the same comments remain as relevant (or not) days, weeks or even a year later.

Anti-secularism=/=anti-Zionism either; the Haredi “obviously” do not oppose Israel as such, but a SECULAR DEMOCRATIC Israel usurping the Messiahs role as Israels restoring prophet-king. Calling that “anti-Zionist” is like calling ISIS “anti-caliphate:” Both theologies mandate allegiance to the RELIGIOUS ruler of a state revived on its original lands, but regard any SECULAR state there as oxymoronic, and reject even their own religions other sects as apostasy. Haredi are anti-secular BECAUSE they are PRO-Zionist.

A Guardian article about the time of this discussion directly addresed and disproved the notion European anti-Semitism is just an anomaly confined to Muslim immigrants and Eastern Europe: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/antisemitism-rise-europe-worst-since-nazis

More recently, a British survey found HALF of respondents agreed with at least one anti-Semitic statement:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/uk-jewish-antisemitism-rise-yougov-poll

More Jews now immigrate to Israel from France than from any other country, and a quick scan of recent French headlines shows why:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-jews-thinking-of-leaving-as-fears-of-growing-antisemitism-are-exacerbated-following-atrocities-9970423.html

Even Americans know the UK and France are not in Eastern Europe. This is the same common anti-Semitism that has plagued ALL Europe since centuries before Islam even existed, the same bigoted rhetoric and violence no more anomalous than the Holocaust. We have all seen institutional racism blame “rogue individuals” too often to accept that excuse in defiance of 2000 years of European history.

View original post

View original postAll that is just an ignorant immigrants impression, yet I cannot shake the strong recurrent feeling that exporting the Jewish Question never expunged Europes anti-Semitism, only prompted support for Palestinians as "anti-Semitism by proxy." One could go blind seeking European leaders denouncing Palestinian terrorism, even at the height of the Cold War, when Israel was a NATO- while Egypt and Syria were Soviet allies regularly and genocidally invading Israel: Even then, Europes NATO-member leaders had naught but condemnation for their own nominal Israeli allies, and excuses for their own nominal (if distant) foes. Maybe after the Munich Olympics—for a few weeks? Still did not justify occupying Gaza and the Golan after the three-nation a few months earlier, right?

Hardly. I'd suggest you read <a href="http://www.jcpa.org/israel-europe/ier-pazner-05.htm">this</a>, an interview with Avi Pazner, who was Israeli ambassador in both Italy and France. You'll note that he definitely doesn't agree with me on all points, and that, understandably, he's rather quicker to call people or things anti-Semitic than I am. But he at least knows what he's talking about, and is not as blind/ill-willed (honestly, I don't know which of the two words is the more accurate here, you guys tell me) about the factors behind such anti-Semitism and/or anti-Zionism as a number of Americans here on the site seem to be.

Ignorance is not at issue, though it might be of benefit: I doubt any Westerner can be objective about Jews, since Judaism is so integral and foundational to Western culture. We all have our respective biases I do not pretend to lack, only try to see past.

It is more nuanced. He said Europe sympathized with Israel throughout the Six Day War, but its attitude shifted once the war ceased threatening, and began preventing, Israels extermination. He further claimed the economic stress of OPECs embargo was what truly hardened Europes attitude toward Israel, which was no more fair nor logical than if Americans had condemned Germany for the Soviets blockading West Berlin. It also belies Europes purportedly moral basis for opposing Israel: It is less about saving Palestinian kids than affordable gasoline and keeping the Suez open for trade with former Far East and Pacific colonies on which Western Europe (especially Britain) depends.

Perhaps, but that perception is itself contradictory. Much of Zionisms historical appeal was Europes continued inability to accept Jews as European, so Jews restoring their original nation in their historical land can hardly be “European” colonialism. Jews cannot be both “foreigners” when herded into ghettoes or tortured into religious conversion AND “European” when escaping that persecution to reestablish their own nation. Part of why so many people sympathize with Israel is that if they cannot reclaim Israel and are unwelcome anywhere else, where CAN they live? And no, the answer to that riddle is not that Hamas' hatred demands.

Oh, he certainly notes that ASPECT, but that is not what he meant by saying, “In Europe, the ideas of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are still alive.” What has an 1800s anti-Semitic forgery to do with ANY action of a nation founded in 1948? Answer: Europe; the Protocols were merely Europes stepping stone from centuries of anti-Semitic persecution to the Holocaust, which finally caused enough collective guilt Europes rulers belatedly deigned to honor their generation-old pledge to permit a Jewish state. For all of 20 years before reverting to the previous 2000 years of anti-Semitism. “Never again—till 1967” lacks some moral force.

That the US sees Israel as the “weaker” but Europe does not? Sure, mainly due to the fiction some modern Muslim Arabs and Hebrews share more than geography with Philistines who ceased 3000 years ago. Ethnically, there ARE NO MODERN “PALESTINIANS;” there are Arabs with 23 modern states from Gibraltar to Iraq, and Hebrews with but ONE: Israel. A two-state solution is a moral imperative because no shifting arbitrary border should ever force anyone off their familys land, and a practical necessity because “Palestinians” (consistently aided by neighboring Arab peoples and governments) have consistently shown their inclusion in Israel would immediately cause a second Holocaust. But let us not pretend West Bank/Gaza Arabs and/or Samaritans ever were or could be as stateless as Jews were without Israel, nor that the Roman Diasporas attempt to delegitimize Israel by renaming it for one of its ancient (and extinct) foes legitimizes Palestine. Palestines sole claim to legitimacy is a map Europeans redrew, so if we reject Europes authority to draw Mideast maps where does that leave Palestine? The same place as Ultima Thule.

In an unrelated search, I recently ran across a statement clarifying the “weaker” party: Kirk Douglas (whom I did not even know was Jewish) lobbying Carter and Reagan by saying, “If Israel loses one war, they lose Israel.” NOT “they become refugees charitably housed and fed by Jordan, Syria and/or Egypt, as Palestinians were after Israel repulsed those invading nations.” They would be slaughtered, with nowhere to escape, like something out of Revelation (which, regrettably, is the goal of too many Americans nominally “supporting” Israel.) For the TWO DOZEN Arab states the conflict is over pilgrimage and pan-Arabism; for Israel, it is EXISTENTIAL, which makes their position inherently and vastly weaker. The Palestinian fallback position is Egypt, Jordan and/or Syria (though they have proven such dangerous guests the first two no longer admit them) but Israels “fallback position” is Holocaust II.

Pazner confirmed two of my MAIN points:

-Europe endorsed and sponsored Israels restoration after the Holocaust BECAUSE of the Holocaust, and its resulting collective sense of guilt

-The same anti-Semitism born in Rome has always survived and often thrived, without interruption, in Europe for two millennia since

The Inquisition, pogroms, ghettoes, blood libel, Shylocks, the Dreyfus Affair, the Protocols of Zion, all ultimately culminating in the Holocaust. Maybe Jews got a pass between Romes fall and Charlemagnes coronation because Europe was too busy resisting its own existential threats, but that was only a ~350 year pause before Europe resumed anti-Semitic persecution where it left off at the First Century Alexandrian pogroms, destruction of Jerusalem and Diaspora. From there it was a slow but steady and bloody march to the “Jewish Questions” “Final Solution,” no isolated anomaly, but logical end of a practice common in Europe since before there WAS a “Europe” as we understand the term. That is, European anti-Semitism predates all modern European states, with only a brief circumstantial pause over >1000 years ago. Presuming Europes current attitude toward Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with its anti-Semitic streak older than its civilization presumes—IGNORES—far too much.

OPECs position is overtly anti-Semitic, so adopting it for economic reasons would just be mercenary rather than malicious anti-Semitism. That would be arguably worse (and belie 2000 years of European history) but anti-Semitism indisputably remains just that, whatever its basis. Most alarming, that DOES echo OPECs attitude: Their cause is not a moral one of aiding Palestinians they distrust and despise more than anyone, but simply exterminating Jews, requiring the EU adopt THAT goal if committed to OPECs course for any reason.

Sure, I accept that self-interest plays a role, particularly in France (which still nominally included several heavily Muslim foreign colonies even when the Oslo Accord was enacted) and Britian (which would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle if cutoff from India, Australia and Mideast oil.) But if that were the sole issue, Western European states would still have more than enough capacity to reinstate colonialism too many US politicians would be all too wiling to aid through NATO, and both terrorism and regional instability offer ample pretext. Instead, EU nations have chosen to take a side in a conflict where NEITHER side holds any moral highground, a decision as ill-advised, untenable and hard to defend as the US choosing the other side. The responsible, moral and most pragmatic course would make trade with and aid to either side contingent on its substantive commitment to peace, but as long as the West is still “riding the black horse” that will never happen.

Yet, once again, that is precisely the point: Britain held half a continent of almost exclusively Arab land it could have restored to residents; Jews sought only an ancestral land about 2/3 the size of Belgium—for a TRULY stateless people subjected to two millennia of bloody persecution wherever they went. Arabs face no racial/religious persecution in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, etc. so in terms of providing Palestinian Arabs a state: They have their choice of >20. Jews are routinely subjected to genocide in all nations save the ONE nation of their own.

Such is the Mideast, the land and culture that simultaneously invented both Western civilization and genocide, and still cannot decide which it prefers standardizing. Until/unless that changes, the region will always remain the bloody quagmire it always has, and any foreigner foolish enough to stick their hand in that meatgrinder will always draw back a bloody nub.

Yes, Judaisms history (both verified and speculative) shows great achievement and perseverance despite constant existential adversity, but the achievement neither justifies nor excuses the adversitys perpetrators. EUROPES whole history has a strong steady anti-Semitic vein; 1940s Europes debt to Jews is for TWO SOLID MILLENNIA OF GENOCIDE of which Romes instance was only the first of many right up until the Allies liberated Auschwitz and the rest. Again, the Holocaust is Europes worst but not first anti-Semitic crime; it has an almost unbroken anti-Semitic “rap sheet” from the moment Europeans destroyed Israel till the moment Europeans restored it 1900 years later. If Israel owes Palestinians a debt for 50 years of persecution and land theft, it owes Jews the same debt 40 TIMES over again. It cannot pay its own debt only to demonize Israel for accepting that payment.

Speaking of which: Israel owes ISHMAELS descendants no debt because 1) his descendants have their own nations from Gibraltar to the Persian Gulf and 2) Israel never took any land from them to begin. IF one accepts the only extant account of its origin, Israel took land from CANAANS descendants, and, while I can not excuse the genocidal means, it left no descendants to compensate now. “Palestinians” can ONLY descend from

1) the Israeli separatist kingdom (of which there are ample historical (i.e. non-biblical) records) so their modern state is Israel, or

2) centuries-old settlers from neighboring (mainly Arab) states so their modern states are those.

In neither case are Palestinians stateless nor Palestine legitimate: It is NECESSARY, but Arafats “Nation of Islam” has no more true validity than Elijah Muhammeds. Most non-Hebrew “Palestinians” are probably Assyrian settlers imported to assimilate previous natives. “Palestinians” can be excused for considering themselves non-Jews as so many (other) Samaritans have done for centuries. So much so they opposed the (historical) Edict of Cyrus by writing accusations to rulers and attacking returning Jews so fiercely and often the bible claims the Second Temples builders worked with a tool in one hand and a weapon in the other. Sound familiar? After 2500 years, Purim remains among the Jewish calendars holiest days, and what does it commemorate? Jews defending themselves from genocide an Arab incited.

I WISH this were just about the Samaritan woman at the well asking Jesus, “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.” But it is all far bigger. Else Egypt, Syria and Jordan would not greeted Isreals restoration with a series of invasions on behalf of Samaritans and/or foreign Arabs they owed not a thing, and Ahmedinejad would not run around denying the Holocaust while pledging to REENACT it the moment he can get nukes.

More like general opinion was publicly pro-Israel, IMHO. Continuing the Klan analogy, you can take this white Southerners word that “we have done too much for them already and I owe nothing for what my ancestors did TO them centuries ago” cuts no ice.

Bah, there were plenty of Mideast nations far more advanced than European nations UNTIL the colonial era, and even then Europe was more interested in preserving than dismantling the Ottoman Empire until the Great Wars end made it impossible. Crusaders conquests were FAR more eager than colonials—but far less CAPABLE against vastly superior Arab and Turkish technology, organization and administration. The PALESTINIANS were no nation NOR CULTURE because they never HAD been—except on a European Diaspora map drawn to delegitimize Judaea. They were benevolently ruled by Turks, Arabs or whomever, and generally quite content with that since they shared the same religion and, during Arab rule, ethnicity. Those “Palestinians” would have declared anyone offering them a sovereign state apostates and/or traitors, just as Mideast Jews were far more inclined to support enlightened sultans and caliphs who treated them far better than Crusaders did.

Before styling the Mexican Cession as imperialism/colonialism, recall that the Treaty of Velascos terms included Santa Annas permanent abdication as Mexican dictator: The mere fact he was dictator once more at the start of the Mexican-American war was ITSELF an act of war. For clarification, read up on how this guy went from Mexican cabinet member to Vice President of Texas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_de_Zavala#Texas

Mexico has Mexico, lost Texas’ war of independence, then attempted to contest that with the US and lost again. Much as Israel repelled each of Egypt, Syria and Jordans invasions (a lesson from which Jordan learned sooner than Egypt, but Syria seemingly never will; then again, Syrias the modern successor of the reason less than a thousand Samaritans still consider themselves Hebrew.) There are nearly two DOZEN Arab nations across north Africa and the Mideast, just as there are multiple hispanic nations in North America, but there is only ONE Jewish nation. A better analogy would be the 40 million stateless Kurds, but good luck selling that to the 22 Arab nations so insistent “right of return” obliges creation of a 23rd Arab state (incidentally eradicating the ONLY Jewish one, but that is just a happy COincidence. )

Oh, I do not dispute that last part in the least; the eager and transparent way many of Israels supposed US “friends” would lead them like the Psalmists lambs to the slaughter is nauseating. However one feels about Christian or other apocalyptic prophecies, it should be obvious no omnipotent omniscient being needs any mortal aid to achieve stated goals, and it is hubris for mortals to believe otherwise. In this case it is also appallingly cold blooded.

Religiously, I subscribe more to Balaams prophecy, but the point is that Jews are the ultimate original “stateless people;” the “whence came they?” argument against modern Palestine has also been lodged against ancient Isreal. The difference is Jews have always been persecuted as a people apart everywhere they have gone throughout their history, so merit a homeland at least as much as any other refugees. No reference to Maimonides and Spinoza is complete without noting that Europeans merely POSSESSING their writings earned an express trip to a burning stake well into the Renaissance; Jews have never been spared such brutality—and manifestly never will—in any nation but their own. And if I were to restore a Cherokee homeland, it would not be in upstate New York, Spain or some other land to which they feel no link (indeed, the most heinous genocide against American Indians was deathmarching the Cherokee and neighboring tribes from the Gulf Coast to which their culture evolved to a radically different Ozark terrain and climate, and later to the yet more different Great Plains.) Israelis MUST live SOMEWHERE; Israel is obviously the best choice. Even if some Arabs feel 22 nations of their own is one too few, and even if some Europeans agree for the wrong reasons.

To be clear, I am NOT calling all nor even most Europeans anti-Semites: I am saying that just as 200 years of American slavery still influence conflicted US attitudes toward blacks, 2000 years of European pogroms still influence conflicted European attitudes toward Jews, necessarily including Israel. Reducing all that to the Holocaust is like reducing US race relations to the Birmingham Sunday school bombing: It is the most infamously heinous case, but only one in a long racist HISTORY, not isolated rogue individuals. The Holocausts main significance to European anti-Semitism is that nothing SHORT of its infamy ever convinced Europe to allow Jews any “right of return” and sanctuary from genocide, and even “Never again” only carried weight for those who saw the Holocausts evidence first hand. Most witnesses are dead now, so Holocaust reparations are less popular than Holocaust denial. It certainly is not THE sole factor in Europes view of Israel and Palestine anymore than every white American views non-white Americans solely through slaverys lens, but historys legacy plays a huge role for both, and the role of ten times more European anti-Semitic history is at least as great as that of American slavery.

Perhaps it is as simple as Europes New “Left” missing the point as badly as the US New “Left” does: Equality ensures everyone a place at the table rather than simply TURNING it. Playing favorites precludes equality only possible if universally protected without regard for superficial qualities like genetics, sex, religion or sexuality, which equality makes irrelevant to legal standing and opportunity. In that respect, Israels transgendered Eurovision champion is much nearer the mark than the Palestinian Authoritys arrest and torture of homosexuals (not that the transgendered are necessarily homosexual, but Islamic states acknowledge no such distinction:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_law#Basic_Law

The way forward (not just in Israel and Palestine, but globally) is soft diplomacy: Promoting human rights and international law by engaging and subsidizing any and all nations in proportion to their observance of those principles, and disengaging any and all nations to the extent they ignore those principles. Anything else only enables and empowers fundamentalist/authoritarian regimes until they must eventually begin calling the tune because we did not. Neo-liberal orthodoxy favors the demise of Euro-American “colonial” hegemony and rise of a Chinese or Mideastern one, but no rational liberal wants to live in a world prostrate to the agricultural, manufacturing and military dominance of a former KGB colonel, the Peoples Liberation Army or ISIS. We would not be continuing the eternal Mideast debate under those regimes, because (at least) one of us would have long ago been executed as a traitor to the Motherland, revolution or Allah.

Whew; just like old times.