Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe

hatrickpatrick

1641 wrote: »

Again , and in the context of a thread on European anti-semitism for which some posters have referred to Israel as an "explanation" (or justification?), I ask why the relentless one-sided focus on the Israeli wrongs or perceived wrongs, without any acknowledgement of the the threat they have continually faced, the wrongs on the other side, or the complexity of the situation generally ? Most people have no difficulty acknowleding Israeli wrongs but there are a significant contingent who will never accept or acknowledge wrongs against Israel or wrongs that make resolution more difficult.

From an Irish perspective, the party which uses force to exert control over a geographical region without the consent of its existing inhabitants is almost always going to be considered "the bad guy", and people will be a lot more forgiving of actions taken by the occupied party in an attempt to fight back. Given our history, this shouldn't be too difficult to understand? Israel is a strong party using its strength to impose its rule over a geographical region in which the people do not want Israel to rule. The historical parallels should be obvious. People regard Israel as the greater evil than the Palestinians in exactly the same way as many regard the British Army as the greater evil than the IRA.

hatrickpatrick

1641 wrote: »

Again , and in the context of a thread on European anti-semitism for which some posters have referred to Israel as an "explanation" (or justification?), I ask why the relentless one-sided focus on the Israeli wrongs or perceived wrongs, without any acknowledgement of the the threat they have continually faced, the wrongs on the other side, or the complexity of the situation generally ? Most people have no difficulty acknowleding Israeli wrongs but there are a significant contingent who will never accept or acknowledge wrongs against Israel or wrongs that make resolution more difficult.

As regards your points above.
1 We have been over this before. Hamas are a serious threat. So far, at least, that threat has been contained by superior Israeli strength.


2. The settlements didn't start until the seventies and I thing they are wrong. Many criticise Israel for it. As regards aggression there were numerous ongoing attacks by various Palestinian factions and groups right through the 70s and 80s such as the Munich massacre. You are not forgetting the Yom Kippur War launched by an alliance of Arab states in 1973? Or the documented atrocieties committed by both the Syrian and Egyptian armies during that campaign? (see section 3 in this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War ). I am not saying this because I am painting the Israelis as good and the Arabs/Palestinians as bad, but again because I am baffled by the one-sided anti-Israeli narratve that is constantly being put out - mainly by some leftists - a narrative that, unwittingly or not, feeds anti-semitism.


3. I think it is clear that both sides see themselves as being on the moral high ground. But looking at it form the outside it seems to me that both sides are on morally very uneven ground. Yet from certain sections of the left we have a constant demonisation of Israel while a blind eye is turned to the moral and political failings of the other side. Why is this?

The hostility to Israel from Arab states in attacking Israel early on in its existence came from the same place that the hostility towards Northern Ireland as a part of the UK came from with Republicans throughout the 20th century - Britain took the region by force and then partitioned it without the consent of the majority of the people. The fact that this pissed people off and led to numerous wars shouldn't surprise anyone - Britain's policy of partitioning former colonies led to civil wars almost every single time they attempted it.

This is why, although I support Israel's right to exist in this day and age because several generations have now been born there through no fault of their own, the idea that the initial wars were automatically wrong or immoral has always confused me. From the point of view of the Arabs, the Brits basically took a huge slice of their land and gave it away without their permission. Is it really surprising that they'd be willing to wage war in order to win it back? This shouldn't be such a complicated thing to understand from an Irish perspective.

Israel has a right to exist now for the same reason that NI has a right to self-determination today - because there are now multiple generations of people who are established there. That does not mean that the creation of Israel was a moral right, or that the original attempts by the neighbouring regions to oppose it were morally wrong or rooted in anything like racism. Britain partitioned the land and told a bunch of foreigners that they could move in without any reference to the people already living there and what they wanted. Everywhere in the world this was tried by the British Empire, it led to a civil war. Every single time.

1641

Odhinn wrote: »

The fact that certain palestinian factions are unacceptable in the light of European liberal values in no way jusitifies Israeli expansionism. As long as Israel is working towards a colonial and expansionist end, it cannot claim any "moral" high ground.

And who has been justifying Israeli expansionism ? Who is referring to Israeli moral high ground?



Now can you tell me - why the relentless one-sided focus on Israel wrongs without reference to the existential threat they face? Or the life and death threat they face from groups like Hamas? (please dont tell me again they are weak - they are relatively weak because Israel is relatively stronger).


Are you prepared to offer any balance in your criticism or analysis ?

1641

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

From an Irish perspective, the party which uses force to exert control over a geographical region without the consent of its existing inhabitants is almost always going to be considered "the bad guy", and people will be a lot more forgiving of actions taken by the occupied party in an attempt to fight back. Given our history, this shouldn't be too difficult to understand? Israel is a strong party using its strength to impose its rule over a geographical region in which the people do not want Israel to rule. The historical parallels should be obvious. People regard Israel as the greater evil than the Palestinians in exactly the same way as many regard the British Army as the greater evil than the IRA.

Ok - You are living out your Irish republicanism by projecting it on to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Which group would Hamas be ?

hatrickpatrick

1641 wrote: »

Ok - You are living out your Irish republicanism by projecting it on to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Which group would Hamas be ?

I'd have thought Hamas (and other Palestinian militant groups) were obvious synonymous with the IRA and related groups in this context. They've done unspeakable things which they should rightly be condemned for, but the underlying context is that their side is fighting for freedom from a foreign oppressor, while the other side is literally fighting for "we want to oppress you and maintain unjust power over you, and we're willing to murder your people to get it".

In that context, while what Hamas and others do is indeed appalling and horrific, it can never be considered as morally wrong as what Israel is doing. Because the crucial difference is, while the actions are equally immoral, the reasons behind those actions are not. One side is fighting for power it does not deserve or have any legitimate claim to, the other side is fighting because it rejects the imposition of that power.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

Guys no point in debating these hasbara trolls, they just want you going around in circles. You are dealing with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-C3voZwpM

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/guide-dealing-zionist-trolls-and-their-facts

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_Internet_propaganda

If you are interested in doing something about the Palestinians plight, I recommend joining http://ipsc.ie who must be doing something right as they got banned from Israel

SEPT 23 1989

In a war you will never win would you just keep firing home made rockets and stones at it?

Futile exercise

1641

hatrickpatrick wrote:

In that context, while what Hamas and others do is indeed appalling and horrific, it can never be considered as morally wrong as what Israel is doing. Because the crucial difference is, while the actions are equally immoral, the reasons behind those actions are not. One side is fighting for power it does not deserve or have any legitimate claim to, the other side is fighting because it rejects the imposition of that power.

But the analogy does not hold up.Leaving aside the settlements (which I disagree with) Israel since its inception has had to fight for its Survival. As far as Hamas are concerned they explicitly have made clear that their aim is the annilihation of Israel and the Jews theirin, not the end of settlement. On the other frontier Iran have stated a similar aim and have their front, Hizbollah, on the border. Even the PLO are demanding the " right of return" ( the end of Israel by other means). Some of them (PLO) might prepared to settle for less but they almost certainly couldn't sell it.

I have no idea what the solution might be and there seems no end in sight. My concern here is that the relentless and grossly simplistic narrative by some of Israel bad and Palestinians good feeds the sick and dangerous evil of anti-semitism. It is not about criticism of Israeli actions but about the one-sided blaming of Israel only.

Anyway, what about finding another location to continue the glorious battle for Irish independence? Maybe Cyprus where the military might of Turkey is occupying the northern half for over 40 years and bringing in settlers?
The Brits were there too so you might find a way of working the Irish struggle into it.
But, of course, we never hear of Cyprus, or the other ongoing occupations. It couldn't be because there are no Jews to blame, could it?

Danzy

Shelby Abundant Rank wrote: »

Guys no point in debating these hasbara trolls, they just want you going around in circles. You are dealing with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-C3voZwpM

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/guide-dealing-zionist-trolls-and-their-facts

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_Internet_propaganda

If you are interested in doing something about the Palestinians plight, I recommend joining http://ipsc.ie who must be doing something right as they got banned from Israel

Ohh vey, the goyim know.

hatrickpatrick

1641 wrote: »

But the analogy does not hold up.Leaving aside the settlements (which I disagree with) Israel since its inception has had to fight for its Survival. As far as Hamas are concerned they explicitly have made clear that their aim is the annilihation of Israel and the Jews theirin, not the end of settlement. On the other frontier Iran have stated a similar aim and have their front, Hizbollah, on the border. Even the PLO are demanding the " right of return" ( the end of Israel by other means). Some of them (PLO) might prepared to settle for less but they almost certainly couldn't sell it.

I have no idea what the solution might be and there seems no end in sight. My concern here is that the relentless and grossly simplistic narrative by some of Israel bad and Palestinians good feeds the sick and dangerous evil of anti-semitism. It is not about criticism of Israeli actions but about the one-sided blaming of Israel only.

But this is the point I'm making - Israel's inception was not necessarily a valid thing. The creation of the state was an action undertaken by the British on land they had no legitimate claim to. So while I personally believe that Israel has a right to exist by virtue of there being innocent people born there after the initial creation of the state, many do not share this view - and I do not believe the view that Israel is itself an illegitimate entity by virtue of how it came into existence, as an unacceptable political viewpoint to hold. I don't personally agree with it, but it's a perfectly legitimate and valid thing for someone to believe. If someone believes that military action to oppose Israel's creation was justified - in the same way that many believed in the past that military action to oppose Northern Ireland's annexation from the Republic was justified - that's a valid and legitimate viewpoint, not fringe extremism.

Regarding why people are more forgiving of Palestinian violence than Israeli, let me give you another analogy. Let's suppose that after the creation of Northern Ireland, which already pissed huge numbers of Irish people off - coupled with the rampant discrimination against Irish people in that region (both of which are things which happened and still happen with Israel as well as here), the Unionists in NI had, in response to IRA actions, used military force to violently occupy Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan.

Now imagine that they not only imposed their own British government rule in those counties, but started demolishing homes owned by Irish people, at the point of a gun, and allowing Unionists to move in to and live on those lands, leaving the Irish inhabitants homeless with nowhere to go.

In that scenario, I'm pretty sure there would be widespread support for the IRA, and far more willingness to forgive the IRA's murders of British civilians than the Brits'' violence against Irish people in those counties. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if a general "blow the f*ckers to sh!t" mentality became quite mainstream here in the Republic, as opposed to only being a view held by fringe lunatics.

That, in my view, is what's happening with the Israel / Palestine conflict and I think that answers your question as to why people are more forgiving of Palestinian atrocities than Israeli ones.

Anyway, what about finding another location to continue the glorious battle for Irish independence? Maybe Cyprus where the military might of Turkey is occupying the northern half for over 40 years and bringing in settlers?
The Brits were there too so you might find a way of working the Irish struggle into it.
But, of course, we never hear of Cyprus, or the other ongoing occupations. It couldn't be because there are no Jews to blame, could it?

Personally I feel the same way about Turkey's actions in Cyprus as I do about Israeli settlements, the difference is that almost nobody mainstream takes the opposing view so it doesn't come up as a point of debate. The Israel one is a red herring as far as these things go because they have the unwavering support of the "Freedom and Democracy" USA. That's what makes this conflict in particular so unbelievably infuriating. And in the context of this thread, I highly doubt I'd get accused of Islamophobia for being 100% opposed to Turkey's ongoing occupation of Northern Cyprus. Nobody equates that with "oh, you just hate Muslims", and yet being vehemently opposed to Israel's actions will immediately invite allegations of anti-Semitism.

Wibbs

1641 wrote: »

Ok - You are living out your Irish republicanism by projecting it on to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Which group would Hamas be ?

To be fair HP has a fair point and there are quite the parallels going on with NI. He's certainly on the money about how the Middle East was carved up by various empires and not just the British, particularly after WW1.

1641

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair HP has a fair point and there are quite the parallels going on with NI. He's certainly on the money about how the Middle East was carved up by various empires and not just the British, particularly after WW1.

There are some parallels but much weaker than he has pointed out.

And he is stretching it too far by pushing it all onto the British and divorcing it from European Anto-semitism. Yes, the Balfour declaration of 1917 was duplicitous, given the British simultaneous and contradictory dealing with the Arabs. Yes it caused subsequent trouble. But it wasn't all a British thing. Large scale Jewish migration from Europe, under the heading of Zionism, began in the 1880's (there already was a Jewish population there, although a small minority). This was in response to pograms in Europe.In is perfectly understandable that they were sick of being murdered, robbed and forced to flee from one place to another. The migrations continued before and after the First World War. But the biggest wave came in the 1930s in response to the growing threat in Europe. THe British banned Jewish immigration into Palestine in 1939, despite the situation the Jews found themselves in Europe and them largely being denied access anywhere else.

The British had proposed two "solutions" - partition with a small Jewish state (rejected by the Arabs) and a unitary state with the Arabs in control of migration (rejected by both sides).

After the war the British again tried to block or severely limit Jewish migration (including holocaust survivors and Jews fleeing renewed pograms in Poland in 1946). The opposition was fierce.

By 1947 the British had enough, wanted out, and turned to the United Nations for a solution. Folowing an investigation the UN General Assembly recommended partition. This was rejected by the Arabs and civil war followed, followed by the invasion by an alliance of 4 Arab armies in 1948.
Few thought that Israel would survive them but they did and won. If they had lost, of course, they would have been lamented and memorialised as "victims" by now the trendy lefties who need a "victim". Even at the time they were admired as "plucky Israel" who stood up to what seemed like overwhelming invasion. Did bad things happen in the Civil War on both sides? Yes.

So, yes, the establishment of Israel is contentionious. The British certainly had a role in the contention but they did not partition Palestine and set up Israel. Hamas continue to spout the rhetoric that the UN was established by a world Jewish conspiracy so that Israel would be set up. And they deny that there was any Jewish Holocaust in Europe while simultaneously describing the Israelis as Nazis.

The establishment of Israel is intimately tied to European anti-semitism. Their story since (including all is faults) is still highly influenced by the European experience, culminating in the Holocaust. And the rhetoric and behaviour of many of their rival groups (not only Hamas) give them plenty of reason to fear for their very survival.

But the trendy leffies need a "good guy" (to portray as victim) so they can parade and admire their virtousness. If only the Israelis laid down their arms and got themselves massacred what heroes they would become. Maybe they are not anti-semite - maybe anti-semitism is just an unconscious by-product of their need for a simple good guy (victim) versus "bad guy" (victimiser) comfort blanket / virtue signal.

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

And who has been justifying Israeli expansionism ? Who is referring to Israeli moral high ground?



Now can you tell me - why the relentless one-sided focus on Israel wrongs without reference to the existential threat they face? Or the life and death threat they face from groups like Hamas? (please dont tell me again they are weak - they are relatively weak because Israel is relatively stronger).


Are you prepared to offer any balance in your criticism or analysis ?

...because they don't face an existential threat from groups like hamas. And again - the colonisation of the Golan, West Bank and Arab East Jersualem are unjustified acts of aggression. And, despite being in violation of international law, the US veto allows them freedom to act without sanction.

suicide_circus

2 land encroachments;

Israel into the West Bank
Russia into the Crimea

which had more local support?

1641

Odhinn wrote: »

...because they don't face an existential threat from groups like hamas. And again - the colonisation of the Golan, West Bank and Arab East Jersualem are unjustified acts of aggression. And, despite being in violation of international law, the US veto allows them freedom to act without sanction.

Once again - not because if lack of intent - clear and stated unambiguously. Who would have described the jews of Europe as facing an existenial threat from the Nazis in the 1920s. Hamas (and others) have laid out their intentions much more unambiguously.


But once again, are you prepared to offer any balance ? Is it all just an issue of big , bad Israel?

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

Once again - not because if lack of intent - clear and stated unambiguously. Who would have described the jews of Europe as facing an existenial threat from the Nazis in the 1920s. Hamas (and others) have laid out their intentions much more unambiguously.

Hamas have no navy, airforce, armoured divisions, artillery (outside of home made rockets). Israel has all of the above, the bomb and an alliance with the last remaining superpower.

1641 wrote: »

But once again, are you prepared to offer any balance ? Is it all just an issue of big , bad Israel?

Israels expansionism renders it the aggressor. It predates Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest.

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

But the analogy does not hold up.Leaving aside the settlements (which I disagree with) Israel since its inception has had to fight for its Survival. As far as Hamas are concerned they explicitly have made clear that their aim is the annilihation of Israel and the Jews theirin, not the end of settlement. On the other frontier Iran have stated a similar aim and have their front, Hizbollah, on the border. Even the PLO are demanding the " right of return" ( the end of Israel by other means). Some of them (PLO) might prepared to settle for less but they almost certainly couldn't sell it..........................

They offered to essentially ditch it years ago.

In addition, Palestinian negotiators are said to have proposed an international committee to take over Jerusalem's Temple Mount, which houses the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque - Islam's third holiest site.
And they were reported to be willing to discuss limiting the number of Palestinian refugees returning to 100,000 over 10 years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12263095

Grayson

1641 wrote: »

Once again - not because if lack of intent - clear and stated unambiguously. Who would have described the jews of Europe as facing an existenial threat from the Nazis in the 1920s. Hamas (and others) have laid out their intentions much more unambiguously.


But once again, are you prepared to offer any balance ? Is it all just an issue of big , bad Israel?

I think the point is that Hamas are a small group in the gaza strip. They aren't an existential threat to israel. In the 1930's jews were a minority in every country in europe. When the Nazi's came to power they were a real threat.

That's not saying hamas aren't a threat. They're just not an existential threat.

And the way israel reacts is bad. Imagine if it was the north. The IRA are bombing GB. So the UK walls off nationalist areas. Gives different rights to unionists to nationalists. Then when the IRA attacks them, they start bombing the nationalist areas. When the bombs kill civilians, they tell the civilians it's their fault because they allowed the IRA to be nearby.

That's not saying the IRA bombing civilians is right. It's not. It's saying that the response is out of proportion. And after time, whatever started it doesn't matter any more. You have a group of people, walled in who are being bombed, being denied services and are very angry. There's no good guys at that point. The guys who bomb civilians on both sides are horrible. The civilians are the only ones with any claim to a moral high ground.

I don't like the israeli government. But I'm not about to hold it against everyone who's jewish or even israeli. That would be wrong. (As a side, I feel the same about Hamas. They're scum. But I don't think the palestinians should suffer for the mistakes of hamas. Collective punishment is wrong). However it doesn't mean that others don't believe all jews hold the blame for the acts of israeli governments. And when they do in Europe it manifests itself as anti semitism. That's on the islamic terrorism side and the far left groups.

1641

Odhinn wrote: »

Hamas have no navy, airforce, armoured divisions, artillery (outside of home made rockets). Israel has all of the above, the bomb and an alliance with the last remaining superpower.

Israels expansionism renders it the aggressor. It predates Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest.

And Israel's superior power keeps it relatively safe from Hamas. They are making every effort to arm. They have indicated that their strategy is as long term as need be. They have shown no interest in a negotiated peace deal to include secure borders for Israel. What weaponry did the Nazis have in the 1920s? Once they got weaponry and power they used it. Can you not see how the lessons of their history operate on the Israeli psyche?


Israel faced numerically superior Arab armies in 1948, 1967 and 1973.They either won or drew. Their (Israel's) fault obviously. Then they would not have been the aggressor but the victim - so there would have been plenty of concern and pity and virtue on display then. Maybe not of much use if they were dead, but still.

Syria has never shown any sign of wanting a peace deal with Israel. They see it as unfinished business. Granted after their own problems recently they are unlikely to try anything soon. But Iran are in Syria and have Hizbollah at the Lebanese border. Still you think Israelis should sleep easily in their beds and not worry. They only reason they may do is because of the strength of their defence.


As for before Hamas, etc. Are you suggesting all was peaceful before them (apart from the full scale wars)?

The PLO founded in 1964 and included in its charter the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the boundaries of "the British Mandate". That, of course, included all of Israel. This was not abandoned until the Oslo accords of the 1990s. The PLO armed wing actively fought for their cause. As well as launching border attacks from Jordan they carried out several attacks considered as atrocities, eg, the Avrim school bus massacre (9 children killed, otheres maimed), The Munich Massacre of Israeli athletes, the Maalot Massacre (26 students killed in a school), the Coastal Road Massacre (37 Israelis killed).


As well as attacks on Israel and Israelis their attempt to effectively take over Jordan led to a war there (no Israeli involvement) which drew in Syrian forces.Up to 3000 died (estimate).


There was never a time of peace and safety. Do I think this justifies the Israeli settlements? No. But I think that it shows that Israel always had to be militarily prepared. And that there was never a good guys versus bad guys scenario.


Portraying it as a one-sided situation in which the Israelis are solely responsible as the bad guys at least feeds and encourages anti-semitism. And their are plenty of anti-semites on board with this agenda.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you think Hamas would be 'blatantly anti semite' if Palestinians weren't persecuted and murdered by the Israeli state?

Ah yea. Hamas are just misunderstood. FFS

You appear to hold loose anti-Semitic views yourself MB.
Hamas are extreme islamofacist virulently anti-Semitic violent organisation.
They were founded on the premise of hate and anti-Semitism.

When your founding charter has articles in it, willing and calling on people to kill Jews, then you are an anti-Semite.

Note, they do not differentiate between Israeli Jews or Irish Jews or English Jews or American Jews, they just want to kill all Jews.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think they do exist to attack/destroy Israel. But that does not make them 'blatantly anti-semite' as was alleged. Blatantly anti-Israel.

Please educate yourself.

https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)

A great bunch of lads, Hamas are. :rolleyes:

Odhinn

1641 wrote: »

And Israel's superior power keeps it relatively safe from Hamas. They are making every effort to arm. They have indicated that their strategy is as long term as need be. They have shown no interest in a negotiated peace deal to include secure borders for Israel. What weaponry did the Nazis have in the 1920s? Once they got weaponry and power they used it. Can you not see how the lessons of their history operate on the Israeli psyche?

They were doing much the same long before Hamas were founded.

1641 wrote: »

Syria has never shown any sign of wanting a peace deal with Israel. They see it as unfinished business.

Under Ehud Barak a deal was nearly signed off on.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Ah yea. Hamas are just misunderstood. FFS

You appear to hold loose anti-Semitic views yourself MB.
Hamas are extreme islamofacist virulently anti-Semitic violent organisation.
They were founded on the premise of hate and anti-Semitism.

When your founding charter has articles in it, willing and calling on people to kill Jews, then you are an anti-Semite.

Note, they do not differentiate between Israeli Jews or Irish Jews or English Jews or American Jews, they just want to kill all Jews.

You've quotes and such to prove this, I trust?

markodaly

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that they are - except, ironically, those who accuse society of anti-Semitism themselves! Most people who despise Israel do not conflate it with Jews in general, but surely when they get accused of anti-Semitism by others, it's those others who are guilty of conflating Israel with Jews in general?

Have a look at the turn of this thread as one example.
The OP was about the rise of Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe and we have the usual lurkers pilling on and pissing about Israel as if Israel and Jews are one hive mind.

That is an example of anti-Semitism right in this very thread.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

They were doing much the same long before Hamas were founded.

Do you mean defending themselves by being attacked by their Arab neighbors 3 times?

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

You've quotes and such to prove this, I trust?

Yeap. Just look at his posts in this thread. Apparently, Hamas are just misunderstood.
Either the poster is anti-Semitic, or grossly missinformed and uneducated on this topic.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Do you mean defending themselves by being attacked by their Arab neighbors 3 times?

No, I'm referring to the colonisation of the occupied territories, the brutal aparthied style regime forced on the Palestinian population and so on.

1641

Grayson wrote: »

I don't like the israeli government. But I'm not about to hold it against everyone who's jewish or even israeli. That would be wrong. (As a side, I feel the same about Hamas. They're scum. But I don't think the palestinians should suffer for the mistakes of hamas. Collective punishment is wrong). However it doesn't mean that others don't believe all jews hold the blame for the acts of israeli governments. And when they do in Europe it manifests itself as anti semitism. That's on the islamic terrorism side and the far left groups.

I have no problem with criticism of the Israeli government, currently or historically. I do have a problem with the relentless and one-sided demonisation as the bad guys, without any balance. Calling it anti-zionism so then it is ok is a cop out.


This relentlessy one sided narrative feeds anti-semitism. And there is plenty of it out there. Just one example from personal experience. One (otherwise) very pleasant Polish acquantaince casually remarked that "the Jews used to whinge about the Nazis. Now they are the Nazis" Now this wasn't in the midst of a political conversation - it was more in the line of a conversation opener, like "do you think will the weather hold up?. In fact, he was a casual acquaintence so he would not even have been aware of my views.


I am sure that there are some reading this thread who share those views. Israel is the excuse to realise and release their anti-semitism. Only they are not anti-semite at all - just anti-zionist,etc

markodaly

Grayson wrote: »

That's not saying hamas aren't a threat. They're just not an existential threat.

.

This is of course true. Hamas are just a bunch of Islamic thugs with primative weapons who prey on the weak to do their bidding. Gaza has yet to have any elections since they took power and we will be waiting a while yet for any change of power in that place.

The thing people dont like to countenance is that Israel is in a geographic that is a tinderbox. Who would have thought 5-6 years ago Syria would turn out like it did and ISIS would form a serious threat to the stability of the Middle East. We see the manifestation of extreme right-wing Islam in ISIS. Burning non-believers in cages, throwing gays of buildings.... all within earshot of Israel. Things move fast in that region.

Israel look beyond its borders and see threats, from would be strong men or clerics using populism to bring them electoral success and attacking Israel is very popular in that part of the world (Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt says hi!). Add in a nuclear Iran, an arms race between ****e and Sunni, proxy wars all over the place, it is not surprising that Israel is paranoid, given the history of the Jews being ****ed about the place for 4 thousand years and the fact they are surrounded on all sides that people who, given the right environment and option, would hack them to pieces if enabled to do so.

Israel is thinking in centuries and millennia here and does not give a damm about the sensibilities of some wannabe woke Millenials in Ireland or elsewhere. This is not to justify the settlements or the overzealous IDF but simply they do what they deem is necessary to survive.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

No, I'm referring to the colonisation of the occupied territories, the brutal aparthied style regime forced on the Palestinian population and so on.

Well done. Perhaps if the Arabs weren't so foolish to launch not just one but three attacks on Israel, they would still have their 1948 borders, as mandated by the UN.

They launched a war and lost, 3 times. Bit late to try and get your money back from the bookies after your horse lost a race.
(Maybe while we are at it, should as for German repatriation of land, lost after WWII?)

And again, I am no fan of the settlements in particular but in many ways, their leaders led them terribly for the past 50 years.