Conference taveng::bagels

    re: .0
    
    We've seen this type of @#%$^ in BAGELS, so why are you shocked
    by it's appearence in EURO_FORUM?  Typical twisting of facts, the
    PLO "turned" to terrorism in order to highlight the problem, blah,
    blah.
    
    David

    I don't find it anti-semetic, although I don't agree with everything
    in it. The author has his view of the current situation on the West
    Bank, which he is entitled to. I also don't agree with all the Israeli
    tactics dealing with the current situation there. Just because the author
    does not agree with your view or that of the Israeli government
    does not make him anti-semetic. Attitudes such as that begin to
    sound paranoid. Israel as a political entity is not always right,
    and some of their actions deserve criticism.
    
    Eric
    
    

re:-1
	Thank you Eric.

	-Sultan
    
    

    I don't think .0 is anti-semitic.
    
    But I feel it leaves out some important history.
    
    The land being discussed belonged to Arab countries that declared 
    war on the state of Israel.  It was captured during war.  The people
    who live there have been encouraging their children to throw rocks,
    knowing that they would be shot at.
    
    'The people we attacked defeated us, so now we are justified in
     hijacking airplanes and killing innocents and blowing up synagogues
     in neutral countries so people will realize we are oppressed.'
    
    In that context, it does not sound quite so right.
    
    To suggest that the US government supports Israel 100% would be
    incorrect.  If they did they would not be talking with the PLO.
    
    The Arabs who want an independent state under the circumstances
    are asking for a lot.  (Whether they should get it or not is another
    story, and is too far from the subject of .0 to be anything other
    than a rathole.)
    
    				Paul
    

    Let's put this in context, so that the insinuation in .0 that
    E_F moderators allow anti-semitic bashing in their notesfile doesn't
    stand undisputed. I wonder what the author of .0 tries to achieve.
    
    Short history of the E_F topic: an American asked why so many Europeans
    were showing anti-American feelings. The reply in question supported
    the argument (although rhetorically in not the most accurate manner),
    that one part of the anti-American feelings results from the fact that
    the US support oppressive political systems like Israel. NOTE, that
    this is not my personal opinion, the complexity of this issue disallows
    for simplistic interpretations.
    
    What worries me more, is that my (and other) replies to the
    'incriminated' note were not added to THIS topic's .0. In Europe, we
    call such a behaviour 'distortion' or 'manipulation'.
    
    For the sake of completeness, here it comes:
    
              <<< BISTRO::ETC:[NOTES$LIBRARY]EURO_FORUM.NOTE;4 >>>
                              -< Old Euro_Forum >-
================================================================================
Note 66.130                     Anti-Americanism                      130 of 169
SUTRA::LEHKY "I'm phlegmatic, and that's cool"       32 lines  24-JAN-1989 10:06
                        -< Don't you read the papers? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re .-1: I'm VERY emotional on that one. Just a few comments:
    
    1.) The West Bank has nothing to do with the topic subject described
    in .0
    
    2.) The Israel/Palestinian conflict is certainly not taking place
    in Europe, is it?
    
    3.) Premeditated ratholing leads to results that we can all observe
    NOW in this conference.
    
    4.) It is the US which currently apply a policy of opening towards
    the PLO and try, together with the USSR (yup!), to bring both parties
    to a discussion table.
    
    5.) your reply embeds the danger of a Israel - Jewish - antisemitic
    bashing.
    
    Your comment is out of date. All it achieves is raising anger. Your
    comment is also incorrect: most Palestinians I spoke to recently (oh,
    yes, you find them even on the Cote d'Azur) have friendly feelings
    twds. the ol' US of A. 
    
    Furthermore, are you aware of the fact that the US, in the past (don't
    nail me on a specific year) have granted Palestinian refugees a rather
    high priority in their immigration system? 
    
    Back to Europe, thanks.

    Correctingly yours,
    
    Chris
     

    Am I to take it from the lack of responses here that
    
    A:  generally you feel that the note was note antisemetic,
    B:  it wa anti-semetic but your not surprised that no action was taken. 
                                    
>        What worries me more, is that my (and other) replies to the
>    'incriminated' note were not added to THIS topic's .0. In Europe, we
>    call such a behaviour 'distortion' or 'manipulation'.

    I felt it anti-semetic, under any context.  When one talks about Jews
    murdering children, that to me is Anti-Semetic. The author and the
    moderators disagreed, so I requested other (your) opinions. If you feel
    it out of context, feel free to examine the context. 
    
                                                        


                                                                    

    
>    A:  generally you feel that the note was note antisemetic
    
    You had an answer or two on that one, no?
    
>    B:  it wa anti-semetic but your not surprised that no action was taken. 
 
    Polemicising. I've read my Cicero as well, you know...
                                           
>    I felt it anti-semetic, under any context.  When one talks about Jews
>    murdering children, that to me is Anti-Semetic.

    Heatening it up? No comment. What was that about 'distortion' and
    'manipulation'?

    As somebody in E_F stated: you're fast in handing it out...
    
    Coolingly yours,
    
    Chris

    Chris,
    
    I think .1 agreed with me.
    
     

    I agree with .1 that the reply you copied over in THIS .0 is hogwash. I
    have repeatedly expressed this view myself, here and in E_F.
    
    What I fail to agree to is to brand everybody as an antisemite who does
    not fully support or even is opposed to the tactics implemented by
    Israelian troops in order to deal with the Intifada.
    
    If you feel it appropriate to denominate a person as anti-semitic when
    he/she talks about "Jews murdering babies", then so be it. I'd be
    inclined to share your view. However, this hasn't been the case,
    here.
    
    Iteratingly yours,
    
    Chris

      
      >> the Americans fully support a government (Israel) who have a policy 
      >> of total suppression of the local population (palestinians)
  
      at such level of exageration, if you suppose that this is not 
      anti-semitic (although at least we have to admit some smell) you have to 
      come at the conclusion that this simple assertion comes from someone 
      very stupid. And I suspect that person to be not so stupid, so...
      dear friends, nothing is new under the sun even at the cote d'azur
      chana aba