Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the European Union

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1070259994583

What follows is an as yet unpublished EU report on anti-Semitism in Europe. This report was leaked to The Jerusalem Post by the CRIF, the umbrella body representing the French Jewish organized community and by the European Jewish Congress, an affiliate of the WJC.

.................................................................

a little light reading for a few hours...er...days

Nevertheless, from the perpetrators identified or at least identifiable with some certainty, it can be concluded that the anti-Semitic incidents in the monitoring period were committed above all either by right-wing extremists or radical Islamists or young Muslims mostly of Arab descent, who are often themselves potential victims of exclusion and racism ; but also that anti-Semitic statements came from pro-Palestinian groups (see country report Italy: public discourse) as well as from politicians (see country reports Germany, Greece, Finland, Austria) and citizens from the political mainstream (see anti-Semitic letters, e-mails and phone calls in Germany as well as in other countries).

The following forms of anti-Semitic activities have been experienced:
–Desecration of synagogues, cemeteries, swastika graffiti, threatening and insulting mail as well as the denial of the Holocaust as a theme, particularly on the Internet. These are the forms of action to be primarily assigned to the far-right.
–Physical attacks on Jews and the desecration and destruction of synagogues were acts often committed by young Muslim perpetrators in the monitoring period. Many of these attacks occurred either during or after pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which were also used by radical Islamists for hurling verbal abuse. In addition, radical Islamist circles were responsible for placing anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet and in Arab-language media.
–Anti-Semitism on the streets also appears to be expressed by young people without any specific anti-Semitic prejudices, so that "many incidents are committed just for fun". Other cases where young people were the perpetrators could be classified as "thrill hate crimes", a well-known type of xenophobic attack.

–In the extreme left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti-globalisation rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic stereotypes in their criticism of Israel. Often this generated a combination of anti-Zionist and anti-American views that formed an important element in the emergence of an anti-Semitic mood in Europe. Israel, seen as a capitalistic, imperialistic power, the "Zionist lobby", and the United States are depicted as the evildoers in the Middle East conflict as well as exerting negative influence on global affairs. The convergence of these motives served both critics of colonialism and globalisation from the extreme left and the traditional anti-Semitic right-wing extremism as well as parts of the radical Islamists in some European countries.

..................................................................

gee...i wonder why certain countries wanted it suppressed.

going...

I am still trying to figure things out over there. I'd appreciate any and all insights.

that there are racist radicals in Europe as there are in every other place. The assumption that there is something special about Europe is rather unfair in my opinion; it would be hard to find a place in the world where horrendous crimes of racism were not committed at one time or another. It also seems innaccurate to me to say that Europe has any "institutionalized" form of bigotry any more then any other place.

But the fact that it is common should not make people ignorant of it; rather, the fact that it is common should make it fought all the more, wherever it may appear, in any form or fashion. However, in fighting it, the distinction should be made, and clearly, between those who hold racist views in that particular region and those who don't, to avoid lumping together all who live in that particular region. Lacking such a distinction is a form of bigotry in its own right, and unfortunately it is something that occurs all too much in regard to a variety of parties.

On the subject of exactly who is committing the anti-semitic acts, it seems to be a combination of Muslims and extreme, xenophobic, right-wingers. It would be dishonest to say that those people are not at all involved in the anti-corporate globalization and pro-Palestinian movements; they are, and that fact must be acknowledged. However, the fact of infiltration does not diminish the worthiness of either cause.

that is YOUR VIEW....UNFORTUNATELY its not the truth.

"In the extreme left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti-globalisation rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic stereotypes in their criticism of Israel. Often this generated a combination of anti-Zionist and anti-American views that formed an important element in the emergence of an anti-Semitic mood in Europe. Israel, seen as a capitalistic, imperialistic power, the "Zionist lobby", and the United States are depicted as the evildoers in the Middle East conflict as well as exerting negative influence on global affairs. The convergence of these motives served both critics of colonialism and globalisation from the extreme left and the traditional anti-Semitic right-wing extremism as well as parts of the radical Islamists in some European countries."


It is painful when those we think of as similar to us engage in what we like to dismiss as right-wing behavior; in this most difficult and emotional issue, let's at least admit it comes from both wings (is that another leftover turkey reference? :9 )

I was referring to the right-wing nationalistic extremists - like Pat Buchanan. It is not my view that the Left is free of prejudice; rather, my point is that many of those who engage in such acts aare NOT leftists at all.

Is it coincidence that the two places where many leftists agree with the nationalistic Right most, Israel and globalization, are also the two places that are hotbeads for anti-semitism?

That seems to be an assumption on your part, and unqualified.

From the report:
The fact that a rise in anti-Semitic activities is clearly observable in most of the EU Member States since the beginning of the so-called al-Aqsa Intifada, which increased in frequency and the intensity of their violence parallel to the escalation in the Middle East conflict in April/May 2002, points to a connection between events in the Middle East with criticism of Israel's politics on the one hand and mobilisation of anti-Semitism on the other.

The parallel is examined throughout the portion that I read (the introduction) of the report. Also:

While it is certainly correct to view anti-Semitism as part of racism, at the same time it possesses very specific traits. As almost all of the reports emphasise, Jews in the European Union are well integrated socially, economically and culturally. Thus, the typical motives of xenophobia are hardly of consequence for the Jews (fear of competition for jobs, linguistic and cultural differences of migrants, external appearance). Instead, Jews are imagined to be a national and international influential group who allegedly exert a bad influence on or even steer politics, the economy and the media, which is a way of expressing the old anti-Semitic prejudice of hidden Jewish power.

The bold type added for reference. This portion sounds like the Malasyian Premier's speech.

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

Jews don't care if someone doesn't like them for something other than the reason of being a Jew.

People of color don't care if someone doesn't like them for something other than there being of color.

Gays and Lesbians don't care if someone doesn't like them for something other than their sexuality.

If you don't understand the difference I feel sorry for you.

the difference. Are you saying Europeans don't like Jews only because they are Jews? Are you saying the acts of the Israeli Governments, past and present, have absolutely nothing to do with it? Don't only feel sorry for me. I hope you feel like explaining, and if you don't I hope someone else here will. Thanks.

And there is also this: please explain to me what connection exists between the acts of the Israeli government and the daily life of, say, a young Jew in Paris who's grandparents emmigrated to France from Morroco fifty years ago? If someone hates this fellow for something the Israeli government does, have you something besides bigotry to call it?

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

Don't know where it went. I guess somebody complained and it was removed. To be frank, I can't remember what I said, but I certainly never mean to offend. Discussing I/P here is like walking on eggs.
What's the point if you can't say what's on your mind. I think I should learn to beat around the bush.

Feel free to contact me privately to convey any answer you feel appropriate. You may have confidence in my discretion.

I think you transgressed against a couple taboos,
but it did not seem to me that your intent was to offend
so much as to understand. Sometimes that's how it is with
taboos. Don't pay it much mind. It all comes out in the wash.

Europe is nasty to Jews, Israel is nasty to Palestinians.

is this copyrighted material??

But you should use the following URL and not JPost

http://www.crif.org/index.php?menu=5&dossier=33

My JPost link wasn't working.

Boy, this report is upsetting. Is there anybody here who now thinks that anti-Semitism in Europe ISN'T a problem?

First of all, this looks more like the summary of a study rather than the study itself. I'll assume that that the study is scientific and that the data suppots the conclusions drawn.

The bad news is that there is a serious problem. The good news is that the EU is confronting this problem, recognizing that it exists and seeking recommendations to alleviate the problem.

Unfortunately, that in itself does nothing. I am old enough to remember when the Kerner Report concerning American race relations was issued in 1968. Things haven't gotten any better since. Unless the people of Europe, especially the dominant culture, are willing to look into themselves and see to what extent the problem is of their own making, it won't get better.

the basis of the conclusions are towards the bottom
of the report.

each country is broken down so as not to paint with a
broad brush. Apparently Spain, France, Belgium,and
Germany seemed to stand out.

It has nothing to do with Israel/Palestine.

It has everything to do with I/P.

Here is the 4-paragraph limit:

Although we know – and opinion polls show - that anti-Semitism is permanently present in Europe in a more or less hidden way, many of us have hoped that manifest forms of anti-Semitism will not see any revival in Europe again. At present, Jews are rather well integrated economically, socially and culturally in the Member States of the European Union (EU). But the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11 and the conflict in the Middle East have contributed to an atmosphere in Europe, which gives latent anti-Semitism and hate and incitement a new strength and power of seduction. Even rumours that Israel was responsible for 11 September 2001, for the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and that Jews bring about a situation in their interest in order to put the blame on somebody else, found a receptive audience in some places. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are spreading over the Internet, which provides a cheap vehicle for the distribution of hate.

cut

The programme put in question the objectivity of these Jewish reporters. Internet homepages of both the extreme right and the radical left have used anti-Semitism when discussing the Middle East conflict.

cut

In the public domain in Spain, France, Italy and Sweden, sections of the political left and Arab-Muslim groups unified to stage pro-Palestinian demonstrations. While the right to demonstrate is of course a civil right, and these demonstrations are not intrinsically anti-Semitic, at some of these anti-Semitic slogans could be heard and placards seen; and some demonstrations resulted in attacks upon Jews or Jewish institutions. In the Netherlands pro-Palestine demonstrators of Moroccan origin used anti-Semitic symbols and slogans. In Finland however, pro-Palestinian demonstrations passed without any anti-Semitic incidents.

cut

The Internet reflects a development observable since 2000, namely the networking of the extreme right via links with sections of radical Islamists, some sites from anti-globalisation campaigners and from the anti-American far left. Since the end of the 1990s there has been a dramatic increase in the number of homepages present on the web from far-right groups and parties, which quite often also have ties to radical Islamic fundamentalists. In addition, the Internet provides easy access to music from the far right, which glorifies violence and is often anti-Semitic. Sales and distribution centres for such music are mainly located in Scandinavia. Up till now, state organs have paid too little attention to the Arab language publications which spread anti-Semitic propaganda in European countries, whether through newspapers, audiotapes or the Internet .


There's loads more. :hi:

Sorry, it has EVERYTHING to do with I/P.

More generalizing. So it speaks about Europe as a whole or certain elements, that exist just as in Israel their are extremist parts (even among religious figures)...

It does not speak for me, I I certainly don't accept that it is about Europe as such. Seems to be some are comfortable with demonizing an entire continent. Ah well...

I can't do any more than that.

But if you read this report and don't see problems for Europe, then you are blind. The Jewish people have seen a rise in anti-Semitism before and they know what can happen. For all some folks here at DU complain about their fears of a new U.S. Reich, they overlook the evil that grows in Europe.

Combating anti-semitism in part of the EU constitution, which could be hardly said for some other countries or about the mirror image - anti-Arabism anti-Islamism that is growing elsewhere which doesn't seem to bother you as much. If the evil is growing how come we don't see Jews moving from Europe if it's as bad as some people would like to make it look like. Because statues are desecrated by some neonazis or there are individual cases of bigotry does not mean that Europe as a whole has such an attitude, far from it. Those that live and work here know the reality and that the so called "danger" and "evil growing" is just an attempt to inflate anti-European sentiments because they're not in line with Sharon, Bush and their gang.

If you have issue with it, take issue with the authors.

As for Jews relocating, if things continue as they are, I expect that will occur. They will either move to Israel or America.

Because you just don't know the reality of Europe, that much I can say after reading your post, just exagerrating (mildly put)...

"The situation in the EU Member States
The reports and our own investigations show that in spring 2002 many EU Member States experienced a wave of anti-Semitic incidents. They were tied to public discussion on the dividing line between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and anti-Semitic argumentation. This wave of anti-Semitism started with the “Al-Aqsa-Intifada” in October 2000 and was fuelled by the conflict in the Middle East and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11September 2001 , which triggered off a fierce debate on the causes of radical Islamic terrorism.

During the first half of 2002 the rise of anti-Semitism reached a climax in the period between the end of March and mid-May, running parallel to the escalation of the Middle East conflict, whereas factors which usually determine the frequency of anti-Semitic incidents in the respective countries, such as the strength and the degree of mobilisation extremist far-right parties and groups can generate, have not played the decisive role."

And this when the report makes clear that many member nations don't effecively track anti-Semtic acts.

"And this when the report makes clear that many member nations don't effecively track anti-Semtic acts."

Do US police authorities track anti-Semitic acts? I've yet to see any official statistics that indicate they do. In fact there is an entrenched resistance in the US to the monitoring--even the naming--of hate crimes.

Yet, France and Germany--where perhaps not coincidentally many of these acts were identified--have very effective and official tracking mechanisms. Holocaust denial and justification of crimes against humanity are punished by law in both these nations. Yet in the US these acts are considered free speech. Anti-Semitic websites flourish in the US, but are outlawed in France and Germany.

The very existence of the European Centre for Monitoring of Racism and Xenophobia says something very significant about the EU's attitude to these crimes. And no such public center exists in the US. When did the US government last commission a study of anti-Semitism?

Meanwhile, you'll note in the section on France that despite the high level of anti-Semitic acts there during the period observed, the poll quoted shows almost 90% of the French population condemns these crimes in no uncertain terms.

Finally--if I can engage in a little comparison of horror--unless I'm mistaken none of the acts cited in the EU during the observation period resulted in death. But I believe that since 9/11 there've been a number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the US that have not only resulted in the torching of businesses as seen in the EU, but even a couple deaths. Even of people who are not Muslims or Arabs, but simply because they had brown skin; I recall one Sikh who was lynched for his perceived "Arabness."

"Finally--if I can engage in a little comparison of horror--unless I'm mistaken none of the acts cited in the EU during the observation period resulted in death. But I believe that since 9/11 there've been a number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the US that have not only resulted in the torching of businesses as seen in the EU, but even a couple deaths. Even of people who are not Muslims or Arabs, but simply because they had brown skin; I recall one Sikh who was lynched for his perceived "Arabness."

This is worth repeating...

The U.S. does track hate crimes and I think it does so poorly.

Yes, the U.S. has more of a belief in freedom of speech than europe, but it also lacks Europe's illustrious history of anti-Semitism. Do you advocate that we shut down anti-Semitic websites?

I will tell you what. The day that America has a similar history of anti-Semitism as Europe, we can talk about what actions this nation has taken.

In the meantime, let's talk about Europe.

of other things (like slavery, racism, bigotry, the KKK and likes)

When we do an Africa section, racism against my people will be significant. This is I/P.

If you want to talk about Europe and use the US as a comparison (which you do implicitly in post after post) let's limit our discussion to comparable time periods, the last 230 years in Europe.

That means no more mention of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and no more mention of the Inquisition. Deal?

But, on the other hand, if you like we could try employing the techniques used by the EU researchers in the study posted and start cataloguing anti-Semitic websites and publications in the US. We could also discuss the history of the German-American Bund and the Silver Shirts, the KKK, and other anti-Semitic groups. Whaddya think?

ON EDIT: To answer your question, yes I think anti-Semitic websites in the US should be shut down, particularly if they advocate or applaud violence against Jews. You'll note in the study posted that the definition of anti-Semitic acts included simple advocacy of violence against Jews, or glorification of the Nazis by displaying the swastika or other Nazi symbols. Either you must ignore that category of anti-Semitic act in Europe, or you must support criminalizing it in the US. Otherwise--as concerns this category of anti-Semitic act--you're getting your panties in a bunch over a European problem, but turning the other cheek to the same phenomenon in the US. No pun intended.

But it is also not marked by anything like European anti-Semitism. Even the Confederacy which fought for slavery treated Jewish people with non-European respect, choosing Judah Benjamin as Secretary of War and then Secretary of State.

Why should I stop discussion the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Inquisition? Both are part of European history.

Yes, we do have lots of crazy websites, that's because we also have this cool thing called freedom of speech that many other nations lack.

Unlike you, I don't think hate sites should be shut down. I'd rather see what they are doing and be able to watch it out in the open. Especially since we lack Europe's history of mistreating Jews.

Plus, it would violate the Constitution.

The racist Confederacy chose the pro-slavery Judah Benjamin as a Cabinet member?

As I've already mentioned, France has had not only a number of Jewish cabinet members, but a number of Jewish Prime Ministers--leaders of government, not just members of the government team.

Similarly, the first head of the European Parliament was also Jewish, an Auschwitz survivor, in fact.

And since those facts are also part of European history, it would be kind of you to take them into consideration.

ON EDIT: In any event, you've made your position clear. You do not consider it appropriate to categorize publication of anti-Semitic material or glorification of the Nazis--because they are protected by the Constitution--as anti-Semitic acts that should be considered in this study. I hope you'll try reading the study again and eliminate all reference to such "free speech" acts from consideration. Then get back to us with a more "Constitutional" evaluation of the situation in Europe.

Actually, Benjamin was the only Confederate Cabinet member who did not own slaves. In addition, he was one of the leading advocates in the South of freeing slaves to fight the union.

You left out that among France's achievements we also have Vichy and rounded up French Jews to send to the gas chambers.

As for Europe in general, I take all the facts into consideration. You should as well.

Finally, no I do not consider freedom of speech as anti-Semitic acts that should be considered in this study. Again, you leave out that we don't have the same horrible history as Europe.

I said he was pro-slavery. Do you dispute that?

(It's perhaps also worth noting that when Lincoln was assassinated, Benjamin feared arrest because he was a Jew. In fact, he fled to England. So much for the pro-Jewish attitudes of Civil War era America, huh?)

Your penultimate sentence makes no sense. Please clarify.

Was a leading advocate to freeing the slaves in the South. However, as he was a leader of the South, that's all he gets from me.

My final sentence was clear, you keep leaving out that you are comparing apples and oranges. This is a European problem and much less of a problem in America.

"You, Senators of the Republican party, assert, and your people whom you represent assert, that, under a just and fair interpretation of the Federal Constitution, it is right that you deny that our slaves, which directly and indirectly involve a value of more than four thousand million dollars, are property at all, or entitled to protection in Territories owned by the common Government. You assume the interpretation that it is right to encourage, by all possible means, directly and indirectly, the robbery of this property and to legislate so as to render its recovery as difficlut and dangerous as possible; that it is right and proper and justifiable, under the Constitution, to prevent our mere transit across a sister State, to embark with our property on a lawful voyage, without being openly despoiled of it."

You Never Can Subjugate Us
Judah Philip Benjamin of Louisiana
Senate, December 31 1860
http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/cw/cw120.htm

ON EDIT: Oh, by the way, Benjamin was a planter and "owned 140 slaves until he sold his plantation in 1850."
http://www.usisrael.org/jsource/biography/Benjamin.html

Which sentence are you yalking about?

As for the owning slaves issue, history seems massively unclear. You beat me by a bit posting that, but the sources are divided, partially because he destroyed his personal papers.

What's with the HUH? "Penultimate" does not mean "final." As I said, look it up.

So the issue of Benjamin's owning slaves is "massively unclear?" Funny, in your post 109 you stated categorically that he didn't own slaves.

There can be no doubt, however, Benjamin was proslavery. His speeches before the Senate on the subject have been public record for 140 years.

Whatever the case, you're no doubt right that the Confederacy treated Benjamin "with non-European respect," because he was still defending slavery before the US Senate in 1860. Britain and France had outlawed slavery years before (1833 and 1848 respectively) and one can guess they had little respect for his retrograde politics.

I found other sources that disagreed with the first several and you beat me to the post punch by a little bit. this this is at best a cul de sac in the debate, who cares?

I agree that Benjamin was initially pro-slavery. I also point out that he was the leading advocate in the Confederacy for ending the heinous practice. Some people do learn.

Late in the war, when the Confederacy was getting its ass whupped, Benjamin suggested enrolling slaves as soldiers and emancipating them after their term of service.

If you want to call the coerced conscription of slaves and emancipation of only those slaves after they risked their lives fighting for their masters, "ending slavery," then you win this week's Fickle Finger of Fate Award.

American Jews and the Civil War: Leadership and Military Service

<snip> Another major effort of Benjamin’s was to urge the Confederacy to emancipate the slaves and use them in the defense of the South. Benjamin had been a slaveowner in Louisiana, and he certainly was no abolitionist. Yet, by 1864, with the South’s manpower dwindling against increasingly daunting odds, he believed the Confederacy had nowhere to turn but to their slaves. After pushing and receiving approval from Lee and Davis, Benjamin sought the public’s acceptance in a speech in Richmond.

Benjamin started by announcing the near impossibility of the numbers: “Our resources of white population have greatly diminished; but you had 680,000 black men of the same ages; and could Divine prophecy have told us of the fierceness of the enemy’s death grapple at our throats-could we have known what we now know, that Lincoln has confessed, that without 200,000 Negroes which he stole from us, he would be compelled to give up the contest, should we have entertained any doubts upon the subject?”

Now that he had explained to the crowd the dire circumstances as well as the potential of black soldiers, he made the suggestion that slaves should be emancipated and armed to fight. “Let us say to every Negro who wishes to go into the ranks on condition of being made free-’Go and fight; you are free.’ If we impress them, they will go against us. We know that everyone who could fight for his freedom has had no chance. The only side that has had the advantage of this element is the Yankee-a people that can beat us to the end of the year in making bargains. Let us imitate them in this. I would imitate them in nothing else.”

He reminded the crowd that he was no abolitionist, but a Southerner, a. slaveowner, who would do anything to win the war for independence. “My own Negroes have been to me and said: Master, set us free, and we will fight for you; we had rather fight for you than the Yankees.’ But suppose it should not be so-there is no harm in trying.” </snip>

http://www.acjna.org/article_view.asp?article_id=241

Muddle, once again you astound me. You say you're Black and sport MLK's portrait as your avatar, but defend the slave-owner and pro-slavery advocate Benjamin, suggesting he "learned" something about racial equality, when every fact flies in the face of such an assertion. On the other hand, you refuse to entertain the notion that Europeans have learned anything from the anti-Semitic crimes of their collective past, even though modern legislation in the European Union affords Jews extremely strict protection from Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites. How do you deal with the incoherence?

You seem to ignore what a HUGE idea Benjamin's was -- ending slavery. It doesn't matter why or how, he still had it. Sure, he was a man for political expediency. But most in the South preferred to go down in flames rather than free slaves.

He chose another option and paid for it politically.

Every fact does not fly in the face of my assertion. He challenged conventional thinking in the South to think of my ancestors as possible soldiers. Sure, they saw the North doing it, but only a few like him considered it a viable option. As one person said after his speech proposing this, "If we do this then we were wrong about slavery."

Exactly.

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

Nowhere does Benjamin make that suggestion.

He proposed enrolling slaves (able-bodied, male slaves) as soldiers and freeing those slaves. That left out females and non-combat ready males. And left the institution of slavery intact. As the quote I provided indicates, even when he presented his plan to the public, he plainly stated he was not an abolitionist. What about that don't you understand? (Slaves had been emancipated before in the South for services rendered to their masters. That was no new idea.)

The abolitionist movement had already been around (in a big way) for several decades before Benjamin spoke out in 1864. And, of course, the Union already had armed Black troops at the time--so those who supported the end of slavery had already been "proven right" when Benjamin came up with this last-gasp measure to save the racist Confederacy.

Not to mention, of course, that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, a year before Benjamin suggested enrolling Blacks in the Confederate Army. Talk about a HUGE idea! :eyes:

Lemme guess: You majored in moral relativism in college.

Hmm, turning thousands and thousands of free black men in the South would sure as hell have ended slavery for them. Does that make Benjamin Moses of the South? Not hardly. Not even close. But in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Or didn't you learn that as school?

You brought up Benjamin as an example of the "respect" with which "even the Confederacy" treated Jewish people.

<Muddle> Even the Confederacy which fought for slavery treated Jewish people with non-European respect, choosing Judah Benjamin as Secretary of War and then Secretary of State. </Muddle>

You then proceeded to make a number of false and ahistorical claims about Benjamin which I've had to correct: (1) that he never owned slaves; (2) that he was "leading advocate in the Confederacy for ending the heinous practice" of slavery; (3) that he purely and simply suggested "ending slavery."

Not to mention that--contrary to your claim about the "respect" shown Jews in Civil War era America--you've overlooked the fact that (1) Benjamin was scapegoated as a Jew for the catastrophic turn of the war; (2) after Lincoln's assassination, because he was a Jew, Benjamin was fingered as a possible suspect and had to flee the United States to England permanently (He later died and was buried in Paris, by the way, apparently a city more hospitable for a Jew than the Confederacy he served as Secretary of War and Secretary of State, or the Nation he'd served as a Senator.); and (3) Benjamin's congressional colleagues--before, during, and after the war--repeatedly targetted him for anti-Semitic attacks, Congressman Foote going so far as to say he would pass a law that would prevent Jews from getting within miles of Washington.

If you'd not insisted on this subject, and not posted these inaccuracies, this sub-thread might have been more productive.

Meanwhile, it is you who have avoided the real subject at hand. You've still not responded in a clear fashion to this remark:

<Paschall> In any event, you've made your position clear. You do not consider it appropriate to categorize publication of anti-Semitic material or glorification of the Nazis--because they are protected by the Constitution--as anti-Semitic acts that should be considered in this study. I hope you'll try reading the study again and eliminate all reference to such "free speech" acts from consideration. Then get back to us with a more "Constitutional" evaluation of the situation in Europe. </Paschall>

You've avoided the issue by feigning lack of knowledge of the definition of "penultimate" (which means "next to last," I'm sure you'll be happy to learn).

Similarly, it is you who have avoided the issue of Europe by failing to respond to this question about the inconsistency in your attitude regarding the Continent vis-à-vis America:

<Paschall> ...{you} defend the slave-owner and pro-slavery advocate Benjamin, suggesting he "learned" something about racial equality, when every fact flies in the face of such an assertion. On the other hand, you refuse to entertain the notion that Europeans have learned anything from the anti-Semitic crimes of their collective past, even though modern legislation in the European Union affords Jews extremely strict protection from Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites. How do you deal with the incoherence? </Paschall>

If you want the discussion to move forward, you only have to stay on subject... and realize that any attempt on your part to depict a racist, slave-owning, slavery advocating Confederate as a hero will meet stern objections from yours truly... regardless of the fact that the Confederate traitor in question was a Jew.

So, this will be my last post on the subject of Benjamin. Ironically, your full court press here to hide the 2,000 years of European wrongs about anti-Semitism puts me in a position of defending a man I find distasteful -- though still better in some ways than many of his pals. However, that said, I will clarify some things.

1) Historical records are unclear on his ownership or NOT of slaves. I have checked about 20 sources now. There is no clear winner.

2) He WAS the "leading advocate in the Confederacy for ending the heinous practice" of slavery by putting blacks in the army. It cost him a great deal politically.

3) If you don't think doing that would have ended slavery -- not just for the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS who were put in the army, but for the rest, then you are vastly mistaken. The South would have been changed forever. Give a couple hundred thousand former slaves guns and military training and see how long THAT institution lasts. The Southerners knew that as well.

Benjamin CHOSE to be scapegoated at one point during the war to hide the fact that the South had no money. It was his decision and, as a close friend of Jeff Davis and a loyal Confederate, he did it.

Benjamin was fingered as a possible suspect in the Lincoln assassination because he had been both Secretary of War and State and was the closest confidante of Jeff Davis in the cabinet. Of course he fled the U.S. There was much talk about hanging Jeff Davis. It is unlikely that Benjamin would have missed that fate. Since the South was now part of the U.S. again, it is understandable that he didn't return to stand trial or to be buried.

Wow, you found instances of anti-Semitism in the U.S. Congress. Yes, there are instances of anti-Semitism in the U.S. to this day, but we have NEVER managed anything as appalling as the Europeans have mustered -- time and time again.

Inquisition, pogrom and Holocaust. These are European words.

As for the Paschall comment, I have indeed made my position clear. America does NOT have Europe's legacy of abuse, anti-Semitism and wholesale murder of Jews, so there is no reason for us to limit free speech on this topic. Given just how bad Europe can be, it is unsurprising they do so. And, as such, all those cases DO count.

As I said before, Benjamin advocated ARMING hundreds of thousands of blacks in the South. Even if it was for political gains, that was a seachange in Southern attitudes and deserves note for that.

Europe on the other hand has not a couple centuries of such crimes, but a couple THOUSAND YEARS of such crimes. And instead of them getting bad and cooling off, they built to a crescendo in fairly recent memory.

As for sticking to the discussion, I have. It is you and others who wish to hide century upon century of European anti-Semitism and wash it away so that every anti-Israel and anti-Semitic act is NOT treated with the proper context.

That doesn't wash. Or in this case whitewash.

Oh, and one last thing, given different interpretations of the Constitution, Confederates were not traitors. Even Lincoln did not generally treat them as such. Yes, they were in rebellion, but there was much question about whether the states had the right to withdraw from the union. The war settled it, but I still don't classify Confederates as traitors.

LOL, you're out of reality dude, BIG time! This is not only generalizing, this is pure demonizing that is far from the truth. You have serious issues with Europe and Europeans as I see, and you'r hardly objective about it. It may have to do with the fact that you see so much opposition to Sharon and his policy from Europe and then you discredit anyone opposing it, even with lies and intentional exaggeration. That's sad...

I wonder which group of people destroyed Jerusalem and caused the whole Diaspora...

Bueller?

So what is the statute of limitations on the collective guilt that you would assign for THAT one?

Does a 10-year old kid in Umbria still carry the burden of the Roman wars of 2,000 years ago?

This is a very WEIRD line of reasoning!!!!

One incident is an incident. Two, the same. How many before you see the trend line?

First--The Romans who devastated Judea were not anti-Semites per se.

They were pissed off, brutal Imperialists, for sure, but the issue was not racial or religious, at least not from their perspective.

Second--European Anti-Semitism as you describe it is something that emenrged in the Middle Ages as a product of Christian philosophy and politics.

Third, the kid in Umbria has nothing to do with any of this.

He is just a kid.

The "pattern" you claim to see exists mostly in your own mind.

Nor did I invent the folks who did it. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the attack on Israel, the pogroms, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc. all came from Europe.

That's a bad way to bet.

Were the Babylonians European?

Since the Babylonians were responsible for the scattering of the Jews, rather than the Romans.

He feels like giving them a pass....

but the Babylonian role should be remembered.

My point is simply that anti-semitism is by no means specific to Europe.

nt

I have been following this thread with amazement , admiration, and disbelief.

I note that our friend Muddle has revealed some interesting and unique patterns of thought re-Europe and the notion of collective and inherited blame for all eternity for crimes committed by people who once lived on the same continent that you happened to be born on.

Even more fascinating is his notion that this sort of historical and universalized blame should be limited only to people in Europe--a continent our friend clearly has some "problems" with---and need not be applied to the descendants of such misunderstood and non-treasonous institutions as the CONFEDERACY.

Never mind the persistence of Jim Crow and lynching into the 1960s and beyond, the still vital movements of pro-Confederacy racist groups like the KKK and the White citizens Council (under a new name, of course).

Never mind that the Klan and WCC were and are also virulently anti-Semitic groups, or that McCarthyite crusaders of the 1950s like Roy Cohn, Nixon, et al focused their special attention on Jews and managed to get the Rosenbergs executed because it was easier to get a death sentence for a couple of Jews with foreign-sounding names.

This is rich, enetertaining stuff, Mr. Muddle, I will admit to that.

But my enjoyment is consistently undermined by the face of Dr. King that appears in the corner of each of these postings.

I wonder what this great man would think of some of the claims and interpretations we have had the unique opportunity to read in this most fascinating of threads?

* Where 2,000 years of anti-Semitic activity doesn't constitute a trend.
* Where the Holocaust happened, but we can't assume that a rise in anti-Semitism might mean anything.
* Where Inquisition targeted Jews so much that some STILL hide their religion in Spain.
* Where a report on anti-Semitism in the EU is looked at as no big concern.

As for the Confederacy, they weren't misunderstood, they were vile slavers. But they weren't treasonous. (It's a technical point.) And a trend of a couple hundred years that has clearly changed in a big way (still way from perfect) is a bit different considering slavery ended in 1865, but the Holocaust happened in the living memory of millions of people on this planet.

I remember THAT stuff, and I'm not all THAT old!!!!

It is hard to compare to Europe because Europe killed off almost all of its Jews.

Does logic or history mean ANYTHING to you?

Then that would relate. It isn't and it doesn't. If you want to discuss how Native Americans (or African-Americans) can look askance at any and all dealings with their race from the U.S., then that is a thread for elsewhere.

This is I/P and issues related to it.

Native Americans have been and are abused by elements within the US, sometimes sanctioned and sometimes not by the government.

Does that make me racist against Native Americans? Does that make you racist against Native Americans?

So actions taken by individuals follow hundreds of years of abuse of Native Americans. Actions taken by governments also have that context.

It doesn't make you racist, but if you do something that might be, it gives you less room to maneuver.

nt

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

And frankly, I can't find the document that empowered you to detrmine the limits of may or may not be introdiced into arguments on this thread.

I assume you have resorted to this tactic because you do not want to asnwere a question that reveals the illogic of your argument.

The governments that were responsible for the Holocaust no longer exist. Those governments were dismantled, and their leaders were eliminated or eliminated themselves by their own hand or by fleeing into exile.

There has been no such break in the lineage of American leadership. The American Republic that fought the Indian Wars is still in power in Washington.

Traces of Muddle's quite visible anti-European attitudes are widespread among so-called "Euro-skeptics" and fundamentalist Christian extremists.

These people fear the rise of the "latter-day Roman Empire" (try Googling it) and hence, I suppose, a re-run of the destruction of Jerusalem. :eyes:

Contrary to your insinuation. And, I life in no day-to-day fears of an apocolypse.

I just think Europe has a history that it refuses to come to terms with and a present that is impacted by that history.

...to come to terms with its history?

First off, recognize that the history (not just the Holocaust) is part of who they are. Given the tone of debates here on DU, I think that will be hard. I have been cast as anti-European (I'm not) simply because I see a connection beween actions all occurring in the same general area.

Next, work to repair relations with Israel. That means not recognizing terror groups, making it clear to Arafat that no money will go to the PA unless it goes after terror, etc. It also means investigating the source of Arafat's banking windfall.

Third, this is not just an issue of monitoring, it has to be an issue of punishment. So fix the monitoring of anti-Semitism in the rest of the EU and work on punishment.

Fourth, hate to use the word, but marketing is the right word here. That means the EU needs to aggressively stop the lies and anti-Semitism by fixing them. Publicizing what is wrong and how it is wrong.

That's a start. It's not meant to be all inclusive.

Pro-Sharon and turn the back on the Palestinians, right?

But not pro-Arafat either. Not pro-terrorist.

Is essentializing and thus follows the same basic structure as racist and Anti-Semitic argumenst.

The main difference seems to be that your is a GEOGRAPHICAL essentialism, that connects anyone who was or is ever born on the European sub-content as somehow connected to and accountable for such diverse historcal events as:

The Roman conquest and suppression of Juea.

Medieval anti-Semitism and the related institutions of pogroms, persectuions for "ritual murder" etc., explusions, etc.

The Inquisition and other forms of religion-based persecution of jews.

Fascist and Nazi Ant-Semitic laws.

The Holocaust.

But I maintain that the people and institutions who CARRIED OUT or cooperated with these phenomena are the ones who are responsible, not some young kid from Norway or Umbria or whatever.

Would you dispute this argument?

alone that you're born in Europe, regardless where, and even if you didn't have anything to do with it, you will ALWAYS be guilty of something, and you're by default suspicious. And it's supposed to be all institutionalized and a consequences of supposed 1000 of years of it that any European cannot escape and should feel guilty.

Now if anyone seriosly expects me to buy that, then they're seriously mistaken...

And the only real question is: How can anyone expect any thinking person to believe any part of it?

The institutions went away in some cases -- not the church, not the governments -- but people remained to pass on a legacy.

Did all of the Germans, or French or Italians or Eastern Europeans who helped the Nazis or were Nazis die? Of course not. Do they continue to have contact with others? Did they pass along beliefs, values, hatreds? Of course.

And so it has been on through the centuries in Europe.

It is not a continuum.

What is debated here is the specific connection you are trying to propose.

As you present it here, this continuum is a fantasy.

...nourish such a virulent attitude toward Europe for that.

1) As far as I know, as taught in European schools, European history never fails to recognize the anti-Semitic acts of its past. Perhaps you have some examples and more specific complaints about this; you're being rather vague. On the other hand, as edzontar points out, it would be historically inaccurate to teach the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans as an act of anti-Semitism.

2) European relations with Israel are actually quite good. Israel and EU are major trading partners; Israel has even expressed its desire to join the EU and the community of French-speaking nations known as La Francophonie. As for the PA, the EU considers the Palestinian Authority the legitimate ruling body in the Territories. I'm sorry that's not about to change, so either I'll have to live with your constant attacks on the EU for this reason, or you'll have to try to see the Union's point of view. The EU has investigated every claim that EU funds are being channeled to terror groups and no such allegation has ever been proven. Perhaps you'd like to address your complaint directly to the EU; you can do so easily via the Union's website. They will respond. You can also get lots of information on these issues from the Union's website.

3) I agree monitoring of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in the Union could be improved. Monitoring of such things can never be too good. Besides the work being done at existing national monitoring centers, the European center set up especially for this purpose is constantly studying the problem and issues annual reports and recommendations. Such crimes are punished. If you know of cases where offenders have been released by European courts, I'd like to hear about them.

4) Speaking from my experience in France, I know that major efforts are made to combat anti-Semitism. When anti-Semitic acts are committed, top members of the government often visit the scene to express the nation's disapproval and sympathy for the victims. The president frequently calls special press conferences to denounce such violence. But what lies are you referring to?

I sense you have more specific complaints. What things in particular are bothering you? What actions do you think the EU should take specifically? I wish you'd let it all hang out, because these discussions are getting very old and I would like us to move past these unproductive, circular debates.

And increasingly undeserving of an answer.

You clearly do not "like" Europe.

Your insistence that the people and governments of this complex continent have not tried to come to terms with their tragic past is simply untrue.

Read the EU cosntitution.

There are, of course, still RW and Fascist, AntiSemite parties in many EU countries, as well as fringe groups.

And i have noted that several of my colleagues on this board are more than willing to "forgive" some of THEM for their RECENT actions and statements!

But many in Europe are NOT anti-Semitic, do NOT support violence against Jews, and are pretty decent folks.

It is a struggle, for sure, but sweeping condemnations like yours are both unfair and irrelevant to the situation.

These Europe-hating attitudes are kinda new to me.

I mean, I have encountered the idea of "Eurocentrism," but this is a completely different category of fish.

Bizarro.

1) In Benjamin's speech I quoted he says he spoke to "his slaves." Didn't own any? Right.

2) You're still distorting the facts. Benjamin never supported "ending slavery." In 1864 he said he wasn't an abolitionist.

3) The South "would have been changed forever"... Yeah, maybe the Confederacy would have won the war and slavery would have remained intact. Benjamin certainly never advocated dismantling the system.

Liberty, democracy, freedom. Those are European words, too. :eyes:

So you maintain that it is appropriate to count those non-violent acts--such as glorifying Nazis and denying the Holocaust--as manifestations of anti-Semitism in Europe, but refuse to take them into consideration in the US becaue they are protected by the US Constitution. Despite the irrationality of that position, it should give you some pause when evaluating the study at hand.

Europe takes a much harsher view of such acts, meaning it puts a greater emphasis on protecting Jews from anti-Semitism than the US. As you mention elsewhere on this thread, such acts can't help but evoke the ghosts of the Holocaust; yet, you suggest Jews should be subjected to such horrific evocations because of free speech dispositions of the US Constitution. Sorry, I disagree. US Jews should not be subjected to this type of verbal/emotional terror.

Benjamin's proposition to arm slaves hardly produced a seachange. It was rejected. The South lost the war. That was the seachange event. Not to mention Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.

Rebels, traitors, whatever. Defend them at will if you wish. I'll never do so.

As I said, I am done with the other sub-debate.

Yes, "Liberty, democracy, freedom," are European words. Words they don't seem to like to apply to Israel.

I hold Europe to the standard that applies to the continent that brought us the Holocaust and 2,000 years of anti-Semitism.

And, if "Europe ... puts a greater emphasis on protecting Jews from anti-Semitism than the US," it is only because they have to owing to the anti-Semitism that they have had since the Diaspora.

As for the freedom of speech issue, I disagree. African-Americans also are subject to attacks from the KKK and its friends via freedom of speech, but we have gained much through that freedom. Besides, I would rather the rats see the light of day, than skulk in the shadows.

Why do you hate it so?

...the source of all prejudice?

The ONLY bigotry that our friend considers to be universally inherited is EUROPEAN Anti-Semitism.

That is because EUROPE is uniquely EVIL, apparently.

It is a Bizarro argument, to be sure.

Again, fearing European anti-Semitism is a quite rational thing to do. Especially when you look at the history of the two leading lights of the EU (Germany and France).

And where we stop, everyone knows.

Europe is uniquely evil.

That is your basic point, right?

Though at this point, it probably is tough to follow the thread.

Europe has a unique history of anti-Semitism. That can't be denied. And it is a factor in their dealings both with Jews and Israel.

Again, in case you missed it, I actually happen to like Europe. I was well treated there and I have clients who are in Europe and we get along quite well.

France and Germany are "leading lights"? You just chose two examples (and from a certain historical context), that are supposed to be representative for Europe as a WHOLE?!? Do you know how many countries there are in Europe. And it's diversity? Obviously you don't...

And represent a major factor in how it is run?

And, while representative of the EU, they are far from the only European nations with the stain of anti-Semitism.

anti-Islamism and anti-Arabism in Israel and other parts of the world. Or Arabs being beaten and killed in Europe. But how come that could happen if you think Europe is so pro-Arab and anti-Israeli? An Arabs is much more likely to get in trouble. But that is somehow unimportant to you...

The Germans and French were not responsible for the razing of the Temple of Jerusalem or the Inquisition.

The Nazis and Vichy government no long exist and have been repudiated by the current French and German republics.

France and Germany have some of the most stringent legislation on the planet to protect Jews from religious and racial hatred and violence.

And as "leading lights" of the EU, France and Germany were major influences in the creation of one of the most progressive courts in the world--the European Court of Human Rights--that provides European citizens protection from human rights abuses in their own countries.

France wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen which formed the basis of the most important document the world possesses for preserving and protecting human rights--the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Tunnel vision is a terrible affliction.

HATRED HITS HOME

December 8, 2003 -- The statistics are chilling to even those who don't want to believe them: The number of anti-Semitic attacks in the city last month was more than triple that of a year ago - an ominous sign of "global anti-Semitism coming home," Jewish leaders warn.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12082003/news/regionalnews/12869.htm

I guess they do

Since the topic is the European Union, 280 million inhabitants. Not simply one city police force.

In any case, your link doesn't provide any evidence that NY police are tracking anti-Semitic crimes separately. If you read the article carefully, you'll see a lot of the "statistics" quoted come from the Anti-Defamation League and other private groups.

The point of my question was that in comparison to certain EU countries where anti-Semitic crimes are not monitored (a point raised by Muddle), anti-Semitic crimes are not monitored--either nationally or in every state--in the US by government authorities. Or do you have proof to the contrary?

"Since 1991, the Program has compiled and published statistics on offenses determined by law enforcement to have been driven by bias against race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and since 1994, disability. This edition of Hate Crime Statistics is the latest presentation in this series aimed at better equipping law enforcement to handle the complex and difficult challenge of dealing with hate crime."

The stats show only slightly more than 1,000 hate crimes against Jews in America -- with 52 assaults and most crimes intimidation.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime2002.pdf

They are only compiled from participating agencies.

HATE CRIME - 1995: "The incidents were reported by more than 9,500 law enforcement agencies in 45 states and the District of Columbia. Participating agencies covered 75 percent of the U.S. population."
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm

Similarly the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, hate crimes report only includes "hate crime incidents from jurisdictions in up to 17 States reporting such data to the FBI."
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hcrn99.htm

Seems a lot more than Europe is doing and we don't have their record of shame.

in neoimperialism and killing innocent Afghani children...

In any case, the sentiment you expressed when you said this, "And this when the report makes clear that many member nations don't effecively track anti-Semtic acts," applies equally to the US I assume.

1) New york City is not part of the nation? Must I find reports from other cities in the US to satisfy you?

2) NYC tracks biases of all kinds. They have a special unit for this.

3) The statistics quoted are from this unit.

I don't know what your problem is with that story.

do you make these things up as you go along??

According to media reports, the Jewish Agency is preparing for an increase in the number of French Jews making Aliyah and moving to Israel. Agency officials are planning for some 2,500 new immigrants from France this year, despite the security situation in Israel. The number would mark a 100% increase over French Aliyah figures in 2001.


http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/politics/articles/pol_0132.htm

Some 2,326 have left in the last year, 50 percent more than a year before. French Jews left at the highest rate since 1972.

http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-144-Anti-Semitism-Rears-Ugly-Head-In-Europe.html

or because they WANT more Jewish immigrants (for settlements)? Couldn't be that, hey? Or the fact that they have migrated before in large numbers simply for coming to "homeland" not because they feared living where they lived before. I am sure you asked them all why and they said that they'r moving because Europe is so hostile to them. If you haven't you're just guessing. nothing more

i should ignore current events.

I'm dizzy.

Point number one: Your first paragraph quotes "media reports" about reports from the Jewish Agency. Rather odd, to say the least. And the numbers given are simply estimates about future immigration. No hard data there.

Point number two: Rather than 2,326 immigrants from France--a 50% increase over the past year as you've posted--, the latest online report from the Jewish Agency actually says,"Between January and June 2003, 543 immigrants arrived from France, compared with 513 that arrived during the same period last year. This is an increase of 5%."
http://www.jazo.org.il/aliyah/english/article.aspx?id=182

In 2002, the Jewish Agency says, "Between January and December 2002, 2,481 people arrived from France compared to 1,144 in the same period last year. This is an increase of 116% (102% in the number of olim and 225% in the number of returning Israelis)."
http://www.jazo.org.il/aliyah/english/article.aspx?id=188

honestly, sometimes you can barely move in this forum amongst the pearls of wisdom...:eyes:

History. Hundreds or thousands of years of it. All the same.

We call that a trend.

about generations that have nothing to with the present. OK, so I can blame anyone for the crimes of his ancestors, his ancestor's ancestors, and so on. Then I could blame a hell lot of people, including many in Israel for the crimes of people of their religion and nationality, Israelis for Sabra & Shatila and even for bad things that happened thousand years ago by people of their faith. Now that is a wonderful logic Muddle..

The peoples are the same.

If there is a rise in anti-Semitism in Germany, how can you not link it to Germany's Nazi past? If there is a rise in anti-Semitism in France, how can you now see the relationship between that and Vichy? If there is a rise in anti-Semitism in Italy, how can you not link that to fascism?

Syria has gone to war with Israel numerous times. Even though most of the people from Syria who fought in 1948 are probably now dead, those attitudes still exist.

xenophobia in Europe, history indicates, is usually followed by fascism.

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

All it does is create borders and, if terror continues, encourages Israel to declare war on that new state.

There are virtually no Jews in Poland today. The Poles were victims of the Nazi occupation and the Polish government in no way collaborated with the occupiers. Yet numerous polls have shown that Poland is the most anti-Semitic country on the Continent.

And how do you explain the stringent laws that forbid anti-Semitic speech and publications in France and Germany? Those laws were approved by the French and German people, or their representatives, who--if your quasi-biological explanation for anti-Semitism had any basis in fact--would obviously never have taken this step to combat these crimes.

If we follow your logic, Muddle, sub-Saharan Africa could never be trusted to establish any peaceful, democratic form of government, since the Africans lived for centuries under warring patriarchal regimes that relied heavily on slave trade long before European colonists ever arrived there.

Poland has a long history of anti-Semitism and, perhaps, they blame the Jewish people for much of what happened to Poland during WWII.

As for laws in Germany and France, those get passed when a majority of voters vote a certain way. But we all know that not everyone votes and not everyone votes a certain way. It is easy to have a minority picking candidates that make decisions. So that is no firm indicator.

Your comparison doesn't even vaguely come close to being viable. Europe is supposed to be the cradle of modern civilization and yet they are the cradle of anti-Semitism. With pogroms, the Inquisition and the Holocaust staining their history, Europe remains unique.

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

This report hardly seems credible, at least with regards to the media section (which naturally impacts on the credibility of the other sections).

For example, to assess what the media situation is like in the UK, the report relies on precisely three sources (and it turns that there are actually only two, though this is obscured):

1. "Many British Jews" (unidentified)
2. An op-ed in The Economist
3. The spokesman for Chief Rabbi Sacks

Now, the report quotes The Economist as saying that reporting on Israeli policy is spiced "as to smell of anti-semitism".

This is wilful and disgraceful distortion. For the entire paragraph literally ripped out of the article -- note the title, the removal of the first sentence, the removal of the last reference to The New Statesman, and the combining of sources (1) and (2):

"Criticism of Israel’s government does not, of course, equal anti-Semitism. But many Jews are horrified by what they see as a new and wilfully false moral equivalence between the Israelis and the Palestinians and a tone of anti-Israeli hostility that has become so strident as to smell of anti-Semitism. Many are particularly upset by what they consider to be the editorial virulence and one-sided reporting of two quality newspapers read mainly by leftish Britons, the Guardian and the Independent, and of a leading left-wing magazine, The New Statesman, once enthusiastically Zionist"

'Anti-Semitism in Europe: Growing hostility to Israel, and Islamic attacks on Jewish targets in Europe, do not mean that old-style anti-Semitism is back', The Economist, 3rd May 2002 (my emphasis)

Morever, the conclusion of this article is:

"Growing hostility to Israel is a more complex trait. Anyone defending Israel’s government nowadays is bound to have a harder time of it. But that does not itself mean that heavily anti-Semitic sentiment goes beyond a very small proportion of Europeans"

(ibid)

This is ignored and sanitised by the report.

So, once both sources are combined, and put in the proper context, it turns out that to assess the media situation in the UK (50million+ people, several broadsheets, tabloids etc, a complicated picture), the report turns to:

1. "Many British Jews", second-hand, via a single op-ed (writer unidentified).
2. The spokesman for the Chief Rabbi.

Surely these are the only sources one thinks of when assessing media coverage of Jewish issues, Israel etc. I'm sure when assessing how Muslim issues are covered the appropriate sources are "many British Muslims" (second-hand), and the spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain. :eyes:

And from these sources the report implies The Independent and The Guardian are anti-semitic, with zero space for rebuttal given, and it seems not even considered?

This is a joke.

the media part is the LEAST important part of the section.

Can you say "selective reading"??

Let me help you out....

"There appears to have been a genuine change, both qualitative and quantitative after this point": there were 22 synagogue desecrations in the 22 months before October 2000, but 78 in the same time period since, and assaults on Jews since October 2000 "have often been sustained beating leading to hospitalisation, compared with the `roughing up` by neo-Nazis that more typically occurred before."

1. Physical acts of violence

The climax of the violence was reached in the weeks between the beginning of April and the start of May 2002. There were 51 incidents nationwide in April, "most of them assaults on individuals", compared with 12 in March and seven in February. Some of the assaults resulted in the hospitalisation of the victims with serious injuries.

Reportedly, the victims were mainly orthodox and Hassidic Jews. In London, Manchester and Glasgow the windows of synagogues or the Hebrew Congregation were smashed; in London a further synagogue was desecrated.

On 6 May, following a rally in support of Israel, a boy wearing a shirt with the Star of David was attacked by three youths.

On 11 July the synagogue in Swansea (Wales) was desecrated by vandals with graffiti (swastika, and the phrase "T4 Jewish c*** from Hitler") and Torah rolls were damaged and burned. The attempt to burn down the building failed.

The CST counted 20 incidents of extreme violence (attacks potentially causing loss of life) and assaults during the first five months of 2002. Then perpetrators were described as follows: five white, five Arab, three Asian, seven unknown.
......................................................................

but to be fair, the UK has had less than other countries in the EU
AND appear to be doing more to stop anti-semitism.

Perhaps the one bright spot in a sad report.

That I'd read the entire UK section (in addition to the annex), I suggest you read the very first sentence of my post - especially the part in brackets.

the media reports do not impact on the credibility of the other sections and cold hard facts (presnted in what i posted) are not diminished by op-eds you posted .

The op-ed I quoted is the source of the "cold hard facts", presented in the media section.

I just happened to quote it in full, because I'm interested in the truth, not distortion. Maybe you should be asking why the authors of this report do not feel the same.

It has fuck all to do with Israel and I don't understand given the incredibly stringent rules about what you can and can't talk about down here why it's allowable to turn the discussion into a talk shop about Jews and anti-semitism.

every time using such tactic...

Is that you DON'T see what it has to do with I/P.

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

Anti-Semitism means something to more than just "chumps." Israel and the Palestinians are part of the world. Any anti-Semitism needs to be seen in that context. If you think it is unrelated, you are mistaken.

You really didn't give any good reason to take it seriously. There is no reason in hell a Palestinian wouldn't be an anti-semite. No one would take it seriously if someone blamed the native tribes in America for being racist toward European's and saw that as some sort of moral deficiancy. It's common sense, they came to kill them and drive them off.

Given this backdrop, you can throw Jews and anti-semitism right out the window as anything but a crutch to lean on lest you start to wonder about the morality of it all or need to shut someone up by busting out a bunch of shmaltz about various pograms and try and pretend this is the same sort thing in terms of Palestinian violence when in reality it's the Palestinians who are the victims. Every settler society does this, America had it's settlers being beset by attacking natives, Israel has it's "terrorists", and it's all bullshit.

In case you hadn't noticed, it's international. It impacts the whole world. The actions of the U.S., the UN, the EU, the Arab world and others are all involved.

When one of the major players (really two, since the EU makes a pretty big UN bloc) shows a major rise in anti-Semitic activity, that's big news. Since the leaders of the EU -- Germany and France -- have a bad recent history when dealing with the Jewish people, this makes it HUGE news.

As for your last comment, so when a psycho murdering terrorist blows up civilians in a pizza parlor, that's "all bullshit?"

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

Thanks for playing.

using the suffering of others as a tool to feed the hate.

they are bullshit

He said no. So, why are you still asking the same question?


Violet...

Or perhaps he thought there had been a change of opinion.

Strange. Repeated asking of a question after it's been answered comes across more as hounding. Why on earth would someone think someone else has had a change of opinion within such a short time?

Violet...

I'll define that as any sort of attempt to "battle" anti-semitism that through some magic jujitsu always without fail is coming from the mouths of Israeli hasbara artists and has some context regarding Israel and the Palestinians.

I started this off with a boycott and this is my last word on the fraud.

The French ambassador in Israel was interviewed today on TV. Combating anti-semitism in France is very much in the process. Educational programs include a section on Jewish hisotry and a vist to Auschwitz for all public school children.

Also notes that France and Italy are at the lowest level of incidents of anti-Semitism among the EU nations.

my proof

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=35851

Who killed the last primeminister?

your proof sucks.

All the proves is that Israel has law enforcement against
terrorism and violence.

Maybe the PLO should take some lessons in law enforcement.
Oh...but it must be hard while arafat is paying them
$ 50,000 a month to PROMOTE terrorism and violence.

the indignation is all an act.

Obviously

Jingo bells, jingo bells

lol....silence is proof of what??

Lets hear it, Willie....let it out.

If it had happened in the WB:

There were 51 incidents nationwide in April, "most of them assaults on individuals", compared with 12 in March and seven in February. Some of the assaults resulted in the hospitalisation of the victims with serious injuries.

Something like this would have been trumpeted over and over on this forum. (substituting Palestinians for Jews, of course)

To Arabs, silly.

in the WB. NOthing near to this intensity. Also, there are many muderlous attacks on the Jews in the WB by the Palestinians in the WB. That makes a whole lot of difference. the settlers sometimes take punishment (revenge) into their own hands.

Those are ILLEGAL settlements and Israel is solely responsible for those settlers and their security as they are not on Israeli land! If you occupy land you tend to take the consequences for such policy, like it or not...

That is dependant on many factors. Some so-called settlements were there before '48.

It's as easy as that. What I find disturbing is that there appear to be quite a few folk around who focus solely on condemning one form of bigotry while ignoring and sometimes even defending other forms of bigotry based on how it all fits into their political views on the I/P conflict. And there's a certain degree of insincerity in using a report on one form of bigotry to make sweeping comments about Europeans. The I/P conflict is of course going to exacerbate bigotry towards Jews and Arabs, which is another in a long line of reasons as to why the conflict must end sooner rather than later in a peaceful manner that's fair to both Israelis and Palestinians....

Violet...

Sweeping comment of the night: Not all Europeans are anti-Semites. Heck might not even be most. But based on THEIR OWN REPORT, they have one hell of a problem. When you throw in their history of anti-Semitism, it takes on a much worse appearance.

Now, a quick question, how do you propose to end the conflict, "in a peaceful manner that's fair to both Israelis and Palestinians" and actually get peace? If you can figure that out, hats off to ya.

Of course they have a problem with racism and bigotry. Every place in the world has a problem with racism and bigotry.

If the problem is worldwide, why is that downplayed, and every attempt in Israel to reduce violence is called bigotry?

And what exactly do you mean by "every attempt in Israel to reduce violence is called bigotry"? Are you referring to the efforts of peace groups, or the efforts of Sharon?

This is not necessarily Sharon, you know. There are efforts from other major political parties, and efforts to reduce the effects of violence by personal checks of all Palestinians on entry through check points, efforts to arrest terrorists, their leaders, and reduce the levels of infiltration into Israel. The building of a separation barrier is the measure which would allow IDF to pull back from the WB. Without the wall, there would be a continuous need for the IDF to search for and arrest terrorists. Few here actually realize that arresting terrorists necessitates entry into the WB.

But Europe keeps having the same problems year after year, decade after decade, century after century. And when it gets really bad, we get Inquisition, pogrom or Holocaust.

Few places on Earth have such a long record of one type of negative accomplishment. From the conquest and eventual destruction of Jerusalem brought on Roman soldiers to persecution, pogrom, murder (small scale and large) to this day.

Such a horrific stain is not easily washed away.

"Few places on Earth have such a long record of one type of negative accomplishment."

Few places on Earth have such a long record of accomplishment of any kind. The historical record of Euro-Mediterranean populations goes back at least 5000 years. Parts of Asia might be the only places on Earth you could possibly use as a comparison.

Get back to me when the New World has a recorded history of 5000 years.

SYDNEY ANTI-SEMITISM WATCH
First it was the stencilled "Jews: The New Nazis" grafitti that appeared on sidewalks all around town. Now anti-Semitism in Sydney has taken a new, more violent turn. As reported in my local weekly, the Wentworth Courier (I haven't seen this mentioned in any of the dailies),

An arson attack at a Yeshiva College residence has left several students without accomodation and led to renewed calls for vigilance by the Jewish community.

A fire was lit at the Yeshiva Gedola Rabbinical College boarding house at Bondi about 8 am last Friday.

Fortunately, no one was home or injured in the attack, which "caused extensive damage to the property."

The article suggests this could be part of a trend:

An annual study released last week by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry has found that more than 500 anti-Semitic incidents had been reported in the last year. Hate mail and attacks against Jews were at their second highest level in 14 years.

http://www.gravett.org/dailyjames/archives/2003_12.html#013385

and this is supposed to be now a major threat to Jews living there? Then I guess those Arabs/Muslims that get killed in some incidents around the world (Britain) should all be packing since their life is on stake? LOL

Life as an abused minority is not like life for anyone else.

For Jewish people who have suffered for 2,000 years, this is especially true. Imagine you lost whole branches of your family to Nazis. That is not a history lesson. Many Jewish families still have one or two members who survived the Holocaust to tell exactly how horrific it was.

Now imagine you see images of something like that, don't you think you might consider it could happen again? Don't you think that would be a bit unsettling? Scary?

of my family to the nazis (some in concentration camps like Dachau) and I do know what that means...

Can conjure images of the return of such animals as the Nazis.

But for now I don't see that happening in Europe as there are many safeguards that won't allow that to happen. I do not think a new Hitler is going to come up as people do learn from history to not make the same mistakes and let that happen. Yes there are cases of anti-semitism, like statues desecrated, certain buildings set on fire (either by neonazis or others) and I do think that needs to be delt with. But saying that such cases are now like 1942 revisited is an great exaggeration in my mind. I would like to see a survey of European Jews stating that they feel there lives are threatened and that Europe is not safe for them. If you lead me to such survey that represents a large part of them then I may believe you. But as far as I know nothing even close to that has happened. Those events may not be pleasant, but they'r still not the situation in Hitler's Germany. Or do you think I am that much ignorant and blind to not see or hear that? If I am wrong, then let me be damned for that...

But that doesn't mean things won't get decidedly worse for Jews living there. Hitler, Stalin, Mao are unique dictators with absolute power and absolute bloodlust. History is not filled with such men. They are, thankfully unique.

I think we are nowhere near 1942 in Europe. But a cautious person might say that Europe could easily be in the 1930s.

I don't have a survey of Europe Judaism and I think it would be hard to create. The Jewish communities in Europe in many cases are small and scattered. Yes, there are many Jews in France, so that would probably be the best place to survey and get a decent opinion.

The president of the CRIF, whose website this report is published on, recently scoffed at an Israeli government visitor to France when he claimed that the situtation was getting so bad in Europe many Jews would probably immigrate to Israel.

Let me say that again: The president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France scoffed at the notion that the situation of Jews in France was worsening.

You say, "...a cautious person might say that Europe could easily be in the 1930s." A cautious person, or someone with no knowledge of the facts on the ground who is given to unnecessary hand-wringing.

actually living in Europe know better about the situation then someone elsewhere who would want to believe they're in some real danger...

They couldn't believe in the 1930's that their countrymen could turn on them as so many obviously have now...unless you deny the Shoah, too...

...that you know more about the situation of French Jews than the president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, I suggest you write him to alert him to the "danger." I'm sure he'll have no trouble communicating with you in English and will, no doubt, find your observations edifying.

Roger Cukierman, Président
C.R.I.F.
Conseil représentatif des Institutions juives de France
Espace Rachi : 39, rue Broca - 75005 Paris - FRANCE
Tél.: +33 (0)1 42 17 11 11
Fax: +33 (0)1 42 17 11 50
infocrif@crif.org

The students were left without shelter, probably loosing all their belongings. Is it only Palestinians who some have sympathy for. I wonder....

we don't have sympathy for such cases? Not me!

in any nation when a group of persons is attacked on the basis of nationality. Don't you agree? No, it is not Dachau, but Dachau happen out of the blue. Kristallnacht is seen by many as the first warning of the impending horrors. This was a Pogrom which hundreds of synagogues were vandalized and destroyed throughout Germany. Jews were also attacked and close to 100 were killed.

Rising anti-semitism is a warning in Germany and this incident in Sydny is a reminder that there are no longer any boarders to this, it is worldwide.

however one would need to access fire investigation reports to ascertain if this blaze was deliberate..also I can assure you if this was a confirmed racist attack it would be huge news here (australia)..I may have missed it (unlikely)..the jewish community and muslim communities are important parts of our social fabric and the fact they are in conflict, surely must manifest itself in hate mail, slogans etc..but let me assure you racism and bigotry is not confined to just anti-semitism, muslims have been exposed to hatred and slander through major news outlets in this country for many years..maybe it just sells newspapers..

.