English are 'anti-semitic'

[lloydie]

I thought the topic was about anti-semitism in England not the nature of the Israeli state, if it is, then I'll make a point....
There would appear to be 2 separate strands of it, the traditional BNP/fascist international conspiracy of capitalist Jewry stance and the the more modern reaction to the middle east situation from radicalised British muslims. Both are stupid, as neither will find the victimisation of UK jewry helps their cause but the former is even less rational and will linger long after, (hopefully) a solution is found for the Palestinian situation.
I see no evidence of a governmental or institutionalised bias against Israel as Peres claims though.<br /><br />-- Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:05 am --<br /><br />

Typical Jew.

I don't like the Arabs neither. Although I'd buy Mansour a beer.

I doubt he'd want to drink with you.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I probably just went off on one there and didn't answer the question, but in short no I don't agree with it. I know there are some attacks on synagogues and am not naive but, as a whole taking into account Britain's support for Israel as a country, I just find this staggering.

For what it's worth I think he's wrong in many respects. For a start, anecdoctal evidence suggests active anti-semitism in France is much worse than here. Britain has always been relatively tolerant and Israel doesn't always help its own cause and is only just starting to realise that good PR doesn't hurt.

There was bad blood between Britain and Israel for a while, simply due to the actions of both sides during the Mandate period but oddly, Israelis respect Britain in many ways, seeing it as a country as tough as itself (e.g. Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, Northern Ireland). The difference is that we used both military and political methods to come to a solution. Chamberlain was undoubtedly anti-semitic and Bevin (post-war Foreign Minister) probably was as well.

That changed, probably after Suez and culminated in 1967, when the public seemed to be overwhelmingly pro-Israeli and the Wilson government took a lot of criticism for trying to be even-handed. No one (including their fellow Arabs) gave two hoots about the Palestinians until the mid-70's and the rise of Black September and the PLO. The failure of the Israeli government to tackle the political issues since the 80's and the rapprocheent with Egypt has been one side of the probem along with the rise of the Islamic fanatics on the Arab side determined to torpedo any chance of peaceful co-existence.

He is however right that people only tend to see things one way, without realising the nuances and full history of the region. People complain about Israel not accepting UN resolutions, forgetting that Arabs haven't either when it suited them and that if they'd accepted the original partition plan in 1947 then they would have had far, far more than they will ever get now.

 

[Citizen52]

The topic of the article is 'the English are anti-Semitic'

It goes onto mention a Mossad operation and historical references to the conflict.

The issues become intertwined for me, so gonna leave it. Goodnight all no offence meant by the first comment.

 

[persvenality cult]

There is a certain over-zealous anti-Israel sentiment in sections of the left, that sometimes gets pandered to, but Cameron's not interested in that. It sounds a bit like Peres finds it hard to come to terms with the fact that Muslims are exercising their democratic rights in the UK. I suppose they weren't as much of a consideration for British Leaders 30, 40 years ago (Peres has been at the top of Israeli politics for 50 years).

ahh, it'll be Cameron's comments about the Lebanon war (2006)

anyway, it's fact time;

My MP is Jewish, I'm sure that's true for a few of us.

The speaker is Jewish.

The next leader of the Labour party will be Jewish.

more amusingly, Kaufman reckons the Conservative party is in thrall to Jewish Financiers.

 

[Damocles]

He is however right that people only tend to see things one way, without realising the nuances and full history of the region. People complain about Israel not accepting UN resolutions, forgetting that Arabs haven't either when it suited them and that if they'd accepted the original partition plan in 1947 then they would have had far, far more than they will ever get now.

I think we've being over this ground a few times PB, and I've learnt to respect your opinion upon these matters, if not necessarily agree with them.

I currently have three little points to make out of your post though.
The first addresses the last paragraph concerning the Arabian actions in the past. One of the problems here is the Western perceptions of the different countries in the Middle East. I honestly believe that the average person in the West looks at the Islamic states as 'different' whilst Israel is 'one of us'; whether this is down to politics, race or clser religious ties, I don't know. Due to this feeling of Israel being 'one of us', we expect Israel to act within the same moral code that we do in respects to it's neighbours. One of the problems of the West is that it isn't surrounded by people who are actively trying to kill them and have being for several thousand years, so perhaps the ability to emphasise is lost. However, it could just be my opinion, but as a state full of 'liike minded people' who share similar Western values in their culture, I for one expect Israel to act and adhere to all of those values. My problem is that Israel as a political force seems to pick and choose when they want to be taken seriously as part of the international community and when they don't. Yes, some of the Arabian states in the past could have taken a certain amount of land, or made a certain concession, but in their view they were fighting a righteous war upon their homeland. That sort of enemy doesn't go away, as Britain are learning to their peril in Afghanistan.
I have seen a diagram knocking about on the internet that I'll post. I want to pre-empt this by saying that I haven't done the research to back this up as true or false, so if anybody can prove it either way, I'd be interested:

[bigimg]http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/israel-palestine_map.jpg[/bigimg]

Secondly, my point comes down to the normalcy of the actions of Isral at present. Two wrongs don't ever make a right, and the idea that because they have slighted you in the past means that you have to go on slighting them, is a little barbaric in it's nature.

Thirdly, I seem to agree with your viewpoint on fundamental Islam though I would argue that the U.S (or the "Great Satan" as it is known) is seen as a far greater evil by most in the Islamic extremism world. I also do not believe that Israel and their lack of action had absolutely anything to do with the rise of fundamentalism within the Middle East; in my view this was down to the mullahs, and the ayatollahs in countries such as Iran, Pakistan and Egypt. It probably didn't help when the "western" society in Egypt tortured them.
Either way, the fundamentalists believe, as far as I can see, in an Islamic state which would achieve zero crime, zero immorality, etc; a utopia of sorts. I see them protesting against Israel as an invader and ally of the US.

Anyway, Israel at the moment is toeing a very thin line in terms of international relations. Cameron has already condemned them for the treatment of prisoners in Gaza, the flotilla certainly didn't help, and the general mood is changing. It seems to be a perfect circle, that Israel is now starting to move towards something that it was setup to prevent; the slaughter of innocent people. This is presuming that nobody believes in Jewish superiority over anybody else, and if they do, then they are the same as the Muslims and the war will never end without the total destruction of one creed.

 

[persvenality cult]

I know it wasn't aimed at me, and I don't really have any view on that post Damocles, but I had to pull you up on a statement upon which you rest quite a bit of your argument about 'empathy'

one of the problems with the west is that people have not been actively trying to kill them for thousands of years.

errrr

no history of war along racial, ethnic, national, religious lines?

remove all that section and I'll read the rest ;)

 

[Damocles]

The English, for example, has had wars over the last few thousand years with the French, Spanish, Scandinavian, Germans, Italians, etc. This is during seperate periods of time, over their histories.
The Jewish and the fundamentalist Islamic war goes pretty much back to the Koran and the actions of Mohammed in Medina, and has never really ceased since, to my knowledge.

 

[persvenality cult]

The English, for example, has had wars over the last few thousand years with the French, Spanish, Scandinavian, Germans, Italians, etc. This is during seperate periods of time, over their histories.
The Jewish and the fundamentalist Islamic war goes pretty much back to the Koran and the actions of Mohammed in Medina, and has never really ceased since, to my knowledge.

It's much deeper than, say, the Hundred Years War.

The historical lines of racial and religious tension in Europe go back a long way. a thousand years, no problem.

The further east you travel the more apparent it becomes there are extremely real tensions along racial lines, the modern day politics of somewhere like Bosnia should tell you all about that. Slav vs Muslim. Nordic vs Slav. even Protestant vs Catholic.

In Britain we haven't had a war on home soil for a while, and quite a few of us feel no part of any particular group involved in these current/historical tensions, so I suppose I could accept that our perspective might be different. But across Europe, as you propose, no way.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Getting late and I need to get my head down for a couple more hours but I'll just say that those maps are misleading, particularly the first one.

The post-1917 Palestine mandate covered the whole area but the Green bit was not all Palestinian land (in the sense it was owned by Arabs) by any stretch of the imagination. The Negev in the south was (and still is) desert and even much of the land north of Ramallah, much of which is now cultivated, was swamp or mountainous.

So giving the Negev to Israel didn't actually deprive the Arabs of anything much, whereas it looks like they los a load when you campare it pre and post partition. The Partition Plan itself may have been slightly generous to the Jews but it broadly recognised the main population centres of each side and was necessary to give them a viable state.

It was however a compromise that no one really wanted although the Jews reluctantly accepted it. The Americans had ideally wanted a single state with the limits on Jewish immigration lifted. The British would probably have agreed to a single state but wanted to maintain strict immigration restrictions (oh the irony). Politically however, the situation had probably deteriorated too far to allow a single state so partition was seen as Plan C.

 

[eagle]

Being disgusted by the situation in Gaza doesn't make you an anti-semite.

Yahweh's coolness notwithstanding, Judaism still makes my top 3 of religions I dislike.

3.Judaism
2.Scientology
1.Islam

I think the Jews will somehow be able to survive without your approval. What about the hindu faith and sikhs?