New anti-Semitism disguised by hatred of Israel, report says

[oberliner]

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Jews worldwide are facing a new form of anti-Semitism disguised by hatred toward Israel, in addition to more traditional forms of anti-Semitism, a new US report said Thursday.

"This new anti-Semitism is common throughout the Middle East and in Muslim communities in Europe, but it is not confined to these populations," the US State Department said in a report for 2007.

It said United Nations bodies, for example, are frequently asked to "commission investigations of what often are sensationalized reports of alleged atrocities and other violations of human rights by Israel," it said.

While the motive may be to defuse a crisis or offer a forum to channel anger, the effect of "unremitting criticism of Israel" bolsters the idea that the Jewish state is a leading source of "abuse of the rights of others," it said.

At the same time UN bodies often fail to "pay attention to regimes that are demonstrably guilty of grave violations," it added.

"Comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is increasingly commonplace," said the report from the State Department which is required under legislation passed in 2004 to document and combat anti-Semitic acts worldwide.

"Anti-Semitism couched as criticism of Zionism or Israel often escapes condemnation since it can be more subtle than traditional forms of anti-Semitism, and promoting anti-Semitic attitudes may not be the conscious intent of the purveyor," it said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8vKrmpGjIjc1RBWHi1PV7bADcoQ

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

1. When I watch what goes on in the middle east, it simply shows

me that " a eye for a eye ' doesn't work. Peace be with us all.

[Hardrada]

2. Being opposed to Israeli militarism and imperialism can

stem from simple humanitarianism. There is no necessity for elaborate theories of "antisemitism." Just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

[Looking4Light]

22. True, but...

being opposed to ONLY Israeli "militarism and imperialism" is NOT "simple humanitarianism", it is at the least anti-Israeli bigotry, and almost certainly antisemitic.

If someone were to constantly rail against the human rights abuses in Arab countries, without mentioning those in other parts of the world, wouldn't you think that that is evidence of an anti-Arab agenda? Perhaps even an anti-Muslim agenda? I would.

[Hardrada]

66. The topic was Israel, as I recall, not the Arab world which is, anyway,

constantly vilified in the generally pro-Israel MSM. Perhaps it is the fact that we were always taught brave little Israel can do no wrong. And were seriously undeceived.

[nashville_brook]

3. this is a report issued by the US State Department, so, basically you can't criticize

US foreign policy vis a vis Israel and Middle East without being an anti-semite. that's quite a lot of ground to claim under our flag.

sounds like the US State Department is stating implicitly that Israel is incapable of "abusing the rights of others." gee, that's good to know.

[catnhatnh]

4. I call bullshit.....

Just one more iteration of "racists" support Hilliary or "sexists" support Obama....No dipshits-sometimes opposing the actions of Israel only means opposing the actions of Israel....Just like opposing telecom immunity is not "supporting the terrorists"...It's all a way of labeling someone whose opposition you resent with a universally despised label and belittling their arguements....

[november3rd]

5. We Hate Them Because They Hated Us First

I heard this same argument today from at least one other person I greatly respect and also from a written source in a newspaper somebody else was quoting.

The theme was, "Arabs are vermin who hate us and only want to destroy Israel (and western civilization). We're 'arrogant' in our self-centered belief that our values, such as fairness, are universal and that we can survive by treating Arabs fairly."

Therefore, every bomb, tank, machine gun, and truncheon Israel uses against Palestinians is not a human rights violation. Cluster bombs are "humane" because, even though they blow off the arms and legs of small children, they don't destroy roads and buildings.

The Arabs don't have a right to ALL of Israel, but they'll take it by force if we don't attack them first.

Therefore, nobody could reasonably criticize Israel for its human rights record.

In sum, any criticism of Israel is really just anti-semitism and must be crushed.

But, I would argue, Israel and Judaism are not the same thing. Almost 50% of Israel's population is Arab! How can criticism of Israel be anti-semitic? They're two different things.

Israel is a political entity with a government and Judaism is a religion.

Duh.

[peacetalksforall]

13. Finally. Some logic. Bravo for being so clear. And thanks.

I think someone is intentionally obfuscating what many people are starting to believe and hang on the the famous accusation - anti-Semite.

I consider being a Jew a choice of religion.
I consider that many Jews live in many countries and are citizens of those countries.
I consider that Jews who live in Israel are also Israelis who practice Judaism, just as a Christian or spiritualist who is a citizen there is an Israeli (I assume they allow non-Jews to be citizens).
I consider that many Israelis want peace.
I consider tha many Israelis want war - that is who I object to. THESE are the people who are partners with the people in the US who want the same thing. Call them the WAR LOVERS. That is who I resent.

NOT the Jews there, here, anywhere. NOT the other Israelis who want peace.

We have never been able to side with Palestinians because of the way Arafat was demeaned and because we were supposed to empathize with Israelis they way we were supposed to empathize with Cuban-Americans.

We're not doing it anymore. And now we are called anti-Semites because we won't go along with the all war all the time. We now know whats up - pure profits for a few at the same time as that life never seems to improve for the Palestinians.

No more for the war originators, facilitators, profiteers.

No one better call me an anti-Semite. I will not accept it. I will fight it.

I now despise the eye for an eye mentality on both sides. And I am not enamoured at the Jewish-Christian-Moslem ideology that accepts this ideology and practice whether in edict, order, or religious scripture. I denounce the scripture as long as contains something ancient that means death of humans by humans.

I repeat. No one should call me an Anti-Semite. Someone should be smart enough to understand that mine is a valid position and hold no hate for a relgion - for any of them.

I was once told that the there wouldn't be peace because Jews were logical and Moslems were passionate. There is not logical to call people anti-Semite for oppising their war agendas.

I support what you have said, november3rd.

[Shaktimaan]

19. I don't think you're an anti-semite.

Your post is ridiculous but I don't think that it is because you hate Jews or Israelis.

I think it is because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and even less about the conflict in the Middle East.

Seriously dude, you seem like a smart guy who just never bothered to learn anything about this subject, which isn't a crime. But it is an extremely complex conflict and what you've written here makes no sense whatsoever.

And now we are called anti-Semites because we won't go along with the all war all the time. We now know whats up - pure profits for a few at the same time as that life never seems to improve for the Palestinians.

Trust me when I tell you that you don't, in fact, have any idea what's up. Tom Friedman has a great primer book on this, if you're interested in this topic you could do a lot worse than reading it. But you can't just decide on your own what the deal is without learning what's going on first. I mean, come on...

No offense intended BTW.

[peacetalksforall]

21. Sorry, can't take the time for Tom Friedman. I only have what I've

observed for decades. I start with denouncing an eye for an eye. I denounce what Israel did to Lebanon - including children and bridges. I denounce that human beings cannot live on their land as well with dignity, opportunity, and freedom of movement. They can't take the high road to peace because they are too dependent on the profits of war. I regret their power in our Pentagon. I spent years believing they could figure out peace. I totally gave up. Someone else might figure it out.

[Shaktimaan]

67. what are you talking about here?

They can't take the high road to peace because they are too dependent on the profits of war. I regret their power in our Pentagon.

What does this mean? Who are you discussing?

Who is too dependent on the profits of war? Who has power in *our* pentagon and how/why do they have it? Since you are referring to *our* pentagon do you mean Israelis? Or some other nation-state?

[Behind the Aegis]

17. You might want to read some more.

If you think that almost 50% of Israel is Arab, well, you really don't know of what you are speaking. It is also incongruent to say:

"In sum, any criticism of Israel is really just anti-semitism and must be crushed." and then say; "But, I would argue, Israel and Judaism are not the same thing. Almost 50% of Israel's population is Arab! How can criticism of Israel be anti-semitic?"

If Judaism and Israel are not the same thing, then why would Israel's Arab population make a whit of difference it anti-Semitism is being used? My guess is you don't know what anti-Semitism is.

[Shaktimaan]

18. it's really all or nothing with you guys, huh?

I can't believe the way everyone here seems incapable of seeing this thing in anything other than black and white.

In America, it is well known that Black people routinely get convicted at a greater rate and are given longer sentences than white people, for the same crimes. Many look at this fact and deduce that racism plays a role in the inequality.

Now, when you guys hear that argument, do you think that it says that racism is being used as an excuse to suggest that black people never commit crimes?

No one is saying that criticism of Israel is always anti-semitic or that Israel isn't guilty of committing crimes against humanity. They are saying that Israel is overwhelmingly singled out, often unfairly and certainly with greater frequency than any other nation, many of whom have truly appalling human rights records that make Israel look like Sweden. For example, Israel has been the subject of more UN resolutions criticizing its behavior than the rest of the world COMBINED. The newly formed UN Human Rights Council has established only one permanent and special agenda item, against Israel, making it the only state that receives individual scrutiny at every meeting. In its first year, 11 resolutions criticized Israel. None were issued for any other nation, including Sudan, where Darfur is located, Zimbabwe or Burma.

On 29 November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised the Human Rights Council for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel" while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises.

A UN statement said, "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#_note-economistcouncil

The point is not that any and all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic or unfounded. That would be absurd. But if Israel is being singled out for criticism at the expense of investigating and reporting on other nations who are guilty of greater crimes then it is reasonable to ask why. Considering the amount of truly anti-semitic propaganda that's reported as truth in many parts of the world, (things like the protocols of the elders of zion and blood libel accusations), it is hardly rocket science to deduce that much of the flak that Israel takes is the result of anti-semitic bigotry under a thin veneer of anti-zionism or human rights concerns as a nod towards western rejection of flat out racism.

Do me a favor and try and look at this for what it is instead of automatically rejecting it as a cynical ploy to provide political cover for Israel. No one thinks Israel's innocent of any human rights violations. But that doesn't mean that the criticism against it isn't based on something far more nefarious than mere concern for human rights. If that were so then we would probably see some other state eventually being condemned as well, right?

[stranger81]

119. this post is hilarious -- pot, kettle, black.

"No one is saying that criticism of Israel is always anti-semitic or that Israel isn't guilty of committing crimes against humanity" -- actually, that's exactly what about half of this board says every goddamn day, every time the opportunity presents itself.

This argument is nothing but a perfect license for Israel to behave as badly as it likes, without any repercussions whatsoever. And it's complete and utter bullshit.

[msmcghee]

123. I have a question. You said . .

"No one is saying that criticism of Israel is always anti-semitic or that Israel isn't guilty of committing crimes against humanity."

Crimes against humanity is a pretty serious charge - possibly something like firing high explosive rockets packed with ball bearings into heavy populated civilian areas with no defensive purpose over a period of several months.

In international law, a crime against humanity is an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense.

The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states that crimes against humanity "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

As I understand that definition I would consider myself as one who would say that Israel does not commit crimes against humanity. Do you actually believe otherwise? If you do I'd be surprised - but I'll be very interested to hear your explanation.

[aranthus]

36. You need to learn about Jews and the Middle East

before you start posting things like this.

I was not party to the argument you heard earlier, but it sounds as if either you are painting it out of proportion and context, or that the person you heard from is not in the mainstream.

For example, you posted, "The Arabs don't have a right to ALL of Israel, but they'll take it by force if we don't attack them first." I don't believe this is an accurate statement of Israeli or Jewish mainstream belief (I am the Jewish son of an Israeli, so I have some knowledge). The more accurate version of this belief is, "The Arabs don't have a right to ALL of Israel, but they'll take it by force if we don't defend ourselves." Or put another way, "If the Arabs lay down their arms, there will be peace. If the Israelis lay down their arms, then there will be no Israel." Since before Israel was created, the Arabs have attempted by violence to deny the Jews their own state in Israel. The PLO and Hamas charters are riddled with statements that Israel must be destroyed, and that the only way to achieve that result is with armed struggle. Almost all Jews view this as antisemitism. to explain why, let's look at two of your other statements. You posted:

"But, I would argue, Israel and Judaism are not the same thing. Almost 50% of Israel's population is Arab! How can criticism of Israel be anti-semitic? They're two different things."

What is wrong with this, you ask? First, it is true that Israel and Judaism are two different things. The United States and Americans are two different things as well, but they are related, don't you think? Keep that in mind, as I am coming back to it. Second, as has already been mentioned to you, Israel is not close to 50% Arab. Israel's population is between 70% and 75% Jewish. The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza aren't Israelis and obviously they don't want to be. The point is that it is really impossible to separate Israel, the state, from the fact that it is a Jewish state.

Next you posted:

"Israel is a political entity with a government and Judaism is a religion."

Here is where your lack of understanding of Judaism makes all the difference. Judaism is not just a religion. It is an ethnicity and nationalism as well. Jewish existence is founded on a triarchy of belief. A triarchy is a three tiered hierarchy. In the case of the Jews, that hierarchy is, from top to bottom: God; Law (Torah); Nation. Jews are the Nation that follows the religious Law which they believe was given to them by God. Like other nations, they have a distinct language, place of origin, history, customs and culture.

To cut to the chase, much, but not all, criticism of Israel is based on the belief that Israel has no right to exist. No surprise there, as that is the Arab argument, and has been their cause for over 60 years. Put another way, the belief is that the Jews have no right to a state of their own. That's a direct denial of Jewish existence as a Nation; one of the three elements of Jewish existence, and that is per se antisemitism.

There is a lot more that could be said about this, but I don't have time to go into all of the details and complications. I would suggest three books to you and everyone else. "Clues About Jews For People Who Aren't" by Sidney and Betty Jacobs, and "Why the Jews" and "The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism" both by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin and Dennis Prager.

[razors edge]

6. Yeh, right.

I don't have the time, or the inclination, to distinguish one delusional group of people killing for property from another delusional group of people killing for property, based on the suppossed merits of their delusions.

Life is too short to see a distinction between the psychopaths who like Pepsi and the ones who like Coke.

[Mountainman]

7. We can fight and fight but in the end we will negotiate a settlement.

Why not just skip to the end? I don't hate Israel and I don't hate Jews, I hate their war. Last year 150 Arab children were killed by Israel. Somewhere around 5 Israeli children were killed by Arabs in the same period. What did these kids do to deserve that? Children learn hatred it isn't ingrained. Both sides are teaching their children to hate and both side are killing children in the name of hate.

Stop it now!

[pingzing58]

8. No Palestinian State no peace!!!!

[Vegasaurus]

23. No, according to Hamas and many of the Arab/Muslim nations

there will be no peace as long as there is an Israel.

[pingzing58]

33. Nope it's not about the State of Israel, it's about the Palestinians not having one. God stopped

intervening since the destruction of the second temple.

[Shaktimaan]

38. God stopped intervening?

What's that about?

As far as Hamas' motivation goes, we can only rely on what they have stated themselves. Which is not that they are fighting for an independent Palestine alongside Israel, but for a Palestinian state that exists over all of Mandate Palestine, including Israel, which they consider to be Palestinian land by right. Hamas is very clear on this. They oppose Israel's existence and reserve the right to fight until Israel ceases to exist. They oppose any two state solution and repeatedly state that they don't recognize the right of any Palestinian politician to sign away their right to the any part, no matter how small, of the whole of Palestine.

When Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords, Hamas issued a statement saying that they didn't recognize the treaty and would take action to render it void. Immediately following its ratification Hamas began a series of suicide bombings in Israel which made the Oslo years more violent than the previous several decades combined. They were clear that they were attacking to derail the two state solution peace process... this isn't my own interpretation of events, it is what Hamas themselves stated.

[Vegasaurus]

39. Which is why Hamas is the enemy

Why negotiate with a political body that wants to see your destruction?

Israelis are just not that suicidal.

[pingzing58]

57. It still comes down to "No Palestinian State No Peace." Forget Hamas. They'll change.

[LeftishBrit]

59. I hope they'll change; but what are your grounds for thinking so?

[Vegasaurus]

64. Whatever makes you think so>

Every action in the past sixty years, and before, from whomever was in charge on the Palestinian people (and most of the rest of the Arabs or Muslims), had the same goal: ridding the middle east of the "Zionist entity".

Hamas is more vocal about their goal, but it isn't fundamentally different from the PLO or Abbas or any of them. Abbas is a holocaust denier too. The goals are all the same.

[aranthus]

42. That's not what the Arabs say.

Hamas (the elected government of the Palestinians) says in its charter that the war is about the existence of Israel. So does the PLO. So have too many Arab leaders to list. It certainly wasn't about the Palestinians not having a state in 1947 when they began to attack the Jews. All they had to do was accept a two state solution that had been offered to them by the UN Partition Plan (and which was itself merely the most recent in a number of plans that had been offered to the Arabs since the 1920's). Or if that wasn't good enough, just call up the Jews and offer to talk. It wasn't about Israel occupying the West Bank and Gaza before 1967, since Israel didn't have either territory. The Arabs had their chances over and over again. They have consistently chosen to try and destroy the Jewish state rather than have a state of their own. But I suspect that you knew all of this already.

And what does God's intervention have to do with any of this? Israel exists. The Jewish people in Israel created it. They aren't going away. Get over it. Let the Arabs get over it and make peace already.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. Charter schmarter. Israel destroys with actions. nt

[aranthus]

50. War tends to destroy things.

The relevant questions are how did it get started and how does one stop it? Israel has no formal declaration that the Palestinians have no right to state; the Palestinians have two, and they have been making this war since 1947 on the basis of the beliefs in the PLO and Hamas charters. Without Palestinian attacks on Israel in the early 1960's the Israelis wouldn't even be in the West Bank or Gaza. I appreciate that this war is Hell, far more so to the Palestinians than the Israelis. I just don't think that the Palestinians would stop fighting it if the Israelis fully withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza. More importantly, the Israelis don't believe it either. If they did, if all it took was withdrawing from the territories, then the majority of Israelis who want peace would get out despite the settlers.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

51. There was plenty of destruction back before Palestians fought back.

Land expropriation, houses demolished, olive groves uprooted.

This is the face of Israeli occupation.

[aranthus]

60. Prove it.

The Palestinians started "fighting back" in the 1920's. Where was the expropriation? Where were the house demolitions then? where was the uprooting of olive trees? I have heard of none of these things occurring. What I do know is that there were anti-Jewish riots in the 1920's, and again in the 1930's. Still no expropriation of land. What history tells is that the Palestinians started to attack the Jews in earnest in December, 1947, before there was a single refugee, house destroyed, or dunum of land taken. And I stand by my statement that if the Palestinians had not fomented the 1967 war with terrorist attacks on Israel in the early 1960's, there would not even be an occupation for the Palestinians to "fight back" against.

[razors edge]

73. So the Palestinians didn't like

the Jewish people moving into their land way back in the 20s. Well God Damn, who would have thought?

Show me where in the United States Constitution where it says we have to fund and impose the state of Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

78. Why is it "their" land?

Jewish people have always lived there, since before the Palestinians actually. What makes you insist that the entire area strictly belongs to only one of the many ethnic groups that inhabit it? Did you consider that maybe the Jewish natives didn't like it when Palestinians first moved into the area that they'd been living for thousands of years to massacre them and then expel the survivors from their homes way back in the 20s? (Or do you think that when other Jews moved into the same general area as the Palestinians and purchased land it was adequate provocation for such a response?) Maybe the Palestinians could have considered just not signing the agreement that gave Jews permission to settle in Palestine instead of rioting and killing their long term Jewish neighbors instead.

Do you think that if the Minutemen began shooting illegal immigrants on sight that it would also be a reasonable response to them moving into "our" land? It's not a great comparison, I'll admit... the Jewish immigrants to Palestine in the 20s were legally permitted to do so, unlike the Mexican immigrants now. A better comparison would be if the minutemen began killing and taking the homes of citizens of Mexican descent in the event that some of them begin buying homes in their neighborhood, changing its feel significantly.

Show me where in the United States Constitution where it says we have to fund and impose the state of Israel.

True, it doesn't say that. Probably because it doesn't make any sense. How exactly do we "impose" the state of Israel anyway?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

82. Shakti, are you kidding me?

I expect a little more from you than that nonsense.

[plantwomyn]

92. Here you go.

The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the "supreme law of the land" under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement.
(Art. 103, UN Charter) "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligation under the present Charter shall prevail."

[MaryCeleste]

95. Terrorist attacks did not foment the 1967 war

It was saber rattling and adventurism by Nasser with Syria and other in trail. Israel struck first, though Egypt and Syria were about to pull the trigger from their side.

You are correct in that many do not know of the ethnic cleansing by Jordan and other is historic Jewish areas including near Jerusalem.

[aranthus]

105. I suggest that you read

"Six Days of War" by Michael Oren and "elusive Victory" by Trevor Dupuy. The sabre rattling by Nasser was the result of his being goaded by the Syrians and the Palestinians. The Syrian/Palestinian strategy was to attack Israel until the Israelis reacted, then to continue to attack until the Israelis "deliberately overreacted" in an effort to stop the attacks. The Syrians and the Palestinians intended to use that overreaction as a pretext for pushing the other Arab states into a war with Israel. It took three years, but it worked.

[MaryCeleste]

108. Other writings point out that Nasser was the one pushing for it

And Syria was the follower, both in 1967 and 1973. In both fights, Syria lost considerably more than Egypt and is yet to get much of anything back.

[aranthus]

109. What other writings are those?

It's obviously a complex historical event. After a certain point (say about late May, 1967), Nasser was pushing for war. That was after the Arab world had rallied behind him, and he began to believe his own propaganda.

[Shaktimaan]

69. you've got to be kidding me.

The Palestinians started the violence by attacking native Jews who'd been living in Palestine for thousands of years, by spreading propaganda that they were planning on demolishing Al Aqsa mosque, driving them from their homes and massacring the rest. Your statement is only true if by "Palestinians" you mean Palestine's native Jews who eventually fought back against the Arabs after enduring years of unprovoked attacks.

It's so stupid to argue about facts. How can you even write some of the stuff you post knowing full well it has no basis in reality? You make these absurd statements and then when called out on it you change the topic. Remember this one...

PM: The Palestinians were never offered their own state.

Me: Sure they were. In 1937 and 1947.

PM: Why should they have accepted that state? The British and the UN had no right to split Palestine into two states to begin with.

This is called moving the goalposts and it makes for uniquely unfulfilling debates.

[razors edge]

74. "It's so stupid to argue about facts."

Facts will always beat the shit out of the alternative.

[Shaktimaan]

76. Good Lord.

I didn't say facts were stupid. I said they were stupid to argue about. Because facts can be easily looked up and confirmed or denied. There's no point in wasting time making an argument for or against them, they don't require arguments to support.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

83. That's semantic nonsense.

The Pals were "invited" to give away half of their (best) land in 1947.

That's not "being offered your own state."

[Shaktimaan]

87. why was it Palestinian land only?

30% of the people living there were Jewish.

And what's this thing about "best land?" Most of the land slated for the Jews was desert. By any measure the half with the negev was the crappier half. Regardless I fail to see how splitting the land was an insane suggestion or was anything but being offered their own state. That's exactly what it was, whether you agree with the terms or not.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

90. Desert? LOL!!! Have you been to the Galilee lately?

"Making the desert bloom" propaganda aside, it's always been fertile.

[Shaktimaan]

98. I didn't say ALL of it was desert.

Regardless, I still want to know why, considering that 30% of the population was Jewish, and the Palestinian population did not own a great deal more of the land in question than the Jews did, (I believe it was 9% to 12%), should the land generally be considered Palestinian?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

102. See Breakaleg's map below.

I think what you're suggesting is mind boggling.

How hard can one work to deny historical injustice?

[Shaktimaan]

103. I saw it.

It doesn't answer my question though.

Why do you consider ALL of the land Palestinian as opposed to any of the other ethnicities living there?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

104. Because the people who dwelt in the land of Palestine for 2000 years,

with the exception of a few small pockets of jews who lived in the 4 cities were overwhelmingly Arab, Muslim or Christian, with a shared culture. They lived on and worked the land, even it was owned by foriegn landlords.

The question to you is: is your need to minimize the crime of 1948 so great that you go to any legnths to deny that historical fact?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

91. Doug do you have any handy maps that superimpose topography over the 1947

partition plan?

Let's dispose of this nonsense immediately.

[breakaleg]

99. Here is a breakdown of population in 1946 and the area in which they lived.

It's kind of hard to see any Jewish Majority but for 1 area.


http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story574.html

[Shaktimaan]

100. Thank you for posting this.

According to this chart we can see that nearly 33% of the population was Jewish, a substantial amount. Now it bears repeating that the Partition Plan was not born of a Zionist conspiracy to split Palestine into two but was a UN endeavor to find some way to separate the two populations as it became clear that there was a huge amount of animosity between them. The Plan was an honest and noble effort at preventing the civil war which immediately followed the Plan's ratification in the General Assembly.

It doesn't matter that Jews did not make up a majority in most of the districts. The districts themselves did not mean much at this point, Had the UN not gone forward with their plan it seems unlikely that much would have ended up very differently in the long run. As resistance to the Jewish immigrants grew a civil war was inevitable anyway; in fact it was the reason that ideas like this and the Peel Plan were suggested.

It also bears repeating that the violence at this point was almost entirely instigated by the Arab side, even if the UN never offered this Plan which acted as a flash point, the Jews were still better organized and would have not sat idly by while violent attacks against them mounted. Now, you could make the argument that the Jews did not deserve 50+% of the land as they only comprised 33% of the population, which has some merit. Considering though that the Jews section was made up of a large amount of useless desert, the division of the land does not seem terribly unfair.

On a side not, I find the introduction to this map pretty funny in its contradictions. It says both, "Despite active British support for settling of even more persecuted European Jews in Palestine," and "many of these persecuted European Jews were illegal immigrants according to the Government of Palestine." The Govt. of Palestine being, of course, the British. The truth is that the British imposed strict limitations on Jewish immigration since the White Paper of 1939, which also disallowed land sales to Jewish people. So the second part of the statement is correct, not so much the first. Regardless of the Jews legal status, they were fleeing certain death in Europe, (my girlfriend's grandfather piloted on of these ships actually), and for most, their options were limited to Palestine or nothing. In light of this fact it seems more than a little callous to speak of them as though they were colonizers seeking to steal Arab land for their own designs. Ethics is never black and white, nor does it exist in a vacuum.

[msmcghee]

107. Another consideration for the division of land in the Plan . .

. . that gave the Jews a very slight advantage in terms of citizens/sq mile - was that the Arabs of Palestine were surrounded by millions of square miles of states and regions where people shared the culture, language and religion. States where Arabs traveled freely back and forth that could act a a safety valve for growth. It was understood by then that the Jews would never be allowed to immigrate to those states if their population outstripped resources - and would have to remain within the borders of Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

116. True.

I'd also add one more likely consideration, the previous division of Mandate Palestine to form Jordan, which was off limits for Jewish immigration. If 72% of the land that Jews were promised access to was closed to them at the outset and reserved exclusively for Arabs, then it makes some sense to take it into account during the division of the remainder of Palestine.

[pingzing58]

58. Neither are the Palestinians who have inhabited Jerusalem since what the 8th c. of the Christian Era

[aranthus]

62. No one is asking the Palestinians to go away.

Certainly not me. I just want you to be honest about what this war has been about for decades. Stop denying the obvious. Stop denying what Hamas readily admits. It destroys your credibility as surely as if I were to say that the settlements were not an issue at all.

[pingzing58]

65. Yea, yea. And since 1948 the Israeli State took over land that was not given to them by the British

or the U.N. Sorry, but as a Christian I'm not pro Israeli, Zionism, or their continued oppression of the Palestinian people. I'm amazed that after all of these years with the Billions that the U.S. have given them to maintain their war machine and continued oppression of the Palestinians including Nuclear Weapons and permiting the latest attack on Syria, there are seemingly poor and starving Jews in Israel! Go figure: <http://www.israelnewsagency.com/povertyisraeleconomychildrenoutsourcing48481124.html>

[oberliner]

68. How did Israel come to take over land that was not given to them?

What were the circumstances around that? Whom did they take over the land from?

[pingzing58]

72. I'm curious but how many of the Jews in Israel are Russian and Northern European Jews?

[oberliner]

77. About 70 percent of Israelis are Israeli-born, about 20 percent from Europe/US

And then about another 10 percent from Asia/Africa.

A large percentage of the Israel-born Jews can trace their ancestry back to parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents who fled or survived the Holocaust in Europe or fled/were expelled from other countries that were hostile to their Jewish populations.

[LeftishBrit]

85. Israeli Jews overall are divided about equally...

between those of predominantly Europaean and predominantly non-Europaean origin. Among recent immigrants, the Europaean proportion is a bit higher, because of the large influx of Russian Jews after the end of the Soviet Union. But there are also many immigrants from Ethiopia and many other non-Europaean countries.

[pingzing58]

93. I think more Black Jews should live in Jerusalem. That would influence the mix.

[MaryCeleste]

97. Why do you think that?

[stranger81]

111. By occupying it in violation of international law. War and occupation. Palestinians.

Next?

[msmcghee]

112. What law is this? Link? n/t

[stranger81]

118. Sorry, but I've been around here long enough to know you are not an honest participant

in rational discussions. I'm not wasting my time arguing with someone who's incapable of reasoned discussion.

[msmcghee]

121. That's another funny one. I've heard lots of excuses around here . .

. . when getting called for empty rhetoric. You could try something more creative just for the entertainment value. It's easy to see through it though. It's just that old fear of humiliation. ;-)

[msmcghee]

122. Delete - double post.

[msmcghee]

125. Beuler . . Beuler . . anybody?

Others here casually refer to Israel's occupation (now of just the WB) as an "illegal occupation" under international law, as you have.

I know the UN Charter is based on the recognized need for defense against aggression. As far as I know there is no law against this specific defensive occupation.

Although this poster doesn't seem willing to back up his assertions I invite anyone here to make a case for this "illegal occupation" if you also think that's the case.

As far as I know Res 242 is the only controlling law specifically on this issue and it calls for Israeli withdrawal to mutually agreed to - defensible borders - determined by negotiation. Israel has attempted several times to complete those negotiations while the Palestinians have done everything to derail them when they reluctantly even show up.

But maybe someone else has something more than just the usual propaganda on this. If so I'd love to see it.

[breakaleg]

126. I love it when you play dumb. Or maybe you aren't playing. nt

[msmcghee]

127. I didn't really expect you to respond to a topic . .

. . so "fact-based" as this. But then again, I guess you didn't.

[msmcghee]

128. Since Beuler seems to be "absent" . .

. . let me point out a rather sad pattern that is evident in these discussions. Every day here many claims are made about the relative moral/legal circumstances of this conflict by the anti-Israel folks that usually boil down to variations of . .

a) Israel is the aggressor. Israel initiates of the use of force while the Palestinians defend themselves from Israeli aggression - a serious war crime, if true.

b) Israel has an ongoing and organized policy of targeting Palestinain civilians with no defensive purpose - could be a crime against humanity, if true.

c) Israel's occupation of the WB is a violation of international law - another war crime.

These accusations come so frequently and casually that they often don't receive a response. But, when someone takes the time to challenge the assertions - the discussion always seems to follow the same tedious pattern. First, there is the attempt to divert - change the subject. Sometimes, accusers prefer to find some word in a comment that could be disputed as to its exact technical meaning - and then divert the discussion into a knock-down battle over that word. Then there's the "diversion-by-insult" such as calling people dishonest, ignorant, buffoons, bigots, etc.

But in the end, if the discussion survives the insults and diversions and the mod's deletions - with luck the assertion will have been successfully reduced to a simple question that would reveal, if answered honestly, who's actually right and who's wrong. It is at this crucial time that Israel's accusers always quit.

Sometimes they say they are too busy or they they have better things to do - but never seem to come back later. Sometimes they say they don't want to have a discussion with someone who is such a "fill-in-your-insult-here". And sometimes they just discretely disappear to pop up in another thread making the same unsupported assertions.

Although this is frustrating for those who would really like to explore these issues in depth and reach some clearer understanding - at least it shows to anyone following all this which side is searching for answers and which side is throwing BS - which side tries to follow a reasonable argument to its conclusion and which side tends to disappear at the crucial moment of truth.

But seriously, don't you think that if your assertions are true you should be able to support them and follow an argument to its conclusion before running away? It would bother the hell out of me if I couldn't defend and make a reasonable case in my own words for what I believe to be true.

[stranger81]

131. running away? I have a freaking job, and don't spend all day on DU.

Plus, I already made myself clear about discussions with you in particular -- not interested. So knock yourself out with the disparaging comments -- you're the only one that looks bad as a result.

[msmcghee]

132. That's twice in two days Beuler (running away).

:popcorn:

[stranger81]

133. you know, it's been fun, but it's time for you to hit my ignore list.

Don't choke on your popcorn, princess.

[msmcghee]

134. Oh darn, now you won't know when I . .

. . make you look foolish and incapable of supporting your assertions. :-(

[stranger81]

110. Excuse me???

No one is asking them to go away?

Have you EVER picked up a newspaper and read anything about the occupied territories?!?

Israel works very hard to make sure as many Palestinians as possible "go away." Whether that means they're murdered or starved, expelled from their homes or rounded up into refugee camps, it seems to make little difference to Israel, so long as their lives continue uninterrupted.

The deliberate ignorance on this board is truly astounding sometimes.

[Vegasaurus]

113. The Lebanese, Jordanians, Iraqi have put the Palestinians in camps

or kicked them out of their countries. The Egyptians refused to stock their stores and sealed their border with a ten foot concrete fence.

Seems most of the Arab world would like the Palestinians to "go away". Why is that?

[stranger81]

114. "Mamma, he did it too" is not cutting it as a cogent response.

We're not talking about what other countries have done at the moment. We're talking about Israel. I know it's difficult, but try to focus.

[Vegasaurus]

115. The way the Palestininans are treated by the rest of the Muslim world

is germane to this discussion. Please keep up.

[stranger81]

117. Changing the subject is no answer at all -- it's a red herring.

Why are you so utterly unable to acknowledge any of the responsibility Israel holds for this situation?

And the implication that Palestinians deserve what they're getting because they're getting it from all sides (Israel and the Arab world as well) is disgusting. Just imagine the howls of outrage on this board if anyone implied that the fact that antisemitism is widespread means it's justified. Now try putting the shoe on the other foot, as difficult as that may be for you.

[hifalutin]

124. I do not believe

that ANYONE on this board believes that the Palestinians deserve what they are getting.
I think if you read a little more you would find that Hamas gets most of the blame for both sides of the equation.

You however seem to make blanket statements as far as Israel is concerned and are either unable or unwilling to differentiate between a government's policy and it's peoples ideals.

[stranger81]

130. if you truly believe no one on this board believes that, then you're not reading much of it [n/t]

[Shaktimaan]

120. Funny argument.

Let me summarize. Please tell me if I mis-represented your argument.

You: Israel rounds up Palestinians and puts them in camps so as many as possible will go away.

Vega: No they don't. The Arab countries did that.

You: It doesn't matter, we're not discussing what other countries have done, this is about Israel.


A typical argument. It turns out that it doesn't matter what actually happens to the Palestinians or who does it to them, unless it is Israel, because slamming them is what this is all about. Thus Israel actually gets the bulk of the blame for other people's actions if they played any role at all in the circumstances surrounding it.

That Israel treats its Palestinian citizens better than any other country in the entire middle east is glossed over. Israel has actually done more for the Palestinians in the OPT than these nations as well, but that doesn't matter either. For example, after Israel saw the conditions in the camps after the 6 day war they tried to improve conditions, building brick homes in place of tents and ramshackle structures. They were politically skewered for this and Palestinians refused the aid. Israel has actually given more cash to the Palestinian refugees for education and food aid than most other Arab states. Israel was the first state to offer them autonomy and their own elected government. Israel also treats its Palestinian citizens as equals under the law as opposed to Lebanon who DOES force them into camps, restricts their access to education and state health plans and employment, outlawing their participation in most careers and from buying property.

You really don't think it matters that Israel has treated all of the Palestinians far, far better than anyone else has? Does it matter at all that your "facts" are just untrue propaganda? Israel has a strict policy on live fire and takes better actions to limit civilian casualties than most any other nation. (Certainly better than the US or England.) Israel does not starve anyone, no one is starving. And they have never rounded anyone up and put them into camps.

Come on... hyperbole and propaganda is not cutting it as a cogent response. I know it's difficult, but try and focus.

[Vegasaurus]

129. *crickets*

It seems that the haters have trouble dealing with facts, and not propaganda.

The fact is that Israel treats the Palestinians better than any of the other Arab states. The fact is that Israel provides food, fuel and medical care for the Palestinians. Other states have thrown them out entirely (like Iraq) or kept them in camps (Like Lebanon) where they are unable to hold the most menial job available. Or like in Egypt, where they refused to restock the shelves of Rafah stores, and then built a ten foot cement wall to keep the Palestinians out.

And yet Israeli doctors treat and care for sick Palestinians (even though suicide bombers pretend to be ill and gain access to Israelis). They provide electricity (even though terrorists routinely try to bomb the power plants), and aid (even though the aid trucks are bombed).

It is very much on topic as to why the rest of the Arab world spits on the Palestininans, while the only country to offer them the most education, health care, aid and fuel, is the one maligned by the haters here, and the one that the Palestinians routinely try to terrorize.

[hifalutin]

75. The Romans ran the Jews out of Jerusalem

in 70 AD then moved on down to Caesarea and killed more than 1,000,000 Jews and took 95,000 Jews prisoner.

[MaryCeleste]

96. It was far from exclusive, unless you are calling multigenerational jewish residents Palestinians

[msmcghee]

9. One can get quite an education . .

. . reading these comments. :sarcasm:

[girl gone mad]

10. Then I guess..

I have a lot of anti-Semitic Jewish friends. Who knew?

[provis99]

12. ah, yes, the "self-hating jew"

I seen that charge hurled many times by the pro-Israeli folks who don't like criticism of Israeli policies from Jews. If you're Jewish, and you criticize Israeli actions or policies, then you're a "self-hating Jew"

[LeftishBrit]

24. I'm sure this happens; but it's not that common in my experience

I am Jewish; and, even though I don't think that Israel is responsible for every evil in the world(!), I do quite often criticize Israeli actions and policies. I've never been called antisemitic or a self-hating Jew, however. Even though I've been attacked on plenty of other grounds, the commonest being: "You have no right to criticize when you don't live in Israel!"

[breakaleg]

32. But there are several public figures who have spoken out against Israel and they have been

called that and anti-semitic. This does happen. Perhaps it doesn't happen in your case, but when the person in question is published or who's voice reaches the masses, that charge is definitely laid.

[Phx_Dem]

11. Online Antisemitism 2.0

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=316&topic_id=1433&mesg_id=1433

[azurnoir]

14. There is an inherent danger here

Take a look at what has happened in the Black community in the last 40 years, at a time the accusation of racism carried some weight, but no more thanks to being abused for other reasons. Any critism of the Black community even by other Blacks-Bill Cosby and Aaron McGruder come to mind is airing dirty laundry or encouraging racists. We are in danger of doing the same thing to Anti-Semitism. To broad brush any criticism of Israel as Anti-Semitism or even worse maybe the critic is not an Anti-Semite but what is said would/could encourage those who are, is in reality an attempt to stifle speech, which could in the end backfire by making real Anti-Semitism easier to dismiss.

[LeftishBrit]

15. I think the 'new anti-semitism' is really mostly the old anti-semitism...

which has never disappeared.

As there is now a state of Israel, where there wasn't in the past, hostility to Israel gets added to the mix. If you hate Jews, you will also hate a state that consists mostly of Jews. And real or imagined transgressions by Israel can be readily used as an excuse by antisemites.

I do not think that all or most criticism of Israel is antisemitic, and I think that people have a right to criticize any country. I criticize most countries including Israel. However, the point where I start suspecting antisemitism as a motive is when people start blaming Israel for the actions of other countries, or implying that it controls other countries: "Israel runs the world"; "Israel pushed us into the war with Iraq"; "Britain/America obeys its Israeli masters"; "America doesn't have enough money for a national health service because all its money goes to Israeli aid"; etc. To attribute such power to a very small country, with a very weak and divided government, does not always imply personal antisemitism on the part of the person who is doing it, but *does* derive from antisemitic sources: from the 'Protocols' to current antisemitic websites.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Great post!

The sad thing is many people will pass off anti-Semitism against Israel as simply "disagreeing" with Israeli policies or politicians. Like you, I don't think all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. I have found more of it as anti-Israeli bigotry. There are certainly legitimate criticisms and critics, but it becomes a real test to sift through the anti-Semitic and/or anti-Israeli bigotry sometimes.

[msmcghee]

27. There is some danger in seeing this "criticism of Israel" . .

. . through a purely "intellectual" window. When discussing criticism of Israel, one would justifiably imagine political science academics discussing policy objectives and international law, historic references, etc. - in a carefully dispassionate context.

Such academic discussion almost never occurs, much less on a discussion board like this. On this board we have people who know almost nothing about the actual history of the parties involved or the history of the region - as several recent posts in this forum show so vividly. On the other hand we have criticisms showing in their words and phrasing, their continuous choice of sources for the articles they post, etc. a strong and hateful passion against what they describe as "Israeli warmongering" - often watered down to avoid editing by the mods for crossing the line into hatred for the Jewish people who largely make up that state.

The point I want to make is that such strong hatreds and passions can not live side by side in a person's mind with dispassionate intellectual considerations. The mind is not constructed that way. You can't passionately hate or fear something - and then dispassionately have an intellectual discussion about it. This is why smart Lawyers don't represent themselves in court and why doctors don't diagnose themselves when serious problems arise Even highly trained professionals will lose their ability to make rational judgments when any strong emotions impinge on the question.

Strong emotions such as hatreds born of violent conflict do not have sharp and clear boundaries. They are there because the mind senses a serious threat to one's identity. The mind is designed to recognize anything it associates with that threat as threats of the same order and it does this emotionally, not rationally. A small child who chokes violently on a chicken bone might develop a fear and violent aversion to meat - and it could last the rest of their life as it did with my cousin. A person who associates Jews with something hateful for whatever reason, if that hatred is strong enough will probably be unable to see any positive aspects of Israel or Jewish culture or AIPAC or Jewish history, etc. For them, all Jewish motives are suspect, Jewish culture is all about money, AIPAC runs the US government, there never was an historic nation of Jews in the ME, the defensive occupation of the OT is apartheid and an excuse to annex them, etc. The stronger the hatred, the less chance anything associated with Jewishness can be seen as positive or redeeming in their mind.

This is an emotional reaction. It's just how the brain works. Most people who are not psychologists understand this on an emotional level. When you see someone expressing extreme hatred of anything - people know to discount their opinions on anything associated with the object of their hatred. Looking at this from the other end, someone who speaks in educated words but those words always express the worst possible motives and outcomes for everything associated with Jews or Israel, you know that a strong (irrational) hatred has consumed part of that person's mind. It's not important whether one uses the politically charged word "antisemitism" to describe this. It's only necessary to understand that there is likely no intellectual justification for anything they say about the subject. Everything they say will more likely be an intellectual attempt to justify their hatred. Emotional beliefs one's their views on any topic - not the other way around. This can be seen in many of the nonsensical statements in this forum condemning Israel for "destroying the greenhouses" or an Israeli sniper for taking out a 12 yo girl in cold blood, or purposely targeting Palestinian civilians - statements that even a small amount of research would negate or expose at least as unfounded.

~

To avoid the coming "but you hate Palestinians" comments - I will say once again, that my criticism of Palestinian / Arab actions in the context of this conflict, though very consistently negative, is based on a principle that I hold as true - that the initiation of aggressive violence is the root cause of death and suffering in the world. I don't like death and suffering. I therefore consider such initiation of violence to be a supremely immoral act that should be condemned. I say that there is no non-violent activity that justifies a violent response. No matter how much you hate that Israel expands settlements in the stateless territory of the WB, only negotiation and other non-violent methods are justified in opposing it. The same goes for any non-violent activity that one opposes. There is no justification for using violence to get what you want. It is a crime against humanity to do so.

That's mostly what I do in this forum - condemn the initiation of violence. I'll readily admit that I have a difficult time seeing how Israel is guilty of initiating violence against Palestinians or ever has been in any significant way in 70 years. And likewise, it seems more than obvious to me, that the Palestinian / Arab side has consistently been the initiator of such violence against the Jews of Israel. I don't claim that all actions by both sides have been completely consistent in that regard - violations of my principle have occurred on both sides. Just that the overwhelming evidence over 70 years is that Israel is acting in defense against consistent initiation of deadly violence against Israel by Palestinian / Arab groups and armies.

I also hold that defense against such aggression, even violent defense which is often necessary against such activity, anyplace in the world and against any people, is both moral and should be supported by all peace-loving people. I also do that in this forum.

(I have clearly stated my principles here against which I judge the actions of all parties to this conflict equally - and I'm ready to defend them. Another sign of irrational hatred is that when those expressing such strong hatreds are challenged to explain the "rational" basis for their criticism, they will find some excuse to avoid the topic.)

My views on this have nothing to do with race or ethnicity. I know there are individual Palestinians who are moral people who despise the initiation of violence against others as much as I do. Also, that there are individual Israelis who do initiate violence against Arabs - the settlers being a case in point. I admire those peace-loving Arabs and condemn those peace-hating Israelis without respect to their ethnicity - I judge them by their actions. It seems that the IDF should do more to protect Arabs on the WB from settlers' violence and I condemn Israel for failing to do a better job of that. When the Palestinians stop initiating deadly and wide spread and unrelenting violence against the citizens of Israel on a daily basis - I will no longer condemn them in this forum.

BtA, I didn't post this as an argument against what you said. More as an extension of a discussion that I think needs to be aired.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Or it could really be about appropriately criticising a violent military occupation

that will likely never end, that is largely funded through US tax dollars.

[LeftishBrit]

26. Yes, it could be appropriate criticism of the military occupation

I did say that most criticism of Israel is NOT antisemitic, and specifically singled out the 'Israel controls other countries/ the world' variety.

The occupation isn't *largely* funded by American tax dollars (Israelis spend plenty of taxes of their own); but I do think that quite generally speaking, America gives too much military aid, insufficient humanitarian aid, and insufficient funding for peace processes - and that's worldwide; not just I/P.

ETA: What about the other side of this issue? While it's true that sometimes justifiable criticism of Israel is labelled as 'anti-semitic'; it also often happens that criticisms of Hamas or Hezbollah are labelled as anti-Palestinian or Islamophobic or pro-Occupation. I'm none of these things; but I criticize Hamas because they are RW and violent. I'm not anti-American either, but I can still criticize Bush and the Republicans for their RW and violent war on Iraq.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. Show me a post where someone is called Islamophobic for criticizing Hamas.

I think you're stretching in your quest to divvy things up equally.

on edit: and I can guarantee you will NEVER see a US study that analyzes islamophobia in criticizing Palestine.

Not in a trillion years.

[aranthus]

45. How is it Islamophobic to criticize Hamas for wanting Israel dead?

It would be one thing if someone posted here that Palestinians don't have a right to state, but I have never seen such a thing, and as far as I know, that is not the basis of criticism of Palestine or Palestinians (at least on this site). I grant you that there have been people (Israeli leaders even) who at one time claimed such things, but even they recognized the need for a Palestinian state.

It is not my intent to argue with you. I would really like to know how Muslims see this issue.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

46. I didn't make the claim. LB did. I said, show me where that is used,

because I've yet to see it.

People criticize anything about Palestine, Palestinian people, and Palestinian politics with utter impunity, especially here.

[aranthus]

48. I apologize

I thought that you were trying to say that the claim was justified.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

49. People demonized Palestinians long before it became acceptable to demonize Islam ;)

[LeftishBrit]

54. Actually, you are right about that.

Just as British and other Europaeans demonized immigrants, long before the fact that some of them are Muslim became an issue.

[aranthus]

63. It isn't acceptable to demonize Islam

but I understand what you mean. I have have seen it elswhere, I just don't see it on this board.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

81. Do you live in the US?

Go to the movies. Turn on the TV. Turn on your computer.

And unlike some posters, here, I don't C&P offsensive posts. The next time "muslims enslave their women" posts appear, I'll PM you.

[LeftishBrit]

52. I was referring to accusations I've heard in real life...

Not sure I've seen that one on DU; but I've certainly come across people who implied that criticism of Hamas, Iran, or other opponents of Israel means that one wants to bomb them. I have also come across suggestions that complaints about attacks on Israel are fuelled by racism against 'brown people' attacking 'white people' - despite the fact that not all Israelis are white, and many Arabs are.

[Vegasaurus]

56. So now you are equating Hamas with the government of Israel?

Hamas is a terrorist organization. They have made the lives of their people increasingly miserable.

I think all sane people ought to criticize them.

[hifalutin]

79. USAID West Bank & Gaza

and this is just Emergency Humanitarian aid
snip.......
Humanitarian Assistance
To respond to emergencies and reduce poverty, the United States is providing emergency food, health care, and access to safe water and sanitation. The United States also contributes to the World Food Program and to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s West Bank and Gaza Emergency Appeal. Since May 2006, USAID has provided over $7.2 million in emergency medical assistance, such as pharmaceuticals and medical supplies for dialysis units, essential medicines, and electric generators, to approximately 60 Palestinian NGO clinics and 12 NGO hospitals, as well as to Ministry of Health hospitals and facilities.

Since September 2006, $35.3 million in cash assistance to the World Food Program in the West Bank and Gaza has helped food insecure non-refugee Palestinian families meet basic nutritional requirements. Approximately 304,000 Palestinians receive monthly assistance through this program. USAID’s Emergency Water and Sanitation program has provided over 1.8 million Palestinians with better water and sewage services in the West Bank and Gaza.

Investing In People
The United States provides maternal and child health care as well as education opportunities and improvements to the quality of education in the West Bank and Gaza. Through its Mother and Child Health Care Project, USAID is working to improve the health of 60 percent of the most vulnerable Palestinian women of reproductive age and children under 5.

The recently launched Model Schools program will create an advanced curriculum and teaching techniques in a number of private schools, aiming to develop an educational model that can be replicated in other Palestinian schools. An $8.8 million Palestinian Faculty Development Program aims to improve the quality of higher education in the West Bank and Gaza. As part of the program, 32 scholars started doctoral studies at U.S. universities and 7 scholars were placed at U.S. universities to pursue short-term training. The United States has also provided 69 Master’s degree scholarships for study in the United States.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/middle_east/countries/wbgaza/

[azurnoir]

28. While I agree with what you wrote

and have never understood how anyone could believe "the great Jewish conspiracy" crap, the situation becomes stickier when it comes to domestic politics in the US. This is due in large part to lobby groups who wield an undue amount of power on many fronts in the US due to campaign contributions or who gets money and who doesn't. Right now it is a simple numbers game- there are more pro-Israel groups in the US than pro-Arab or Palestinian if the reverse were true the US may not be so supportive of Israel, no not Jewish conspiracy not all of the players here are Jews by any means, but a game to appeal to the most people possible hence getting the most votes.

[Vegasaurus]

29. If you follow any far right or far left sites

(including the conspiracy nuts, the 9/11 nutters, the skinheads, white supremacists, and many other haters) you will find that all of the blame for all of the world's problems (or most of the blame) is on a Jewish world conspiracy, a Protocols of Zion (the best seller of the Arab world) kind of thinking.

This is rampant. It is not a small problem, and it is global. No way is this a US problem only.

[LeftishBrit]

31. You bet...though I wouldn't call such people 'left' even when they say they are

You should see the BNP website, or the related, now-defunct 'Spearhead'. Or David Duke's site. Or maybe you shouldn't. Anyway, they are certainly inclined to blame Israel and Jews for everything, or at least everything that they can't blame on non-whites and 'immigrants'.

Unfortunately, right at the moment, some so-called leftists buy into this crap because the people concerned are mostly against this war.

[azurnoir]

35. I think you misunderstood

Your right it is a global problem, Jews are less then 0.01% of the global population 13,000,000 to 14,000,000 out of 6,000,000,000, yet control everything, puleez.:eyes:

[Vegasaurus]

41. Do you read?

Apparently, the Jews control all the money, the banks, AND the media. They are the reason for every war in modern history, and for all the world wide strife.

If you don't know this, apparently, you really aren't paying attention.

:sarcasm: thing, because some people have trouble reading sarcasm.

[azurnoir]

44. That is what my post said

are you in to the "enemy" thing that I can not even agree with you without some flack?

[Vegasaurus]

55. My apologies

This time it was my reading comprehension issues.

I don't have a desire to be enemies with anyone.

[azurnoir]

61. Thank you

nor do I have a desire for an enemy

[LeftishBrit]

30. Don't you think that this is more a matter of America perceiving Israel as a useful ally...

first in the Cold War, and now against Iran and some other 'enemy' countries?

I see this in part from the perspective that my own country is also an ally of America; and I disagree with some of the things we've done in that role, and think that if Britain had opposed the war in Iraq, this would have even been more pro-American in the long run (as well as pro-Iraq, and pro-British, and pro-world). Britain and America have had their 'special relationship' for good and for ill for a long time; and I doubt that lobbyists play a big role here. I suspect that the same is largely true for Israel; and that the lobbyists are successful because the American government is ALREADY inclined to regard Israel as its ally.

[azurnoir]

37. I think the Pro-Israel lobbyists are tools

at least right now, I was aghast when I read how AIPAC was lining up with Cheney for a war with Iran, my thought was that if and when this disaster happens the scapegoat is already set-"it was the Jews fault" it's already happening with Iraq as baldfaced ridiculous is that is.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Really?

AIPAC is supporting war with Iran? That's not good. Do you have any information on that, I haven't heard it before now. Thanks.

[azurnoir]

43. Are they against war with Iran?

If so show where it says that, I do remember a thread here on DU about the cheers when Cheney spoke to AIPAC on this subject.

[Shaktimaan]

53. OK, that's what I thought.

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

You have a real habit of just inventing facts out of nothing and then posting them as if you actually read them in an article or something. I do love your counterargument though... "Yeah, well, prove that they're not!" I guess for you, if you're not against it then you're for it, right? Reminds me of something Bush once said.

[azurnoir]

71. Here ya go Cheneys speech to AIPAC

Two excerpts from Cheneys address to AIPAC 3/12/07

And not even the instinct of self-preservation is a restraint. The terrorists value death the same way you and I value life. Civilized, decent societies will never fully understand the kind of mindset that drives men to strap on bombs or fly airplanes into buildings, all for the purpose of killing unsuspecting men, women and children who they have never met and who have done them no wrong. But that is the very kind of blind, prideful hatred we're up against.

And their aim, ultimately, is to acquire the means to match that hatred and to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to impose their will by unspeakable violence or blackmail.



If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda and its allies would recreate the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to pursue weapons of mass destruction and underwrite their terrorist designs, including their pledge to destroy Israel.

If Iran's allies prevailed, the regime and Teheran's own designs for the Middle East would be advanced and the threat to our friends in the region would only be magnified.

My friends, it is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while, at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened. (Applause.)

now one could still quibble that this proves nothing after all Cheney does not say "lets run over there and nuke them there Eyeranians nor does AIPAC say "yes lets" but the words and intent speak for themselves

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070312.html

[LeftishBrit]

80. I know full well that Cheney is an evil warmonger...

and AIPAC should not have invited him to speak IMO. However, does this mean that all of AIPAC want war with Iran? Is Cheney even a member of AIPAC?

It seems to me that this is more likely to indicate that AIPAC is giving too much support to the current American government, than that it is influencing them.

[azurnoir]

84. Eyaaa sorry

that was my point, no AIPAC does not influence the US government, it is in IMHO the reverse, post #37 started out "I think the Pro-Israel lobbyists are tools"

[Shaktimaan]

101. I think you need to re-read that speech.

Nothing in there had anything to do with going to war with Iran. Iran was merely mentioned once, as a counterpoint to the main thrust of the speech, a warning against pulling out of Iraq prematurely.

Look, it isn't only AIPAC that's worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons. It's the entire middle east, primarily Israel, (all Israelis are worried about this, regardless of their political leanings), as well as most American Jews. Certainly it is a central concern for AIPAC, who, from what I have read, supports peaceful means of applying pressure to Iran such as sanctions and has not even raised the issue of war yet, even as a last resort. (Though I'm sure they would support it, if nothing else worked.)

Basically, Cheney is saying that it is foolish to talk about the dangers Iran poses if we are going to leave Iraq prematurely, as the dangers posed by losing the Iraq war would only serve to strengthen the same ideologues and terrorists that we face in Iran. Whether or not you agree with his argument is one thing, but understand that he wasn't making a case for going to war with Iran, or even doing anything at all to Iran! The whole speech was about why we should not leave Iraq now, (which actually makes sense that he would be giving such a speech to AIPAC as so many American Jews are against the war.) Iran is just being named here as a boogeyman; everyone's already scared of them and Cheney's saying that leaving Iraq will just make Iran stronger.

If you read that whole speech and honestly got from it that AIPAC was lining up with Cheney to wage war on Iran then you seriously misunderstood the entire thing.

[azurnoir]

106. Cheney was making a stump speech for war in the region

He mentions Iran once and nuclear threats a couple of times, in those comments just who was he talking about? Yes the emphasis was on Iraq, the newly elected Democratic House and Senate were about to draw up a bill to fund the war for the next year.
So you actually claim that AIPAC is for diplomatic solutions? I think that in the long run, AIPAC will go what ever way the wind blows. This perspective is from more than a year later, my original post was concerning my take at the time of the speech. The current administration is running out of time to do anything, Israel (government) however is a different story, they want Iran taken out, I come to this conclusion because of the way the NIE report has been met by the Israeli government.
Does AIPAC front for the Israeli governmental policy? Or are they one of the liaisons between the two governments? They are the proIsrael lobby, do they just make up what they think is proIsrael?
At the moment Iran has taken a back seat of sorts, Annapolis and current events in Israel and the OPT, along with the beginnings of a "newer" more ominous approach being tested, the AQ-Palestinian connection is being trotted out, again. I have seen it mentioned by one Israeli posters here, it is a chilling prospect from any angle.

You say I misunderstood, with of course the insinuation that I did read the speech, you seem incapable of rebuttal without insult, I think you are glossing over, but both are opinions and you know the saying about everyone having one.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. The whole purpose of lobby groups is to attempt to influence govt policy...

Why is AIPAC any different?

[Tom Joad]

94. Hagee is not even a politician, so why is aipac sucking up to him

and Hagee wants WAR NOW. he makes cheney almost look like a pacifist.

But in aipac meeting after aipac meeting, there are reps from Hagee's racist/warmongering organization.

The latest
The 2008 Westchester Community-Wide Event Featuring David Brog Executive Director of Christians United for Israel (CUFI).
David Brog is the author of Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State and Executive Director of Christians United for Israel. He previously served in the United States Senate for seven years, rising to be Chief of Staff to Senator Arlen Specter and Staff Director of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior to his time on Capitol Hill, Brog served as an executive at America Online and practiced corporate law in Tel Aviv, Israel and Philadelphia, PA. Brog is a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School. He currently lives and writes in Washington, DC.
(Comin up March 30th, for those who support genocide, there you go, have fun, good food and good company, and talk about war, war, war... what more could you want?)

Can't tell me that aipac is in any way is a moderate organization. when it serves up people like this.

[shaayecanaan]

88. Or to put it bluntly...

Anti-semitism was invented by New England WASPs to distract people from the reality that America was/is being ruled by New England WASPs.

Globally, does Israel serve the same purpose?

[LeftishBrit]

89. There was antisemitism in Europe long before New England existed

In general, minority groups tend to be used as scapegoats and the Jews have frequently served this purpose.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. I don't believe anything that comes from the US State Department.

[Igel]

70. Odd so many can't spot nuance.

"a new form of anti-Semitism disguised by hatred toward Israel"
"Anti-Semitism couched as criticism of Zionism or Israel "

These two phrases are essential; they identify the topic of the discourse.

However, it's apparently the case that most people have taken "anti-Semitism" to be defined as "hatred towards Israel" or "criticism of Zionism or Israel". But that makes little sense.

"A new form of aspen disguised as a tree"
"Mexican food couched as a regional, ethnic food"
etc.

"Disguised as" and "couched as" entail that the two things are different: One does not disguise a dog as a German shepherd (or vice-versa), one does not couch criticism of HRC or BO as a verbal assault on HRC or BO. They do not permit tautology as a licit interpretation of the constructions. No, the idea is that you hide one thing under the veneer of being another; since that only works if they're not identical, the assumption that "anti-Semitism" is to be taken as defined as "hatred towards Israel" or "criticism of Zionism or Israel" is, on its face, wrong. They may share some attribute, but they are, nonetheless, different.

The problem is that the article's diagnostics are subtle and ambiguous, possibly too subtle for a forum that tends to eschew subtlety and moral absolutes are hurled with relative frequency. If taken at face value, on the other hand, they basically say that some instances of anti-Israel criticism are simply veiled anti-Semitism, not saying that all such instances are anti-Semitic. That's far too ambiguous, even if it still places the onus on accusers to make good their allegations of anti-Semitism. It permits the possibility that some anti-Israeli diatribe is not obligatorily dripping with purity and morality. How scurrilous.