quote:

Originally posted by rustyryan ronk... i really enjoy your avatar...

thanks, I..found it in google myself

quote:

Originally posted by rustyryan and about the article... their views on East Jerusalem and failure to mention terror attacks against Israel may be anti-Israel, I don't really think that it's anti-Semetic though. There's a difference there, one is related to racial prejudice. The other is a statement of foreign policy. It's really easy to get a lot of attention if you label what you're saying with something sensationalist like that. Whether or not France or Germany or any EU members who appear to be anti-Israel are anti-Semetic is speculation.

you're right. but I posted this article not because of the 'anti-semitism' stuff, but because of the distorted history behind their resolution.

quote:

Originally posted by rustyryan There are some countries whose foreign policy is representative of a prejudice their people have against another country's people, but there are more still whose foreign policy is based on an opinion the country's gov't has about how the country in question should be acting. One issue I could see countries having (from the article) is that perhaps they feel Israel's actions are contributing to instability in the region. Without knowing firsthand from the policymakers you can't know whether its a matter of their opinion of your country or a racial hate sort of thing.

and again you're right, but I partly disagree on the 'instability' thingy. Hezbollah is the main instability factor here. if it wasn't for their twisted idea - that kidnapping and killing soldiers on Israeli soil and launching missiles at civilians - will cause the release of Lebanese murderers (see Samir Kuntar and his friends) - the whole region would be peaceful at this time.

___________________
.

Seeing as how Arabs are semites, then you can't label this EU report as being anti-semite. It might be anti-Jewish, or anti-Israeli, but it's not really anti-semite.

I do tend to agree that the definition of a Palestinian is debateable. We're talking about a number of Arab tribes really. Just like Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia are made up of a bunch of Arab tribes. If anything, for a true Arab Palestinian state to exist based on a particular tribe or tribes, it would need to cover a chunk of eastern Egypt (especially Sinai), western Jordan, southern Syria, and southern Lebanon. I don't see those countries rushing to give parts of their lands to the Palestinians, even though the people of those territories are by and large part of the same tribe as the Arabic people living in the West Bank and Gaza. So why would Israel need to do any of this if Arab regimes don't practice what they preach? And if Jews were willing to immigrate to Israel from all over the world why can't Arab moslims immigrate to one of the dozens of moslim states that support them "so strongly" ?

Keep in mind there's Israeli Arabs and there's non Israeli Arabs living within the state of Israel.
Back in 1948 the UN gave the Arabs living in what was then called Palestine (in reference to the Philistines who once settled part of this land) a chance to have their own country, side by side with a Jewish state. Up until then Arabs had never been in control of this land - it was controlled by the Turks, the French, the British, even the Romans, Greeks, and Persians in earlier times. The Jews accepted this UN resolution, the Arabs didn't. They decided to fight the Jews, and asked the Arab neighbors in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria to join them in this war. A year later the Jews won, the Arabs lost. The Arabs who accepted Israel as a country were allowed to peacefully live in it, and became Israeli citizens. The rest? Well, the Arabs in Gaza were under Egyptian control, the Arabs in the West Bank under Jordanian control. As another poster pointed out, this changed after 1967 when AGAIN Israel won.

haunted isnt very bright. a nice synthesis of bigotry and ignorance in that post.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah. say anything against israel and its automatically anti semitism.

+1 and 1/2

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid +1 and 1/2

ok. for the last time. ignore the phrase "anti-Semitism". just read the article and see how those report writers distorted the history (including recent history - such as Hamas suicide bombers). that's the fucking point of the article.

___________________
.

quote:

Originally posted by ronk ok. for the last time. ignore the phrase "anti-Semitism". just read the article and see how those report writers distorted the history (including recent history - such as Hamas suicide bombers). that's the fucking point of the article.

I did read it and it doesn't surprise me.

quote:

Originally posted by ronk ok. for the last time. ignore the phrase "anti-Semitism". just read the article and see how those report writers distorted the history (including recent history - such as Hamas suicide bombers). that's the fucking point of the article.

I really don't see it as much of distortion. Since it's not a report that was intended to go public, there really is no reason to distort the truth, especially since most politicians are pretty well aware of the situation. This particular report was about Israel, and therefore it is not illogical that it condemns some of israeli actions in a same way that a report on Palestine should condemn some palestinian actions. I'm pretty sure there were negative reports on Palestine that did not leak out, since EU decided to cut their funding after Hamas won the elections. But nevertheless, if you do something bad, the fact that someone did something worse is generally a non-issue.

As for the phrase anti-semitism, it's hard to ignore since it exists in the article itself. The whole article is imo a biased piece of crap.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun Well the colors of the flag are the same & its easy to confuse them. Plus most people in Belguim speak German.

No they don't

As for the article...

There is nothing there that suggests anti-Semitism apart from the journalist's own racist view of Europeans (which people on this thread are also demonstrating)

As for the rest of the article, again, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Lets first of all talk about the Six Day War...

quote:

The EU report also distorts the history of Jewish control of East Jerusalem. The report writers claim that the Israelis "seized" it during the Six Days War of 1967, without mentioning that the war was intiated by Arab nations and Israel was merely defending itself from multiple attacking armies. They commandeered the territory in order to create a security buffer zone. Of course, to do so they had to push back the invading armies to prevent Israelis from being driven into the sea.

Which suggests Israel was attacked in 1967. The war was a preemptive attack by Israel so tell me who's "distorting history"?

quote:

This "secret report", although never officially released, displays a total distortion of Middle East history. Prior to the 1967 war, there was no such thing as "Palestinians." Arabs who lived in that region called themselves Syrians or Egyptian or Jordanians.

For fucks sake!!! Not this stupid "argument" again?!?! When will people get it through their thick heads that this is completely irrelevent. New states are formed all the time and new nationalities are created. The fact is, those people live there now, and lived there previously, so whatever they choose to call themselves makes no difference. (It would be interesting to compare how many Israelis originate from the Middle East tho...)

As for "not mentioning attacks by Hamas/Hizballah" what the FUCK do you think ANYONE has a Israel-Palestine policy FOR?! Jesus some people! The whole point of the EU's (everyone's) Israel-Palestine policy is to prevent these attacks in the first place! What that report was (supposedly) is a way to end these attacks (committed by Israel as well). And I added the world "supposedly" cos we don't even know if this is the EU's general policy, or a specific one regarding certain issues like Jerusalem.

If criticising Israel is anti-Semitic then I'll hold my hands up and say I'm anti-Semitic. But then anti-Semitism would be a positive thing, not negative like the true meaning of the word is. I also find it rich that people can accuse people of anti-Semitism while they themselves are the real racists (like the original poster and the journalist who wrote the article, displaying a blatant hatred of Europeans...)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Which suggests Israel was attacked in 1967. The war was a preemptive attack by Israel so tell me who's "distorting history"?

they presented it as if Israel one day wanted to seize East Jerusalem, without mentioning the reasons. as for "who attacked first" - Egypt was the one who asked the UN to leave the Israel-Egypt borders, transferred armed divisions to Sinai and signed cooperation agreements with the armies of Jordan, Iraq and Syria. and let's not forget that they blocked the Tiran straits, which Israel warned that such thing will be a casus belli (after Sinai War).

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley For fucks sake!!! Not this stupid "argument" again?!?! When will people get it through their thick heads that this is completely irrelevent. New states are formed all the time and new nationalities are created. The fact is, those people live there now, and lived there previously, so whatever they choose to call themselves makes no difference. (It would be interesting to compare how many Israelis originate from the Middle East tho...)

you didn't understand the point, huh?
those so called palestinians were Egyptians, Jordanians etc., and they lived in Gaza strip under Egyptian control (a part of Egypt), and in the West Bank under Jordanian control (a part of Jordan). but when Israel conquered those areas, suddenly the poor little guys have no where to go. capiche?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley As for "not mentioning attacks by Hamas/Hizballah" what the FUCK do you think ANYONE has a Israel-Palestine policy FOR?! Jesus some people! The whole point of the EU's (everyone's) Israel-Palestine policy is to prevent these attacks in the first place! What that report was (supposedly) is a way to end these attacks (committed by Israel as well). And I added the world "supposedly" cos we don't even know if this is the EU's general policy, or a specific one regarding certain issues like Jerusalem.

committed by Israel as a retaliation. if you want to prevent these attacks, go to the root of the problem. you don't fucking blow yourself up along with innocents, even if you want East Jerusalem! sit, talk, negotiate. Israel is always willing to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If criticising Israel is anti-Semitic then I'll hold my hands up and say I'm anti-Semitic. But then anti-Semitism would be a positive thing, not negative like the true meaning of the word is. I also find it rich that people can accuse people of anti-Semitism while they themselves are the real racists (like the original poster and the journalist who wrote the article, displaying a blatant hatred of Europeans...)

you calling me racist?

___________________
.

Even though George Smiley and others raise some valid points, I'm going to have to side with ronk here.

BTW, looks like Nasrallah hit Haifa hard over the past 24 hours, especially the area where ARAB-Israeli lives. Guess what their response is - they want Nasrallah dead, and the sooner the better.