bub

yeah, the point was that there isn't a widepsread antisemitism in Europe anymore. During the electoral campaign, no one talked about sarkozy's ethnicity

__________________
===|:-)

creation

In the case of the first war, this civil conflict was instigated by the imposition of a settlement which the native local majority in the main opposed and had never agreed to. Further as the conflict escalated it was the Isreali side that repeatedly crossed into enemy population territory to seize ground.

The other wars we see again Isreali forces either invade or already be occupying enemy territory or even settling on it. Ill happily concede however that leading up to these events were numerous smaller incidents that one can use as justifications for larger incidents, however these provocations occur on both sides repeatedly, we clearly see Isreali forces moving or already being present on land not designated to by the UN plan which it itself actually agreed to.

I will bear in mind that you have stated that I have 'lost credibility'. Does that mean we can continue discussion? Or should I move on to other forum topics?

Gardener

To be valid, shouldn't a point have some manner of truth to it instead of being such a bald faced lie?



ADL survey finds anti-Semitism strong in Europe - The Boston Globe


Hot Air Blog Archive Anti-Semitism rising in Europe


Hot Air Blog Archive Anti-Semitism rising in Europe

__________________
You lack lust; you're so lackluster. Is that all the strength you can muster?

Apocalypse

The Israeli independence war has started right after the declaration of the Israeli state.
This declaration was done legally while staying in accordance with the international community and the United Nations.
The UN and the international community have decided to divide the land of Mandate Palestine under the British rule into three different nations.
Two nations would be Arab nations(Jordan, Palestine), and one nation would be Jewish.

The Jordanians have begun establishing their nation with accordance to the partition plan and were the first to do so.
The Jews have then begun establishing their own state, the State of Israel, and have declared its independence at 1948.
The Palestinian Arabs however, have rejected the partition plan and have decided to declare a war of annihilation on the newly declared Jewish state.
This war was then joined in by 5 other Arab nations, supported by many other Arab nations around the world, all sending troops to fight tiny Israel.
Hence, history puts the responsibility for this war on the Arab nations and the Palestinian Arabs' hands.

Another example would be the Six-Day war.
In May, 1967, the Egyptian President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, has expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula.
Egypt has then amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border and closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials - an act of war.

And the third and last example would be the Yom-Kippur war:
In October, 1973, Egypt and Syria has launched a joint surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism.
Now I would like to give a few more words to this specific war and your claim that Israel is responsible for it:
To claim that the Jewish state would go to a war on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, when people are not even allowed to drive in the streets not to speak about waging wars - is ignorance incarnate.

I have stated that I would like to hear your opinion as to what makes you think(Solely you) that Israel was responsible for all of those listed wars, however irrational your opinion would be.

__________________
"As a well-spent day brings happy sleep, so life well used brings happy death."

-Leonardo de Vinci

bub

and what do they call "anti-semitism"? Your blog talks about "sympathy for the palestinian cause"!?! If "being resolutely against the colonisation of West Bank" or "thinking that the Gaza Raid was disproportionate" is "antisemitism", then yes, most of the Europeans are probably "antisemite".

But if "antisemitism" is "having prejudice against jewish people because of their religion", I really doubt that the numbers of your blog are true. Again, the best proof is probably Sarkozy (or Daniel Cohn Bendit), who has got a jewish background and has been elected president

__________________
===|:-)

Harshaw

They attacked Israel.

So, you're saying that Israel alone among the community of nations has ever kept land acquired after a war? (Especially one it didn't start?) Even recently?

__________________
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009: Dissent is the highest form of racism.

Apocalypse

Is it immoral to conquer land from a nation that has tried to conquer yours?
Was it immoral when Israel took the West Bank from Jordan or the Gaza Strip from Egypt after they declared a war on it with their aims being destroying Israel?

More importantly, when a person attacks another with the intent of murder, and the attacked person breaks the attacker's arm in self-defense, is it immoral?
Should the attacked person be punished by the law?

__________________
"As a well-spent day brings happy sleep, so life well used brings happy death."

-Leonardo de Vinci

Gardener

To an antisemite, NOTHING is ever antisemitic. Only those who are fair minded will notice the prejudice.

This will detail methodology and questions asked to those who ARE fair minded, though.


http://www.adl.org/Public%20ADL%20An...2009%20_3_.pdf

__________________
You lack lust; you're so lackluster. Is that all the strength you can muster?

Harshaw

There's about 1/4 of Germany which became part of Poland and Russia following WWII. (Or heck, half of Poland which became Russia.) No one complains about that.

__________________
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009: Dissent is the highest form of racism.

creation

Thank you.

As can be seen here, the local majority population had a settlement imposed on it and sought to prevent it, the civil war already under way before 1948 and only Isreali forces crossed into enemy territory. Hence history puts responsibility for this war on Isreali hands, though one could add in the British and various Isreali support in the UN to this.



Indeed, another example. Isreali forces strike conventional targets on a number of fronts and seize more land. No Egyptian forces cross the Isreali border and no ships on the straits were actually seized.



Yes, of course, but that is not the basis on which responsibility rests. At this time Isreali forces had been on Egyptian soil for years and were even expanding into new areas for the creation of eretz Isreal. That is the basis of responsibility.

The thing here is Im sure you already know all these counter arguments, so its really a waste of time presenting them on this thread which is after all about a rather different subject.

Yes, thank you. And I have, though of course it is not solely me.