism found that the EU suffers from anti-semitism on a large scale.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Wow, good call.

Actually - it's basic art history�

�it bluntly portrays the circle of life, and, when pushed, how far things can go. This is a painting of the story where Saturn hears his fate. He learns that the only way he can die is when one of his sons kills him. He does not want to live his life in fear, and is very paranoid, so he is forced to do the impossible. He starts eating his children.

http://www.jordan.palo-alto.ca.us/st.../16/merry.html

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by einmakom:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/sharansky.html

And it doesn't change the fact that the EU's own commission on racism found that the EU suffers from anti-semitism on a large scale.

You're right: it doesn't.

But does that qualify as "collective anti-Semitism"? Or is Sharon just a hate-monger employing deliberate fallacies in order to guilt-trip people into supporting his obscene politics/discredit anyone critical of his policies as anti-Semitic and thus on a level with the terrorists?

-s*

[theolein]

Originally posted by einmakom:
http://www.matthewstinson.com/blog/archives/000954.html

-- not a news source, and not intended as such, but decent commentary in this case.

I kind of get the idea that you are terrified of Europe and have the idea that it is some hotbed of anti-semitism where your life is in constant danger from rampaging Nazi hordes.

I also read thisBBC article today about how European Jewish intellectuals see the issue, which ranges from "Why worry" to extreme paranoia, much like most of your posts. So you fit the bill in any case.

So, let's carry on. I can't speak for eastern Europe as I don't know all that much about it, but I have heard that anti-semitism there never went through the same post world war two period of study of the horrors that the Nazis did, since the Commies had a problem with israel constantly whipping their arms customers' butts.

But I have lived in many European countries, including, and I speak the languages of all the countries I've lived and been in for extended periods (Spain, Germany, France, Holland, Switzerland). I have never, not once, ever seen any open anti-semitism. I'm not saying this while I feel defensive about the whole issue. I had a jewish father and have lied on a number of occasions here in Europe, telling people that I was a Jew in order to wiggle my way out of Germany and Switzerland's old laws of paying Christian taxes, or because I didn't want to go to some Christmas dinner or something. I've never had any repercussions because of this except for one time where I was damn embarrased in Berlin because the guy who was organising the boring Xmas dinner happened to be the son of an German ex- ambassador to Israel and spoke Hebrew and knew when Chanukah etc was. oops.

There are 6 countries in Europe that were not devastated in world war 2 by the Nazis: Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland and the UK. Spain and Portugal had already done their anti-jew stuff during the inquisition and have almost no jews, alhtough they have real problems with illegal Maroccan immigrants. The UK I won't comment on as I know too little of UK Jewery, but here in Switzerland, in Z�rich, where there has never been any persecution of the jews, I live on the edge of the Orthodox Jewish quarter, and there are loads of Chasidim around. The last attack I have heard of hear was about some years ago when a Palestinian stabbed a Rabbi.

And there you have the main contingent of real anti-Jewism (not anti-semitism, as the Arabs are semites too) in western Europe: The large moslem populations. Yes, there are neo-nazis in Germany (and France, and the UK, and the US, and Russia...), who still are rabid about jews, even if they have never seen one in their entire lives, but it's not like you walk down German streets and see skinheads every meter or two or that they are not vilified in the German press.

I don't know. I think it would be nigh on impossible to convince you that things are not as bad as you continually make them. You'll sit there in Chicago and believe what you want to believe I suppose. I doubt that it would be possible to convince many jews that people are capable of seeing a difference between Israel's policies to the Palestinians and the existence of the state of israel. I seriously doubt that anyone in Europe is calling for Israel to give up its existence.

But whatever. History will tell what happens there. Perhaps in 20 years the EU and the US will be at war with one another, and perhaps by then the Israelis and Palestinians will be buddies (fat chance) and they'll be laughing at the rest of us killing one another off.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
OK, here's an attempt to get back on this topic.

This cartoon showing Sharon eating a baby won first prize in a British political cartoon competition.

It looks like it's from 1930s Nazi propaganda.



Article.

Wow. kvm_mkdb that was a

[einmakom]

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/a...witzerland.htm

As for Spain, as you say most Jews died or escaped death from the inquisition. My wife's grandfather is a descendant of Jews who escaped the inquisition and lived in a community of survivors descendants on the island of Crimea.

I've been to Spain. In Toledo, there is a synagogue, with one Jew remaining. He takes care of it, although there arent enough Jews to hold services there (it requires ten.)

[voodoo]

Talking about Spain einmakom, I'm applying to go there as an exchange student next winter

(6000 relatively useless posts - whoa)

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Talking about Spain einmakom, I'm applying to go there as an exchange student next winter

(6000 relatively useless posts - whoa)

Derailing are we?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Derailing are we?

what

[theolein]

Originally posted by einmakom:
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/a...witzerland.htm

As for Spain, as you say most Jews died or escaped death from the inquisition. My wife's grandfather is a descendant of Jews who escaped the inquisition and lived in a community of survivors descendants on the island of Crimea.

I've been to Spain. In Toledo, there is a synagogue, with one Jew remaining. He takes care of it, although there arent enough Jews to hold services there (it requires ten.)

What did you post that link for? Man, I live here. I know about Armadruz and the few other nutjobs here. Armadruz was convicted for inciting racial hatred. So what?

For what it's worth, my grandmother was a Spanish Jew living in Switzerland.

[einmakom]

Armadruz was just one of many many offenders in Switzerland listed in that link. In fact, he was only mentioned at the very bottom of that page, so if you got to his name, you read all the others.

Here's a new link, non-Swiss specific.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/idea...p-120276c.html

Yes, it's an op-ed, but worth the read.

Euro trash



Perversity & anti-Semitism lead Europeans
to call Israel greatest threat to peace



By Alan M. Dershowitz


According to a new poll, Europeans regard Israel as a greater threat to peace than any other country in the world. Among the runners-up were the United States, North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia and China were not even in the running.

Sometimes a public opinion poll tells us more about those being polled than about the question at hand. This is such a case. Having been exposed for years to virulent anti-Israel media coverage and anti-Israel bias from their leaders, it is not surprising that so many Europeans have had their views poisoned.

This bias is fed by an extraordinarily successful propaganda campaign that comes, perversely, from enemies of peace - people who engage in, or support, terrorism.

Before we get to the causes of the international bigotry that blames everything bad on Israel, let's look at the hard facts.

In 1947, the United Nations partitioned Palestine into two states. The Jewish state of Israel was allocated about half the usable land, an area in which Jews were a substantial majority. The remainder of Palestine - other than the approximately 80% that already had been allocated to Arabs, primarily Palestinians, for the Jordanian state - was to become a new Palestinian State. Although the new Israel consisted of noncontiguous areas and did not include Jerusalem, where nearly 100,000 Jews made their home, Israel accepted this UN-mandated resolution.

The Arab states, however, joined together to invade the fledgling Jewish state, declaring a genocidal war. They lost that war, and a stronger Israel emerged.

In 1967, Israel was threatened with imminent attack by Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Mideast Arab nations. It responded by destroying the air forces of the most threatening nations without attacking any civilian targets.

After winning the war in six days, Israel immediately accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which mandated the return of certain - but not all - territories captured during the war in exchange for guarantees of peace, recognition and territorial integrity from the surrounding states.

At a meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, the Arab nations unanimously rejected Resolution 242 and instead issued their infamous Three Nos: no recognition of Israel, no negotiation with Israel, no peace with Israel. Israel thus had no peace partner with which to exchange land for peace.

In subsequent years, when first Egypt and then Jordan expressed a willingness to make peace, Israel surrendered the Sinai to Egypt and those portions of the West Bank claimed by Jordan, thus complying with Resolution 242.

In 2000-01, Israel offered to exchange more land for peace with the Palestinians. At Camp David and at Taba, it offered approximately 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem to serve as its capital, in exchange for peace. Yasser Arafat walked away without even making a counterproposal and ordered the resumption of terrorism - well before Ariel Sharon made his ill-fated visit to the Temple Mount.

Israel's actions are not those of a warmongering nation that threatens world peace but rather of a nation that has tried harder to achieve peace than virtually any in history.

Can the Europeans who believe that Israel is the greatest danger to world peace name another country that has ever given back land that was legitimately captured in a defensive war and necessary for its own defense in exchange for a promise of peace?

How, then, to explain this afactual, ahistoric and immoral poll result? At one level, it is simply the latest manifestation of millennia-old efforts to blame the Jews for all the evils in the world. When plagues broke out in Europe, it was the Jews' fault. When wells were poisoned, obviously, the Jews did it. When Christian children were found murdered, who else but the Jews? A German parliamentarian recently blamed Stalin's mass murders on the "predatory" Jewish people, and the cardinal of Honduras has blamed the sex scandal in the Catholic Church on - you guessed it - the Jews.

But there is more at issue here than primitive anti-Semitism, though that surely plays a role in some of the polling results. A generation of Europeans has been miseducated by its own media and leaders about Israel. The United Nations has contributed to this miseducation by condemning Israel more frequently than any other nation, well out of proportion to its faults.

Criticism of Israeli policies is certainly fair game, but throughout Europe, criticism of Israel is rarely comparative, contextual or constructive. Instead, Israel is singled out for demonization and delegitimization.

This is all part of a systematic Palestinian effort to supplement a terrorist campaign with a propaganda war. The poll shows it is succeeding. This very success contributes to a lack of progress toward peace.

The Palestinian leadership will not take the difficult steps needed to achieve peace so long as it continues to win the propaganda war while encouraging terrorism.

Among the greatest threats to world peace, therefore, is not Israel itself but European bigotry against the Jewish nation.



Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest book is "The Case for Israel."

[Spheric Harlot]

-1, Redundant

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
OK, here's an attempt to get back on this topic.

This cartoon showing Sharon eating a baby won first prize in a British political cartoon competition.

It looks like it's from 1930s Nazi propaganda.



Article.

Ugh..

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ugh..

Not 30s Nazi propaganda, though.

The "Saturn eating his children" reference is ugly, but to the point.

-s*

[Zimphire]

Looks like propaganda to me.

It also leaves a FUD like aftertaste in ones mouth.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Looks like propaganda to me.

It also leaves a FUD like aftertaste in ones mouth.

It's a political cartoon, you twit.

End of discussion.

-s*

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
...It also leaves a FUD like aftertaste in ones mouth.

Don't eat it.

[christ]

I'm not one to quibble with one as eminent as Mr Dershowitz, but to look at this bit:

In 1947, the United Nations partitioned Palestine into two states. The Jewish state of Israel was allocated about half the usable land, an area in which Jews were a substantial majority. The remainder of Palestine - other than the approximately 80% that already had been allocated to Arabs, primarily Palestinians, for the Jordanian state - was to become a new Palestinian State. Although the new Israel consisted of noncontiguous areas and did not include Jerusalem, where nearly 100,000 Jews made their home, Israel accepted this UN-mandated resolution.

What would the US do if "the United Nations [were powerful enough, and] partitioned the US into two states. The state of <pick a minority - maybe 'Native American'> was allocated about half the usable land, an area in which <the chosen minority were well represented> . The remainder of the USA was to become a new American State. Although the new <minority state> consisted of noncontiguous areas and did not include Washington DC, where <some number of the minority> made their home, <the minority> accepted this UN-mandated resolution."

Would the displaced, majority, Americans "accept this UN-mandated resolution", or would they more likely "join together to invade the fledgling <minority> state, declaring a genocidal war."?

My guess is that they would not go meekly into the night, but that they would fight for all their worth, for as long as it took, to overturn the arrogance of the "UN-mandate"

[BRussell]

Originally posted by christ:
What would the US do if "the United Nations [were powerful enough, and] partitioned the US into two states.

And here it is. The argument is that the Arabs are justified in their fight against the very existence of Israel.

[theolein]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Armadruz was just one of many many offenders in Switzerland listed in that link. In fact, he was only mentioned at the very bottom of that page, so if you got to his name, you read all the others.

Here's a new link, non-Swiss specific.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/idea...p-120276c.html

Yes, it's an op-ed, but worth the read.

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.