Confronting Jews who defame Jews, by Isi Liebler

[Donald Ian Rankin]

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=168265

The time has come to draw red lines between legitimate criticism and initiatives seeking to demonize Israel.

Richard Goldstone’s infamous role as the token head of the UNHRC report accusing the IDF of war crimes is only one example of prominent Jews who exploit their origins as a way to defame their people. In fact, until recently, Goldstone was considered a respectable Jew, even a Zionist. He was blinded by hubris and ego, and allowed himself to be seduced by the bitterest enemies of his people into providing legitimization for a blood libel against the Jewish state.

Unlike Goldstone, most Jewish renegades were driven by desperation to unburden themselves from what they regarded as their repressive ethnic and cultural roots. Historian Jacob Talmon described such deviant behavior as “a Jewish neurosis” in response to centuries of oppression and pariah status.

The purported commitment of these Jews to universal and humanitarian values was usually belied by extreme attacks on their own people and association with sponsors who were outright anti-Semites.

Streams of such Jews emerged during the 19th century in the wake of emancipation. A classic example was Karl Marx, whose anti-Semitic diatribes were reflected in outbursts like “money is the jealous god of Israel, by the side of which no other god may exist... The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.”

In czarist Russia, some Jewish social revolutionaries even endorsed pogroms against their own kinsmen, hoping that by venting their frustrations on Jews, the masses would ultimately turn on the czar.

Their successors, the Yevsektsiya, the notorious Jewish section of the Soviet Communist Party, became the most vicious persecutors of their own people, frenziedly suppressing all manifestations of Jewish cultural and religious life. Ultimately they too were liquidated in Stalin’s anti-Semitic campaigns.

...

More at link.

I post this to make it clear just how meaningless the word "demonisation" is in the mouths of Israel's defenders, and how dishonest most of them are being when they claim to welcome "legitimate criticism".

[Jefferson23]

1. “a Jewish neurosis”

How sad and pathetic to characterize dissent this way.

Do critics use this for any Italian who is critical of their governments policies and actions? How many times have you heard someone
accused of being a self loathing Italian, or self loathing Irishman. Or the "Irish neurosis".....pathetic.

[snagglepuss]

5. +1

[bemildred]

12. He's an antisemite. He wallows in negative Jewish stereotypes.

It anyone is a "self-hating Jew" it's the like of him.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Yes, but he's a *supporter* of Israel, so he seems to get a free pass...

The usual long string of posts condemning antisemitism in an OP is noticeably missing from this thread...

[MUAD_DIB]

2. Is the the intent of the article to condemn any Jew who is critical of Israel?

[provis99]

3. yep. any Jew who doesn't adopt a fanatical right-wing line on Israel is apparently anti-semitic.

Jews that criticized the tactics of terrorist gangs like the Stern Gang or Irgun were labelled anti-Semitic self-hating Jews, too. Note however, that when crypto-fascist right-wing Israelis criticize left-wing Jews, the right-wingers never see themselves as anti-semitic.

It works the same way in the US. A liberal who criticizes right-wing policies is called anti-American, while a right-winger who criticizes liberals is not.

[IndianaGreen]

4. 'Richard Goldstone’s infamous role...'

Way to begin a rightwing hit piece on righteous Richard Goldstone!

Kinda ironic how we give more importance to what we eat and wear than we do to little things such as justice.

:puke:

[shaayecanaan]

6. The nomenclature is certainly interesting...

Historian Jacob Talmon described such deviant behavior as “a Jewish neurosis” in response to centuries of oppression and pariah status.

If that were the case, one would expect similar debates within other oppressed communities (blacks, gypsies, etc) that have been oppressed for centuries. But one does not hear of self-hating blacks or self-hating gypsies (the Uncle Tom phenomenon is something quite distinct, IMO).

Even vociferous critics of their own culture are rarely accused of self-hatred. Nietzsche pilloried the German people and culture, for example, and many English writers from John Hobson onwards have been fiercely critical of Britain and its foreign policy. It is rare to hear such people accused of self-hatred, if anything they are usually accused of being narcissists, for imagining themselves to be morally superior to their countrymen.

One might point to the fact that Judaism is a small endogamous sect which needs to stigmatise the act of dissociating from one's Jewish identity in order to retain its membership from generation to generation. But there are other small endogamous sects such as Zoroastrians and Druze that do not share the practice of identifying dissident co-religionists as self-haters.

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. Imagine if everyone had to chose between supporting American policies or hating American people?

Anti-Semites will frequently publicize wrongs done by the government of Israel in order to direct blame against Jewish people in general. Isi Liebler does seem to be arguing that Israel's actions are the actions of Jewish people in general; be they the neighbor in Capitola, California or a Borough of London.

Following Isi Liebler's logic, then those anti-Semites who blame Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories on their Jewish neighbors down the street in the U.S. or Europe are not all together wrong. Because they are the same people in Isi Liebler's worldview; the same people guilty of human rights abuses and atrocities against the Palestinians. Just as they are the same people who share the same guilt in the worldview of the anti-Semite.

In fact in recent years with emergence of satellite and cable television in the Arab world, ordinary people throughout the Arab world are learning that not all Jews are the same and not all Jews think alike and thus it is not fair minded to blame all Jewish people for Israel's actions in the Gaza - just as it is not fair minded to blame all Arab people or all Muslim people for the actions taken by an Arab or Muslim governments or political movements.

Then again Isi Liebler reasoning is similar to all those right-wingers in America who describe those who opposed the war in Iraq as "America haters". One of the cliches that one often hears throughout the Middle East and even in Europe and around the world is, "I like American people. But I hate American policies." This is largely because people in the Middle East and Europe and around the world are usually able to separate and make a distinction between American government policies which is sometimes unjust and cruel versus the goodness they often see in ordinary Americans. Ordinary people in the Middle East, Europe and around the world know that it is possible and reasonable to like the one and oppose the other. Isi Liebler's logic is against such a separation and thus seems to require people to either support Israel's policies or hate Jewish people. What could possibly be worse for American people if people around the world were required to either support America's military actions or hate American people?

[Kurska]

8. You know I've had countless debate on this forum.

Many very unpleasant, supporting Israel and never calling anyone a anti-Semite except for maybe a few posts that ended up getting tombstoned.

Yet apparently it is impossible to argue for Israel without doing so, oh well.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. But yr not one of those 'defenders of Israel' that flings around the word 'demonisation'...

What Donald said doesn't apply to you or quite a few others here. It's the ones (and some of them do post here) who carry on about Goldstone being a traitor to the Jewish people, who claim they do welcome legitimate criticism of Israel, but when pressed on it, steadfastly support everything Israel does, no matter what it is. They're the ones who give cyber high-fives to Dershowitz when he comes out with vitriolic poison aimed at Mr Goldstone. They're the same ones who actually do call people who do crtiicise Israel's policies and actions towards the Palestinians of being antisemitic and anti-Israel bigots. I don't recall seeing you ever slipping into those categories, aqnd even though there's times when I do strongly disagree with things you say, you very nearly always keep things above the belt......

[17breezes]

21. It's pretty easy to see when mere criticism

turns into demonisation. It is also pretty easy to see who sees it and who for some odd reasons deny it or try and minimize it. I for one am hopeful that the two later types are a fringe element in society at large to be laughed at and pitied rather than be too worried about.

[azurnoir]

10. I have seen this many many times

The claim that Israel=Jews is usually made in conjunction with the claim that Israel is being demonized by those such as Goldstone but that legitimate criticism of Israel is welcome, yet rarely if ever is what constitutes "legitimate criticism" ever presented

[LeftishBrit]

11. 'Jews who defame Jews'?

Look in the mirror, Isi Leibler.

[shira]

15. yes, like Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shahak, Richard Falk, Norman Finkelstein, Illan Pappe, etc..

There's a significant difference between criticism and demonization, and David Hirsch describes it quite well here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/09/independentvoices

"But I do believe that the discourses of anti-Zionism, which are increasingly "intense", do foster an irrational hatred of Israel, a commonsense notion of Jews as "oppressors" and do therefore, lay the basis for an anti-semitic movement in the UK."

"There is a clear correlation between Israel being in the news and between attacks on UK Jews."

"I hope I have made my position clear. It is not criticism of Israeli human rights abuses that is the problem. The problem is that this criticism so often seems to be subject to a certain kind of "intensification". The kind of intensification that I am worried about is the kind that creates a commonsense notion of Israel, and of the Jews who by and large identify with it, as unique evils in the world. So criticise. Don't demonise. And don't pretend that you can't see the difference. And try to keep away from conspiracy theory. And better to avoid the old themes associated with the blood libel."

David Hirsch criticizes Israel but he has never been accused of making bigoted or antisemitic remarks in his criticism. He doesn't demonize, engage in hyperbole or exaggeration. He doesn't make wild and irrational claims against Israel. In short, he doesn't engage in any of these behaviors which form the basis for an antisemitic movement against Jews.

I'd go a bit further than Hirsch and not give the benefit of the doubt to anyone, Jew or non-Jew, who participates in the "intensified criticism" of Israel which Hirsch writes about. Anyone engaging in that kind of irrational "intense criticism" against Muslim or Arab nations or groups is not given the benefit of the doubt as to whether they are bigots, racists, or haters. So why give the benefit of the doubt to Jews or non-Jews who engage in the same irrational behavior against the Jewish state?

LB, do you still believe there's no real difference between Hirsch's criticism of Israel and Seth Freedman's?

[LeftishBrit]

16. And like the secretary general of the World Jewish Congress....

and many left-wing Jewish groups including Peace Now, the New Israel Fund and the Israel Policy Forum (And, though he's not Jewish, Obama.) (And thus, by implication, myself and many of my friends and family!)


http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/13065.htm

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:aKAAqFKwkpMJ:www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite%3Fcid%3D1192

http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/isi-leibler-american-jews


http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/12341.htm


'LB, do you still believe there's no real difference between Hirsch's criticism of Israel and Seth Freedman's?'

I think there's a difference, but I don't consider either as antisemitic, whereas I do consider Atzmon to be so.


To throw the question back at you: do you consider that there is no real difference between Hirsch's criticism of anti-Zionists and Isi Leibler's?


You have frequently quoted Strenger against the 'self-righteous left'. What do you think of his comments on Leibler?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125327.html

[shira]

22. the problem is that for some reason, many "anti racists" do not have a zero tolerance policy WRT

...antisemitism.

We all know what demonization is when other racial or ethnic groups are the targets. This irrational hyper-criticism consists at best of exaggerations and hyperbole and at worst, malicious lies of omission and comission. It's perverse and disgusting - except when groups of Jews are the target - anything goes against groups of Jews. You linked to an article about Hugo Chavez and his clearly antisemitic remarks. Do you deny that he made those sick remarks or do you think they're no big deal and he should be given a pass? What are your thoughts on the Baroness Tonge affair? Should she have been tossed out years earlier for her nasty anti-Jew 'criticisms'?

You say you see a difference between Hirsch and Freedman's criticism. What specifically is that difference? Freedman simply makes shit up against groups of Jews, whether it's lying by comission or omission. He does it a lot. What explains this behavior if not bigotry?

Leibler is a rightwinger but he brings up a certain truth that needs to be addressed. Fortunately, David Hirsch has quite a bit on jewish antisemites on his ENGAGE website...
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2145

Of course there's a difference b/w Strenger and Leibler - just as there is between Hirsch and Leiber (the right has a way of flubbing the truth, as Im Tirtzu is proving). I think in the case of Liebler, Strenger misread Liebler's article and wrongly attributed a position to Leibler that the article does not imply. Liebler was writing about certain 'critics' of Israel, not all leftwing critics of Israel (such as doves like Amos Oz or David Grossman).

Why is Atzmon antisemitic while 'others' are not? Doesn't Atzmon engage in the same hyper-critical demonization as many antizionists - deliberately lying, exaggerating, etc?

You wrote recently you're a PHD, so I'm assuming you're able to tell the difference b/w real scholarship and the crap that Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe write?

[LeftishBrit]

26. Firstly...

I have a PhD in child development, not in Middle Eastern studies, or any aspect of politics. I do not claim academic expertise on the subject of Israel or Palestine; and have never pretended to it.

(I *knew* I should never let myself be drawn into bringing up ANY aspect of my personal life on DU, however seemingly trivial...)

Secondly, I was not complaining about people criticizing Chavez. I was complaining about someone demonizing the World Jewish Congress for having met with him. Big difference.

Thirdly, yes, I think that Jenny Tonge is a racist lunatic who should have been tossed out of the party years ago. I have referred to her very negatively on the forum at least twice already.

'Do you think it's perfectly okay to make up any accusation against groups of Jews?'

I don't think I even need to dignify this with a response!

[shira]

29. sorry about that question...i edited it out later

1. I didn't realize academic expertise was needed on any subject in order to distinguish between real scholarship and shoddy propaganda. I would think that serious academics of all stripes would have major issues with propaganda posing as scholarship (like Finkelstein, Shlaim, Pappe, Sand).

2. As for demonizing the WJC, just what was demonizing (beyond legit and measured criticism) in those remarks? Now that I'm asking, I'll read that article again to see if I find anything that meets my definition of 'demonization'.

3. WRT Jenny Tonge, what exactly makes her a racist lunatic? Is it her lies and exaggerations about Jews in particular? I'm assuming that if she never mentioned "Jew" in any of her remarks, her 'criticisms' might be borderline antisemitic at worst in your view?

ETA....look at this recent article from David Hirsch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/15/yoav-shamir-film-palestinians

What worries me is that many who see the film will come away with the impression that contemporary antisemitism is basically invented by "Zionists" in order to de-legitimise criticism of Israel. If that is what his film encourages people to think, or if it allows people to come away with that impression, then it is a worrying film, even if it does raise some interesting issues.

Who was the film for? Why was an Israeli film-maker making a film in English? It wasn't for Israelis. It wasn't an Israeli journey of self-discovery, it was a performance for an international non-Israeli audience which lapped it up, at the Berlin film festival, the London film festival etc. As a film about contemporary antisemitism it fails to get to the heart of any issues. As a polemic, it fails to hit any of its enemies' strong positions.

The truth is it doesn't require much courage at all to stand up and oppose Israeli human rights abuses. People do it all the time. Israelis do it all the time. It is the illusion of the moment, pushed by films such as Defamation, pushed by the self-promotion of the anti-Zionists that there are fearsome prices to be paid for supporting Palestinian liberation. Personally, I find it much more frightening to stand up for a democratic and genuinely liberational kind of criticism against the current British orthodoxy of casting Israel, and the Jews who support it, as uniquely and especially threatening.

Is Hirsch wrong?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. No, actually, he doesn't describe it at all.

He tries to get around the fact that he can't describe when criticism is and isn't demonisation by saying "And don't pretend that you can't see the difference". That's not a description, it's a playground trick.

The truth is, of course, that there is no red line, no clear difference. "Demonisation" is a term that can be arguably applied to some of the criticisms leveled at Israel, and a great many of the responses leveled by Israel's defenders at those critics, but it's not clearly-defined and it's massively overused as an attempt to stifle and silence legitimate criticism.

[shira]

23. in that article, Hirsch gave almost a dozen examples of demonization

so let's get this straight....if anyone decides to deliberately make up any outlandish story that paints groups of Jews in the worst light, that is not demonization?

[Violet_Crumble]

18. You appear to be ignoring the antisemitism of the OP...

Do you agree with the antisemitism displayed by the author of the article?

[shira]

24. there is nothing antisemitic about exposing bigoted Jews like Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shahak, etc...

[LeftishBrit]

27. Of course not. But he doesn't stop there. He was attacking the World Jewish Congress; Haaretz; etc.

'Antisemitic' may be a misleading word, but he certainly does not like left-wing Jews any more than Rush Limbaugh likes left-wing Americans.

[shira]

28. okay then, if demonization of Israel or groups of Jews isn't antisemitic then what is it?

hateful? bigoted? other?

[LeftishBrit]

31. It depends on motives...

If people are demonized BECAUSE they are Jews, or because of characteristics that are seen as associated with being Jewish, then it's based on antisemitism.

If they are demonized because someone dislikes that particular group for another reason, then not. E.g. some people demonize Israel out of 'mirror-imageist' opposition to America's allies. On the other side of the coin, some people demonize left-wing Jewish groups out of a strong support for American power in the world, and a frustration with those who oppose it. Both examples may be bigoted in a sense but not usually antisemitic.

Also, people may differ as to what is 'demonization'. Some people seem to think that any objection to the occupation, the blockade of Gaza or recently OCL, or any demand for dovish policies on the part of Israel, is 'denying Israel the right to self-defence'; hence 'pro-Hamas'; hence 'demonization'. Some think that any serious public criticism of Israel's actions is disloyal or demonization in that it 'plays into the hands' of Israel's enemies - just as some people objected once to my saying that Saudi Arabia practices gender apartheid, as that could play into the hands of Islamophobes and warmongers. I strongly disagree with all such views of what demonization is (note that it *could* be demonization to criticize hawkish policies on Israel's part if one was at the same time uncritical of Britain's or America's hawkish policies - but many people oppose all of these).

Personally, I think that it is demonization to exceptionalize Israel or any country as evil above all other countries (I have just responded to a post which said that Israel and its policies are responsible for almost *all* the problems in the Middle East!) It is also demonization to blame Israel or groups of Jews for *other people's* actions; e.g. 'Israel controls America/Britain/ the world'; 'AIPAC controls American foreign policy'; 'Left-wing Israeli groups are responsible for *most of* Israel's problems internationally'.

Also: I think that people can be wrong or even bigoted or hateful without necessarily being deliberate liars. I don't think that most people who criticize or even arguably demonize Israel are making things up or inventing lies. They believe what they say. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they are even antisemitic. People can genuinely believe wrong things, as well as true things.

[shira]

33. and I take it these 'motives' matter WRT other races and ethnic groups?

For example, you believe you're being just as fair and generous to Dan Pipes and Melanie Phillips regarding their views?

As for "demonization", I think we have to first agree on a common definition of the term. Hirsch describes it as irrational criticism that often leads to having an irrational hatred of Israel and/or Jews in general. By irrational, lies of comission and omission are often coupled with exaggeration and hyperbole (along with the use of double-standards and an unhealthy obsession with Israel). It is this combination of factors that is irrational and amounts to nothing less than perverse demonization of Israel. I believe any criticism of Israel is fair so long as it's not irrational and dishonest. It appears you believe that fair but harsh criticism of Hamas, S.Arabia, Iran, etc... is demonization even if that criticism is entirely rational, honest, and supported by hard fact.

WRT deliberate liars, how do you view people who, for example, accuse Israel of following a policy to deliberately target Gazans during OCL? As I see it:

a) these people cannot be taken seriously on anything I/P related if that's what they truly believe
b) these people know better but deliberately lie b/c they are hateful, bigoted, etc...
c) other ________?

Why deliberately lie about this if hate/bigotry is not the root cause of such an accusation? Such a person is either a whackjob nutter, hates Israel, or _______ ? (fill-in-the-blank)

[LeftishBrit]

35. Yes. I think it applies to all races/ ethnicities/ religions with regard to motives

For example, harsh criticism of Sharia law has different connotations from the person who consistently hates all forms of theocracy everywhere in the world; and from the person who is using it as an excuse to portray all Muslim immigrants as a menace to Western society.

'It appears you believe that fair but harsh criticism of Hamas, S.Arabia, Iran, etc... is demonization even if that criticism is entirely rational, honest, and supported by hard fact.'

No, I do not believe that at all. I was quoting *other people's* objections (which I considered unfounded) to *my own* harsh criticism of Saudi Arabia. I said I thought that Saudi Arabia practices apartheid against women. A couple of people seemed to think that I should not say this, as it could resemble/be taken up by right-wing Islamophobes. My view is that the fact that objectionable people could make bad use of some criticism that we voice, whether of Saudi Arabia, Israel, or the planet Saturn, is *not* a valid reason to avoid making the criticism.


As regards Pipes and Phillips: I hate them because they are consistently far right wingers in EVERY way - but I don't think that they are lying; I think they genuinely hold their views. This doesn't make their views any more appetizing. (In fact, when I was first on this forum I used to have endless debates with someone who was more fervently pro-Israel than you are, though not Jewish; and who thought that Pipes was not as bad as all that. He assumed at first that my dislike of Pipes meant that I thought that Pipes was a liar or had a hidden agenda - and I kept saying no, I just hate him because he's *right wing* and I don't consider him as a deliberate liar.)

'how do you view people who, for example, accuse Israel of following a policy to deliberately target Gazans during OCL?'

I would simply say that they are accusing Israelis in war of doing what virtually EVERY country at war does! People virtually always target their enemies - and even if they prefer to target military figures than civilians, they will not avoid killing civilians (at least to the extent of deliberately risking collateral damage) if it seems necessary to win the war. Therefore I tend to lay most blame on the leaders who chose to *have* war. This is also why I can never get that worked up morally about targeted assassinations by either side; it is the only form of war that does NOT at least by default involve attacking civilians.

Regarding individual incidents, they could well be wrong and unjust; and they MIGHT be lying but they might genuinely believe it.

ETA: what do you think of a person who still thinks that the Iraq war was justified? A few days you said that an example of such was 'not anti-Muslim'; because the article did not directly attack Islam - even though they were justifying violence and 'delegitimatization' of a large Muslim society, which has led to horrible disaster. I actually agree with you that the article was not really anti-Muslim - but according to the standards that you use about negativity toward Israel, surely it would have to be?

[shira]

44. that's good

For example, harsh criticism of Sharia law has different connotations from the person who consistently hates all forms of theocracy everywhere in the world; and from the person who is using it as an excuse to portray all Muslim immigrants as a menace to Western society.

There are people here at DU who are one-state supporters who base their arguments around anti-racism, arguing that only Israel (not any of the theocracies surrounding them) deserves to be dismantled. That's quite different (and wrongheaded) than someone who advocates for one-state so long as ALL theocracies 100x worse than Israel are also dismantled, right?

No, I do not believe that at all. I was quoting *other people's* objections (which I considered unfounded) to *my own* harsh criticism of Saudi Arabia. I said I thought that Saudi Arabia practices apartheid against women. A couple of people seemed to think that I should not say this, as it could resemble/be taken up by right-wing Islamophobes. My view is that the fact that objectionable people could make bad use of some criticism that we voice, whether of Saudi Arabia, Israel, or the planet Saturn, is *not* a valid reason to avoid making the criticism.

I agree.

As regards Pipes and Phillips: I hate them because they are consistently far right wingers in EVERY way - but I don't think that they are lying; I think they genuinely hold their views. This doesn't make their views any more appetizing. (In fact, when I was first on this forum I used to have endless debates with someone who was more fervently pro-Israel than you are, though not Jewish; and who thought that Pipes was not as bad as all that. He assumed at first that my dislike of Pipes meant that I thought that Pipes was a liar or had a hidden agenda - and I kept saying no, I just hate him because he's *right wing* and I don't consider him as a deliberate liar.)

But are Pipes and Phillips bigots or racists in your view?

'how do you view people who, for example, accuse Israel of following a policy to deliberately target Gazans during OCL?'

I would simply say that they are accusing Israelis in war of doing what virtually EVERY country at war does! People virtually always target their enemies - and even if they prefer to target military figures than civilians, they will not avoid killing civilians (at least to the extent of deliberately risking collateral damage) if it seems necessary to win the war.

Other western civilized countries are constantly accused of deliberately targeting civilians as their main war aim?

ETA: what do you think of a person who still thinks that the Iraq war was justified? A few days you said that an example of such was 'not anti-Muslim'; because the article did not directly attack Islam - even though they were justifying violence and 'delegitimatization' of a large Muslim society, which has led to horrible disaster. I actually agree with you that the article was not really anti-Muslim - but according to the standards that you use about negativity toward Israel, surely it would have to be?

Such a person is wrong.

A person can only believe the Iraq war was justified if...
a) they can prove Iraq was a real imminent threat to western civilization and had to be neutralized
b) by deposing Saddam, Iraq becomes a stable democracy with the full human rights package, and that's pushing it IMO

I see no evidence of either scenario, so I can't understand the justification for the war. Even if scenario (b) happens, it's still not justifiable IMO (why single out Iraq for this 'favor' since dozens of other countries need to become democratized)? At any rate, so long as "freeing" a population isn't limited to only freeing Muslim societies (North Korea needs democracy too) there's nothing anti-Muslim going on.

========

Here's a recent article on anti-Jewish hate crime in Britain. The author claims the liberal left is slow to respond to these bigoted crimes. What do you think?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/05/antisemitism-uk-racism-combat

[LeftishBrit]

66. I think Pipes and Phillips are bigots- whether 'racist' is the right word I am not sure

They are vicious 'culture-warriors' against:

(a) everything post-1950s in social attitudes

(b) immigrants in Europe

(c) secular people

(d) Muslims in particular.

As regards an example of the latter, here is a paragraph from Dan Pipes from January 2009 on "Why I stand with Geert Wilders":

'That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population's withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari'a)?'

This is bigoted, because it is portraying Muslim immigrants, a minority group, as an 'enemy within', a threat to the values and civilization of their host countries. It is also eugenicist, blaming members of the 'indigenous population' for not keeping up the birth rate in competition with the 'undesirables'!

Is there equivalent stuff about Jews? Certainly; there are too many people who still think of Jews as a suspect group, as not real citizens of their country (currently this sometimes takes the form of alleging not only dual loyalty but dual *citizenship* with Israel) and a threat to the majority culture. I once got into a flamewar with someone on DU (not this forum) who said, "It is time that we got the Jewish influence OUT of our (the American) government". Implying that Israel is the bane of the world and all or most of other countries' problems would be solved if Israel didn't exist is another variant on this.

But this does not mean that even wrong or intemperate criticism of Israel or a Muslim country is thereby antisemitic/ Islamophobic/ racist. It could just be wrong. It definitely becomes antisemitic/Islamophobic when used as a justification or excuse for attacking Jews or Muslims in general; e.g. using Israeli actions as a justification for hate-crimes against Jews, or 9-11 as a justification for hate-crimes against Muslims and even those who just look as though they might be Muslims.

'Other western civilized countries are constantly accused of deliberately targeting civilians as their main war aim?'

Yes - or at least of doing so, whether or not as their 'main war aim' (most people aren't saying that it's Israel's main war aim either). Governments and armies are often accused of 'murdering children' and the like, and you should have seen the sort of things that the Irish used to say about the British Government, and vice versa. Happens quite regularly - and in a sense justly; that's what most war is all about. Whether it's a 'western civilized country' is irrelevant here; war is inherently uncivilized and uncivilizing - even on the rare occasions when it's necessary. (E.g. Britain was clearly in the right and Germany in the wrong in WW2, and the war had to be fought; nevertheless I consider the bombing of Dresden as a crime against civilians.)


'Here's a recent article on anti-Jewish hate crime in Britain. The author claims the liberal left is slow to respond to these bigoted crimes. What do you think?'

It's a good article; there is the problem of antisemitic crime here though as the author says it's not at an overwhelming level, but ANY is too much, and like all hate-crime, it is getting worse recently; I blame reactions to the economy more than to the Middle East conflict, but both are involved, no doubt. Everyone is slow to respond to such crimes against Jews or any minority! I think this is partly because such crimes tend to occur in poorer areas, or in those where people of visibly strong religious faith congregate - often NOT the areas lived in by the middle- and upper-class people who have the most power to respond. Also, British people have a tendency to think that making a law against something is sufficient (it is certainly important!) and that as race-hatred is against the law, that's all that is needed to combat it.

Also, as some other forms of bigotry, notably anti-immigrant bigotry, are particularly common, they tend to get more attention from many.

All hate-crimes should be getting attention!

But you make it sound as though the liberal-left (an odd phrase to use in the context of British politics, but the author did use it) are particularly antisemitic or indifferent to antisemitism. In fact the right are the worst offenders; the BNP may officially claim not to be antisemitic any more, but its members clearly haven't gotten the memo! Even as regards the more mainstream right, you have mentioned the pretty obscure Ben White quite a few times, but I don't remember your ever mentioning, for example, Richard Ingrams, a rather better-known right-wing journalist, with clear antisemitic tendencies.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. It is antisemitic to focus on a person because they're Jewish and to go on about a "Jewish neurosis"

If someone who was critical of Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories were to focus on 'supporters' of Israel because they're Jewish and to talk about a 'Jewish neurosis' there'd be a rush to label the writer of the OP antisemitic by 'supporters' of Israel in this forum.

Here's a question for you. I hope you actually try to answer it and don't just ignore it:

Are there any 'supporters' of Israel who you believe have made antisemitic comments aimed at Jews who are critical of Israel? If so, can you give any examples?

[shira]

34. WRT bigots like Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shahak, and Bobby Fischer - there's no question these people

....are sick bastards who wouldn't mind seeing harm coming to random Jews. Call it a neurosis or pathological sickness, I don't care. It's disgusting whether that hatred is aimed at Jews or any other ethnic or racial group. I fail to see what's antisemitic about calling out these haters of Jews who happen to be Jews themselves.

There are rightwing Muslims who irrationally and unapologetically demonize whole groups of Muslims. Do they get some 'pass' because they happen to also be Muslims? Isn't their 'sickness' or 'neurosis' just as bad as hatred and bigotry projected by non-Muslims against Muslims?

===========

Now to answer you specifically...

"If someone who was critical of Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories were to focus on 'supporters' of Israel because they're Jewish and to talk about a 'Jewish neurosis' there'd be a rush to label the writer of the OP antisemitic by 'supporters' of Israel in this forum. "

Any criticism is fair so long as its measured, honest, and rational. If in that criticism, lies by omission or comission, exaggeration, hyperbole, and double-standards are utilized - then no matter who makes the accusation, it's illegitimate, irrational, and hateful.

"Here's a question for you. I hope you actually try to answer it and don't just ignore it:

Are there any 'supporters' of Israel who you believe have made antisemitic comments aimed at Jews who are critical of Israel? If so, can you give any examples?"

First, there's nothing wrong with aiming comments at Jews who are IRRATIONALLY criticial of Israel (Jews who deliberately lie, exaggerate, and incite anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred like Atzmon, Shahak, and Fischer).

As for those who just don't like anyone criticizing Israel rationally, these people are morons who shouldn't be taken seriously and who should rightfully be marginalized. They're probably rightwingers who hate anything leftwing or liberal, whether Israel has anything to do with things or not. They're generally rightwing and criticize and demonize Israel's leaders for being too liberal (ex. Camp David/Taba offer, Gaza pullout, etc.). So they're just as critical of Israel as anyone else, albeit for the wrong reasons.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. So yr arguing it's acceptable to make antisemitic comments if you think the targets are 'demonising'

Sorry, but it's still antisemitic to do so. Also, I'm not familiar with most of those names you attack, so I don't know if they're bigots or not and will wait till I've got time and the interest to find out for myself.

Call it a neurosis or pathological sickness, I don't care.

The OP called it a "jewish neurosis". How on earth is using such a term not antisemitic? And saying it's because the targets deserve it isn't an excuse or justification...

There are rightwing Muslims who irrationally and unapologetically demonize whole groups of Muslims. Do they get some 'pass' because they happen to also be Muslims?

I really don't understand what that question had to do with what you were being asked. It's you and not me who's trying to give the OP a free pass when it comes to bigotry, and it's not based on whether the person making the comment is Jewish, but whether they're a 'supporter' of Israel or not...

Any criticism is fair so long as its measured, honest, and rational. If in that criticism, lies by omission or comission, exaggeration, hyperbole, and double-standards are utilized - then no matter who makes the accusation, it's illegitimate, irrational, and hateful.

That had nothing to do with what I said, which was: "If someone who was critical of Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories were to focus on 'supporters' of Israel because they're Jewish and to talk about a 'Jewish neurosis' there'd be a rush to label the writer of the OP antisemitic by 'supporters' of Israel in this forum. "


First, there's nothing wrong with aiming comments at Jews who are IRRATIONALLY criticial of Israel (Jews who deliberately lie, exaggerate, and incite anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred like Atzmon, Shahak, and Fischer).

Let me get this straight. Yr admitting it's acceptable that antisemitic comments are aimed at Jews who you believe are irrationally critical of Israel?

As for those who just don't like anyone criticizing Israel rationally, these people are morons who shouldn't be taken seriously and who should rightfully be marginalized. They're probably rightwingers who hate anything leftwing or liberal, whether Israel has anything to do with things or not. They're generally rightwing and criticize and demonize Israel's leaders for being too liberal (ex. Camp David/Taba offer, Gaza pullout, etc.). So they're just as critical of Israel as anyone else, albeit for the wrong reasons.

You didn't answer the question at all. I asked you if you could give examples of 'supporters' of Israel who you believe have made antisemitic comments aimed at Jews who are critical of Israel. Yr so quick to come up with specific names when it's the other way round, so I'd like you to give some specific examples and names without using the words 'hate' 'demonise' 'lying' or any of that stuff. Can you do it?

[shira]

40. just trying to understand your POV first for clarity

Do you believe it's antisemitic for Jews to condemn Jewish antisemites like Gilad Atzmon? Or is it just the manner of that condemnation you have a problem with? Maybe it's both, as though Jews aren't allowed for some reason to ever condemn types like Gilad Atzmon?

[Violet_Crumble]

42. I can't get any clearer than I have been...

What bit of having it pointed out to you that the OP engaged in antisemitism against Jews are you having trouble understanding?

btw, just so you don't wander off-track, here's a copy of the post that you avoided addressing:

'yr arguing it's acceptable to make antisemitic comments if you think the targets are 'demonising'
Sorry, but it's still antisemitic to do so. Also, I'm not familiar with most of those names you attack, so I don't know if they're bigots or not and will wait till I've got time and the interest to find out for myself.

Call it a neurosis or pathological sickness, I don't care.

The OP called it a "jewish neurosis". How on earth is using such a term not antisemitic? And saying it's because the targets deserve it isn't an excuse or justification...

There are rightwing Muslims who irrationally and unapologetically demonize whole groups of Muslims. Do they get some 'pass' because they happen to also be Muslims?

I really don't understand what that question had to do with what you were being asked. It's you and not me who's trying to give the OP a free pass when it comes to bigotry, and it's not based on whether the person making the comment is Jewish, but whether they're a 'supporter' of Israel or not...

Any criticism is fair so long as its measured, honest, and rational. If in that criticism, lies by omission or comission, exaggeration, hyperbole, and double-standards are utilized - then no matter who makes the accusation, it's illegitimate, irrational, and hateful.

That had nothing to do with what I said, which was: "If someone who was critical of Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories were to focus on 'supporters' of Israel because they're Jewish and to talk about a 'Jewish neurosis' there'd be a rush to label the writer of the OP antisemitic by 'supporters' of Israel in this forum. "


First, there's nothing wrong with aiming comments at Jews who are IRRATIONALLY criticial of Israel (Jews who deliberately lie, exaggerate, and incite anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred like Atzmon, Shahak, and Fischer).

Let me get this straight. Yr admitting it's acceptable that antisemitic comments are aimed at Jews who you believe are irrationally critical of Israel?

As for those who just don't like anyone criticizing Israel rationally, these people are morons who shouldn't be taken seriously and who should rightfully be marginalized. They're probably rightwingers who hate anything leftwing or liberal, whether Israel has anything to do with things or not. They're generally rightwing and criticize and demonize Israel's leaders for being too liberal (ex. Camp David/Taba offer, Gaza pullout, etc.). So they're just as critical of Israel as anyone else, albeit for the wrong reasons.

You didn't answer the question at all. I asked you if you could give examples of 'supporters' of Israel who you believe have made antisemitic comments aimed at Jews who are critical of Israel. Yr so quick to come up with specific names when it's the other way round, so I'd like you to give some specific examples and names without using the words 'hate' 'demonise' 'lying' or any of that stuff. Can you do it?'


To finish up, I find yr willingness to condone antisemitism if the targets are people you don't like to be very disturbing. Antisemitism, just like any other form of bigotry, is never acceptable, no matter who the target is.

[shira]

45. sorry, but until you're more clear there's nowhere to go with this

I'm certain you've heard of Gilad Atzmon and know him to be an antisemitic Jew. All I'm asking you is what is the problem with a Jew condemning this bigot for who he is? Or is it just the manner of that condemnation that irks you? If your problem is with both, then how should bigoted types like Atzmon be properly dealt with? Are we to pretend he's not a Jewish antisemite? Does it become the job of only non-Jews to condemn antisemitic Jews? Or is the fact Atzmon is a Jew totally irrelevant?

[Violet_Crumble]

47. THE OP ENGAGED IN ANTISEMITISM. How much clearer do I need to be?

Why do you think antisemitism is acceptable if you believe the targets are self-hating Jews? For what seems the zillionth time, antisemitism is not acceptable depending on who the target of it is. If yr still not comprehending this, maybe you should go and ask someone with an understanding of what antisemitism is to patiently explain it to you until it does sink in...

btw, so as not to further confuse yrself, try focusing on what you've been asked instead of trying to go off on tangents. Just a suggestion for the future...

[shira]

you're avoiding my question for some reason

I'm not sure why you believe it's wrong for Jews to reasonably condemn antisemitic, bigoted Jews like Gilad Atzmon.

Why is Gilad Atzmon off-limits to Jews who have a legitimate problem with him?

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Yr the one who's evading answering my questions about yr support of antisemitism in the OP...

You don't answer questions you get asked, and I'm not playing yr stupid games where you try to go off on tangents in an attempt to control the discussion. Yr behaviour in this thread with yr refusal to answer questions is telling, and the way you've totally ignored the antisemitism of the OP is really disturbing...

Just to make it it even more crystal clear, I'm not saying that anyone who makes antisemitic comments shouldn't be called out, but it can be done without engaging in bigotry towards that person. What I'm saying is that if it's done by engaging in antisemitism, then the person doing it is just as bad as the person they're doing it to. Anything there that you don't comprehend or find confusing?


ANTISEMITISM IS NOT SOMETHING THAT BECOMES ACCEPTABLE BASED ON WHO THE TARGETS OF IT IS. IT'S NEVER ACCEPTABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IT'S SAD THAT YOU FEEL OTHERWISE...

[shira]

54. it's never antisemitic to confront Jews who use their ethnicity to incite hatred against other Jews

If it's the MANNER of this condemnation that bothers you, I see your point and agree that the idiots over at Masada2000, for example, go way OTT with their condemnations of bigoted, narcisist Jews. That doesn't mean it's wrong to confront these Jews who act as a shield for non-Jewish haters to hide behind.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. It most certainly is when antisemitic memes are relied on...

Which was the case of the OP. I've got no idea and much less interest in why yr 'agreeing' about the 'idiots over at Masada2000' when this thread is about the OP that was posted... No-one else but you has mentioned Masada2000...

[shira]

58. so if "jewish neurosis" is excluded from the OP, the article is okay with you?

[Violet_Crumble]

60. What a stupid question. It wasn't so stop trying to justify the antisemitism in the OP n/t

[shira]

62. another evasion. Please answer this time around.

If the OP did not include "jewish neurosis", would you still have a problem with the main argument therein?

No more obfuscations and evasions, okay?

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Get someone to read my answer out to you if yr too confused by it...

See, I answered yr stupid and rather ugly question, which is more than yr willing to do to most questions you get asked...

If you want people to answer yr questions, maybe you should start paying people the courtesy of addressing what they say to you and trying to answer questions instead of responding with a bunch of 'questions'.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Can you explain this post of yrs in another thread?

see, in this thread yr insisting that bigoted anti-Jewish comments aimed at Jews who are critical of Israel is 'calling out haters'. Even if they were antisemitic, aiming anti-Jewish comments at them and focusing on their being Jewish would still be antisemitic, but you don't seem to agree.

Here's the really strange thing. I just spotted this post from you in another thread where you appear to be arguing that someone who's critical of Israel is antisemitic because they focus on a person being Jewish when it comes to their support of Israel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=300594&mesg_id=300640

Please feel free to correct me if I've misread yr post and the bits you bolded weren't what you are claiming is antisemitic. But if I've read yr bolded bits correctly, then can you even start to explain the double standard that allows it to be antisemitic when aimed at supporters of Israel, but isn't when it's aimed at critics of Israel?

[shira]

41. first, do you agree that Travers statements are at the very least borderline antisemitic

I'll wait for you to answer my previous question to you in my last post (#40) before responding to your questions here b/c I'm not quite sure what I'm responding to.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I want to know why you'd think those comments were antisemitic...

Remember, that's the question yr evading answering. How can anyone sit there and claim that it's antisemitic to focus on someone being Jewish when it comes to support of Israel, but then sit there and argue it's not antisemitic to focus on someone being Jewish when it comes to criticism of Israel? I guess by yr refusal to address what I asked, it's not possible to explain such a double standard...

[shira]

46. I'll happily respond to you once you are more clear on what is disturbing you

Is there some reason you don't want to comment on Travers' remarks? Are you waiting for me to respond before you comment on Travers or is it your intention not to comment on Travers at all, regardless what I do?

[Violet_Crumble]

48. I want to know why you'd think those comments were antisemitic...

Remember, that's the question yr evading answering. How can anyone sit there and claim that it's antisemitic to focus on someone being Jewish when it comes to support of Israel, but then sit there and argue it's not antisemitic to focus on someone being Jewish when it comes to criticism of Israel? I guess by yr refusal to address what I asked, it's not possible to explain such a double standard...

What bit of that didn't you understand? It's all pretty damn clear...

[shira]

53. intent is everything...by making those remarks, Travers is fostering hatred towards Jews

But you already knew that and I don't know why you're pretending not to.

OTOH, the reason for pointing out haters like Gilad Atzmon is to prevent irrational hatred towards Jews. It's common knowledge that vitriol and antisemitic tropes that come from Jews is a more powerful weapon in the hands of haters than non-Jewish hatred aimed at Jews. It's vital that Jews who use their ethnicity to attack other Jews be countered. I can't believe this really needs to be explained to you.

======

Now that I've answered you, is there any chance you'll answer as to whether you believe Travers' statements were antisemitic or wrong-headed?

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Ah, so you are justifying antisemitism by a 'supporter' of Israel...

And as with all types who engage in that sort of thinking, you think you know what people's intents are, but you don't. You can't ignore or excuse antisemitism because you approve of who the targets are. If something is antisemitic, it doesn't matter who's saying it or who the target is.

Guess what? I don't waste my time on 'questions' from people who support antisemitism, so that counts you and yr barrage of 'questions' out...

[shira]

56. what a joke

Gilad Atzmon uses his ethnicity as a weapon of incitement for non-Jewish antisemites and you think it's wrong to expose haters like Atzmon.

Says more about you than anything else.

========

And it figures you won't condemn Travers for his obviously bigoted remarks.

And you fancy yourself an anti-racist? :eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

59. No, you just admitted that you accept antisemitism if it's aimed at people you don't like...

That's not how it works. Yr giving the OP a free pass in their antisemitism because you believe the target is antisemitic. That makes both you and the OP as bad as any antisemite. I'll say to you what I'd say to anyone else who supports the use of antisemitism. If you (generic you) can't find a way to argue yr case without engaging in or defending antisemitism, then you really shouldn't be here as there's many forums out there which would cater to attitudes such as those...

[shira]

61. you're creating a strawman and arguing that, not me

I don't defend antisemitism by anyone.

It's never antisemitic to confront Jewish antisemites like Gilad Atzmon. If you want to argue the manner in which that criticism takes, that's one thing. But I doubt you'd think the OP would be reasonable even if "jewish neurosis" was absent from it.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. No, you've been defending the use of antisemitism in the OP...

It's never antisemitic to confront Jewish antisemites like Gilad Atzmon.


Yes, it is if antisemitic memes are relied on, which is what happened in the OP...


If you want to argue the manner in which that criticism takes, that's one thing.

Uh, I've said many times now that the manner the criticism took was antisemitic in nature. You appear to want us all to ignore antisemitism when it suits you...

[shira]

65. so since antisemitic memes were used by Colonel Travers of the Goldstone team, he's a bigot

....in your view, unless you're employing double-standards. Thanks for making that clear. :) And if Leibler's "neurosis" taints his paper, then certainly Travers' bigotry taints all of his contributions to the Goldstone Report. Or shall I bring up double-standards if you disagree with this? :eyes:

If you think "jewish neurosis" is problematic WRT jew on jew antisemitism, that's your opinion. It's odd that you're over sensitive to this description but tone deaf to so many examples of antisemitism WRT demonization of Israel and her supporters. It appears you have one standard for critics of Israel and another for those who criticize Israel's defamers.

What Liebler describes is something pretty much exclusive to Jews - and that is the disgusting practice of using your ethnicity intentionally as a weapon of incitement and hatred against your fellow Jews. This phenomenon is unparalleled in history. The amount of human suffering and death as a result of this narcisist incitement is unparalleled. It's quite clearly a neurosis or sickness, but it's a description of a phenomenon which describes a certain small segment of Jews. It's no more bigoted an accusation than Carlo Strenger's SLES theory, that condemns a certain segment of the left w/o applying to the whole left.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Unlike you, I don't employ double standards...

This 'exchange' is about the appalling double standards that were displayed where you think focusing in a negative way on someone being Jewish and relying on antisemitic memes is acceptable if you don't approve of the target of it and the person doing it is a 'supporter' of Israel, while doing a complete about face and insisting it is antisemitism if the target is someone you approve of and who is a 'supporter' of Israel. Yr opinion of what is and isn't antisemitism changes with the wind and appears to rely on whether the targets are despised by you or not. Then when yr called out on it, you squirm and try to turn it back on the person who's picked you up on it, in this case me. That defensive behaviour is typical of the sort who tend to make bigoted comments on a regular basis or who support them, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

[azurnoir]

50. Avoiding yet another question Shira?

VC was perfectly clear and what else is also perfectly clear is your refusal to answer the question

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Shame on you! You asked her a question!

Be careful or it'll be 'responded' to with at least ten 'questions' along the lines of 'why won't you admit that Goldstone is a liar who pushes little old ladies over as they're trying to cross the road?' even though the thread has nothing to do with Goldstone, and if yr really lucky there'll be an attempt to justify antisemitic comments made by the likes of the OP in this thread...

[IndianaGreen]

19. You are a poster child for racism!

Have you no shame?

[shira]

25. how so? please explain.

[Chulanowa]

38. She's probably seen plenty of your other posts around here, for starters...

But in this case, I think it might rest on your self-salving line;
"Anyone engaging in that kind of irrational "intense criticism" against Muslim or Arab nations or groups is not given the benefit of the doubt as to whether they are bigots, racists, or haters"

Right. if you haven't noticed, this is a pretty frequent tactic taken by racists who want to portray themselves as not being racist, just beleaguered by "The PC liberals" along with whatever group they are vehemently "NOT RACIST" about. it's a big conspiracy.

Case in point, you read about a fight between two dudes on a bus, one black, the other white. The black guy "wins" and next thing you know, there's a dozen websites calling racism because it's NOT being called racism. "If the white guy had won, they'd be calling it a hate crime!" - this is stated with absolute certainty every time. And if the white guy does win (as was the case in a fight between two idiots on an Oakland bus) you get the same people speculating that the guy will be charged with a hate crime, in between lauding his bravery for "Standing up to that thug"

You're doing the same thing here, pretending that Arabs / Muslims are getting "special treatment" that Jews aren't being afforded. You do so without substantive proof, expecting your compatriots to just nod sagely at your wisdom about the special treatment "they" get" at "your" expense.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chulanowa]

20. yeah, it's rather ironic.

Ten bucks says he will never catch the irony in that, though. Most people who need to get a good look at the absurd never do.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Here is one that fits the description to a tee: Roy Cohn!

Joe McCarthy's chief counsel and grand inquisitor.

[FarrenH]

14. Donald, you made your point perfectly

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. Dr. Hajo Meyer Auschwitz Survivor - I wonder if this is who Isi Liebler would like to silence

Dr. Hajo Meyer Auschwitz Survivor on Palestine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSlFR541Uoo

.