Why Europe Hates israel

[Skeptic]

I've been thinking about this, and I think those who believe it is due to the resurgent of the old antisemitism of pre-WWII (which Hitler gave a bad name to temporarily) is part, but not the most important part, of the answer.

Europe both created and was ravaged by that most horrible of movements up to that time, Fascism and (especially) Nazism. After Auschwitz, the Europeans reached two conclusions:

1). We will never allow ourselves to ignore genocidal evil in the world again.
2). We will never use force in the world again.

Conclusion #1 was due to their suffering in WWII. Conclusion #2 was due to the fact that they were the perpetrators, as well as the victims, of the suffering.

The problem is that #1 and #2 are self-contradictory: if some genocidal evil DOES show up, what do you do against it? You must give up at least one of the two cherished beliefs. Either you fight it and give up #2, or you ignore it and give up #1.

For this reason, whenever such an evil showed up, Europe did anything and everything to convince itself that it wasn't really THAT bad, and not REALLY an evil.

The first example was Communism. Even after the exposition of Stalin's crimes, the Europeans were reluctant to arm themselves against the USSR, and excused this by convincing themselves that the USSR wasn't really THAT bad and Communism merely an "alternative system" to a free society; that the USA shares at least as much blame for the cold war as the totalitarian world; that both sides are at least somewhat correct--anything, just in order not to admit that it was really evil.

Today the same is done with Islamo-Fascism. It is clear to everybody that it is a genocidal evil, whose ultimate goal is the killing, or at least subjugation and conversion, of all those who are not Muslims (or more precisely, who are not THEIR kind of Muslims). But to admit the threat means that one must either fight it--and fighting is a no-no for Europeans today--or admit that one is is impotent or unwilling to fight evil.

So denial is the order of the day. The suicide bomber was suely doing it just because he was "desperate"; the calls for the genocide of the jews and conversion of the rest of the world are just "rhetorical flourish"; the WTC bombing was something that the US had coming due to its "imperialism"; and so on and so forth. Since the evil is denied in this way, the more he Islamo-Fascist hate someone, the more he DESERVES to be hated; surely, they wouldn't hate someone for no good reason--it's not as if they're BAD people, is it?

Hence the hatered of israel: since it is the most hated by the Islamo-Fascists, and since it JUST CANNOT BE that the Islamo-Fascists are evil, it must surely had done awful things to deserve this hatered.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Cripes! All of Europe hates Israel? I know you're the master at assertion without evidence, but you've really topped yourself this time.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You're wonderful, Skeptic.

My doctor has yet to prescribe your rantings as "curing by laughter", but I expect it will happen anytime now.

Thanks.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto Cripes! All of Europe hates Israel? I know you're the master at assertion without evidence, but you've really topped yourself this time.

Perhaps he just assumed everyone would know of today's vote in the United Nations.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040720/wl_nm/mideast_barrier_un_dc

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Perhaps he just assumed everyone would know of today's vote in the United Nations.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040720/wl_nm/mideast_barrier_un_dc

Since Skeptic didn't mention anything about the UN voting against the Gaza wall (which has it's own interesting parallels to WWII, which I'm sure have escaped his intellect), I didn't know that this was the issue he was referring to.

And so what? Europe was hardly alone. There were only six dissenters and ten absentees. One hundred and fifty nations voted against the wall. They must all hate Israel.

Either that, or it's more of a case of the alcoholic's friends telling him that he shouldn't have that next whiskey. Which is it, I wonder?

 

[a_unique_person]

I think I have you worked out at last, Skeptic. You are obviously intelligent, but that intelligence is wasted on paranoia and obsessive compulsion.

I have met your personality type, and it usually has to do with religion affecting a developing mind.

Thousands of years of debate, yearning, obsession, contradiction, despair and desire are crammed into one young, developing, defenceless mind. It tries to meet all these contradictory demands, and cannot. It collapses into a paranoic and unstable state.

The one thing it needed to learn was to be able to let go, and look after itself. To be able to relax and not solve every wrong in the world, NOW!

You, Skeptic, cannot change the world. You cannot understand the whole world, or explain the whole course of history. You cannot even understand yourself.

Try to just let it go sometimes. Try to just think in terms of individuals, all from the same species, all born with basically the same motivations and desires, before the world gets to us. Deep down, we are all very much the same, and want the same the same things for ourselves and each other.

The world, and all it's problems, will still be here when you get back. That I can guarantee.

 

[Skeptic]

Either that, or it's more of a case of the alcoholic's friends telling him that he shouldn't have that next whiskey. Which is it, I wonder?

Well, let's see.

According to the just and not at all biased UN, here are the things israel MUST NOT do against terror:

1). Build a wall to keep terrorists out ("Apartheid!")
2). Kill the leaders of the terrorist organizations ("State-sponsored terrorism!")
3). Kill terrorists ("innocent victims!")
4). Look for terrorists where they hide ("invasion! agression!")
5). Send troops in to destroy terrorist bases ("massacre!")
6). Stop terrorist funding ("poor charisites stopped by the racist jews!")

In fact, the UN has condemned EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF ACTION israel had tried fighting against terror. I suppose that it's still allowed to shout "go away!" whenever a suicide bomber is seen, as long as the jew doesn't shout too loudly and violates the Palestinians' inalianable right to a quiet evening, of course.

(Then again, perhaps shouting "go away" is a racist insult. I'll have to ask the experts in the "anti-racism conference" the UN organized in Durban, SA, a few years back... which became the largest antisemitic rally since the 1930s, prompting both israel and the USA to quit the conference in disgust.)

If it's "friendly" advise for the "out of control" israel, as you suggest, then one wonders why it's israel's enemies, not its declared friends, that submit most of these condemnations (israel's "friends" simply vote for it once it's submitted), and why the "friendly" advice is the equivalent of telling a battered wife to do everything he says and not fight back, so maybe he'll be nicer and stop hitting her... and that it's all her fault, anyway.

As they say, with friends like these...

 

[Ion]

...
Well, let's see.

According to the just and not at all biased UN, here are the things israel MUST NOT do against terror:

1). Build a wall to keep terrorists out ("Apartheid!")
...

"...israel MUST NOT do against terror..." and "...Build a wall to keep terrorists out ("Apartheid!")...", Skeptic?

I catch you lying:

Israel's wall is in non-Israel land, and that's the problem, not the wall but the fact that Israel is confiscating foreign land.

 

[Mycroft]

Since Skeptic didn't mention anything about the UN voting against the Gaza wall (which has it's own interesting parallels to WWII, which I'm sure have escaped his intellect), I didn't know that this was the issue he was referring to.

And so what? Europe was hardly alone. There were only six dissenters and ten absentees. One hundred and fifty nations voted against the wall. They must all hate Israel.

Either that, or it's more of a case of the alcoholic's friends telling him that he shouldn't have that next whiskey. Which is it, I wonder?

Argumentum ad populum.

 

[armageddonman]

According to the just and not at all biased UN, here are the things israel MUST NOT do against terror:

1). Build a wall to keep terrorists out ("Apartheid!")
2). Kill the leaders of the terrorist organizations ("State-sponsored terrorism!")
3). Kill terrorists ("innocent victims!")
4). Look for terrorists where they hide ("invasion! agression!")
5). Send troops in to destroy terrorist bases ("massacre!")
6). Stop terrorist funding ("poor charisites stopped by the racist jews!")

Stupid strawmen.

1. No-one objects to Israel building a wall, as long as they do it on their own territory.
2. Killing suspected Terrorists without Israel's borders and without trial is against international law and thus illegal.
3. See above.
4. And by doing this, demolishing the homes of civilians which is also against international law.
5. Sources?

As you can see, Israel acts against international law and this is what people object against. Why don't they build a wall on their own territory? Why don't they arrest and try suspected terrorists instead of killing them and innocent bystanders with bombs and missiles?

Why does Israel think it stands above international law?
Why the whining when someone objects to Israel's breaches of international law and UN resolutions?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Either that, or it's more of a case of the alcoholic's friends telling him that he shouldn't have that next whiskey. Which is it, I wonder?

Well, let's see.

According to the just and not at all biased UN, here are the things israel MUST NOT do against terror:

Stop right there. You do realise that the UN is a coalition of nations, and doesn't tell those nations how to vote, right?

Right?

Mycroft: Argumentum ad populum doesn't come into it. Skeptic started a thread entitled 'why Europe hates Israel' followed by an unsupported rant consisting of half-baked theories (if you could call them that) on why this is so. I pointed out that he hasn't provided evidence. You pointed out the latest UN vote. I pointed out that there is world wide condemnation of the Gaza wall. Skeptic should, therefore, have entitled his thread, "why the world hates Israel". Which would have been interesting.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Stop right there. You do realise that the UN is a coalition of nations, and doesn't tell those nations how to vote, right?

It doesn't matter. By a majority vote, the UN demonstrates its collective will.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Mycroft: Argumentum ad populum doesn't come into it. Skeptic started a thread entitled 'why Europe hates Israel' followed by an unsupported rant consisting of half-baked theories (if you could call them that) on why this is so. I pointed out that he hasn't provided evidence. You pointed out the latest UN vote. I pointed out that there is world wide condemnation of the Gaza wall. Skeptic should, therefore, have entitled his thread, "why the world hates Israel". Which would have been interesting.

Oh please, tell me that Either that, or it's more of a case of the alcoholic's friends telling him that he shouldn't have that next whiskey. Which is it, I wonder? didn't indicate agreement with the vote. Placed just one line removed from the UN tally with no other supporting evidence, what else could it be?

I have no idea if Skeptic had the UN vote in mind or not, but all of Europe did vote for the resolution. Other nations also voting for it does not change that. He is certainly free to narrow the scope of his speculation.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

It doesn't matter. By a majority vote, the UN demonstrates its collective will.

Skeptic was saying, via sarcasm, that the UN is biased. His position necessitates that the UN somehow has an influence on how 150 nations votes. If he can demonstrate how that can be, I'd like to see it. If he meant something else by his comment about UN bias, I'd like to see it.

Oh please, tell me that Either that, or it's more of a case of the alcoholic's friends telling him that he shouldn't have that next whiskey. Which is it, I wonder? didn't indicate agreement with the vote. Placed just one line removed from the UN tally with no other supporting evidence, what else could it be?

I have no idea if Skeptic had the UN vote in mind or not, but all of Europe did vote for the resolution. Other nations also voting for it does not change that. He is certainly free to narrow the scope of his speculation.

Argumentum ad populum is only really useful in scientific debates. In the political sphere, it isn't really much of a fallacy. John Howard is Prime Minister. Why? The majority voted for him. Argumentum ad Populum. How, then, are we to progress in what is right and what is wrong in a political debate?

In other words, you can't use scientific parameters to define a political discourse.

 

[Esther]

I believe that Europe's traditional anti-semitism can be explained by two facts:1. European civilization was established on the greco-roman tradition that was characterized by a contemp towards the jews 2.Europeans embraced Christianity which is rampantly anti-semitic. The establishment of Israel is only an excuse to the european hatred towards the jews that goes really back in time. It's not easy for people to escape their tradition especially when they do not wish to.

 

[BillyTK]

Why America hates Europe

All Americans hate Europe because they just carnt understand why Europeans don't want to be American. As some Europeans are Jews, this also means that Americans are anti-Semitic. Americans also eat babies.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Skeptic was saying, via sarcasm, that the UN is biased. His position necessitates that the UN somehow has an influence on how 150 nations votes.

No it doesn't, that doesn't even make sense.

If a number of fundamentalist Christians are elected membership on a school board, then that political body would become biased in favor of fundamentalist Christianity, and we shouldn't be surprised if they vote to make the teaching of evolution optional. The school board would not need to influence the votes of its individual members for this bias to become apparent in its voting record.

This is true of any voting body. If enough of its members are biased, the body as a whole becomes biased. This is not the same as saying each individual member of the body is biased.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Argumentum ad populum is only really useful in scientific debates. In the political sphere, it isn't really much of a fallacy. John Howard is Prime Minister. Why? The majority voted for him.

Argumentum ad populum is especially relevant in political debates. A majority vote may determine what policy is followed, but it does not determine which policy is best. Just because John Howard is the one elected does not mean John Howard was the best choice.

Think of my previous example. It's very possible that in some school district somewhere there is a majority of fundamentalist Christians among the population. If they were to elect fundamentalist Christian representatives to their school board and those representatives were to vote to teach creation science instead of evolution, that vote itself does not make creation science credible, nor does it discredit evolution. All that vote does is set policy.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Argumentum ad Populum. How, then, are we to progress in what is right and what is wrong in a political debate?

Democracy doesn't guarantee good decisions. It's chief advantage is to limit the power of the state (people are unlikely to vote for their own exploitation and oppression) and to provide a mechanism where truly disastrous decisions are reversed. Beyond that...well, people are idiots. We very often vote to do dumb things. Progress is very slow.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto In other words, you can't use scientific parameters to define a political discourse.

Argumentum ad populumis especially relevant in political discourse. Most of the ideas we take for granted today were minority opinions at one time.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Why America hates Europe

All Americans hate Europe because they just carnt understand why Europeans don't want to be American. As some Europeans are Jews, this also means that Americans are anti-Semitic. Americans also eat babies.

Only third-world babies. We are not barbarians.

 

[plindboe]

I believe that Europe's traditional anti-semitism can be explained by two facts:1. European civilization was established on the greco-roman tradition that was characterized by a contemp towards the jews 2.Europeans embraced Christianity which is rampantly anti-semitic. The establishment of Israel is only an excuse to the european hatred towards the jews that goes really back in time. It's not easy for people to escape their tradition especially when they do not wish to.

I have 26 years of experience here in Denmark and I haven't once in my entire life encountered anything that can be viewed as anti-semitism. There's some fear and resentment against the muslims coming to our country, but I have never seen anyone expressing the same feelings against jews.

Based on this I'd like to see some evidence of what you call the "european hatred towards the jews".

 

[BillyTK]

I have 26 years of experience here in Denmark and I haven't once in my entire life encountered anything that can be viewed as anti-semitism. There's some fear and resentment against the muslims coming to our country, but I have never seen anyone expressing the same feelings against jews.

Based on this I'd like to see some evidence of what you call the "european hatred towards the jews".

It could be that:
[a] You carnt see the wood for the trees, or;
Esther assumes all the trees are poplars.

With regard to the latter, I have to note that my ancestors were far too concerned about being downtrodden by the English to worry about the plight of the Jews.

 

[LuxFerum]

I believe that Europe's traditional anti-semitism can be explained by two facts:1. European civilization was established on the greco-roman tradition that was characterized by a contemp towards the jews 2.Europeans embraced Christianity which is rampantly anti-semitic.

So did america, why your logic works in one side of the Atlantic and not in the other?.