Like peace? Then you are as dangerous as an "anti-semite"

[sullivan]

According to this nutjob, the European tendency towards pacifism is a character flaw every bit as bad as being an "anti-semite".  I suppose to a citizen in a nation that prefers war over peace, destructiveness over constructiveness, lies over truth, those who prefer peace may seem strange.

No less dangerous than anti-Semitism
By Yair Sheleg, Haaretz

Of all the Western countries, it is those in Europe - and European public opinion even more so than those countries' leaders - that are the most critical of Israel's policies in the territories. Opinion polls conducted in Europe repeatedly point to Israel as one of the greatest dangers to world peace, and one of the greatest violators of human rights. In a survey of this kind carried out in July 2007, some 45% of Europeans compared Israel's policies in the territories to those of the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Parallel to this, European countries have been prominent in the past decade in marking the Holocaust. They have dealt extensively with their own roles during the period of extermination and expressed regret over collaboration during the time of the extermination, or over the looting of Jewish property after that.

This duality is so obvious that there are many Jews and Israelis who try to claim that the commemoration and the criticism are two sides of the same coin which tries to relieve Europe of the heavy cloak of guilt that covers it. On the one hand Europe admits to its past and asks for forgiveness, and on the other hand it attacks the Jewish state and in this way creates some kind of "moral balance" between it and that Europe, as if to say 'when you have the power it turns out that you are no better'. Many others regard the excessive criticism of Israel as some sort of anti-Semitism.

But one fact spoils this theory: Israel is not alone in facing the arrows of European criticism, but rather stands alongside the United States. Uncle Sam is also constantly attacked by European public opinion for having aggressive policies; the clearest example of the past few years being, of course, the American invasion and control of Iraq.

And indeed there is a common denominator to the European criticism of Israel and the U.S., and this common denominator apparently also stems from the lessons of that war. It is the phenomenon of European pacifism, the desire to avoid the use of any kind of force, to avoid any forceful confrontation even with evil regimes.

This instinct is particularly salient when talking about a confrontation of a Western country with a society from the developing world, such as the confrontation between the U.S. and Iraq or between Israel and the Palestinians.

That is because another European instinct then comes into play, one that also belongs to the history of their colonialist heritage. This instinct guides the Europeans to identify any conflict between the West and the developing world as a colonialist conflict in which one must identify with the underdog, the one who seems to be weak. In that context, Israel is indeed discriminated against by the criticism leveled at it; not necessarily because it is a Jewish state, but rather mainly because it is a Western state.

That is to say, the European sin is not anti-Semitism but rather pacifism, especially when dealing with the Europeans' attitude toward force on the part of a Western country. But this is not a sin that is any less dangerous than anti-Semitism. It was precisely the Holocaust that proved how dangerous silent acceptance was, even if accompanied with the most lofty excuses of preventing war and bringing "peace in our time" in the face of the forces of evil threatening openly to gain control, ruin and destroy - such are also the forces of fundamentalist Islam of our day.

World War II also proved that at the end of the day, this kind of policy is not effective - it merely raises to a great extent the price that will have to be paid in order to deal with the forces of evil when they grow even stronger. With the means of mass destruction existing today, who knows if it will not be too late.

In this sense, there is apparently a deep connection between the Europeans' pacifism and the low birth rates on the continent; both of them indicate a policy of "eat and make merry because tomorrow we may die;" a deep lack of trust in life in the long run because the wish to live - which is not merely that of an individual but rather of the civilization in which he lives - does indeed demand victims.

It requires the effort that is involved in raising children as well as the effort and the risk involved with waging a war on behalf of the values of freedom or on behalf of a national and sovereign existence so that these may be ensured for generations to come. This is true in Europe just as it is true in Israel.

[Anonymous]

July 2007, some 45% of Europeans compared Israel's policies in the territories to those of the apartheid regime in South Africa.

I'm very glad to see that many people compare Israel to S.Africa.

It is the phenomenon of European pacifism, the desire to avoid the use of any kind of force, to avoid any forceful confrontation even with evil regimes.

Indeed, they are like that, since they aren't blowing the shit out of Israel, I guess he is right.

[Anonymous]

Once again the Jews twist something good into a pile of idiotic nonsense.

   Pacifism is a problem. Not pacifism in the face of fighting "evil regimes" (read: enemies of the Jews) but cowardice in the face of our criminal masters. The Jews don't want a passive United States or Europe insofar as nations whose armies are pawns for them, but they do want pacifism in the street and in the home. They demand a creature too lazy and cowardly to leave his recliner and fight the people poisoning the women and children, but gullible enough to be excited to action when terrorists threaten his worthless Union Jack.

   It is worth mentioning here, that if you examine the symbols that were destroyed or damaged on 9/11 it becomes quite absurd that the common man wants to fight the supposed perpetrators. Certainly, people dying in an office building is a tragedy, but if we take away the human factor; the death toll, the World Trade Center and Pentagon being struck and subsequently seeing the middle and lower classes rising to fight is like a slave defending his slave master. The London 7/7 attack is more sensible in the sense of rallying common folk. As our leaders are increasingly exposed as corrupt bastards, false flags will be dealt against the citizenry and military targets. People of the lower classes (who make up the brunt of any army) will care less and less when capitalist and government targets are struck. Attacking the USS Kitty Hawk and/or incinerating a few neighborhoods are most likely on the agenda.

   I'll also add that it's interesting that the Jew attacks the "silent acceptance" of those who came late in the fight during World War II (more attacks on the Americans who bled and died for these rats). Funny that the article doesn't rail against fellow Jews for being too cowardly to stand up against their supposed German oppressors. Why? Because an article dedicated to pacifism in the home and on the street, instead of collective national pacifism, would rally people against the Jews themselves because they are amongst our oppressors; they are the hand behind todays metaphorical Nazi jackboot that goes house to house to disarm and imprison us.

   The last thing the Jew wants is to insight people to guerrilla warfare or any kind of underground resistance so nary a word can be said for the pacifist Jews who let their people get hauled off during the so-called Holocaust. No, the author must attack the goyim for not being better protectors of the "Chosen".

[sullivan]

Pacifism is a problem. Not pacifism in the face of fighting "evil regimes" (read: enemies of the Jews) but cowardice in the face of our criminal masters.

Pacifism and cowardice aren't necessarily one and the same thing.  What irks the Jewish Criminal State and its cheerleaders so much is that Europe as a whole (so far at least) isn't willing to engage in indiscriminate killing on its behalf. Perhaps that will change if the diabolical Lisbon Treaty becomes 'law'.

[Anonymous]

Pacifism and cowardice aren't necessarily one and the same thing.

   Too true, yet cowards often hide behind pacifism or a religious text.

[high_treason]

As long as most people act like goy they will be treated as such, those bastards have been sucking our blood for centuries now but I think now more than ever more people have waken up to the facts than before. Even though we might be in the minority but think of how the American Revolution was only supported by 5% of the population.