[voodoo]

How many of you Americans are aware of the fact that Ariel Sharon is a convicted war criminal, by an Israeli court? Just curious.

[pdjr]

I am.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by pdjr:
<STRONG>I am.</STRONG>

I'm also aware. but like, I didn't vote for him, dude, the isrealis did.
well, for that matter I didn't vote for Bush, either, for all the good that did.
Maybe appealing to a powerless fleck citizen like me won't help.

[Xaositect]

I am as well.

[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: Xaositect ]

[moki]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>How many of you Americans are aware of the fact that Ariel Sharon is a convicted war criminal, by an Israeli court? Just curious.</STRONG>

No, they *want* to try him as a war criminal by a *Belgian* court. The trial hasn't gone to court, and thus, he wasn't even *convicted* from what I've been able to gather:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Globe140202.html

Also, it should serve as no surprise that Arafat has been similarly indicted by the same court.

[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: moki ]

[Lerkfish]

ahh..thanks for correcting my faulty memory, moki.

more to the point of the question: is a european now suggesting the US depose an elected leader of another soveriegn nation? We've been catching untold flack in these fora from europeans for just influencing other govts.

so, apparently, as long as we're influencing people you like, that's a problem, but if we aren't ousting people you don't like, that's a problem....hm....damned if we do, damned if we don't.


better yet, original poster, instead of me trying to analyze, what is your point or what are you proposing?

[Nimisys]

and voodoo are you aware that arefat is a leader of one of thelargest and most succseful terrorost networks? at the start of his career he entered isreal an attempted to blow up 2 irrigation control gates in an attempt to make isreal think it was being attacked by lebonnon and have them counter attack resulting in a new arab war against isreal.

Neither side of this is clean

[maxelson]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>How many of you Americans are aware of the fact that Ariel Sharon is a convicted war criminal, by an Israeli court? Just curious.</STRONG>

DIdn't know he was convicted. But this has not changed my view of him. Before, I thought he was a pig headed war mongering putz. Now I think he's a pig headed war mongering putz and a terrorist in his own right.
Not that I think Arachubby is much better.

[DBursey]

I don't understand why the original poster directed his comments towards Americans in particular. To my knowledge they play no part in the election of Israeli prime ministers.

Ariel Sharon has never been tried in an international court of law. There was a failed proposal to try him in a Belgian court of law. Of course the Belgians have a reputation of being game to try anything once.

The Israeli Knesset conducted an inquiry into Ariel Sharon's involvement relating to the massacre of Palestinians in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in September 1982. The inquiry did find Sharon responsible for the actions of Lebanese Christian Militias, and consequently forced him to resign his post as Defence Minister, although he did retain his Cabinet post. But as he is an Israeli and these alleged crimes were not committed against Israeli nationals, he was never charged and did not appear in any court of justice in Israel.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>No, they *want* to try him as a war criminal by a *Belgian* court. The trial hasn't gone to court, and thus, he wasn't even *convicted* from what I've been able to gather:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Globe140202.html

Also, it should serve as no surprise that Arafat has been similarly indicted by the same court.</STRONG>

True. However, I would chalk up voodoo's statement to misinterpretation of a few things.

Sharon has been convicted of actions in the Yom Kippur War and the Lebanon War, where he committed some pretty major atrocities. However, he was not convicted of the atrocities themselves (which would make him a war criminal); what he was convicted of was insubordination; in both cases, he was disobeying direct orders when he committed these crimes. As a result, he was barred for life from becoming Minister of Defense.

Yet it can be said that he is an elected leader. To depose him would be anti-democratic. Does this make it a bad thing? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is most definitely an anti-democratic move. I bring this up because I find it very interesting how many groups constantly deride the US for its anti-democratic moves in other nations, and now here they are asking the US to do the very thing that they'd previously been opposed to. I am not trying to defend whatthe US has done in such places as, say, most of South America, merely pointing out how easily people seem to be changing their minds about some things.

[Simon X]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>

No, they *want* to try him as a war criminal by a *Belgian* court. The trial hasn't gone to court, and thus, he wasn't even *convicted* from what I've been able to gather:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Globe140202.html

Also, it should serve as no surprise that Arafat has been similarly indicted by the same court.

[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</STRONG>

Moki, do you realise what the site you've linked to is about?
This is the site of David Irving, the notorious pro-Nazi author. He's probably unknown to those outside the UK. Here's a recent article on him. http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/art...661985,00.html

[M�lum]

Originally posted by Simon X:
<STRONG>

Moki, do you realise what the site you've linked to is about?
This is the site of David Irving, the notorious pro-Nazi author. He's probably unknown to those outside the UK. Here's a recent article on him. http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/art...661985,00.html</STRONG>

Yep, not a very good one Moki.

Ugly guy this David Irving. Just like Sharon.

[Simon X]

Originally posted by M�lum:
<STRONG>

Yep, not a very good one Moki.

Ugly guy this David Irving. Just like Sharon.</STRONG>

Talking of fat f*cks Henry "I have a Noble peace prize" Kissinger is in London next week to give a talk and the Spanish Judge who was responsible for the arrest of Pinochet in Britain is attempting to have Kissinger interviewed by British police when he arrives. Unfortunatly it seems it will just be to answer questions and not to be arrested. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...396298,00.html

Best bit from the article is this quote:

William D Rogers, a member of Kissinger Associates in Washington, said yesterday he believed Mr Kissinger still planned to travel to London and was prepared to "provide whatever evidence his memory can generate".

Generate? Is he some sort of machine? A PC I bet.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by M�lum:
<STRONG>

Yep, not a very good one Moki.

Ugly guy this David Irving. Just like Sharon.</STRONG>

In fairness to Moki, I think it was clear he just did a quick internet search, and found what he was looking for, and didn't look any further into the site.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>How many of you Americans are aware of the fact that Ariel Sharon is a convicted war criminal, by an Israeli court? Just curious.</STRONG>

Eh, the rules of war are developed from Western values and common courtesies (it's not cool to kill the wounded) that existed centuries ago in Europe, when war was a 'gentleman's affair' (Well, for the officers, at least). Observing such rules can cause you to lose, so I don't think it's too bad to go for the whole 'Total War' thing, which is what the Palestinians are doing to Israel right now, and Israel is doing right back (to a lesser extent, they at least attempt to give the appearance of being respectable). Perhaps the only response to an enemy who believes in Total War is to respond in kind.

Only if both sides agree to the eighteenth century 'gentleman's rules' (say an unlikely US vs UK scenario) can you play that way.............

Of course, I'm sure even us Americans would abandon the rules of 'decent warfare' if we were losing and desperate (nuke it, baby ). As the saying goes "Anything goes when everything is gone"

P.S. I like what Benjamin Netenyahu said
"Arafat is Osama Bin Laden with P.R."

[ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: jcadam ]

[l'ignorante]

In Belgium it's possible since a new law in 93 was implemented to persecute persons who committed crimes against humanity/war crimes outside Belgium, even though they're not Belgians. So far the only succesfull case I believe is against 4 people from Ruanda (of which 2 nuns ) who were sentenced up to 20 years for their part in the Ruanda genocide.

28 survivors of the bloodbath in the Palestinian refugee camps Sabra and Shatila took Sharon (in 1982 minister of defense)to Belgian court.
800 people were killed, an Israelian comittee at the time had decided to hold Sharon indirectly responsable.
So far the case against Sharon has not gone to court.

[Simon X]

Originally posted by l'ignorante:
<STRONG>In Belgium it's possible since a new law in 93 was implemented to persecute persons who committed crimes against humanity/war crimes outside Belgium, even though they're not Belgians. So far the only succesfull case I believe is against 4 people from Ruanda (of which 2 nuns ) who were sentenced up to 20 years for their part in the Ruanda genocide.

28 survivors of the bloodbath in the Palestinian refugee camps Sabra and Shatila took Sharon (in 1982 minister of defense)to Belgian court.
800 people were killed, an Israelian comittee at the time had decided to hold Sharon indirectly responsable.
So far the case against Sharon has not gone to court.</STRONG>

I'm all for this type of action, and I understand Belgium is also investigation its past involvement in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba.
Unfortunately too little is done. Too many countries and individuals, usually ministers, have UN resolutions against them that go unpunished. What is the point?

[moki]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
True. However, I would chalk up voodoo's statement to misinterpretation of a few things..</STRONG>

regardless, it was misinformation.

Sharon was not convicted of anything, he was not even brought to trial, and it was not an Israeli court

There wasn't a single thing about the statement that was true.

It really is telling that such misinformation gets sent around as fact.

Also, keep in mind that Arafat has been indicted in the same court

[moki]

Originally posted by Simon X:
<STRONG>

Moki, do you realise what the site you've linked to is about?
This is the site of David Irving, the notorious pro-Nazi author. He's probably unknown to those outside the UK. Here's a recent article on him. http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/art...661985,00.html</STRONG>

No, I didn't know that -- however, a simple web search will find numerous other respected news sites that reiterate the same thing.

[KellyHogan]

Politicians and businessmen all over the world meet and kiss with Henry Kissinger every year and that man pretty much condemned millions to their deaths including American soldiers too young to read a full newspaper. Actually, looking at the history books Kissinger along with Stalin were in part responsible for more deaths than any individual in history. Hitler was small chips in the body count game.

[ink]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>ahh..thanks for correcting my faulty memory, moki.

more to the point of the question: is a european now suggesting the US depose an elected leader of another soveriegn nation? We've been catching untold flack in these fora from europeans for just influencing other govts.

so, apparently, as long as we're influencing people you like, that's a problem, but if we aren't ousting people you don't like, that's a problem....hm....damned if we do, damned if we don't.
</STRONG>

Very well put. When we were disengaged with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, we "weren't doing our duty to preserve peace in the region"; NPR was all but demanding that we send in peace keeping forces to "stop the violence". In the next breath, they were criticizing our presence in the Phillipeans for.... having a military presense to instruct their native armies on how to combat violent surges.

A bit bi-polar, to say the least; and it puts us in a no-win situation every time. The same was true with Clinton and the Milosevec crisis, now that I think about it (the USA is overthrowing a government and/or defending the peace, depending on who was reporting and what time of day it was -- and before we ever engaged, the horror stories of entire villages of men being murdered were all over the indie sites).

Why is the world so fuxored up?

[Simon X]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Politicians and businessmen all over the world meet and kiss with Henry Kissinger every year and that man pretty much condemned millions to their deaths including American soldiers too young to read a full newspaper. Actually, looking at the history books Kissinger along with Stalin were in part responsible for more deaths than any individual in history. Hitler was small chips in the body count game.</STRONG>

[l'ignorante]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG> Hitler was small chips in the body count game.</STRONG>

This is such a load of bollocks, and you know it.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by l'ignorante:
<STRONG>

This is such a load of bollocks, and you know it.</STRONG>

Well, even if you don't believe the Kissenger story, let's take a look at approximate body counts, shall we?

Stalin - killed more than 30 million in the gulags and such.
Hitler - Somewhere between 4 and 6 million.

Granted, the only reason Stalin 'won' this grotesque race is because he had a much longer career. Hitler beat him hands down on intensity.

BlackGriffen

[voodoo]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>

regardless, it was misinformation.

Sharon was not convicted of anything, he was not even brought to trial, and it was not an Israeli court

There wasn't a single thing about the statement that was true.

It really is telling that such misinformation gets sent around as fact.

Also, keep in mind that Arafat has been indicted in the same court</STRONG>

First off, this discussion is not about Arafat. His past and present is no secret and you are welcome to start a thread on him if you are so inclined.

You can't defend the actions of anyone by pointing at someone else who has done similar things.

Oh, and if you are so touchy about whether it was a court or an appointed commitee you are stuck on trivial details.

He was considered responsible for the massacre and was prohibited from being in direct charge of the Isreali military again. (and now he's prime minister )

So he was convicted, by Israelis for the massacre.

What is eluding you moki?

The topic was to raise attention to that fact.

Also this thread gave the following results:

Europeans: 4 did not try to defend Ariel and 0 defended him.
USAians: 1 did not try to defend Ariel and 5 defended him.

I'd like to propose a hypotheses based on this data:

Could it be that US media is more biased to Israel, and the European media is more biased to Palestine?
But that begs the question, why would anyone be biased towards Palestine, which harbours terrorists and worse. It isn't even a true country and Europe has no intrests to protect there. The same cannot be said about the relationship between Israel and the USA.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>Europeans: 4 did not try to defend Ariel and 0 defended him.
USAians: 1 did not try to defend Ariel and 5 defended him.

I'd like to propose a hypotheses based on this data:

Could it be that US media is more biased to Israel, and the European media is more biased to Palestine?
But that begs the question, why would anyone be biased towards Palestine, which harbours terrorists and worse. It isn't even a true country and Europe has no intrests to protect there. The same cannot be said about the relationship between Israel and the USA.</STRONG>

I think you need to back up a little and in an concise way define what you mean by "defending" sharon. For example, I questioned whether it was appropriate for the US to attempt to depose an democratically elected official, or whether that's what you were asking us to do and whether that jives with previous condemnations the US has received for simply influencing other govt's. my reasoning was more towards whether the logistics of doing anything were logical or possible or desired. I also asked why europeans criticise the US for getting involved in some things, yet demand they get involved in other things...seems to be a bit of a mixed signal.

If you interpret this as defending sharon, that would be a grave inaccuracy. I personally loathe sharon as much as I do arafat. In fact, I have more sympathy for Arafat's precarious position, because he literally is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand the US and Israel are predicating any peace negotiations on whether he can "control" palestinian terrorist groups, and I really don't think he can at this point, I don't think those groups answer to him anymore, I think they have their own agendas and networks. Sharon, on the other hand, is very much in control of what Israel does, and its army is out in public and accountable, at least to themselves.

However, on a personal level I loathe people who feel violence is a necessary means to a desired end. Killing is just plain wrong, no matter the justification.

I think you need to state the question more clearly before you draw such conclusions, so that anyone who responds can fairly and accurately characterize their own response to how it will be tallied.

as to the rest of your post, that's a more valid question: are the media representations of the conflict consistent, comparing US and non-US media?

[voodoo]

What I was doing with my original post was to get some data on the general knowledge Americans have on Ariel Sharon's history. Simply to get an idea of how the American public is informed. It is apparent that there is a clear difference in how things are reported and what is reported in US and EU media.

So I was making an experiment to create a hypothesis.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

I think you need to back up a little and in an concise way define what you mean by "defending" sharon.
</STRONG>

If you try to defend his actions, i.e. explain how it is in his right to attack, persecute and violate human rights. (note: you were not counted as a defender of Sharon)

<STRONG>
If you interpret this as defending sharon, that would be a grave inaccuracy.
</STRONG>

I didn't.

<STRONG>
On the one hand the US and Israel are predicating any peace negotiations on whether he can "control" palestinian terrorist groups, and I really don't think he can at this point, I don't think those groups answer to him anymore, I think they have their own agendas and networks. Sharon, on the other hand, is very much in control of what Israel does, and its army is out in public and accountable, at least to themselves.
</STRONG>

I agree with that 100%

<STRONG>
However, on a personal level I loathe people who feel violence is a necessary means to a desired end. Killing is just plain wrong, no matter the justification.
</STRONG>

Again we see thing eye to eye.

<STRONG>
I think you need to state the question more clearly before you draw such conclusions, so that anyone who responds can fairly and accurately characterize their own response to how it will be tallied.
</STRONG>

Well, you were unwittingly participating in my little experiment I couldn't explain everything up front, that could have affected the results. It was a bit more scientific that way

<STRONG>
For example, I questioned whether it was appropriate for the US to attempt to depose an democratically elected official, or whether that's what you were asking us to do and whether that jives with previous condemnations the US has received for simply influencing other govt's. my reasoning was more towards whether the logistics of doing anything were logical or possible or desired. I also asked why europeans criticise the US for getting involved in some things, yet demand they get involved in other things...seems to be a bit of a mixed signal.
</STRONG>

Europeans are not as disturbed by the fact that you do get involved, but rather how you get involved.

<STRONG>
as to the rest of your post, that's a more valid question: are the media representations of the conflict consistent, comparing US and non-US media?</STRONG>

Well, that was the whole point of this thread, to establish the fact the US media is biased towards Israel.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>How many of you Americans are aware of the fact that Ariel Sharon is a convicted war criminal, by an Israeli court? Just curious.</STRONG>

Yes, it is amusing that while you're presenting yourself as enlightened compared to Americans about this issue, as moki points, what you posted here is utterly incorrect. I think you would have just at least checked some web sites for info before you posted that.

But yes, there absolutely is a difference between Europe and the US with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But given Europe's anti-semitic past, is anyone there at all concerned when opinion tilts against Jews? I'm not suggesting that it must necessarily be anti-semitism, just that it might be cause for concern.

Also Europe does have a great deal of political interest in taking the Arab/Muslim side, because of the Arab/Muslim populations there.

Who is more biased? I don't know. But check out some of the pro-Israel web sites for their opinions. They believe the American media is out to get them, and gives the Palestinians an easy ride.

And the question about Arafat is fair. I'd guess lots of people don't know Sharon's history, but I'd guess lots of people don't know Arafat's either.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>Yes, it is amusing that while you're presenting yourself as enlightened compared to Americans about this issue, as moki points, what you posted here is utterly incorrect. I think you would have just at least checked some web sites for info before you posted that.
</STRONG>

Look, once again: Ariel Sharon was indeed found to have been indirectly responsible for a massacre of Palestinians in a refugee camp in Lebanon, because he disobeyed direct orders. He was banned, consequently from holding the position of Defense Minister ever after.

<STRONG>
But given Europe's anti-semitic past, is anyone there at all concerned when opinion tilts against Jews? I'm not suggesting that it must necessarily be anti-semitism, just that it might be cause for concern.
</STRONG>

This is terribly ignorant in every respect. Europe was no more anti-semitic than any other continent in the World. Germany is a country in Central Europe. Check your facts.

Do you think all or even most Germans in WWII were anti-semitic? If so, do you think they still are?

<STRONG>
Also Europe does have a great deal of political interest in taking the Arab/Muslim side, because of the Arab/Muslim populations there.
</STRONG>

What kind of logic is that? Does the US take the African side in all disputes concerning that part of the world, because of the African-American population in your country?

I think you can do better Russell.

EU: 4-0
US: 1-6

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>What I was doing with my original post was to get some data on the general knowledge Americans have on Ariel Sharon's history. Simply to get an idea of how the American public is informed. It is apparent that there is a clear difference in how things are reported and what is reported in US and EU media.

So I was making an experiment to create a hypothesis.



Well, that was the whole point of this thread, to establish the fact the US media is biased towards Israel.</STRONG>

well, I am relieved you didn't count me as defending sharon....but I think for this to have been a true scientific experiment (and more indiciative of what you wanted to find out), you probably needed to avoid using loaded questions (and your first question was extremely loaded)....for example:

1. Are you an american?
2. What do you know about Sharon? Arafat?
2a. Have either been convicted as war criminals?
2b. Who convicted them or judged them to be war criminals?
3. What is the cause of the Israeli-palestinian conflict
4. How do you feel the media has represented the conflict, regarding both sides?
5. Do you feel you connect more with the israeli side or palestinian side? How did you arrive at that preference, through media reports, personal knowledge, historic perspective?

Then a separate but identical list for our eurpean members.

That would have gone more towards addressing the media representations and if they felt different.

What your first question actually did was:
1. make americans feel immediately defensive that you were trying to portray them as:
a. dumb
b. bloodthirsty
c. responsible

so, that's why you didn't quite get the responses you needed. However, I would submit that the loaded why you phrased your question did more to tellus how you felt than vice versa.

[voodoo]

True. I could have posted a much more scientific poll, but that would not in my experience generate as much respons and would severely reduce entertainment value

And yes, the original question does reflect my opinion on Sharon, though not my opinion on Americans or Israelis.

Living in Iceland I am under both American and European influence, so the question also reflects my intrest.

Still, why does the original question make you (Americans) feel bloodthirsty, dumb and responsible? Does that say something about you?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>Still, why does the original question make you (Americans) feel bloodthirsty, dumb and responsible? Does that say something about you?</STRONG>

no, trying to bump up your reading comprehension or maybe your selective editing:
what I actually said:
[quote]1. make americans feel immediately defensive that you were trying to portray them as:
a. dumb
b. bloodthirsty
c. responsiblewhat your reading of what I said, once again, says more about you. It says that you are accusing us or attempting to portray us as such.....and that doesn't sit well with most people.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>Look, once again: Ariel Sharon was indeed found to have been indirectly responsible for a massacre of Palestinians in a refugee camp in Lebanon, because he disobeyed direct orders. He was banned, consequently from holding the position of Defense Minister ever after.</STRONG>

But that's not what you said at first. You set yourself up as the knowledgeable one, enlightening ignorant Americans. If you hadn't done that, no one would have cared that your facts were off. But YOU ended up being the ignorant one in need of enlightenment. It's probably not your fault. You probably just repeated what you heard in the European media.

By the way, your characterization is still wrong. He was not banned from defense minister ever after. You're still improvising. The commission recommended Sharon leave office, and he resigned his post as Defense Minister. Why don't you stop trusting the European media and try checking a few facts on your own?

Another thing. Has Arafat ever been held responsible for terrorism by any Arab or Muslim commission? If not, do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Europe was no more anti-semitic than any other continent in the World.

Are you really saying Europe has no unique history of anti-semitism? Where did most of the Jews in the world live up to WWII? All over Europe, and not just Germany. What happened to them? They were killed and/or driven out. And there is currently a rising tide of anti-semitism in Europe, such as attacks on synagogues and orthodox jews. That's today, not 50 years ago. Is it just a coincidence that it's happening at the same time as the European media becomes more biased against Israeli? Maybe, maybe not. But it makes one wonder.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>
Are you really saying Europe has no unique history of anti-semitism? Where did most of the Jews in the world live up to WWII? All over Europe, and not just Germany. What happened to them? They were killed and/or driven out. And there is currently a rising tide of anti-semitism in Europe, such as attacks on synagogues and orthodox jews. That's today, not 50 years ago. Is it just a coincidence that it's happening at the same time as the European media becomes more biased against Israeli? Maybe, maybe not. But it makes one wonder.</STRONG>

even though you may or may not be right, I think its an unprovable thing to say that an entire continent is anti-semitic because synagogues and orthodox jews are attacked. After all, there were many churches burned down in the american south around the time of the last atlanta olympics...did that mean that "america" was anti-christian or anti-black christian?
Also, anti-semitism would also mean anti-palestinian, jordanian, syrian, etc. As there are more semitic races than israelis.
However, you could very well be correct, but since anti-semitism involves a bigoted racist attitude, as such its not something that people who feel that way will necessarily festoon across their bosom, it would be hard to prove that one way or another conclusively.

An easier task would be to ask whether media representations are more one-sided than not. I don't have those figures, but someone must.

[mrfrost]

Can't we all just get along ?

And I really meant that !

[zigzag]

voodoo, it may or may not be true that the major U.S. media is, as a whole, balanced towards Israel (it wouldn't surprise me). But I think you may be overlooking a couple of things:

1) The Bush administration is obviously pro-Israel, so it's almost inevitable that in reporting on Bush, the U.S. media is less likely to emphasize Sharon's misdeeds. I mean, you're not going to see page 1 headlines like "Bush Backs War Criminal". But I've seen no lack of mention of Sharon's misdeeds in the U.S. press. It may not get the headlines or the emphasis, but the allegation is mentioned all of the time, not least in the editorial sections. It's not like the information is hidden from us. I would imagine that if you tried to count how many times an editorial has said "Sharon is a war criminal" or "Arafat is a terrorist", it would be a toss-up. They are often said in the same sentence. No one that I know likes either one of them. Bush appears to favor him over Arafat for 2 reasons: first because Israel is an ally, and second because, for all his misdeeds, Sharon appears to be more forthright in stating his intent than Arafat. Bush obviously doesn't care for Arafat's brand of "Who, me?" politics.

2) If you're trying to imply that it's because the U.S. media is Jewish-controlled (a lot of people think it but are afraid to say it), I would say that while some of it is Jewish-controlled (just as some of it is Korean-controlled, black-controlled, WASP-controlled, etc.), I don't think it's the deciding factor. There are plenty of outlets that are not Jewish-controlled that, even after acknowledging Israel/Sharon's misdeeds, are pro-Israel.

3) This isn't to say that Americans don't act out of self-interest. I think this is really the deciding factor. If they perceive that Israel/Sharon is going to do better by them than, say, Arafat, then naturally they're going to be biased towards Israel, even with knowledge of Israel/Sharon's misdeeds. But even then, there is no shortage here of disaffection with Israel. I don't go a day without hearing people, including Jews, expressing dismay over it, even questioning its very existence. In any event, I don't know a single person who thinks that the Palestinians aren't also entitled to statehood, or who thinks that Israel has entirely clean hands. I know they're out there, but I think they're a small minority. The vast majority of people think that both sides should sit down and shut up.

4) You might assume that American citizens take everything they read/hear at face value. While that is a universal human failing, Americans are just as capable of thinking independently as anyone else. Indeed, at any given time here, there are people watching the same news report and complaining that it is too liberal or too conservative, too pro-Israeli or too pro-Palestinian. As you suggested, one might just as easily argue that Europeans are biased towards the Palestinians because the European media is biased towards the Palestinians.

5) I think the response to your original post was skeptical partly because you were clearly baiting people. Instead of "What do Americans think about the assertion that Sharon is a war criminal?", it was "To Americans with love - Sharon is a war criminal" (you might as well have said "You evil Americans are deliberately supporting a known war criminal and are therefore complicit."). Well, would a bias towards Arafat make us complicit in his acts as well?

6) This should not be interpreted as any kind of defense of Sharon or his alleged war crimes. I would just as soon that he and Arafat both drop dead tomorrow.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>even though you may or may not be right, I think its an unprovable thing to say that an entire continent is anti-semitic because synagogues and orthodox jews are attacked.</STRONG>

No, you're right.

The point is to put events into some historical context. When some racist incidents occur in the Southern US, there is a perception of those events in the context of the history there. They are taken more seriously because of the past.

voodoo is denying that there is any unique anti-semitic history in Europe (anti-jewish, if you prefer, Lerkfish). When you make that denial, you don't see modern events, such as anti-Israeli media bias, in its historical context. I think that's a mistake.

Originally posted by Mr_Frost:
<STRONG>Can't we all just get along ?

And I really meant that !</STRONG>

Here's a good article in The Guardian about the US and Europe and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Basically, Europe sees the US as biased, and the US sees Europe as biased.

[l'ignorante]

Of course antisemitism was big in Europe, there were a lot of jews. Racism in Iceland is also very low.
Interesting to know maybe, why so many jews from the Netherlands were deported and killed and comparatively so few from Belgium. The dutch authorities already for many years kept perfect records of all jews in the Netherlands, of course the Nazi's were delighted and must have complimented them for easying their task. Belgium, a country still struggling to get through the medieval ages had of course no records and it turned out to be an almost impossible task to trace the jewish population.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>
Are you really saying Europe has no unique history of anti-semitism? Where did most of the Jews in the world live up to WWII? All over Europe, and not just Germany. What happened to them? They were killed and/or driven out.
</STRONG>

History 101:

Hitler took over as reichschanselor in Germany, his policy strongly anti-semitic. Begins his 'lebensraum' campaign, takes over Austria and the Sudet regions in the Chech republic. Then in 1939 Germany begins it's conquest of Europe. One by one European counries are occupied by Germany. France, Holland, Belgium etc. etc. Governments in occupied countries were replaced by Nazi leaders. Jews were therefore imprisoned, killed or driven out of those countries by German Nazis. Not by anyone else.

<STRONG>
And there is currently a rising tide of anti-semitism in Europe, such as attacks on synagogues and orthodox jews. That's today, not 50 years ago. Is it just a coincidence that it's happening at the same time as the European media becomes more biased against Israeli? Maybe, maybe not. But it makes one wonder.</STRONG>

The neo-nazi movement is a fringe group without any coordinated leadership and are not especially against Jews, but any people who do not share the same color of skin, religion or culture as they do.

Most of the recent attacks on synagogues and orthodox Jews in Europe (in fact mostly in France) have been made by young muslim refugees and immigrants. Not neo-nazis or Europeans, as such.

The 'bias' against Israel in European media does not equal bias against Jews. Just the state and government of Israel. No European nation would ever elect a person who is a supposed war criminal. And Sharon most definetely is a supposed war criminal.

As for Arafat, he was a part of a terrorist orginaziation which heeded no government. Something he is not a part of today, and never was as a leader af Palestine. Sharon, however is representing a nation that has an organized modern military and should as such respect and obey international human rights laws. Laws we take for granted.

<STRONG>
By the way, your characterization is still wrong. He was not banned from defense minister ever after. You're still improvising. The commission recommended Sharon leave office, and he resigned his post as Defense Minister. Why don't you stop trusting the European media and try checking a few facts on your own?

</STRONG>

Look, this is politics. Sharon was found to be indirectly responsible for terrible atrocities against innocent people and was asked to resign (i.e. was forced to, I have no doubt he would have gladly contintued to hold the position of commander of the Israeli military)

He was effectively barred from that position ever after.

I don't consider it to be misinformation or even wrong to say he is a convicted war criminal.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>
what your reading of what I said, once again, says more about you. It says that you are accusing us or attempting to portray us as such.....and that doesn't sit well with most people.</STRONG>

Actually, I did not mean the topic start in the way you (and many other Amercans, as fate would have it) took it. I DID, however, put it the way I did as a bait.

ZigZag, I love you man! You saw right through it!

Gotta go home now, and I leave in peace.

PS. good points Lerky.

[Face Ache]

Re: US media. Do this: Read www.cursor.org first thing in the morning. Then read CNN or the NYT. Watch the news disappear before your very eyes! Be amazed!

I now read all US news sources last, as it amuses me to see what doesn't get through. It also saddens me (more than a bit).

The sooner the internet is safely in the hands of Rupert Murdoch the sooner the powers-that-be can get back to business-as-usual without us watching.


Was this in the press where you live?

[stefls]

Governments in occupied countries were replaced by Nazi leaders. Jews were therefore imprisoned, killed or driven out of those countries by German Nazis. Not by anyone else.

Yes, but the highly organized Dutch 'civil apparatus' and the tradition of implicit loyalty (also towards the agressor) did make things easier for the Nazis. And sad but true: many people did not shed a tear over the deportation of the Jews, which goes for The Netherlands, as well for Belgium, as well for Hungary, France, Italy, Yugoslavia, etc.
My point is that the role of local anti-semitic forces, combined with non-resistant local authorities should not be underestimated.

The dutch authorities already for many years kept perfect records of all jews in the Netherlands

(l'ignorante)

Bear in mind they kept (and keep ) records of everything, not especially such records. Also note that Dutch authorities mainly did not sabotage these records, although at some point this was very well possible... why didn't they...?

Off topic, aren't we?

[simonjames]

fyi - in WWII the Danes saved many Jewish people by secreting them to Sweden. Many Danes gave their lives to help those being hunted by the Nazis

[Face Ache]

Europeans: Read this Time magazine crap.

See? You killed too many Jews.

!!!!!!!!!

I think as punishment Europe should be broken up into separate countries.

Erm...

[voodoo]

The senseless accusations of *some* people here stating Europeans are traditionally anti-jewish, made me completely baffled. Yesterday I pointed out that it was actually the Nazis that hunted and killed Jews, much to your amazement, I'm sure. The problem with the American responses in this thread is that they all seem to regard Europe as one nation, not a continent of dozens of countries with unique histories, diverse cultures and clear borders. There is one thing almost all European countries have in commmon. In recent memory (our grandparents still remember those times) most countries in Europe were under the iron heel of Nazi Germany. We know oppression, we know humiliation, we know what it feels like to be driven from our homes, lose our human rights and see members of our family get killed. Therefore I think Europeans can relate more to Palestinians and their suffering. We don't hate Jews, but Israel is tearing up old collective memories.

[TNproud2b]

Thanks to the Americans who had to save Europe from the Nazis....

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>American responses in this thread is that they all seem to regard Europe as one nation, not a continent of dozens of countries with unique histories, diverse cultures and clear borders.</STRONG>

Similarly, europeans make the exact same mistake in their perceptions of america....we are not homogenous, we are a melting pot that seldom mixes thoroughly. Mainly, we are a melting pot of those same dozens of countries with unique histories, diverse cultures and clear borders. And then some.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
<STRONG>The senseless accusations of *some* people here stating Europeans are traditionally anti-jewish, made me completely baffled. Yesterday I pointed out that it was actually the Nazis that hunted and killed Jews, much to your amazement, I'm sure. The problem with the American responses in this thread is that they all seem to regard Europe as one nation, not a continent of dozens of countries with unique histories, diverse cultures and clear borders. There is one thing almost all European countries have in commmon. In recent memory (our grandparents still remember those times) most countries in Europe were under the iron heel of Nazi Germany. We know oppression, we know humiliation, we know what it feels like to be driven from our homes, lose our human rights and see members of our family get killed. Therefore I think Europeans can relate more to Palestinians and their suffering. We don't hate Jews, but Israel is tearing up old collective memories.</STRONG>

As you get further away from any geographical space it is natural to see the big picture and ignore the trivialities. I grew up in England and later lived in Germany as well as the U.S. Locals in England see a huge difference between someone from Norfolk and someone from Nottinghamshire. Viewed from Germany, it's all the same place. As you back away from Europe, with its still distinct, but fading borders, it is perfectly natural to see the similarities over the differences. Europeans have exactly the same tendency to lump all Americans together - even including those Americans from Canada.

Your wider point is more disturbing. Europeans aren't unique in having historical memories. When Americans hear about Synagogues burning and people marching carrying signs saying "death to Jews" while the authorities stand idly by, those memories are awakened. Whether those Jews live in France, or Israel (that "shitty little country" to borrow an infamous phrase of the French foreign minister), we are naturally sympathetic. When those Jews live in a democracy, surrounded by a sea of hostile dictatorships, our sympathies also naturally are aroused. When that democracy offers peace and it is rejected in favor of brutal terrorism, in violation of all the laws of civilized behavior, then, yes, we are overwhelming in our determination to see that the norms of just war will prevail.

At the same time, Americans are also not insensitive to the need for the Palestinians to have a state of their own. The U.S. has publicly called for an independent Palestine, and for an end to the occupation of the West Bank. An independent, democratic Palestine that recognizes the rights of its neighbors to live in peace could certainly look to the U.S. as a friend, just as young democracies from Germany, to Japan, to Eastern Europe, the Philippines, Korea and elsewhere have done before it.

Your analogy between the Palestinians with Europe under the Nazis is inapposite. Occupied European states did not have the opportunity to negotiate their independence and have it guaranteed by the international community. Nor did they spurn such an opportunity and turn to violence. Neither did the resistance make a habit of blowing up schoolkids and families celebrating religious festivals. None of those behaviors can be condoned if civilization is to survive.

The vote last week in the U.N Human Rights Commission indicate to me that some of the current European country's goverments have utterly abandoned their moral compass. But I do not think they represent all Europeans, because Europe is no more homogenous than the U.S. is. Europeans need to stand up for civilized behavior, repudiate terror and take a responsible stand. Too many European leaders, following in the footsteps of Neville Chaimberlain, seem to think they can appease terror and shift the blame and cost to to other victims. Well, Americans also know a little history, and when we see that, our tendency is to say "oh crap, not again!

[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: SimeyTheLimey ]

[DBursey]

... even including those Americans from Canada

I'm surprised to hear that you consider Canada to be a significant source of immigrants to the U.S. I am under the impression that the opposite is true. What else could this comment have implied?

As a demographic side note, Canada is proud to be home to the a) the world's most multicultural city, and b) the largest French population to have never surrendered to Germany.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by DBursey:
<STRONG>

I'm surprised to hear that you consider Canada to be a significant source of immigrants to the U.S. I am under the impression that the opposite is true. What else could this comment have implied?

As a demographic side note, Canada is proud to be home to the a) the world's most multicultural city, and b) the largest French population to have never surrendered to Germany. </STRONG>

That's not what I was saying. Many Europeans (for example, the kids I studied with in English high school) tend to say "America", when they mean the U.S. and they are pretty unaware there is anyone else on this continent. I remember around 1984 asking a group once where they thought Canada was. They didn't know. If I had have told them that Mexico is also in North America I would have really baffled them.

Of course, those are the same kids who don't think that Britain is geographically in Europe.