Quote:

---

A non-Polish fellow not named Joseph Conrad did not write a novella about such non-atrocities in the non-Congo, and a certain Col.Kurtz in that non-bit of literature was certainly not based on any non-real-life non-Belgians. In fact, there's even a non-quiz on this very non-subject on this very site!

---

Thanks Coolupway! I got a question about that in the daily quiz and thanks to you I knew the answer!

Coolup, maybe we should give up on the European Union and all of Europe should become the colony of the U.S., since it is such a wonderful country?

However, I would like to point out to you that if the U.S. applied to join the EU, it would never be admitted, because of its poor human rights record (vide: the death penalty).

Believe me, I know the so-called EU bureaucracy and I assure you that the number of the EU officials in Brussels is inferior to that of many city halls' employees. Actually, the EU institutions are understaffed (I am speaking from my own experience in dealing with them).

I bet that you have never read a single EU legal document, but I read tones of them every month and I assure you: they DO make sense and serve a purpose.

Yes, the United States does on occasion put to death convicted murderers. If this excludes us from the EU's exacting standards, I say, so be it.

We in the U.S. know all about Europe's finely tuned moral scruples... as well as about much of that continent's rather short historical memory. For Euroamnesiacs and others who may be a bit unclear on the details I would like to remind all and sundry of a few atomspheric facts that may bear on the subject matter, however distantly. We Americans are familiar with this European tendency to forget certain things that happened around the middle of the century there. The more cynical among us refer to this as "Waldheimer's syndrome".

We know, of course, that one of the bulwarks of the EU is that selfsame nation-- I believe it is called Germany-- which invaded and in three weeks steamrollered its unoffending eastern neighbor on September 1, 1939. If memory serves I believe that nation to the east is known as Poland. If memory further serves I think I recall a nation to the south of Germany, specifically Austria, previously joining forces with the Germans, a move supported by quite nearly 100% of the then population of Austria. Someone has posted a bit of waggery suggesting that after my facetious conflation of Austria with Australia, I should consider staying away from Austria. I gladly accept that invitation. Happily my mom's mom was able to give her beloved Vienna a goodbye wave a bit before things got rather hot over in that part of the world for a certain segment of the populace. Unfortunately a number of people from her family were not so lucky.

It seems that some of these German fellows had decided that a certain segment of humanity was, to borrow one of their many marvelous phrases, "life unworthy of life," and, having so characterized that segment of humanity, proceeded to exterminate it. That segment of humanity was not composed of murderers and was not killed after plenary trials. BRAVO, EUROPE . In fact among that exterminated segment of humanity were a number of children
who were too small to even hold weapons, much less think of using them. Had a certain Western country (one located just north of Mexico) not intervened, these ever-so-scrupulous German fellows would almost certainly have switched their primary focus from the extermination of that first segment of humanity (a large percentage of which was -- doubtless coincidentally-- Jewish) to the extermination of other segments of society, including a rather increased number of those people known as "Slavs", who had already been horribly oppressed by these individuals from the Fatherland and several of its neighbors. That other bulwark of EU stability, France, was meanwhile-- after having surrendered Paris in effect bloodlessly-- falling all over itself to turn over its very large and vital segment of that same group of people to the Germans, all under the watchful eye of the Vichy government... another human rights exemplar.

Well, of course, this is all ancient history. Thousands of years ago, right? Alright... so it's only sixty years ago. That's STILL a long time, isn't it? Anyway, it was the war. Terrible things happen during wars. However, SINCE the war, Europe has led the way on the human rights front. Yes, as we yokels in the US occasionally execute serial murderers after plenary trials and countless appeals (with counsel invariably assigned and paid BY THE TAXPAYERS), Europe was assuming the moral high ground.

So let us return to Poland, one of those countries I mentioned before. Those of you who have reread my quizzes, by the way, know that I have long been AT PAINS to stress the many good qualities of the Poles. I have written at length of Polish philo-semites, not only Messrs. Pilsudski and Koszciuszko of more recent memory, but indeed going back many centuries to Casimir the Great, who conspicuously welcomed the Jews to Poland, leading to a great in-migration of Jews to that land over the following decades and indeed centuries. I have also gone out of my way to point out that the Polish outnumber every other nation in their representation at the Hall of the Righteous at Yad Vashem.

Nonetheless, since we are parsing fine moral distinctions here, let me point out that on July 4, 1946 -- after World War II was over, 18 months after the liberation of Poland after the mass of European Jewry had been-- there is no other word for it-- obliterated -- there occurred in the Polish city of Kielce... a POGROM!! 42 Jews--- in a country which was by then effectively judenrein , mind you-- murdered in cold blood, (after the usual rumors about Jews using Christian blood to makes matzos were circulated).

If the Danes or even the Bulgarians want to preach to us a bit about human rights, I say let them. They can hold their heads high... the historical record backs them up. Gawd, I'll even stand for it from the Brits. But for the other EU members and wannabes to even suggest that the US is a human rights renegade because it sometimes executes convicted murderers is an OBSCENITY AND AN ABOMINATION.

I am afraid that if we keep recalling past mistakes and atrocities of other countries and nations, we will never be able to reach a reconciliation and peace. Germany and Austria were the cradle of nazism - apart from communism, the most atrocious ideology of the XX century - but these countries are democratic now, and the people who fell victim of that cruel ideology (many Poles died in the concentration camps during the World War II, too, more than 200,000 died in the Warsaw Uprising in 1944) don't hold a grudge against them, don't keep constantly reminding them of it - otherwise it would be impossible to live on the same continent in peace and harmony.

As for my remark on the poor human rights record of the U.S., it was, of course, somewhat exaggerated and provocative (I hope none took offence at it), but, however paradox it may seem (I mean the statement that the U.S. would never be allowed to join the EU, if it ever applied for it), it's true. The death penalty was abolished in Europe a long time ago, it is considered a serious breach of the human rights, and nothing can change it. Also, the highest moral authority of our time, Pope John Paul II has severely criticised the death penalty on many occasions. But I am afraid that, considering the fact that the Europeans and the Americans have very different attitude towards it, they will never be able to understand each other. I consider any discussion on this topic futile and fruitless then.

Quote:

---

nazism - apart from communism, the most atrocious ideology of the XX century

---

Communism was worse than Nazism?!? Huh?!?

Does there have to be a 'worse' or a 'better' when talking about destructive ideologies? I don't think it's a race. However...if we are to make it a race...when one considers the Chinese Communist regime alone, which very well could be responsible for the deaths of over 100 million (that might be a conservative estimate) Chinese over a 50-60 year period, I think the argument could very well be made that, in terms of a total death toll, Communism was much worse for humanity than Nazism. But again, this is not a race...

In regards to several posts above which propose to criticize other countries I wonder...what is the purpose behind such rhetoric? Each country's government comprises a regime which is temporary, and the actions of every regime could easily be dissected to discover a number of very distasteful behaviors. No country or government that chooses to play international politics is guiltless.

My experience has been that the most useful criticisms to be made in regards to the geopolitical game are those that question the behavior of one's own government. Certainly one should have the right to question the behavior of foreign governments, but if one only engages in such behavior he or she may be in severe danger of practicing that dirty behavior known as jingoism.

It's strange that a thread that was initially intended to be humorous has turned so raucous and has been used to express stereotyped and in many cases ill informed general judgements on whole nations.

The same criteria for debate apply in this Forum as in Controversial Issues.

Jazz, I applaud you for trying to harmonize things a bit, but I ask you this in all seriousness . Do you actually believe that Chris Hitchens' book about Kissinger's depredations is any the less meaningful or damning because a Brit wrote it rather than a Yank?

While I understand that the level of discourse here does not always reach the level of Hitchens', I would still hope that criticism of all governments, be they one's own or not, would be fair game for discussion here. I have certainly taken my own licks against the unelected gentleman who now occupies the White House, and will continue to do so. I welcome non-Yanks to do so as well.

But I do have a problem with people, many of them from the continent, who ever so casually and self-righteously toss off the phrase "US atrocities" and blindly prattle on about the iniquities of the US death penalty, while all the while pointedly ignoring that, shall we say, elephant in the living room, that ineradicable scar across the of face of humanity that emanated not from "atrocious" America... but rather from these very European states who now presume to chide the US for its high-handedness in the international arena. Were the criticism coming from Denmark, Bulgaria or Italy, I would listen to it silently, and consider its implications. When some of the other states mount that podium to preach, however, I think they should be called to task for it and that their willful historical amnesia should be identified for what it is.

Faulkner famously said "The past is not dead, it is not even past." Santayana said "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Some of the EU heavyweights may wish to play at forgetting the past, and now congratulate themselves on some of their more bellicose neighbors having learned the language of the lamb, but behind all this -- as everyone on this planet knows -- lies a fear, a GENUINE fear, that the German lion will again rouse itself. I understand and respect Beatka's expressed wish to let bygones be bygones, but I would suggest that the hopeful language only partially disguises the very conscious fear of a number of decidedly weaker European states that if the virus of militarism ever reinfects (reunified!) Germany, the EU will immediately become about as relevant as the League of Nations, and these smaller states will have to look to the U.S. -- "atrocities" and all-- to stand behind them.

I can only think of the sad story of Jawaharlal Nehru, who for a while played his own puppet show on the international stage and bashed the awful U.S. at Bandung and ostentatiously kissed up to the behemoth in HIS part of the world, Communist China. Now when the Chinese came to blows with India in '62 about their shared border, who came in to bail out the Pandit? France?

Food for thought. Surely, what irks the Bush administration most at the moment is that in modern Germany pacifism is so widespread. One opinion poll after another taken over the last forty years or so has shown a majority of the German electorate (formerly the West German electorate only, as polling the East Germans wasn't practical) would like Germany to opt out, yes - jawohl - *opt out* of international power politics altogether and become 'another Switzerland'. This is in no small measure a testimony to the success of a process that was accelerated, perhaps even largely set in motion by Allied 're-education'. (Cf. Japan) In many cases, this pacifism may be a bit dogmatic, but it has always struck me as sincere. (I have visited the country about 50 times for periods ranging from 5 days to three months and I spent a year working there, and so I feel I know the country tolerably well).

With up-to-date information I see no grounds for fearing Germany.

Yet despite Germany's new found pacifism, in 2002 they were number 3 on the list of countries with the most anti-Semitic incidents in the world (behind France and Belgium). Doesn't this worry you just a little bit?

I've been to Germany, I met with German high-school kids, I even lived with a German family for a week. In addition, I met with a German army General and a number of his aides who were visiting Israel and I taught them about a certain military procedure (which I'm not allowed to name here)- I'm not scared of the Germans and I don't hate them, but when they criticize Israel I'm inclined to take no notice.

I think that what Coolupway is trying to say, and I agree, is simply this: before you take the moral high-ground, take a look in your own backyard.

(P.S- Jazz, I wasn't referring to the number of victims caused by the different ideologies, I was referring to the ideologies themselves. I agree that Communism was responsible for far more casualties than Nazism).

I take your post as good news, Bloomsby, not just because of what you say but because of the depth of knowledge that I know you bring to the subjects of both Germany and 20th-century history. Perhaps you can help me distinguish what seemed to be a few disturbing parallels brought up in an article by a perceptive, if right-wing observer, a few months back.

In a September 2002 article entitled "The Roots of European Appeasement," David Gelernter (yes, one of those whom the Unabomber tried unsuccessfully to kill) argued rather ominously that the peaceful Germany of 2002 is in most respects equivalent to the "liberal, democratic Germany of the 1920's."

Gelernter is not, strictly speaking, a historian, and his article popped up in the "Weekly Standard", an often interesting if somewhat shrill right-wing publication. Nonetheless this article has been cited and cited again in more recent examinations of the face of 21st century Europe.
Here is what I think many people find a tad disconcerting:

Quote:

---

The First World War seemed unimaginable but turned out to be human, all too human when compared with the Second, which was too big for the mind to grasp. As the Second World War and its aftermath fade, they reveal a "new world order" that is strangely familiar-- amazingly like the Western world of the 1920s, with its love of self-determination and loathing of imperialism and war, its liberal Germany, shrunken Russia, and map of Europe crammed with small states, with America's indifference to Europe and Europe's disdain for America, with Europe's casual, endemic anti-Semitism, her politically, financially and masochistically rewarding fascination with Muslim states who despise her, and her undertone of self-hatred and guilt.

* * *

Looking around today, we find ourselves in a nightmare house where the clocks all stopped on the eve of a disaster. It is 1928 all over again.

---

Is Gelernter onto something here? Does the historical analogy hold? Or has he stretched history just to fit his thesis?

Doug,

I'm an admirer of Chris Hitchens for his stand against Henry Kissinger, we even invited him to come teach at my school. One thing I have noticed about Mr. Hitchens is his balanced rhetoric, in terms of leveling criticisms against ALL parties. He has been more than willing to criticize his home country...hell, this guy would even criticize Mother Teresa if you'd let him (oh wait, he did that too!)

Expat scholars who specialize in polemics aside, I think we live in a realm entirely different here at the Funtrivia message board as you have acknowledged in your post. There do seem to exist here some very parochial attitudes which are creating an enmity in this thread that I think is entirely unnecessary. I would hope that, while people are busy criticizing the governments of other countries they be sure to establish that their country and people are not-without sin. For example, if I were to chide the Germans for their anti-Semitic past I would be certain to be sure that the anti-Semitic activities of Americans are acknowledged as well...there were plenty of prominent anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers during the ugly early period of the 20th century in the United States. I think the stories of Mr. Herbert Walker and Mr. Prescott Bush might prove enlightening at this point?

I agree that a critique of the United States' human rights record should not begin and end with the current death penalty policy, after all...it is the object of heated debate among Americans, many of whom are very much opposed to said policy. This very fact is what I had in mind when I posted earlier today. What I see in this thread is a lot of 'essentialist' rhetoric, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise. The implication I see from some of the comments above is that, for example, all Germans are Nazi-sympathizers because of a rise in violence against Jews in that country and that all Americans are barbarians because the death penalty exists in the United States. Obviously these are extreme conclusions, but they are possible...and judging from some of the angry reactions in this thread they seem to have occurred to some degree.

I guess my point finally is to suggest that slanging matches will not serve to mollify anger at the current policies of the Bush administration, of Mr. Chirac in France, of Mr. Sharon in Israel or of Mr. Arafat holed up in his compound. We are all, after all, pawns in the game of geopolitics that individuals like these fellows play. We should be united in our distrust and questioning of their behavior and a little bit less inclined to point fingers at each other...

Jazz. Many thanks for your excellent and stimulating contributions to this debate.

Doug. Many thanks for the points you raise. I'll try to answer your points in a separate post.

Hi, Doug. I haven't read the article you mention, and all I've got to work on is your summary and the quotation, but the general points seem clear - namely: is Europe only superficially liberal and enlightened, and are we - especially in Europe - living on the edge of a nightmarish abyss, as in the late 1920s?

I hope you won't mind if, for the moment, I confine myself largely to Germany, which I know much better than any other foreign country. I'd make the following points about Germany then and now.

1. In the 1920s (and later) Germany had a very real grudge in the form of the Treaty of Versailles. Opposition to the Treaty, or least its main provisions, was the one thing that could unite most sections of the electorate. Nationalism thrives on grudges: in fact, I don't think nationalism can survive without a grievance. Though the key nurturers of the anti-Versailles grudge were the German Nationalists (in the 1920s), it was something that resonated widely and deeply in an otherwise very divided, indeed fractured society. Modern Germany has no such grudge. Even in the decade or so prior to reunification, the West German population in general had, as far as I can tell, become disinclined to treat even the division of Germany as a serious grievance that had to be rectified. The speed and even the fact of reunification took most voters by surprise. Nevertheless, politicians of all the main political parties had paid lip-service to it ever since 1949 and when presented with the cheque, it would have been very difficult not to honour it, though misgivings were expressed at the time.

A key feature of Germany following reunification has been the absence of any triumphalism. Rather, the political scene in the mid and late 1990s was characterized by complaints about the cost of the whole process and the continuing discrepancies in the quality of life in the former Western and Eastern Länder. In other words, there isn't any real sense in Germany that the country is now stronger. Rather there is, if anything, relief that Germany is now a 'normal', united country - like most others and no longer at the very heart of the old East-West divide.

That said, during the last 3-5 years Germany's economic performance has been disappointing and unemployment has stayed obstinately high. Those who are worried about the future direction of Germany may wish to watch this ...

2. An even more striking feature of Germany in the 1920s (and later) went way beyond the matter of the Versailles Treaty. Key élites denied the fact of military defeat altogether!. They claimed instead that Germany had been 'stabbed in the back' by subversives at home. Clearly, those who believed this would have found any peace treaty unacceptable. By contrast, in 1945, no-one in Germany was in any doubt at all that the country had suffered one of the most devastating and comprehensive defeats in modern history. Moreover, the German Reich established by Bismarck scarcely existed any more ... In addition to all this, a country that had for a long time been particularly proud of its cultural, scientific and academic achievements had disgraced itself in a very big way indeed - possibly for all time.
Of course, I'm well aware that many individual Germans had gone to great lengths during WWII to 'hear no evil, see no evil', but very few denied the holocaust and the trail of atrocities across that the German armed forces had left wherever they had been.

3. After WWII many, many Germans felt (and still feel) difficulty in taking pride in their nationality. (This would have been almost unthinkable in the 1920s).

I'm aware of course that every so often some right-wing historians try to rebel against this problem of identifying with Germany's past. So far, all such rebellions have ended in a fiasco. (The worst and most dangerous of these rebellions was that started and led by Ernst Nolte in mid 1980s).

Ever since some of my earliest visits to Germany it's been my view that for many (West) Germans enthusiastic immersion in the European Union and its forerunners has been a kind of substitute for national pride - but no less genuine for that. It would be hard to imagine anything further removed from the situation in the interwar period, despite a brief period of tentative co-operation between France and Germany (c.1925-30).

Germany is firmly embedded in the EU - a large and successful international organization committed to democracy, human rights and in a broad sense to liberal values.


4. In the 1920s key élites in Germany were frenetically anti-democratic and very proud of it. In their eyes, democracy was tainted by association with the signing of a harsh peace treaty for a war that they maintained Germany hadn't even lost ...

When the Allies launced the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949 it was presented as something of a daring experiment.
This time, democracy has flourished in Germany. Those of us who live in Britain or America might care to note the high turnout at elections - 75%, even 80%+. The electoral system - with proportional representation - has engendered a relatively high level of consensus in politics. This contrasts with the 1920s when people with differing politics and ideologies were often scarcely on speaking-terms.

In short, democracy and - what is equally important - the (liberal) values underlying it, have grown very strong roots in Germany. West Germany, has been a successful democracy for nearly 55 years ... - no mean achievement!

5. In the 1920s there was a real fear of Bolshevism (as it was then called): not so much of Bolshevism by foreign invasion, but of Bolshevism from within. This made large sections of the electorate susceptible to the extreme Right (and not only in Germany). Indeed, fear of Bolshevism is often cited as one of the key factors in the sudden emergence of Fascism in its various forms in Europe after 1920. Now, there is no such fear in Germany and no cause for it, either.

All in all, this seems to add up to a very solid structure now, built on firm foundations. I see no reason to assume that it is about to collapse.

I hope this goes some way towards answering your question, Doug.

To snm:
Anti-Defamation League preferred not to reply to my question
about the "ranking aspect" of your remark.
The only website that yielded a useful result was: www.antisemitism.org.il/english/articles/article2.htm

My comment:
1. These incidents do not reach the national press. I believe they should, so your hint was useful.
2. It surprises me that in this website those incidents are linked to the extreme right whereas in true fact the extreme right is anti-Arab rather than anti-Jewish. Of course, I admit they use approximately the same "anti-foreigners" rhetoric as the Hitlerites used against the Jews..
3. As to the extreme left it is indeed very significant that
Mr Abu Jaja's newly founded Arab-European league (which groups European-born Arabs of 'the third generation' as they call them here)makes an Alliance for the coming elections with the old die-hards of the communist Workers' Party (PVDA)
4. the real hot issue is that Europe (especially France, Germany, Belgium but other European countries too) now has a large segment of Arab immigrants among its population.
Some are here legally and have acquired the Belgian, German,French etc. nationality. They have voting rights. Others are here illegally.
The majority of the locals do not know quite well
how to handle their presence. Some want to take back their Belgian nationality and send them "home". Can you really do that: many of them never even have seen the country they culturally originate from ? And what do you do with the non-agressive ones?
Others say the problem is caused by all the "delays" in the
solution of the Israël-Palestine problem.
5. It's typical that in the examples given by www.antisemitism.org.il so many streets mentioned are actually Brussels slums.
The picture in Antwerp is different however. There the Jewish part of the population is much more visible and from the examples I can conclude that the incidents happen even in the very heart of the city: Groenplaats.
This is really worrying and shows that the whole Western world is becoming the battlefield of the "Israel-Palestine" conflict.
Few people here believe that "war with Iraq" can be helpful in solving the problem.
There are some who believe "war will make the Arabs keep quiet". Are they realistic ? Only the future can tell.
In the opinion of many, North-Korea is a much greater danger.
This is not a matter of "neutrality". It would be more correct to say that neither Mr Bush nor Colin Powell have been able to persuade the ordinary people that "war" is a good solution in the long term.

Flem-ish,
I found your post interesting. I am familiar with most of the phenomena that you describe, but some of them I was unaware of (particularly the information about the Arab-European league).
I concede that a large percentage of the anti-Semitic incidents in Europe are carried out by Muslims who claim that they are acting out of indignation at the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The problem is that a large part of the mainstream Christian population fails to see these incidents as anti-Semitism and attributes them to anti-Zionism, which is considered perfectly legitimate by most people.
The old types of anti-Semitism, namely religious, economic and scientific (Nazi), still exist but are not much of a danger from Europeans. They are easily identifiable and most people object to them. The only place these types of anti-Semitism are still extremely rampant are in the Arab countries, and especially among the Palestinians- their school books (which are funded by the EU btw) quote Nazi propaganda and middle-ages Church doctrines. A television version of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was the most popular program in almost every Arab nation when it aired last year (in Egypt it was taken off the air at Israel's request).
The kind of anti-Semitism that really scares me is the kind that disguises itself as anti-Zionism and as anti-Israeli sentiments. This "new" kind of anti-Semitism emanates not from the religious or nationalistic elements of society (as most forms of racism have done in the past) but rather from the radical elements of the liberal left! No wonder the Muslims find it so easy to join them.
2001 has been described by some people as "the year in which anti-Semitism became fashionable again". France and Belgium have always been pretty high on the lists of anti-Semitic activity, but Germany until recently was not.

Would like to have some details about Belgian anti-semitism.
As you may know this country has three "regions" and what
is perceived as "Belgian" is often linked to only one part of the country.
What I vaguely have heard about anti-semitism is
a. some members of the Antwerp town administration were not very radical in their reluctance to hand over documents to the Germans etc.
b. as far as I know Brussels was where Leopold Trepper got into trouble but that need not have been because of the Belgians
c. I heard about a Jewish person who ran a chain of shops " Au Roi du Caoutchouc" and who used them for a resistance network. He even camouflaged his activities by sharing as his headquarters the very house in which the German Abwehr had their offices; he daily met his "opposite numbers" and politely took off his hat; as far as I know he relied on tens and tens of Belgian helpers
d. I heard that in Belgium more Jews were saved from the hands of the nazis than in Holland because here they were much more difficult to localize. Except in Antwerp.
So when I ask, can you give proof of what you say about Belgium, this is not a figure of speech. I would have thought
that Belgium had been fairly free of anti-semitism and that
the countries where anti-semitism was strong were France (Vichy) and Eastern-Europe. In my part of Belgium in recent years I have never come across any anti-semitic activity. The
only time I heard anyone "being anti-semitic" was when some drunk army sergeant was shouting in an Antwerp pub he "did not like Jews" . He was immediately answered back by one of his own "recruits". Which I felt a very courageous thing to do for the young man ( a law-student).
As to the attitude to Jews in my Ghent corner of Flanders.
Jews have never been a problem as far as I could see. They were not even discussed. We did not come across any chassidim who dressed specially so that they would have stood out from others .There were no "streets" with a predominantly Jewish population. My favourite tearoom in Ghent is Jewish.It's also the best in town and the man who runs it is an Alsatian.Some years ago I heard he had been threatened by "anonymous vandals".( I once tried matzo but did not like it too much.)

Most people I know had hoped that the Rabin-Arafat handshake would have brought peace to the country.
I myself had very good contacts with a fairly high-ranking Jewish woman in the Israeli army but it would be unwise to be more specific. She was not pro-Sharon and she did not hate Arabs.But among her closest family she had people who had been victims of a terrorist attack on an Israeli embassy.
Some of my friends disapproved of my friendship but that was not for anti-semitic reasons. Just the usual: do not interfere with other people's problems.
I have in my own family people who were in German labour camps and who tell me that they are much happier with Israel's present refusal to be "meek" ( this is a literal quote from somebody who was in a labour camp from 1941 on);
what I hear from those people is that many Jews who were taken to the Dossin barracks at Mechelen were simply not aware of what was happening to them and did not even protest. So you will never hear me deny Jewish people the right to (over?-) defend themselves
An English friend of mine who has a lot of experience with
Arabs and likes a lot of things about them tells me, rather soberingly : The moment they see you trust them, they start cheating on you.
So I must have "missed out" on all the "wrong sort of people"
that are around here.
May be I simply don't come in the "correct" wrong places.
But I don't mind being told.
What is my real problem is quite different:
do I have to choose between Jews and Arabs?
I know Arabs who are quite o.k. Last weekend I was in one of the "soukh"-like streets of Brussels and most people were nice and kind.
Do I have to be "for the ones" and "against the others" and will you call my reluctance to make a black-and-white choice
"neutrality"? I happen to know that among the people in literature I admire there are an abnormally high percentage of Jewish people. Does that imply that I have to turn a blind eye to the qualities of the Arab culture?
My worry is: can war ever solve this conflict? Will it help Israel if Saddam is "gone"?
Please take it seriously when I admit: it may solve some problems.
But what will happen next?? Will that be the start for a reasonable "peace solution"?
And please take me seriously when I also admit I have not seen
any genuine convincing steps to peace from Arafat's side either.
All I know is that my Jewish friend wept the day Barak and Arafat came back with no olive branch in their hands. And her commentary was: "We had really hoped for peace. But now my heart is cold."
I don't know what the future holds. "From evil good shall
come", was what I once heard from a London Jew who I had met
at Bloom's. Suppose it's from the Bible.
So war might bring about peace.
But will it?
I myself do not take lightly the anti-war-protests. There are many in Spain and in Britain who do not follow their government in saying yes to war. There are also many here who
do not follow the present Belgian government in trying to delay the war and give a chance other approaches.
All I am saying is: both approaches deserve respect in themselves.
What I do not appreciate is the way in which some people shout without thinking, believe in caricature rather than in
dialogue. So when I hear things which sound incorrect, which
seem distorted information or clichés, I ask for ..no not even proof...but just a little bit of information.
It's only by TALKING to each other that one can remove misunderstandings. And I do not mean that in any 'softish' way.
As to anti-zionism becoming anti-semitism..few good things have names that end in -ism and the -isms that begin in anti- are usually even worse.
Even optimism and pessimism are not such very good words if you ask me.
A person should try to have a pure heart and follow their heart. In some cases that may take people to the battlefield to fight for their ideals. It's not always the pacifists that bring about peace.
My family would not have returned to Flanders if the Red Army
had not fought their way to their Polish labour camp and they would not have survived if some American army sergeant had not helped them across the Elbe and sent them back home even though they had to walk most of the way, and had to feed on cows they killed with (stray?) handgrenades.
As to the (mainly French) "liberal left": you should read Revel's "The Anti-American Obsession". It shows how "rigorous" some "free" thinkers actually are.
B.t.w. one of the reasons why the French are always picking on the USA (says my British friend ) is that they have not yet "forgiven" the Americans for liberating them from the Germans.
If you see what I mean.

Thanks Flem-ish, that was interesting. I don't know much about Belgium, I've never met any Belgians, and as a reserve IDF officer I won't be traveling to Belgium any time soon (at least not until that stupid law gets canceled- not because I'm worried someone might arrest me, but as my own private sort of protest). All I know is that my favorite band (K's Choice) are from Antwerp.

Quote:

---

do I have to choose between Jews and Arabs?

---

No! Of course not! I have had Arab friends, at one time my best friend was an Arab colleague of mine.
There are good Arabs and bad Arabs, just as there are good Jews and bad Jews. (A lot of Arabs do seem to have a slight problem with the concept of truth, as you mentioned, but they lie to each other just as much as they lie to non-Arabs, if not more. It's a cultural thing, as Arab acquaintances of mine have pointed out. To us it seems wrong, but to them it seems perfectly normal).

I wasn't questioning the neutrality of all Belgian people, I was questioning the neutrality of the government and the high-court.

P.S- no one really likes matzot.

I only would like to add that I didn’t want to say that Communism was more atrocious that the Nazism, even if perhaps it is true... I am equally critical of Bush administration and the Chirac government for instance; the original aim of my post, if you read it carefully, was to defend the so-called European Union bureaucracy, which doesn’t deserve the bad opinion it has... That’s all .

As to the role played by the Court of Cassation: this court only is telling the politicians that the law they have made, has been made BY THEM in such a way that Prime-Minister Sharon would indeed be subject to it. It does NOT approve of the Law. Technically speaking Cassation quashes the verdict given by a middle-high court that itself had cancelled a verdict by a lower court.It is a court that merely deals with technicalities. Never with content.
The verdict has by many experts been seen as a discreet hint to politicians : when you make laws think twice about its phrasing.
Among the reduced versions circulating there are suggestions that the law should only apply to "crimes" committed in Belgium, by people having stayed in Belgium for a minimum of one year and there is especially the remark that the International Court of the Hague should be the normal authority in this type of problems.
This would not solve Ariel Sharon's case though, as what is reproached to him dates back to pre-01/07/02 events ( the date of the establishment of that International Court).
That Foreign Secretary Louis Michel is himself embarassed by the affair can be seen at www.diplomatie.be/en/press/homedetails.asp?TEXTID=4469
which is in English.
The Dutch paper Volkskrant at www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/1042610886965.html
also discusses the case, but that is a Dutch article.
http://users.pandora.be/diogenes/belgium1.html#genocidewet
is an expert political-juridical website which has a translating function.
Already in 2001 they were very negative about what politicians had "produced" as a law and called it a "miskleun"( Dutch for a badly done job).
Their remarks coincide with some voiced by other participants in this forum.
A brief summary=
1. No STATE should have jurisdiction over citizens of another
state about events not occurring on its own territory.
2. The only type of court that can have international jurisdiction is something like the International Court of the Hague. ( Not accepted by U.S.A.)
3. Belgium should take into account that the type of law it created, can be very counter-productive in future peace-negotiations between countries involved in a conflict. Peace is often brought about by "ex-war-makers". Example: without reconciliation between IRA-leaders and their Protestant counterparts there will never be any peace. The ones who make the peace, may themselves have blood on their hands.Both Arafat and Beghin were leaders of organisations that technically could be called "terrorism". Yet it was Beghin who made peace with Sadat and it was with Arafat that Rabin tried to come to terms.
4. The jurors in a Belgian court cannot be expected to have sufficient understanding of the complexities of what is going on in another country.
5. If Belgium wants to set past injustices right it still has
plenty of opportunities within its own past. The examples include Leopold II but also refer to some of the injustices
committed after World War II when people were often condemned
without sufficient proof because the legal system was under pressure of "the street riots" and the commies who wanted to seize the opportunity for a coup d'état.
My opinion is that good intentions can lead to the worst blunders, and in this case one might quote Talleyrand: " Worse than a crime, an error".
On the other hand it is a mystery to me why U.S.A. who "attack" Saddam for criminal behaviour, don't contribute to a more acceptable form of international court.
Without a role to be played by the The Hague Court,or the United Nations you can only have a "justice of the victors".
Who would have had to "bring Joseph Stalin to court"?
His own people??
In that case you could apply the same to ...Saddam....(which I do not see as a realistic alternative).
Any "constructive proposition" ??
B.t.w.the Belgian politician who did most to stop the so-called anti-genocid-law is the very experienced Antwerp lawyer and politician Mr. Erdman. As far as I know, he is a respected member of the Jewish community in that town.

Flem-ish,
(I started this response last night, but then we had a power failure).
Thanks for the links. I wasn't aware of Michel's letter and it certainly helps me feel better about the situation (although I've also heard that Michel recently compared Israel with Nazi Germany, which makes me wonder just how sincere his letter is). My parents both speak Afrikaans, so they were able to translate part of the Dutch article for me. The biggest problem that I have with this whole issue is that most people who see the story on the news are totally ignorant of the facts. Most people seem to be under the impression that Sharon personally planned and led the massacre (there was even a quiz on this site that claimed as much) and that Israeli soldiers did the killing. In actual fact the massacre was carried out by Christian Phalangists, and the worst Sharon was ever truthfully accused of was that he should have anticipated the massacre, since the Phalangists had no shortage of good reasons to want revenge against the Palestinians.

The problem that the USA (as well as Israel) has with the International court in the Hague is not with the concept but rather with the execution. Israel (I'm not sure about the US) was one of the first countries to express support for the idea of the court, but in light of how the details have been handled there is a real concern that the court will become a political tool (much like what happened with the Belgian law).

On the issue of legitimacy for former war criminals, Arafat and Begin were (and Arafat still is) the leaders of terrorist organizations technically, literally, and in any other way you want to describe it (I've posted in more detail about Begin, as well as Shamir, in a different thread). Maybe part of the test should be that they don't get two chances: Begin, after he reformed, helped bring about peace with Egypt. Arafat turned out to have been lying all along (during the Oslo process) so he's missed his chance for true legitimacy. Also, some crimes, such as genocide, should mean they don't even get one chance. I'm not sure, these are just preliminary thoughts.

To snm.
Prob seems to me that especially many YOUNG people trying to be fair to the "other side", become unfair to the Israeli side.
They express their views without knowing the basic facts, and without any sense of balance. As the Holocaust seems to them a rather "distant" reality, they see "the Other Side" as the martyrs and want to solve the question by giving "both" states their territory, not realising that what (some factions of ) Other Side want(s )often looks more like "destroying" than like "sharing".
In Antwerp some Jewish organisations seem to have understood that an effort must be made to open up a bit to the younger
generations and to explain Jewish customs, traditions.
When visiting London with my students I always take them to
the Jewish Museum so they can have some visual experience of
Jewish religious symbols. There is a local saying: "Onbekend maakt onbemind".( With some knowledge of Afrikaans...)
In my school we had an Israeli and a Palestinian girl telling to the local students how difficult it was for them to remain personal friends in spite of the "political tension". Both girls had a high intellectual level and were not telling us sentimental stories. They refused to discuss "political solutions", just spoke about their close contacts as humans.
I bet this helped us "outsiders" much more to get a bit of understanding about the complications of the real life situation, than any political analysis.
Some Flemish cultural and tourist organisations now even collaborate with Jewish groups for a one-day tour of "Jewish Antwerp". It includes a visit to a synagogue, a kosher meal, a visit to a house of an orthodox Jewish family and a discussion with non-religious Jews.
Alas....what one hears about is usually the INCIDENTS and the
ACCIDENTS ...not the GOOD WILL initiatives.
The same applies to the contacts between Belgians and Arabs.
For every agressive Arab here there are at least three non agressive ones, and the contacts with the Turkish community have even improved beyond recognition. ( Moral of my story: every little bit helps...)

Quote:

---

Prob seems to me that especially many young people trying to be fair to the "other side", become unfair to the Israeli side.
They express their views without knowing the basic facts, and without any sense of balance. As the Holocaust seems to them a rather "distant" reality, they see "the Other Side" as the martyrs and want to solve the question by giving "both" states their territory, not realising that what (some factions of ) Other Side want(s )often looks more like "destroying" than like "sharing".

---

AHA! You hit it right on the nose!
I couldn't have said it better if I'd tried...

EU powerhouses right on the money once again.