Column One: What Europe wants

[NewGuy]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...cle/Printer&cid=1085721253715&p=1006953079897

Many still do not understand the dominating role of the EU in politics. It would seem the media is catching up, yet a bit too late.

Hopefully the following will prove insightful. It is longer than this, but I hope that all will click the link to read the rest considering the level of importance.

Standing before the EU parliament in Brussels on May 16 2001, French EU parliamentarian Paul Marie Couteax made a stunning statement. After condemning Israel's actions to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism as the "theocratic excesses of this religious state," Couteax declared that Europe should supply the Arab world with nuclear weapons. In his words, "I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country [France] pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force."

Couteax's statement, though over the top, follows a flow of seemingly obtuse and illogical statements and actions by the EU and its member states since the start of the Palestinian terror war almost four years ago.

For instance, in the midst of the IDF's counter-terror operations in Rafah last week, Ireland's Foreign Minister Brian Cowan, speaking for the EU whose presidency his country currently holds, condemned Israel's actions in the most hysterical and factually inaccurate terms.

After meeting a delegation from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the same people who gave a standing ovation to Malaysia's then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad last fall when he claimed that Jews were the source of all the troubles in the world), Cowan all but accused Israel of carrying out war crimes when he stated that "Israeli forces showed a reckless disregard for human life."

Placing the IDF's military operations directed against Palestinian terrorists on par with the murder of Tali Hatuel and her four young daughters in a deliberate attack by Palestinian terrorists, Cowan said, "I would once again remind Israel, the occupying power, that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is fully applicable to the Gaza Strip."

Like almost all of the EU's statements, Cowan's remarks ignore basic facts.

As a database comprised by the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism shows quite clearly, Israel targets terrorists in its operations while Palestinians attack Israelis indiscriminately. The institute's figures show conclusively that since the start of the Palestinian terror war, non-combatants have made up 80 percent of Israeli casualties, whereas on the Palestinian side, 56% of casualties have been verified combatants. Since Palestinian terrorists generally do not wear uniforms, Dan Radlauer – who oversees the database – explains that it is quite possible that the percentage of Palestinian casualties who are combatants may actually be significantly higher than that figure. This information is readily available to Cowan and his EU colleagues. They could easily have put together a similar study.

But that would not advance their interests.

In a revealing incident, earlier this month, the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG) released a report outlining the systemic abuse of power by Palestinian security forces against Palestinian civilians.

According to an account in The Scotsman, the report has not won PHRMG accolades for its brave and honest reporting in an atmosphere of terror and repression cultivated by Arafat and his henchmen.

Rather, in response to the organization's decision to document human rights abuses by the PA and by Israel, the group has seen its financial support from the EU slashed.

If one believes the EU's rhetoric of support for the peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the EU's actions make no sense. After all, if the EU is interested in an end to the terror war, it should be empowering anti-terror groups in the PA to uncover abuses and fight them. Yet rather than do so, the EU has shelved every report that has proven that EU funds to the PA are actually diverted to finance terrorism and incitement. If the EU wishes to play an active role in the search for peace and security in the region, it should not be condemning lawful Israeli actions against terrorists and ignoring the fact that, by its indiscriminate nature, Palestinian terrorism is an affront to the very notion of international law.

Yet, this is precisely the point. There is a yawning gap between the EU's rhetoric and its actual policies. Its rhetoric purports to work toward a workable peace between Israel and its neighbors. Its actual policy is to support the Arabs against Israel. Indeed, Europe has a three-tiered approach to the Arab world, each policy layer of which is inherently inimical to the notion of fairness and balance in relation to Israel.

 

[dmp]

in the twinkling of an eye.....



wow.

 

[5stringJeff]

Is it just me, or is France trying to fill the anti-American socialist void left open by the fall of the USSR?

 

[insein]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Is it just me, or is France trying to fill the anti-American socialist void left open by the fall of the USSR?

They are trying but we don't consider them a threat militarily. But politically they are becoming a major threat with statements like the above.

 

[Zhukov]

How could someone be so monumentally stupid?

 

[insein]

In their eyes, they're the smart ones.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by insein
They are trying but we don't consider them a threat militarily. But politically they are becoming a major threat with statements like the above.

...and also becoming a major pain in our ass.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by Zhukov
How could someone be so monumentally stupid?

What's even more dumbfounding is how many countries are signing on and actually believing the EU will be a benefit to them all.

 

[Annie]

Isn't that what the majority of Americans are arguing for?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Isn't that what the majority of Americans are arguing for?

Ummm.... what is "that"?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Ummm.... what is "that"?

In his words, "I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country [France] pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force."

 

[NewGuy]

Most of America DOES want that.

They just don't want to publicly admit they are against Israel. You have to stand for or against.

Americans look at Israel as the younger, wilder step-brother they have to live with. They try to corral them in.

The reality is that very, very soon, we are going to turn against them as well.

In many policies, we have already boxed them in.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Most of America DOES want that.

They just don't want to publicly admit they are against Israel. You have to stand for or against.

Americans look at Israel as the younger, wilder step-brother they have to live with. They try to corral them in.

The reality is that very, very soon, we are going to turn against them as well.

In many policies, we have already boxed them in.

Agreed. You still thinkin' 20 years? I am thinking that is optomistic.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
Agreed. You still thinkin' 20 years? I am thinking that is optomistic.

To quote my wife on matters such as seeing what comes next in the trends of the future...."You are always right, you are never wrong.....but your timing SUCKS."

So, I am probably wrong in my total gut feeling of 5 years, so I say 20 to be safe.