US Jewish group denounces EU poll saying Israel is threat to world peace

[Herschel]

A leading US Jewish lobby group denounced as "shocking" and "antisemitic" a poll indicating that 60 percent of Europeans felt Israel was a greater threat to world peace than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan.

The influential Simon Wiesenthal Center said the European Commission poll of around 7,500 people across the continent that is scheduled to be made public on Monday defied logic and was a "racist flight of fantasy."


"This poll is an indication that Europeans have bought in, 'hook, line and sinker,' to the vilification and demonization campaign directed against the State of Israel and her supporters by European leaders and media," said the center's founder and dean, Rabbi Marvin Hier.

cut

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031101/ts_alt_afp/us_israel_mideast_poll_031101004702

==================

There are clearly anti-semitic feelings in a poll claiming Israel is a greater threat to peace than North Korea. Please!

[La_Serpiente]

1. Are they really anti-semitic?

Are they against the state of Israel?

Or are they against the actions of Israel?

I think that is one thing this poll doesn't answer.

For example, I fully support the state of Israel.

However, I am opposed to its actions.


Maybe they feel Israel will cause so much instability in the region, there will be another WW III. That's the kind of fear I get.

Perhaps they view Israel as the provoker. Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons (well, maybe not just yet) but they don't want to provoke them to get one. And maybe they just don't care about North Korea because it is so far away.

[tinnypriv]

7. Damn fine post

:thumbsup:

There has been several nuclear confrontation involving Israel after all (1967, 73, 82 come to mind).

[ForestsBeatBushes]

12. My personal favorite

was the one in Iraq in 1981, I believe; without that one, WWIII would already have happened and none of us would be here to argue endlessly over the subject

[tinnypriv]

17. Eh?

Osirak was less developed than the reactors Iran has had for years. There is also every possibilty that the bombing spured Iraq onto nuclear weapons development using different (non-reactor) technology.

[kalian]

10. Unfortunately....

to some posters on these forums you can't separate Israel and its
actions. When I state "Israel" I mean GOI.
Too bad, because the same tactic is being applied to nations that
are against the actions of the Bushistas here at home.
The Bushistas will accuse anybody that they are "terrorists" and that they "hate Americans".

See a pattern here...?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

13. If you fully support the state of Israel,

how can you justify being against its struggle to survive?

[Classical_Liberal]

18. The settlements make it less likely Israel will survive.

I am sure some crazy right winger in the cold war would have thought a first strike against Russia helped American survival. Most sane people thought otherwise though.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

19. Please enlighten me as to the intent of the text of your message.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. Not everyone agrees that what Israel doing is good for Israel's survival

.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

25. Right, that part was obvious; but what I

was referring to is the text of your post. I respectfully requested and still sincerely request you tell me how that reference fits in.

Thank you.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. Let's rephrase CL's remarks in the form of some questions

Does everthing Israel do aimed at her survival? Or does she undertake some initiatives for other purposes?
Is it possible that she may be taking some initiatives believing that they enhance her security, but that the effect of these initiatives is minimal or even to undermine her security?
Specifically, how do the settlements enhance Israel's security?

ON EDIT

I believe CL's remarks were merely intended as an illustration of the point that some people can beleive that certain actions would enhance a nation's security but may have the opposite effect or other undesired consequences.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

34. Much appreciated, Jack Rabbit.

I admit I have reached the point where I do get a visceral response to some posters and so I thank you for your post.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. This is what you posted.

13. If you fully support the state of Israel,



how can you justify being against its struggle to survive?

You act as if opposition to their policies on the west bank means that we are against Israel's struggle to survive. Frankly your post was nonsense so why be surprised if you get a nonsense responce.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I'm not against its struggle to survive...

But no-one's yet been able to explain how the settlements are part of Israels struggle to survive...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

33. More Socratic questions

Could you define fully support the state of Israel? Does that differ in some way from supporting the state of Israel?
Could you define Israel's struggle to survive?

Is is possible that one may support Israel's struggle to survive yet believe that the current Israel government, headed by General Sharon, is going about this business with wrongheaded policies that actually make Israel a threat to world peace?

[HaThorAtor]

26. Of course we ar NOT! Here's the link to the poll

Flash Eurobarometer:

Iraq and Peace in the World

http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/flash/fl151_iraq_full_report.pdf

We do not think in such simple terms of "hero and villain". To us a state which we regard as a threat is not automatically "evil" itself, and the solution to solve such a problem is not it's extinction.

Whoever reads "anti-Semitic" or "racist" tendencies out of the poll only proves his narrow minded view to a complex world.

Aside the passage with the "Israel"-question in it you'll quickly find out, that the Bush warriors are not seen as a "hero" but as responsible for world's instability and a danger to the world.

Greetings from Good Old Europe

[Jack Rabbit]

27. An attempt to see reason in the poll

The question was: which countries are a threat to world peace? Multiple answers were possible. More respondents named Israel than any other nation.

Giving this some thought, one might surmise that this reflects some anti-Semitism. One can see why Israel would be named by many people. Israel possesses nuclear weapons, she is situated in an unstable region and her Prime Minister is a rightwing kook. It seems perfectly reasonable, if discomforting, to name Israel as a threat to peace, even if it is not entirely her fault.

However, I still don't understand why more reasonable people wouldn't see the US as a threat than would see Israel as one. What we might surmise is that not everybody who responded that Israel is a threat is a reasonable person. Many were anti-Semites who simply see anything Jewish as a threat. However, how many of these people are simply anti-Semitic is impossible to tell.

[HaThorAtor]

28. USA us 4th with 53%!

> However, I still don't understand why more reasonable people wouldn't see the US as a threat than would see Israel as one.

Israel first with 59%

North Corea, Iran...

USA fourth with 53%.

Any further questions?

[Jack Rabbit]

31. That didn't answer the question

Actually, the US, Iran and North Korea tied for second at 53%.

Of course, just plain good old-fashioned ignorance could explain some of this, too. The next country right behind that cluster was Iraq, which isn't even an independent nation at the moment.

[MrPrax]

55. Maybe reasonable...

based on the facts of "Israel possesses nuclear weapons, she is situated in an unstable region and her Prime Minister is a rightwing kook." and have been in violation of numerous international laws, their secret services have been caught in the act of clandestine activities in Europe (kidnappings/murder) and have attacked it's neighbors repeatedly, are reported by the European press without reference to the guidelines provided by American Jewish Groups.
...maybe that is the problem...
The 'terrorism' and 'anti-semitism' angle gets a little cheap after awhile...

[Darranar]

2. Anti-semitic?

LOL.

I personally don't agree, but I can see their reasoning.

I/P is a useful distraction for the population of the Arab states. Without such a conflict to focus on, perhaps a not more could be done. If Israel stopped oppressing the Palestinians, peace in the Middle East as a whole would likely be easier.

And it's the inability to make peace there that's causing a lot of problems.

Though as others have said, I'd put the US on top.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

14. I/P is a useful distraction for the population of the Arab states.

Right you are.

[ogminlo]

3. Sharon

No matter how you slice it, Israel has been the most militarisitc aggressor in the Middle East during Sharon's time in power (well, other than the USA). That could have a lot to do with it. What came first, the suicide bomber or the tanks shooting at rock-throwing kids? There are Isrealis who would agree with that EU poll. The Jews who support Sharon's policies are cognates to the Christians who support Bush's policies.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

11. No matter how you slice it, Israel has been the most

militaristic aggressor in the Middle East?

really?

wonder what you think of Syria/Hizbollah; Iraq; Sudan and so on - but, no need to tell me; I bet I know

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

5. Uh... "Jewish" lobby?

When AIPAC starts representing me and my fellow Jewish leftists, perhaps your claim would make more sense.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

8. I am, too...

but they are not a "Jewish" lobby.

There are loads of Jewish anti-Sharon, anti-Likud, and anti-occupation organizations.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

15. The Simon Wiesenthal can go f*ck themselves?

nice

You see no difference between Hitler and Sharon?

rrrreeeeaaaaallllllyyyyyy? You have GOT to be kidding.

[JackSwift]

9. I am pro-Jewish, and I oppose the Israeli occupation

as a fascist oppression by people who consider themselves superior to people they consider sub-human.

Opposition to Israeli policies cannot be anti-Semitic, only prejudice against Jews is anti-Semitic.

[Paschall]

16. Thanks, Jack

That's swift! ;-)

[Cassandra]

22. What does pro-Jewish mean to you?

Are you in favor of bagels with a schmear? Are you in favor of making sure Jews aren't shoveled into ovens again? Something in between? Please explain.

[Jackie97]

38. How about???

Being in favor of being friends with Jews, trying to protect them from real anti-semites, and being a good enough friend to tell them that what they're doing is making them less safe and is also hurting others?

Isn't that what friendship and solidarity with Jews and Gentiles is about? It's not about being blind to governmental policies. It's about being there for one another and helping each other out, even if the other one doesn't appreciate how we're trying to help the other one out (In this case, some Jews around the world don't appreciate getting told that the Israeli government is in the wrong). Jews are not the only people this applies to. It applies to the whole world.

[GabysPoppy]

40. I am sure you don't realize how offensive some of your statements are

"Being in favor of being friends with Jews, trying to protect them from real anti-semites, and being a good enough friend to tell them that what they're doing is making them less safe and is also hurting others?"

1) Does being "in favor" mean that you must make a concious decision when deciding to be a friend to a Jewish person?

2) trying to protect them from "real" anti-semites. I'm sorry, please define an "anti-semite" for me first before I think you capable of protecting me.

3) "what they're doing"? What am I doing that is making me less safe and is hurting others?



"It's about being there for one another and helping each other out, even if the other one doesn't appreciate how we're trying to help the other one out"

4) What makes you think that you know what is needed to help me out? I may not "appreciate" your help because you may not be helping me out. Why is your vision of what's right, the help I am seeking?

I am sure you meant well with your explanation and your heart is assuredly in the right place in your intention. I hope you try to understand why I feel offended. I'm sure an attempt at understanding will be most beneficial to you.

[SweetheartLikeYou]

44. Since there has been no response by

the person who made the offensive post, (I feel very offended as well, BTW), is it 'kosher' to ask if Jackie97 does realize how upsetting her statements are to some of us? I hope she comes back and responds to you.

[Jackie97]

47. Sorry if I didn't say it the right way.

So let me try to make myself more clear.

1) Does being "in favor" mean that you must make a concious decision when deciding to be a friend to a Jewish person?

No. However, I was responding to a person who asked if pro-Jewish meant being friends with Jews.

2) trying to protect them from "real" anti-semites. I'm sorry, please define an "anti-semite" for me first before I think you capable of protecting me.

A real anti-semite is somebody who:

Thinks that they're better than Jews.

Makes up dirty lies about Jews as a people. Ex. "The Jews are running America".

Makes up lies about Zionism and clearly tries to make it out to be a Jewish thing (not all Zionists are Jews). For example, it got rumored that Zionists from Israel went all around the world terrorizing Jews (disguised as anti-semites) to get them to come to Israel. Even though all Zionists are not all Jews, it's pretty obvious that Zionists from Israel are probably Jews. It was meant to be a slander against the Jewish people.

Makes up lies about the Jewish religion that makes Jews look bad.

Makes up lies about the holocaust.

I sort of think it's anti-Jewish to be all "pro-Israel" while sending missionaries down to Israel to try to Christianize Israel. Of course, this isn't just something done aganist Jews. It's done against all non-Christian religions.

Lies about the Jews that can't be proven: Ex. "The Jews killed Jesus" is just not proven and it probably didn't happen that way if Jesus even existed in the first place.

I could go on and on.

When I talk about protecting Jews, I don't mean to sound like I've got this white man's burden thing of protecing "inferior" Jews and playing "Jackie knows best" for them. I simply mean helping them out in ways that I might try to help anybody else out. Now, the problem comes in that many Jews lately believe that I and others are supposedly not for Jews being protected if I'm not for Israeli occupation. I'm simply saying that I think that Israeli occupation leaves Israelis even more unsafe because it's provoking more suicide attacks. When I speak against Israeli occupation, I'm not only concerned for the Palestinian lives, but also the Israeli lives that are going to be taken as a result of the occupation's provoking the Palestinians.

3) "what they're doing"? What am I doing that is making me less safe and is hurting others?

I need to rephrase this. Not all Jews are doing this, and I mostly mean the Israeli government. The Israeli government is making things worse by their occupation. It makes Israel (and obviously the Jews who live there) less safe. Jews and Gentiles who support what the Israeli government does are making matters worse because it permits them to go on with their policy. It's not that you all do it on purpose, but it is happening.

4) What makes you think that you know what is needed to help me out? I may not "appreciate" your help because you may not be helping me out. Why is your vision of what's right, the help I am seeking?

Well, let's see. The Israeli Arabs for the most part are not attacking Israeli Jews. Most people from ME countries aren't attacking Israeli Jews since Israel stopped messing with a lot of them. Which nation has a whole bunch of people willing to go out and kill Israelis? The Palestinians, the ones being occupied. Has it ever once occured to you that the "pro-Palestinians" might be right when they say that the occupation is provoking more suicide bombings, which is killing Jews? This isn't a personal thing about you. This is my argument against the many people who say that I don't want Jews to be protected. I DO want Jews to be protected. I simply think that the occupation is making things worse.

[GabysPoppy]

48. Maybe you shouldn't have answered

[SweetheartLikeYou]

49. My thought exactly.

eom

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Why not?

She answered all yr questions and clarified what she was saying, which is what you appeared to be wanting her to do. So what's the problem now?

Violet...

[Jackie97]

51. I think that problem is.....

that I'm not willing to just put up with false accusations from "pro-Israelis" about how "pro-Palestinians" supposedly don't want to allow Jews from Israel to protect themselves. If the truth comes out that "pro-Palestinians" actually are concerned for the welfare of Jews in Israel, then certain "pro-Israeli's case" gets shot.

[bluesoul]

52. It already

got shot...

[The Magistrate]

53. Well Said, Jackie

A pleasure to see your views stated at some length.

[Jackie97]

54. Thank you.

I'm glad that somebody didn't take it the wrong way. LOL.

[Saudade]

20. Simon Wiesenthal Center

The SWC, along with the repulsive ADL, is one of the worst cynical trivializers of the term "anti-semitism."

[Darranar]

21. I used to have a great deal of respect for the ADL...

their dismissing of the blatant violation of the seperation of church and state with the words "under God", added to their absolute stupidity in giving a prize to Mussolini-admiring hoocaust denier Silvio Berlusconi because he was "pro-Israel" ruined my opinion on them.

[Classical_Liberal]

24. Is there any reason to suspect these groups have been

taken over by neocons? Is there anything that can be done about it. I could see alot of people that contributed to SWC in the past being totally put off by their present track.

[Jackie97]

39. All good points.

I haven't heard about the Berlusconi stuff though.

[sharonstone]

35. it is a threat to peace

[bluesoul]

36. Welcome

to DU Sharon! :toast: :bounce:

[Jackie97]

37. When I read the title line, I almost agreed with you.....

After all, the US is a far greater threat to world peace through their forieign policy in the ME, South America, and Asia than Israel will probably ever be. At first, it once again sounded like somebody saying that the "Jewish state" was the world's biggest threat.

Then I read the body of the post. Of course they're more of a threat than North Korea, Iran, or Afghanestan. Afghanestan was probably one of the weakest countries in the world with no real way to defend itself after years of being war torn. North Korea has some weapons, but they're making it clear that if we leave them alone, then they'll leave us alone. In any case, there's no real evidence that North Korea has enough of anything to hurt us with. There isn't enough of anything against Iran either. By contrast, both the US and Israel have nukes. The US has actually used an atomic bomb (and Israel is our buddy). Israel has made it clear to their ME neighbors that they can use their nukes at any time. We know that they have the ability to do it too. Meanwhile, Israel keeps pushing the Palestinians and all of their neighbors around. Sometimes, the US is helping them. Sometimes, they're helping the US. Why wouldn't they be more of a threat to world peace than the other three countries? Of course, there's a lot more to the world than just these four countries, and that needs to be remembered.

[Gimel]

41. UN Block

Of course the UN was created to be the leader towards peace. As it is, the US is acting as the world police force (stepped up activity since 9/11). The UN has 53 Arab nations with voting power in the General Assembly, many of them brand spanking new. There is one predominantly Jewish nation in the world. It is under attack constantly in the UN and militarily. The threats of propaganda and anti-semitism in the media are equally as dangerous.

"Why does a JEWISH nation need to exist?" is constantly the refrain. While the Palestinian people need their own peace and security, that cannot be gained by funding terror, as Arafat has been doing (while lining his own pockets). By making the Palestinians suffer, Arafat gains sympathy for his cause, smiles and raises two fingers. Nice charade, don't you think?

With Osama and Saddam in hiding for fear of their lives, Arafat remains the terrorist who is holding the world hostage. For political reasons, many cannot see this. Disgust for George Bush doesn't make Arafat any more innocent. Sharon got his turn as PM of Israel because of the terrorist attacks, not the other way around. Arafat would have screwed a nice soft liberal in office. Even Rabin would have awakened to that. He was no fool.

[bluesoul]

42. A nice soft liberal

will be the one to bring peace from Israel's perspective. Somehow I doubt it will be Sharon the one achieving it. I may be wrong though..

[Jackie97]

46. Sharon only makes things worse....

I'm sure that Israelis will see that at some point.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. 53?

I dunno, that sounds a bit on the high side when it comes to the number of Arab states that exist. Anyway, whether it's 53 or something like 17, it's clear that many other non-Arab states vote yes on resolutions against Israel, and that despite the claims of those who think Israel never does anything to be critical of, there are actually legitimate reasons for why the voting on these resolutions turn out the way they do. I wonder if back when South Africa was recieving a lot of criticism and resolutions against its actions whether supporters of apartheid used to try to write it off as the whole world ganging up on SA and picking on it? (with the sole exception of Israel, who stood steadfastly by apartheid South Africa and voted against Resolutions critical of it)...

Arafat would have screwed a nice soft liberal in office.

So instead the world gets Sharon and Arafat screwing each other. What a pity they can't do it in private where no innocent people get hurt...

btw, I strongly suspect that it'll end up being a 'nice, soft liberal' who'll end up bringing a genuine and fair peaceful ending to this conflict. Sharon's certainly got no interest in doing that...


Violet...

[Jackie97]

45. I don't care why the Jewish nation exists, not do I care to destroy it.

I simply want it to end it oppressive policies, that's all.

While I think that Arafat is a disgrace to the human race, he should not be forced away from his "presidential" position unless an Israeli or an International court has enough evidence to put him on trial and to convict him for crimes. Ditto for Sharon. They're both despicable, but they are who the people have voted in to be their leaders. We can't just remove either one of them unless we're going to put them on trial for war crimes.