Is the European Union committing its biggest crime?

Saturday April 25, 2009 23:25

by Abdullah Elneihum

Investigating the European Union's decision on building a European trade agreement with a country that reportedly severely abuses the most basic of human rights of another nation of people.

I thought it rather interesting during the humiliating display of arrogant rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad in the U.N.'s Anti-Racism summit. But I thought the walk-out even more interesting. Many “Western” representatives disrespected the summit to begin with because they believed that 2nd and 3rd World countries would be “blaming the West for everything”. Not to downplay the fact that many of these countries are suffering from their own questionable leaderships, the walk out however, was a display of Europe's complete lack of care and disregard to its democratic responsibilities. Is it really believable that “The West” isn't responsible for so much of the suffering elsewhere in the world?

Can these people not speak out and have their voice, regardless of where our Western principles stand? After all, if there's one thing we're all predisposed to in Europe is monotonous, droning drivel about being part of the frontier of democracy and liberty in the modern world. That said, the walk out on Ahmadinejad was in itself not only racist, but a pompous display of European elitism. The journalistic and political commentary that followed was no different.
President Ahmadinejad is not fit to represent his country in The West. His views are extreme and can be largely conspiratorial. Regardless, what kind of supposed democracy do we live in if we have a huge problem tolerating someone like this man. It is obvious to say that it is detrimental to democracy to be intolerant and unnaccepting of alternative or conflicting points of view.

A huge concern is the West's unshakable, unquestioning devoutness to Israel.
It is concrete, documented fact that over 5 million Jews died in Europe in the early 20th Century. It is also fact that 160 million people, the Jewish Holocaust included, died in wars during the 20th Century.

The argument that the Jewish Holocaust was particularly special because it singled out Jews due to their ethnicity isn't true. Looking at Nazi death tolls, Hitler murdered about 21,000,000 people, of whom were 11 million Eastern Slavs. These Slavs were ethnically targeted. It is, however, the 5 million Jews that have become much the center of media and political coverage in the last 60-70 years. [1]

A particular use of language that belittles the injustice and outrage experienced in the Middle East is heavy in, predominantly Western, mainstream media. This has (globally) allowed us to accept genocide and mass murder and other such events through complex language filtering systems.

In Article 2 of the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), it is stated that “any acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. [2]

Countless news reports, documentaries and investigations have asserted that the State of Israel has been in breach of the human rights of the Palestinian people since the founding of the State in 1948. Europe cannot possibly play the oblivious card.

When a little village in Spain decided to commemorate “Palestinian Genocide Day” as a protest on the same day as the global “Holocaust Remembrance Day”, the Anti-Defamation League wrote:
“Applying the term 'genocide' to the Arab-Israeli conflict encourages hatred toward the State of Israel and deliberately insults those of us, both Jews and non-Jews, who seek to solemnly commemorate the victims of the Nazi campaign of slaughter."

We now live in a world where it is difficult to criticise the Israeli State in fear of being trumped as a xenophobic anti-Semite. On the other side, it is a matter of fact that there are now 4th or 5th generation Jews since the occupation of the Palestinian land and with the way things are, it would be both unreasonable, unrealistic and unethical to demand the removal of the Israeli State. But the issue hasn't been developed towards a resolve of the conflict, instead it has been concentrated on minimising or distorting the volumes of information of human rights breaches by Israel which have yet to be critically addressed and acted upon by the European Union.

In light of all the controversy of Israel's many offences and human rights breaches of the past 60 years, the E.U. still allowed Israel a privilege that other nations were denied. On the 21st of June 2000, the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement was signed, opening European trade to the State of Israel. The E.U. has yet to criticize and/or penalise Israel's handling of the Palestinian situation. Instead, there has been an active inadvertence of the Palestinian problem and support for the Israeli state, where instead of acting on the U.N. charter against genocide and the breach of its own human rights declaration, the European Union continues to callously integrate Israel further into European trade as part of its European Enlargement program.

However, recently, in March 2009, The European Commission has raised concerns over proposed demolitions of homes in Palestine that would leave up to 1000 Palestinians homeless. A declaration was made by the Presidency and the European Commission that “the EU is deeply concerned about the threat of demolition to approximately 90 houses in the Al-Bustan / Silwan area adjacent to the Old City in East Jerusalem. [...] The EU urges the Israeli authorities to prevent the demolition of Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem.”[3] The same declaration also acknowledges that the Israeli authorities have undergone a similar demolition practise in 1967. Yet, regardless of its own acknowledgements – the E.U. continues to support a country that has oppressed a whole nation of Arabs and is in breach of the most basic human rights.

The E.U.'s 'Euro-Israeli Action Plan' does indeed touch on the subject of the “Middle East Situation” and claims that it will open dialogue between Palestine (popularly known as the Palestinian Authority), Israel and Europe to try and settle the conflict. The Action Plan also draws up the very politically correct criticism of Israel's previous 'counter-terrorist defences' to “[minimise] the impact of security and counter-terrorism measures on the civilian population, facilitate the secure and safe movement of civilians and goods, safeguarding, to the maximum possible, property, institutions and infrastructure.”

The Action Plan also goes on to declare that it acknowledges Israel's retaliations to “terrorism”. It is rather erroneous of the European Union to even use a word as ambiguous as “terrorism” because of its biased rhetoric. Not only does it undermine the Palestinian people's struggle but it abolishes the very idea of Israel's terrorism on the Palestinian people. The very nature of the word "terrorist" is pejorative and prompts a lack of legitimacy and morality. [4] But given the evidence of the E.U.'s self-contradicting coupling with Israel, it could very well be intentional on the part of the European Union.

On the 17th March 2005, a U.N. panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." [4]

As debatable a topic as Hamas' legitimacy is, the party was nevertheless founded in Palestine to offer Palestinians an alternative to the Palestine Liberation Organization and was democratically elected in January 2006 to serve the Palestinians. Under the U.N. definition, it can be argued that Hamas is a nationalist resistance force against an extremely powerful, vicious and oppressive neighbouring opponent. The recent events in Gaza (January 2008) only fortifies this judgement.

The language to describe Palestine has also changed. It is argued that because the Palestinians have never formed an actual State, due to only existing in settlements, therefore Palestine was never a plausible country to begin with. [6] If that argument were reasonable, then what gives El Salvador, Guatemala, Congo and Algeria the right to self determination?

The scattering of Palestine is credited to the removal of Palestinians from their homelands to settle in other countries or alternatively to become refugees in their own homes through systematic Israeli legislation. Palestine can no longer be perceived as a country, because it has apparently never been one. Ergo, Palestinians are now the settlers. Even if this argument stood, it does not legitimise the confiscation and demolition of Palestinian homes and businesses and to nullify the citizenships of a whole people. These are all discriminations that breach the CPPCG. However, the European Union is undeterred to have Israel as an ally even considering its highly reported violations.

The Holocaust has often been a safe retreat from arguments on Israel. It was one of the worst human atrocities in history and its commemoration is vital. But bridging the Holocaust to every discrimination of Israel is not democratic. It is oppressive and a severe attack on liberty. The only connection that the Arab-Israeli conflict has with the Holocaust is that in post-World War II Europe, guilt had brushed Europe's Jewish problem under someone else's carpet. The Israeli settlements that followed were to be the last significant, imperialist British act on the indigenous Palestinian Arab people.

It must so be further instigated, that people who criticize Israel on the grounds of the Palestinian situation are not to be labelled Neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic sponsors of terrorism. The Jewish holocaust seems to be now like a red card, waved against anyone who disagrees with Israel's militant force, its blatant motives and the “you're either with us or against us” policies and attitude of its right-wing politics.

Upon inspecting Palestinian death tolls, 61000 mostly-Palestinian arabs have been murdered, hundreds of thousands injured and millions more forcibly removed from their homes since 1948. And yet, the illegal occupation of land, blatant human rights breaches coupled with global outrage at Israel's handling of the Palestinian people is not enough for the European Union to have reconsidered its union with Israel.

Is it possible for the Europe Union to account for its mistakes and shake Israel out of its delirious state of denial before it is too late? Will our journalists and media corporations continue to propogate the words of powerful, tyranical nations without argument in fear of breaching the so-called boundaries of the freedom of the press? Is it possible that this would happen before the ordinary Israeli citizen cries out “We didn't know!” to the world? Or will that citizen even remember the Palestinians?

__________________________________
Research:
[1] http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/category/genocide/

[2] http://www.criminaljusticedegreehq.com/prevention-and-punishment-of-genocide

[3] http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pre...1.pdf

[4] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Definition+of...orism

[5]http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/action_plans/israel_e...n.pdf

[6] http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remem....html

save preference

Comments (13 of 13)

Not understanding?

by Mike Novack

Sun Apr 26, 2009 14:46

"The argument that the Jewish Holocaust was particularly special because it singled out Jews due to their ethnicity isn't true. Looking at Nazi death tolls, Hitler murdered about 21,000,000 people, of whom were 11 million Eastern Slavs........."

So you don't understand the "special part"? I'll try to explain.

a) Think in terms of percentages of the total. The six million Jews killed represented the overwelming majority of European Jews in existence. And this was an attempt (intention) to kill all of them, to make Eurpope "Judenrein". The only other European ehtnic group so treated were the Roma. The Eastern Slavs, etc. weren't slated for elimiantion, just reduced in numbers a bit and relegaton to slaves.

b) The problem (for the Jews and Europe) was NOT that this was Hitler and Germany. It was the enthusiastic support ofr the project on the part of many other Europeans. This was not entirely predicatble as some of the occupied peoples, although in the past quite anti-semetic, did not coperate with the project as a form of resistance to the Germans. But in many other places, the occupation was used as a "good excuse" (the Germans didn't round up Jews in France -- the French did).

Do you understand what I am saying here? The few survivors were NOT welcomed home after the war in most places.

c) You want to say "the Jews don't belong in their ancient homeland -- they are Europeans and belong in Europe"? Have you asked around among your fellow Europeans? You find a lot of them saying "Jews are our fellow Europeans"? Or are you really trying to say the equivalent of "Jews off the planet" and then get surprised that your message doesn't find acceptance among Jews; that they don't care about your opinion in the matter, that they in fact expect your attitude toward them.

It should not surprise you if the Jews don't give a damn about how their continued existence causes problems for you, interferes perhaps with your preferred political projects. So be it.

The EU , the UN and That Speech.

by Vincent

Sun Apr 26, 2009 17:44

Of course the EU should suspend all upgrades with Israel until war crimes in Gaza are fully investigated. Upon the outcome of the investigation punitive actions in the form of embargos and suspensions should be imposed and pressure brought to bear in proportion with the wieght of the inevitable crimes yet uncovered.
The inevitable conflation with these investigation with alleged anti-semitism is just that, inevitable.

The furore over the Amahdinejad speech is a futher obfuscation of the acutal issues involved and further proof that for all the rantings and raving over the speech, little analysis of what the man actually said is apparent. If one actually reads the text of this speech it becomes obvious that any alleged Anti-semitic content is spurious to say the least and the points made are actually quite relevant to current events. Upon reading the text the question must be asked as to why it was not the pro-UN contingent that led the protest as opposed to the Pro-Israel contingent for the Iranian presidents attack on the hegemonic UN security Council.

http://pineriverspirit.blogspot.com/2009/04/full-text-p....html

The points he made in his speech are understood by this reader as follows, as he :

Calls to count the UN security Council as an anti-democratic relic of Post world war Imperialist triumphalism now being used to thwart internaoitnal democratic efforts.

Recounts the Zionist takeover of Palestine at the ultimate cost to the indigenous people there , and the usage of the plight of European Jews in World War 2 to expedite this process.

Describes The ability of the Pro-Israel lobby to transcend the composition of governments to seemlessly perpetutate oppressive Middle East Policy.

Recalls the part played by Zionizst affiliated US NeoCon wealth and power within the arms industry in the destruction and plunder of Iraq .

Highlights The failure of the Afghanistan adventure.

Decries The collapse of capitalism and the Neo liberal model and the continuation of the policy of prolonging the death throes of this beast at the expense of the common people with public funds.

Identifies The notion that racism is rooted in a denial of the divine nature of all humantiy within Gods creation.

Highlights the part played by Zionist policies in deepeing oppressive policies in the Middle East and the World at large.

Compares the collapse of Neo-liberalism to the collapse of Communism.

Praises God quite a bit.

Whilst the relevance of many of the points to a UN Sponsored Racism conference are debatable the actual merits of the points themsleves in the overall scope of international relations remain vaild and pertinent. Whilst many of the man's issues are possibly extraneous to the opening ceremony of the UN conference they are intrinsic to the core material of this article which is specifically the role played by Western policy in the continued oppression of the people of the Middle East including the Palestinians. The EU's role in perpetuating this action through economic and political support.

Origins of Israeli Jews

by A Freeman

Sun Apr 26, 2009 19:40

As usual the myth that all Israeli Jews originated in Europe is put forward here, the fact of the matter is that Mizrachi and Sephardic Jews make up over 40% of Israel's Jewish population of approx. 5.5m, these groups were mostly resident in N.Africa and the Middle East pre-1948 and never resided in Europe to begin with. These populations began moving to Israel post-1948 due to increased persecution in the Arab countries in which they resided, this persecution began even before 1948 as demonstrated by the 1941 anti-Jewish pogrom in Baghdad organised by the Rashid Ali regime in power there at the time. There was also a pogrom against the Jewish population of Oran in Algeria in 1945, which was only stopped by the intervention of French colonial forces. Therefore the Jewish populations of these countries weren't exactly living blissfully alongside their Muslim neighbours and were fortunate to have been able to move to Israel to escape persecution, the same goes for the Jews of Yemen and Egypt. In Libya, Gaddhafi forcibly expelled the entire Jewish population from Libya (where their ancestors had resided since Biblical times) in 1969. The only Middle Eastern regimes that didn't persecute their Jewish populations were Turkey and Iran (until 1979). A return to Europe for Jews of European origin hardly appealed either, ongoing anti-Semitism in countries like Poland (which expelled most of its surviving Jewish population of 170,000 in the aftermath of the 1967 six-day-war) made it nearly impossible even if they had wished to return. Israel provided a refuge and new hope to these hundreds of thousands of non-European Jews, the Arab countries should follow that example in how they treat Palestinian Arabs, integrate them rather than confining them to refugee camps.

slight oversimplification

Sun Apr 26, 2009 21:19

"these groups were mostly resident in N.Africa and the Middle East pre-1948 and never resided in Europe to begin with."

Well Mizrachim didn't ever live in Europe but the Sephardim once did (they lived in Spain and Portugal, aka "Sepharad" and hence their name) prior to the expulsions at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th Century. The Sephardim spoke "Ladino" which is a form of "Middle Spanish". Of course before you jump on that as meaning "Europeans" keep in mind that while some of them were on the Iberian Peninsula from the days of the Phoenecians and some from Roman days many others arrived following the spread of Islam across North Africa (after first resisting this -- some of the "Berber" tribes were Jewish, joined in the conquest of most of the Iberian Penisula that followed. So from North Africa back to North Africa in a bit more than half a millenium.

Besides North Africa Sepahrdim also ended up in parts of what is now taly and Greece and the Balkans. A few even tried occupying bits of the newly discovered "New World" while others in parts of Spain that were in the process of breaking free like the Netherlands.

and most certainly should add (Zionism)

Sun Apr 26, 2009 21:31

And SOME ended up in what is now Israel. Zionism is NOT a 20th Century phenomenon and there was a "wave" immediately following the expulsion from Spain. The Turkish overlords were ammenable to this but not particularly in favor of the Jews settling in an unimportant backwater of the empire instead of more important places (Suliman the Magnficent thought the Spanish were insane to beggar themseles and give his interests such a boost).

A few of the big wigs of the expulsion wanted this to be a MAJOR venture but could not sway enough opinion their way. But it was at this time, for example, that the center of "Kabbalism" moved from the Iberian Peninsula to what is now Israel -- the settlement at S'fat (Safed).

Question for Vincent.

by Norman O Gorman

Mon Apr 27, 2009 13:43

Messers Freeman and Novak,

After having wasted the time reading your sludge I can inform you that I have no idea what your points are supposed to be or where the relevance of your posting lies. Sorry, perhaps you could help.

To Vincent,

I read the text of the Iranian leader's speech that is linked in your post. The points you have summarised are reasonably close to what he is babbling on about, but I think you missed a major point. Perhaps on purpose Perhaps not. Perhaps this is where you mentioned it :

" Highlights the part played by Zionist policies in deepeing oppressive policies in the Middle East and the World at large. "

That's what you summarised, but this is what he actually said :

- Dear friends,
Today [the] human community is facing a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity in the beginning of the third millennium. The world Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuse[s] religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces. However it is of great importance to bring into focus the political goals of some of the world powers and those who control huge economic interests and wealth in the world. They mobilize all their resources including their economic and political influence and world media to render support to the Zionist regime and maliciously endeavor to diminish the indignity and disgrace of this regime. This is not simply a question of ignorance and one can not conquer these ugly phenomena through cultural campaign. Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their supporters of political and international means and in respect of the will and aspirations of nations, governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reforming the current international mechanisms. -

I think you may have glossed over the content of this part of the address. I read this as equating Zionism to racism ( or is it "barbaric racism" ) and also recalling the old favourite " protocols of Zion" whereby the Jews have a secret hand controlling the world.

Perhaps when you refer to " spurious " Anti-Semitic content you are referring to this but let me assure you for many people there is nothing spurious about it. Perhaps Vincent, you might clarify you views on this particular, not so spurious, diatribe?

Origin of Israeli Jews

Mon Apr 27, 2009 21:28

Dear Norman O'Gorman,

I think the point Mike Novack and myself were trying to raise is that the allegation that all Israelis are part of some zionist invasion from Europe in the 20th century is wrong on a number of fronts.

Firstly, I made the point that many Israelis (or their ancestors) never resided in Europe in the first place, instead residing as minorities in many N.African and Middle Eastern territories and states.
Secondly, Mike made the point that there was an indigenous Jewish population in the areas that now constitutes the Israeli state and occupied territories during Ottoman times particularly in Jerusalem and towns such as Safed in Galilee.
Thirdly, I made the point that anti-Semitic persecution wasn't confined to the Nazis as evidenced by persecution in postwar Poland (e.g. Kielce pogrom of 1946) and also that persecution of Jews was also taking place in many Islamic countries such as Iraq and Algeria before the establishment of Israel in 1948 and these were major push factors for Jewish immigration to Israel.

I made these points because many on the far left and far right deny these facts when making their contributions to this website. Sometimes the generalisation is made that Jews lived blissfully alongside their muslim neighbours in the past and while it is true that the Ottoman sultans in particular generally treated their Jewish subjects well (esp in comparison to Christian Europe), this does not hold true for all muslim lands and Jews were subject to persecution at times through history in muslim lands (e.g. 13th century Egypt) and faced severe discrimination in countries like Yemen right up to the 20th century (the first large movement of Yemeni Jews to Palestine took place in the 1880s, culminating in a major Israeli airlift in the 1950s). Much of the anti-Israel polemic of people like Ahmadinejad denies or ignores the above information and presents Jewish immigration and the establishment of Israel as some American or British plot or similar nonsense. Hope this clarifies things.

And I was just making a minor correction

Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:21

In pointing out that the Separdic Jews coming to Israel were doing so mostly from places like North Africa (true) Freeman forgot that once upon a time the Sephardim WERE in Europe as their name indicates ---- they are the "Spanish" Jews as "Sepharad" was the ancient Hebrew name for the Iberian peninsula (and I went on to discuss how they got there).

Why bother? Mainly to try to drive home that this tribe has a LONG history. On most sites little use to bother but here on the Irish site, well you folks at least should be able to realize that events prior to the 20th Century still can resonate as they do in you own politics. The fact that Jews have been living in parts of Europe for millenium did not seem to make them "Europeans" in the eyes of the Europeans and that also is not a 20th Century phenomenon --- for which again the history of the Sephardim can serve as an example.

The only peaceful way to peace.

Tue Apr 28, 2009 14:33

I have no idea what the relevance either of your Pseudo-historical reviews of Jewish Immigration to Palestine have to do with the basic premise of this argument.
That premise being : Should Europe use, the completely peaceful method of, economic sanctions against Israel given the latter's recent onslaught against the tiny enclave of Gaza. Taken into account Israel's complete indifference to the attacks on UN compounds and indiscriminate artillery fire around UN buildings were people were hiding leading to many deaths. Given their stated contempt for the UN , given their stated intention not to cooperate with international inquiries into the bombardment is it not time for Europe to take the diplomatic action required to censure this new and outrageous right - wing Israeli government. The answer to this question is of course a resounding YES YES YES !

Nobody would be hurt by such a plan, no bombs dropped, no shots fired, but the message would be clear to the new fascist regime of Israel : Don't piss down Europe's back and tell us that it's raining.

If Israel wants to sit at the EU or UN table then it needs to stop abusing and insulting every premise upon which these institutions were founded every time one of it's little demagogues opens his or her mouth.

It is the only possible way that Europe can bring any pressure to right the wrong that it perpetrated through it's rotten old empires in carving up the MIddle East in the first place.

And just to say it one more time : Its completely peaceful and constructive - Nobody gets hurt !

Israel, Jewish troublemakers at it again!

Tue Apr 28, 2009 18:21

Vincent, there was nothing "pseudo-historical" about my previous contributions, they're relevant background information in contrast to the lies spouted by people like Ahmadinejad and his ilk. While Israel may have used excessive force in Gaza it was in response to continuous rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza for several years which is being encouraged by the Iranian Islamists.

Like many other contributors to this site you seem to have an obsessive hatred of Israel, I'm fascinated as to why this is so? In a world where regimes in countries like Burma, Sudan and N.Korea starve, torture and enslave large numbers of people, particularly ethnic minorities, there is very little critisism of these horrible regimes on this site. Why is there this disproportionate hatred of Israel?, is it ingrained anti-Semitism?

Well, there must be something behind this obsession with Israel-Palestine conflict, it's of similar relevance to me as Burma, Sudan or N.Korea problems so I'm always surprised (well, not any more!) how vehement contributors are in condemning Israel on this site, despite the fact that Israel has a better human rights record than any of the states I've mentioned (I know that'll make you Israel-haters foam at the mouth!). The new Israeli government is right wing but sometimes it's the right that can do a peace deal as evidenced by the Begin-Sadat deal at Camp David in the '70s or closer to home the DUP and Sinn Fein in N.Ireland. Also, the Obama administration may exert pressure on them to moderate their positions and negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas.

Yikes

by Cian

Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:15

"While Israel may have used excessive force in Gaza it was in response to continuous rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza for several years which is being encouraged by the Iranian Islamists."

- What a disgraceful comment. Let us indeed look at what happened over the last "several years". Over the last 7 years, 14 Israelis were killed by Hamas' rocket-fire, compared to an estimated 5,000 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces with advanced American and British-supplied military equipment. During the IDF's assault on Gaza in Dec/Jan alone, over 1,000 palestinians were killed:

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5053R7200...pNews

"is it ingrained anti-Semitism?"
- Watch out , your knee is jerking ;)

"sometimes it's the right that can do a peace deal as evidenced by the Begin-Sadat deal at Camp David in the '70s"

I see, so the word "Peace" is now synonymous with Israel's right to continuously expand illegal settlements, and the continued functioning of all the other oppressive apparatus of an apartheid state.

You might want to subject your zionist apologetics to some semblance of historical truth.
This article might be a start: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20193

To Freeman, Novack

Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:54

You seem to have completely misunderstood the article.
The article does not hate the Jewish people. You are hysterical to have gone as far as saying it claims "Jews off the planet".
It's a means to discuss how a country that repeatedly and continuously breaks international law and the very grounds that the U.N. and the E.U. founded themselves on, continues to be in good favour with those very institutions.
Sure, other countries also severely break the most basic of human rights, does that make it right for Israel?
I most certainly hope that your answer is "no".

Your Sephardic and Northern African Jewish history is also irrelevant and completely out of context. I will not discuss that here because it is not the topic at hand.
Perhaps I will research some history in the future.

Also thanks to the comments by Vincent and Cian.

I would distance myself from agreeing with Ahmadinijad, however, because his views are extreme and, more often than not, unrealistic.
Israel exists. As illegal the initiation and preservation of the State was, it exists and it exists for ever. Let's not forget the human factor of the Israelis themselves - any one who is pro-Palestine must remember that it is the far right and rightwing political representatives of the Israelis, and not the majority of the Jewish people, that demand a total recall of "historically tribal lands" and in the inhumane way that it is demanded. Israel is full of innocent people, born and bred and will continue to exist, and to some extent, must. Ahmadinijad demands their replacement into Europe. This is very unrealistic and completely inhumane.

What DOES seem realistic, however, is the unethical and inhumane removal of innocent Arabs, born and bred in Palestine, who every day fight for their right to self determination and existance as much as, if not more than, their Israeli neighbour. And it is this very neighbour that seems to be reaching for their eradication! It is interesting to see how the E.U. hadn't worked on balancing out these matters and getting into grip a real peace solution before even considering trade. Perhaps I am naïve.

Your links are appreciated.

Cherry picking the points.

Wed Apr 29, 2009 14:34

All due respect Abdullah but you cant have it every way. In relation to the Iranian leader's speech it must be noted that you have mentioned it in your opening statement and described it as arrogant and humiliating. Humiliating to whom, I must ask. If you read the text of his speech you will find many pertinent points relating to such pressing items as the economic meltdown, the apparent fall of Neo-liberalism, the atrocities and failures of the American adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. You will find no rhetoric concerning the destruction of Israel etc.
Word for word if this speech had been made by George W. Bush it would have been the most intellegent thing he ever said. Lets recall the number of times that that maniac stood up in front of world powers and lied through his teeth in order to get his illegal wars under way. Nobody walked out on him. How many times has he dallied with the notion of Nuking Iran. Ok, the bastard never said the words " We should nuke Iran" but to the best of our knowledge Ahmadinejad never said "Lets wipe Israel off the map" either.
Ahmadinejad, for all his pseudo-religious blather and anti-Zionist ranting, made the rather impressive move of identifying the UN Security Council as the biggest impediment to world peace in his opening address. The man is correct in his observaition.
It continues to be the UN Security Council's actions that perpetutate the Palestinian's suffering. If the will were there within that group to force Israel to comply with previous resolutions such as 242 then it would force Israel to do so in a single afternoon. The disbandment of the Security council and the extension of powers to bring binding Chapter Seven resolutions on a much broader democratic base of UN Member States would be the begining of the end of the unprecedented Israeli occupation of the Palestinians.
Say all you like about the unsavoury rhetoric of the Iranian president, he identified to the UN what the biggest force for racism in the world is today US, French, British, Russian (all White Imperialist entities) and Chinese hegemony at the UN decision making table.

So if you are going to invoke the Ahmadinejad speech in a piece regarding the Palestinian occupation and you wish the points you are making to withstand scrutiny then you should deal fairly with the content of the speech rather than symbolicly brush it aside as is the ongoing fashion. The man has made points that are very pertinent to your question "Is the European Union committing its biggest crime? ".

I'm not exactly sure where you list of crimes begins and ends but the UK's and France's membership at the hegemonic institution called the UN Security Council has poisoned European relations with the world, citing the Iraqi tragedy as the most heinous abuse of the UN, and continues to pervert the course of democracy in the EU.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

Is the European Union committing its biggest crime?

Comments (13 of 13)