Posted on 11/29/2001 3:56:50 PM PST by dennisw
Commentary November 29, 2001
Why Europe Hates Israel
By Bret Stephens, an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.
BRUSSELS -- Yesterday, a Belgian court heard arguments from
lawyers representing 23 Palestinians, survivors of the 1982 Sabra and
Chatilla massacres near Beirut, that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon should be prosecuted in Belgium for crimes against humanity.
Though Mr. Sharon almost certainly will never sit in a Belgian jail,
the trial could hardly be freighted with more significance.
More than a half-century after the Holocaust, a Europe awakened to
the importance of human rights is looking to sanction the leader of
the world's only Jewish state for a crime that was actually committed
by a Christian Lebanese militiaman, later employed by the Syrian
regime of Hafez Assad. And yet blame for the massacres seems to be
apportioned to Mr. Sharon alone. Why?
Sensational Indictment
The short answer is the Belgian legal system, whose well-meaning
laws lend themselves to this sort of opportunistic and sensational
indictment. A slightly longer answer is that many Europeans are
sincerely convinced that Mr. Sharon really is a war criminal, as a
BBC documentary attempted to show last summer.
But the real answer is that
European governments today are,
by and large, tacit enemies of the
state of Israel, much as they
might protest that they merely
take a more "evenhanded"
approach to the Arab-Israeli
conflict.
Consider a few recent examples.
In April, France voted to censure
Israel at the U.N. Human Rights
Commission in Geneva -- while
abstaining from a vote of censure against China. During his
diplomatic foray to Tehran in September, British Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw offered that "one of the factors which helps breed
terrorism is the anger which many people in this region feel at events
over the years in Palestine." The European Union has so far refused
to follow America's lead by freezing the assets of terrorist groups such
as Hezbollah and Hamas, with the European Commission's external
relations spokesman, Gunnar Wiegand, arguing that "Hezbollah could
play a major role in regional stability."
That Europe today should be hostile to Israel may seem a bit of a
mystery, not least given the usual sympathy of aims between
democratic states. The explanation comes in several parts. First, as
historian Howard Sacher points out, Europe's left sees in Israel's
political evolution a betrayal of its utopian ideals. It's easy to forget
that in the years following the establishment of Israel, many
Europeans looked to it as a model socialist country. They admired its
largely state-run economy and especially its collectivist kibbutzim.
Hundreds of young European leftists, most of them non-Jews, flocked
to these farms in the 1960s, looking for the kind of workers' paradise
they could not find on the other side of the Berlin Wall.
This fondness, however, evaporated after the 1967 war, when Israel
went from being the Middle East's underdog to its Goliath, holding a
colonial-like mandate over the lands that came into its possession.
Partly under the sway of Soviet propaganda, partly in keeping with
the fashion of radical chic, European leftists abruptly transferred their
allegiances to the Palestinians and the PLO, which in the 1970s drew
the likes of current German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer to their
meetings. Meanwhile, successive Israeli governments veered to the
right. "The era when Yitzhak Rabin or Golda Meir could address their
European counterparts as 'comrades' at gatherings of the Socialist
International had passed," says Mr. Sacher.
There was also a shift of attitudes on the European right. With the
exception of Britain, whose notoriously Arabist Foreign Office has
dominated its Mideast policy under both Conservative and Labour
governments, much of the Continental right had at one time looked
on admiringly at "plucky little Israel." Thus, beginning in 1952, the
conservative German government of Konrad Adenauer provided Israel
with critical financial support in the form of Holocaust reparations,
while Charles de Gaulle's France helped to build its nuclear reactor at
Dimona.
But it was also de Gaulle who, in 1967, slapped an arms embargo on
Israel for firing the first shot in the Six Day War. Thereafter, the
hostility increased, partly because France fancied itself a champion of
its former Arab colonies, partly out of simple anti-Americanism. But
the chief reason, of course, was Europe's dependence on Arab oil. As
French President Georges Pompidou put it to Henry Kissinger during
the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, "You only rely on the Arabs for about a
tenth of your consumption. We are entirely dependent on them."
Since then, Europe's reliance on Mideastern oil has abated, but the
habit of reflexively seeking to appease the Arabs at Israel's expense
has not. In 1974, French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert toured the
Middle East, seeking to earn price concessions on oil for France by
mouthing a hard anti-Israel line. In 1980, the European Community
formally recognized the PLO despite the fact that Yasser Arafat had
neither made peace with Israel nor dropped his overt sponsorship of
terrorism. Currently, the EU supplies the Palestinian Authority with
the bulk of its foreign aid, even as much of that money goes
indirectly to funding textbooks describing Jews as monkeys and
vermin.
Given all this, many Jews have been led to conclude that what's at
work here is a thinly veiled form of anti-Semitism. But while there
might be some truth to this, it's easily exaggerated. Mr. Straw, of
German-Jewish descent, is clearly no anti-Semite, and the one bright
spot of Jacques Chirac's presidency has been his efforts to
acknowledge the sins of France's suppressed Vichy past.
Underlying Guilt
Underlying European policy is an uneasy sense of guilt. In the
immediate postwar period, Europe's guilty conscience worked in
Israel's favor. But in the postcolonial spirit of the '60s, the balance of
guilt switched to the Arab side: It was they who were being oppressed;
and it was Europe that, with its previous support for Israel, had
helped inflict the oppression. So Europe pressures Israel to withdraw
from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, heedless of the dire security
consequences that such withdrawal would entail. That Israel has so far
refused to accede to this pressure stands as an infuriating rebuke to
modern Europe's fundamental conception of itself as the virtuous
defeated, free to pass judgment while absolved of the moral
responsibilities of wielding actual power.
Whatever the case, a foreign policy based on a combination of
left-wing disillusionment, French opportunism and all-around
cravenness cannot yield good results. With the U.S. State Department
increasingly leaning toward the European line on Israel, it's well that
the basis of that policy be properly understood.
Actually, Iraq is still technically at war with Israel now that you mentioned it. Moroever, why? Do you remember those Scud missiles? That's why foreign policy is left to those who have some foresight and who are responsible for the security of their nation. Hiding behind a computer and wimpering about some vacuous principle doesn't cut it.
Otherwise, Israel is as entrepreneurial and capitalist as any country on Earth. I believe Israel has more private companies on NASDAQ then any foreign country (although I may be wrong but then it's in second place or so).
Being a young country some basic things like phone service was State owned. Now there are several private enterprise cellular and cable companies competing for the last Shekel.
And whatever the State still owns it is attempting to unload.
Emmmmmmmmmmmm? YES.
Here is the interesting thing. In reality, Israel could attack all these countries- with the exception of Egypt and Jordan- every single day. They all declared war in 1948 on Israel- reaffirmed with the three NO's at Khartoum after the 1967 war- and never rescinded.
In actuality a State of War exists- of their own doing- between Israel and those Arab nations and Israel can defend itself at any time and place and manner of it's choosing.
The other Arabs can always follow Egypt(no matter how lame) and Jordan and choose peace.
Were you privy to Israeli intelligence? Don't you know by now that it is common knowledge that Hussein has been looking to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. He's already made chemical weapons used for offensive purposes as he has displayed with the Kurds. The justification for bombing is more evident now than it has ever been. But then again, we leave second-guessers like you to run nation-states, right?
The truth revealed along with an ad hominem attack. You see, principles do matter to me. If they don't to you then I can only feel sorry for you and the world as much as you help to shape it. So your actions are justified by what is immediately useful to you? This approach of course sacrifices the future for today. To use your approach is to not own history.
You'be been here since Nov. 24, likely coming back as a retread and you're going to preach to me about principle? What you perceive as principle is nothing but special-pleading.
And you've said exactly what by this paragraph? I ask you again, were you privy to Israeli intelligence on the reason and purpose for the nuclear facility?
It is also "common knowledge" that the US has those weapons. So we should be attacked just for having weapons? Who should organize the attack?
I see, you would relativize the issue to include democratic states. But maybe, as has been stated to you, you didn't relaize that Iraq was still techically at war with Israel. Again, you assume knowledge which you didn't have nor will you ever have about the Israeli actions. Moreover, anyone at any time can try to take on the U.S. Several Islamic countries would like to get their hands on the stuff which would facilitate that. They may try. But before they do I'm hopeful the U.S. would take their capability out like Israel did.
Sorry, I'm not a meglomaniac so I'm unlikely to rule a modern all powerful nation-state. I'd be happy to be President of a limited, Constitutional Republic as the US once had. Running such a country is easy as there is little for such a President to do as he has no need to dictate to people how to live their lives.
You living in a dream-world? Do you know what the Open Door Notes and Open Door Policy was? Or is it that your understanding of U.S. history is limited to your dream life. I'm a Canadian and I seem to know more about U.S. history than you do.
And it can expect to spend more than $50 billion in this region, plus several times $50 billion elsewhere around the planet for whatever wars it prosecutes, because it's not spending for the people of the regions, but only for its own interests.
And most people are not going put up with an aimless open-ended conflict with most of the world's population, and when that day comes there will be no rock for the likes of you to hide under. It will take a few years, however.
Unfortunately this is a world, and particulalry among the Islamic countries, where only force is respected and not some wimpering concept of foreign policy.
Israel has been using force for the last 50 years and there is no end in sight. The general population of the West is getting more and more sick of it as well. We are not going to follow in that country's footsteps, and if you wish to do so you're not going to do it from your keyboard.
Since the ChiComs, in ten years will be approx. 80% dependent on ME oil
The Chinese have sources of oil closer to home including the Central Asian Republics and likely the Spratly Islands. Their presence will increase in the Middle East when ME countries recognize that America is incapable of any positive interactions with them because of its obsession with the Israeli state only. And there are many areas of the world besides the Middle East where oil supplies can be interdicted, Pakistan and Indonesia foremost among them.
There will also be many areas of the world where the Chinese will be accepted because they will actually be building infrastructure for the countries, instead of just spending money to bomb and to occupy them. Just like Tibet and Afghanistan, America will ignore them only to find out later their tactical and strategic value. But by then civilization will have moved west.
the U.S. can assert its place in that area without having to wimper out
And how do you guarantee safe passage from the Middle East to the destination countries, genius? You really are so deulsional to think that America can be everywhere at the same time, occupying the entire planet.
You need to understand that the Bin Ladens of the world, and the Arab Islamics of the world are wholly responsible for their own actions. Quit treating terrorists and nation-states like whimpering babies.
As a commander, Ariel Sharon is responsible for his own actions and the actions of those who were supported and directed by him. Stop whimpering for war criminals like him.
I'm crying. Yes, this is quite unfortunate that the U.S. is looking after it's own interests and the interests of Western democracies.
And most people are not going put up with an aimless open-ended conflict with most of the world's population, and when that day comes there will be no rock for the likes of you to hide under. It will take a few years, however.
They can behave themselves or they will pay a price. If they wish to foster Islamic fundamentalism and Jihadic groups then they will pay a price as well. It's a new world after 9/11 get on board or get off.
Israel has been using force for the last 50 years and there is no end in sight. The general population of the West is getting more and more sick of it as well. We are not going to follow in that country's footsteps, and if you wish to do so you're not going to do it from your keyboard.
The Arab Islamic states have been using force for the last 50 years. Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan and that still wasn't enough for your Jihadist friends.
There will also be many areas of the world where the Chinese will be accepted because they will actually be building
infrastructure for the countries, instead of just spending money to bomb and to occupy them. Just like Tibet and Afghanistan, moved west.
The U.S., since it is one of the biggest if not the biggest countries giving foreign aid will makes its allies as well. So what.
And how do you guarantee safe passage from the Middle East to the destination countries, genius? You really are so deulsional o think that America can be everywhere at the same time, occupying the entire planet.
They're doing it now and will continue to do it, genius.
As a commander, Ariel Sharon is responsible for his own actions and the actions of those who were supported and directed by him. Stop whimpering for war criminals like him.
Since this is 2001, and not Lebanon, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Arafat is a terrorist. The Intifada is terrorism as the U.S. has said and Israel is a nation state protecting its territorial integrity. End of story.
That is a perfect summation of liberal thought in general, be it in Europe or America.
You bet it's self-evident. If it's self-evident you have nothing more to contribute except idle speculation left to the arm-chair quaterbacks.
We'll I'm sure you are way smarter than me. I'm just a dolt. But please lower yourself to explain to me what the Open Door Notes has to do with any argument you are making.
This is your statement:
I'd be happy to be President of a
limited, Constitutional Republic as the US once had
The U.S. became a great nation because of the OPEN DOOR POLICY, not in spite of it. The latter requires the U.S. to assert its interests internationally and thank God she did. If the U.S. had the kind of notions you're arguing for the Soviets, ChiComs and other assorted demagogic countries would have filled the void.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
