- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,095
- Reaction score
- 1,544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Karel De Gucht, a former Belgian foreign minister who is now the E.U.'s Trade Commissioner, had been asked in a radio interview on Thursday for his opinion on renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace talks launched in Washington.
"That is the best organized lobby that exists there," De Gucht was quoted by The Associated Press as telling VRT, a Dutch-language radio network. "There is, indeed, a religion, I can hardly describe it differently, among most Jews that they are right. So it is not easy to have a rational discussion with a moderate Jew about what is happening in the Middle East. It is a very emotional issue."
“What sort of environment allows such remarks to be made openly by a senior politician?” said Moshe Kantor, the EJC president. “This is part of a dangerous trend of incitement against Jews and Israel in Europe that needs to be stamped out immediately.”
Yeah, sure, let's generalize people from a whole religion based on old racist beliefs that got 6 million of them killed in WW2. Why would they be upset?
To suggest that an ethnicity is a deciding factor in a person's attitude is to make a racist remark by definition.
/thread
But is the guy wrong? Considering the usual arrogance of many Israelis and their supporters in the belief they are in the right no matter what.. then one has to ask the question.. is he not right in his comments?
Interesting... I will remember this quote for you..
But is the guy wrong?
To suggest that an ethnicity is a deciding factor in a person's attitude is to make a racist remark by definition.
"There is, indeed, a religion, I can hardly describe it differently, among most Europeans that they are right. So it is not easy to have a rational discussion with a moderate European about anything having to do with America. It is a very emotional issue."
Let's see, here. A Belgian politician indulged in a time-honored antisemitic canard in regards to undue Jewish influence, he was called on it, and now all those who support the canard are trying to characterize the reaction to the antisemitic statement as an overreaction.
My goodness -- it's right out of the playbook, isn't it?
You know, just to point out the absurdity of calling this an anti-semitic canard I was talking about the Commissioner's comments with my parents who are both hardcore conservative Evangelicals who think there should be no mosques built in the U.S. and that the Palestinians are out to get the Jews, but when I mentioned the Commissioner's comment on the considerable influence of AIPAC my father's response was basically "Duh!"
Yeah, sure, let's generalize people from a whole religion based on old racist beliefs that got 6 million of them killed in WW2. Why would they be upset?
"There is, indeed, a religion, I can hardly describe it differently, among most Europeans that they are right. So it is not easy to have a rational discussion with a moderate European about anything having to do with America. It is a very emotional issue."
I am curious though, what do you call making ethnicity a deciding factor in founding a nation
Good thing that's not what he said. He said "most Jews" will not rationally discuss Israel or the Middle East. Most =/= all. You can know many violent Muslims and at the same time say most Muslims are non-violent. There is no contradiction there.
I am curious though, what do you call making ethnicity a deciding factor in founding a nation and making it a deciding factor in immigration and citizenship?
"There is, indeed, a religion, I can hardly describe it differently, among most Conservatives that they are right. So it is not easy to have a rational discussion with a moderate Conservatives about anything having to do with Islam. It is a very emotional issue."
"There is, indeed, a religion, I can hardly describe it differently, among most Liberals that they are right. So it is not easy to have a rational discussion with a moderate Liberal about anything having to do with Islam. It is a very emotional issue."
This game is fun.
"The is, a religion, I can hardly describe it differently, among most Black people that they are right. So it is not easy to have a rational discussion with a moderate Black person about anything having to do with racism. It is a very emotional issue."
Conditioning a person's attitude with him being Black is racism by definition.
Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency
A politician makes a fairly accurate observation and is immediately labeled an anti-Semite by World Jewry. Unfortunately, he gave them exactly what they wanted a comment they can call an apology. In essence they can say he acknowledged what he said was wrong and anti-Semitic.
Honestly, he should have just said, "They ain't nothing anti-Semitic 'bout what I say! Y'all are stupid!"
He said 2 things:
1) Only the USA can have an influence on Israel, and we should not underestimate the influence of the Jewish lobby on US politics
2) It is not easy to have a rational discussion because it is a very emotional issue
Now about the Jewish lobby, let's check if it exists.
AIPAC - America's Pro-Israel Lobby "America's pro-Israel lobby" "For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong. From a small pro-Israel public affairs boutique in the 1950s, AIPAC has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement described by The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel" and whose activities include "Prohibiting U.S. aid and contacts with a Hamas-led PA until its leaders recognize Israel's right to exist"...
I don't think anyone reasonable can deny that there is a Jewish lobby in Washington and that this lobby is influent. Just read the list of their "achievements" on their website.
Then, about the fact that it is not easy to have a rational discussion about a very emotional issue, that may sound a bit prejudiced but no one can deny that neither.
And I want to add that De Gucht is not "politically correct", he has caused several diplomatic incidents with Congo when he said what everyone think: he openly said that there was a lot of corruption in Congo, that the Congolese state is particularly inefficient, that he doubted about the capacities of the Congolese politicians, that we had wasted a lot of money there...and the Congolese politicians replied that De Gucht was "racist" and that he believed Congo was still a Belgian colony...
Why don't they reply to the criticism instead of labelling him "racist" or "antisemite"? Is it not true that it is difficult to have a rational discussion about emotional issues? Is it not true that there is a Jewish lobby in Washington?
Two points bub:
1) Nobody argues about whether there is a Jewish lobby in the US.
The anti-semitic canard exists when people believe that such lobby's influence is so great that it is a decisive factor in America's policies, or in other words, that Jews control America's foreign policy.
2) He didn't say that, he said that you can't have a rational discussion about Israel with a moderate Jew.
That's conditioning the person's ethnicity with his attitude and that's flat out anti-semitic, racist and repulsive remark.
Aren't you confusing "prejudice that is not entirely wrong" with "antisemitism"?
Don't think I do, no.
To claim that an ethnicity is a decisive factor in a person's attitude is, as you must know, racism
And of course I think that it's entirely wrong, Jews don't control America's foreign policy
and being a Jew doesn't make a person irrational in debates about Israel, certainly if one is considering that not all Jews are pro-Israeli and that not all Jews show interest in Israeli politics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?