Human rights and the new anti-Jewishness...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

...

Genocidal anti-Semitism
The first and most lethal is existential or genocidal anti-Semitism. I am referring here to the public call for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. Examples include the covenants of terrorist organizations like Hamas which publicly call for, and incite to, the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews anywhere; religious fatwas - or execution writs - issued by radical Islamic clerics, which not only call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews, but proclaim it also as a religious obligation(Israel, then, has emerged as the Salmon Rushdie of the nations); and calls by member states of the international community - such as Iran or Iraq - for the destruction of another member state, such as Israel and its people, as evidenced in the statements by their respective political leadership that call not only for the destruction of Israel but also express the intent to use nuclear weapons to accomplish this genocidal purpose.

In a word, Israel is the only state in the world today, and the Jews the only people in the world today, that are the object of a standing set of threats from governmental, religious, and terrorist bodies seeking their destruction. And what is most disturbing is the silence, the indifference, and sometimes even the indulgence, in the face of such genocidal antisemitism.

Political anti-Semitism
...
This involves the discrimination against, or denial of, the legitimacy, if not the existence, of the State of Israel. Indeed, it may be regarded as the contemporary analogue of classical or theological anti-Semitism, which discriminated against and denied the very legitimacy of the Jewish religion. In other words, if classical anti-Semitism was anchored in discrimination against the Jewish religion, the new anti-Jewishness is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people - and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance the essence of anti-Semitism is the same - an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time - be it the Jewish religion at the time of classical antisemitism, or the State of Israel as the "civil religion" of the Jewish people under this new anti-Jewishness.
...

Theological anti-Semitism
This refers to the convergence of state-sanctioned Islamic anti-Semitism, which characterizes Jews and Judaism, let alone Israel, as the perfidious enemy of Islam (in this regard, see the recent publication by Robert Wistrich, a distinguished scholar of anti-Semitism, called Muslim Antisemitism: A Clear and Present Danger) and which finds expression in the proclamation made by Yasser Arafat-appointed and funded Imam, Ahmed Abu Halabiya, from a mosque pulpit and broadcasted on Palestinian state television - "The Jews must be butchered and tortured: Allah will torture them with your hands. Have no mercy on the Jews...wherever you meet them...kill them." Similarly, the doctrine of Christian replacement theology - which holds that the Jews have been replaced by the Church in G-d`s favour, so that all of G-d`s promises to the Jews, including the land of Israel, have been inherited by Christianity - is another expression of theological anti-Semithism. According to this doctrine, an illegitimate Israel has usurped and betrayed Christian theology.
...

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1075954582547&p=1006953079865

[el_gato]

1. ho hum

time to look in the mirror

[David__77]

2. Jerusalem Post is like worldnetdaily.

I am always suspicious of rightist news sources.

[cprise]

3. And it's constantly dumped into this forum.

So did Murdoch purchase the Jerusalem Post, or is he still waiting?

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. It is actually on the scene unlike Commondreams or WSWS

Or some of the other tripe some post here.

[David__77]

9. Well, that's something I suppose.

I'm more of a Ha'aretz person myself.

[MikeGalos]

5. Gee

I guess that since you can't argue with the content or the author's credentials (The Canadian Minister of Justice) the only technique left to avoid dealing with this attack on racism is to attempt an attack on the publsher?

Pretty silly. Guess the content is something you'd rather not talk about...

btw: (from the article)The writer, a law professor and Canadian Member of Parliament, was a member of the board of directors of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, in which capacity this essay was written. He is currently Canada's Minister of Justice.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

6. Yup, them racist lefties

such words written and he still weaseled his way into a ministers portfolio for a Liberal government. Damn, and they didn't even back the war.(sarcasm yall)

Yes, lets get more calls of shame on Canada

Bill

[tinnypriv]

7. Fair enough

I'll deal with the content:

This is a republished article and against the rules for new threads.

Next.

[MikeGalos]

12. Nope

but a nice try at censoring what you can't argue.

The report was just published as a public document.

Oh, and again, you try to avoid dealing with the content by attacking the publishing.

Obviously you don't want this seen or discussed. Why?

[tinnypriv]

17. Please do me a favour

Don't make literal statements in your arguments when you are unware of the facts, and simply shooting from the hip. It'll save me having to correct them. Though this is becoming a habit:

<< The report was just published as a public document. >>

Not only is this not true, it is hilariously not true. Mr Cotler's paper caused quiet a stir in pro-Israel circles at the time it was published in Jerusalem, in 2002. It was made available in full by various public institutions at the time.

For one such institution, see the Dec 2002 newsletter of Christian Action for Israel (Canada). The paper is also archived on their website.

In addition, Mr Cotler also delivered this paper in speech format at the annual conference of the Anti-Defamation League, also in 2002.

Now that you have been appraised of the facts, you're free to withdraw your erroneous comment.

[MikeGalos]

23. And in what way

is that justifying your attempt at censorship or your claim that it was discussing content?

Why is it that you don't want this discussed?

[tinnypriv]

49. Discuss it all you like

Knock yourself out.

[David__77]

10. For the same reason you don't respond to many of my postings.

What's the point? There's a fundamental difference of viewpoint. I think that equating opposition to Israel to "political anti-Semitism" automatically is incorrect. Jews are Israelis, they are Germans, they are Americans, they are French. Anti-Semitism must be firmly dealt with wherever it exists. Every nation must be safe for Jews. This is not a question of Israel alone. However, once again, opposing Israeli practices--and being very firm about it--is not in itself anti-Semitic.

I want casual browsers of this forum to know that the Jerusalem Post is a far right-wing newspaper--I think it's worth pointing out. Some might mistakenly think otherwise.

[GabysPoppy]

13. I have a question for you

Here is something from the NY Post - Murdoch owned.

ISLANDERS FAIL
ANOTHER ROAD TEST

February 6, 2004 -- Canadiens 2 - Islanders 1

http://www.nypost.com/sports/islanders/15360.htm

I bet on the Islanders last night. By your logic I should hold on to the betting slip because the story may be untrue.

[David__77]

14. The Communist Party paper has a sports section too...

And actually, political views are more than occasionally expressed in sports reporting. I don't know enough about what this article is about to comment upon it though. Generally though, I think it's not paranoid to at least be suspicious of the motivations behind the placement of editorials in a right-wing newspaper. It's not irrelevant.

Regardless of its placement in this or that publication, there are two points:

-Jerusalem Post is a right-wing newspaper.
-The editorial equates determined political opposition to Israeli policies and actions to anti-Semitism.

[David__77]

15. And a concession on my part...

I apologize for my statement regarding Lori Berenson. It's simplistic to link the Peruvian situation to that in Israel/Palestine. MRTA is its own thing, and therefore the issue of her alleged support for them is not relevant to the questions in the Middle East.

I would like to be open to what everyone has to say. I certainly am not the most knowledgeable person on these questions, I admit it. I have heard compelling stories from supporters of Israeli policies as well as from Palestinian people opposed to them.

Anti-semitism is evil. It is a central feature of reactionary politics across the centuries. Jewish people are among the vanguard of struggles for human freedom and have made incredible contributions.

I just can't seem to understand--to reconcile--the notion of Israel as a "Jewish state" to what my American-fashioned concept of democracy is. I'm open to understanding progressive Zionists' standpoint on this question. Why does "Jewish state" have to mean Jewish majority? Why is the Israeli Arab minority seen as such a threat? Why can't Israeli Arabs have a political party that wants to do away with ethnic and religious distinctions? (It seems that this was ruled illegal.) I'll make an effort to disengage from more pointed rhetoric because that's not my intention. I'm most interested in hearing others' views on certain questions.

[GabysPoppy]

18. Do you really want an answer?

edited to make sure this is correctly placed on the thread.

[David__77]

19. Yes.

I'm not being rhetorical in my questions. These are the my motivating questions.

[GabysPoppy]

20. I missed the editing period

You will have to read this in a vacuum without wanting to make a knee jerk reaction before rereading it a second time.

Let's start with my point above regarding the article posted from the NY Post. It was a news story about last night's Islander game with Montreal. Pick up any newspaper in the world and you will find out the results have not changed despite which news source you choose to select. Yet because it comes from the NY Post, definitely a right-wing source, there are some people that will jump all over the story regardless of whether it is true or not. Before the day is out you may even see it for yourself within this thread. Trust me, the Islanders lost night.

Here are your three questions

"Why does "Jewish state" have to mean Jewish majority? Why is the Israeli Arab minority seen as such a threat? Why can't Israeli Arabs have a political party that wants to do away with ethnic and religious distinctions? (It seems that this was ruled illegal.)"

1. Why does "Jewish State" have to mean a Jewish majority?

Spend about a year or two in a library studying history. Find me another people that have been persecuted to the degree the Jewish people have been throughout history. Be it the pogroms in Poland, the gas chambers in Germany or the expulsion from Arab lands and all because they were Jewish. We are not talking about minor incidents, we are talking millions of people whose crime was being Jewish. Oh yes some will throw in "What about the (fill in the blank)? I am talking about a magnitude that belies understanding. If another example of a distinct people can be mentioned in the same breath with Jewish people. I will concede their own need for a separate state. Now add to that for hundreds of years Jews have been charged with deicide. Even today we have the Mel Gibson movie adding fuel to that fire. Lets add to that slanderous charge with another one of Jews needing "non-Jewish" blood to make Matzoh used during the Passover holiday. Take away a Jewish majority from a Jewish state?
NO FUCKING WAY
ENOUGH IS FUCKING ENOUGH

2. Why is the Israeli Arab minority seen as such a threat?

Let me relate a personal story to you. Last year I spent Passover in Israel with my sister. We went shopping one day and my sister pointed out to me a bus stop on the road. (BTW, I should mention this story relates to a suicide bombing in the recent past.) Anyway the bus stop she pointed out was the stop where the bomber got on the bus. A minute or two later she pointed to another bus stop. This where two Arab girls got off the bus because of a warning from the bomber as to his intentions. Twenty five minutes of driving later she pointed to a third location. This was where the bomber blew himself up and killed and maimed many people. Yet in those twenty five minutes these two Arab girls did absolutely nothing to possibly keep this incident from happening. This incident and scores of examples of Israeli Arabs aiding and abetting terrorism is not uncommon in Israel. Now you ask why they are considered a possible threat?

3. Why can't Israeli Arabs have a political party that wants to do away with ethnic and religious distinctions?

First they do have their own party and are represented in the Knesset. They are just not going to get their way about everything they want. It doesn't work that way. Not in Israel and not in any country that has a minority party as part of the government. That also is another way that democracy works. Another thing about Israeli Arabs you will find out about in the near future. The more you hear about Sharon's idea of moving or trading Israeli Arab villages to Palestine, the more you will here Israeli Arabs protesting that plan. Given the choice of living in Israel proper where they have health care, jobs, educational opportunities etc. as opposed to living under a regime headed by Arafat or his puppet of the week is not a choice they want fostered on them.

[tinnypriv]

21. "This incident and scores of examples of"

"This incident and scores of examples of Israeli Arabs aiding and abetting terrorism is not uncommon in Israel"

Are you suggesting it is common?

I hope you are not being serious.

[GabysPoppy]

22. By your count

How many deaths, mangled bodies and permanently disabled people to you need for it to be labeled "common"

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. The girls in this case

Should be charged with murder.

[GabysPoppy]

33. One was charged and the other was not

I don't recall what they were officially charged with though.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. As murderers

I hope she got the maximum sentence.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

16. One for you

Any other Lord Black publication you are at ease with in terms of agenda and propensity for journalistic integrity?

B

[GabysPoppy]

27. David_77, please take note

I wish I could predict lottery numbers as well as knee jerk reactions.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

8. Guilty -of advocating mass murder...

...

In early December 2003, the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda (ICTR) found three African media executives guilty of genocide, incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity for the hateful reports and editorials they had published and broadcast nine years before.

...

The ICTR's remarkable 350-page decision noted that under international law states have the powers and right to limit speech to protect their own national security and safeguard their citizens. However, governments additionally have an obligation to restrict and impede speech that advocates: "national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

In its decision the ICTR compared the Rwandan defendants to the infamous Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher, who published the anti-Semitic Der Stuermer. Decades earlier, the Nuremberg Tribunal adjudicating the war crimes of the Third Reich found that Streicher's racist writings acted as a "poison injected into the minds of thousands of Germans which caused them to follow the National Socialist Party's policy of Jewish persecution and extermination."

The Nuremberg judges gave Streicher the death penalty for his journalistic incitement.

...

The reasoning of the ICTR's decision mandates that broadcasters and publishers have an obligation to restrict hate speech or face the penal consequences. Those who provide a media forum to encourage racist violence are guilty of crimes against humanity.

The ICTR's long sentences for criminal incitement that led to murder constitute a powerful example of how seriously hate speech is now viewed under international law.

...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1075730352523&p=1006953079865

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. The ICTR is wrong on this point

The classic case of attempts at dictatorial control by world bodies.

Rather than having "an obligation to restrict and impede speech that advocates: 'national, racial or religious hatred,'" states have an obligation to allow anything that does not call for violence.

As I have said before, international law is little more than a desire, not a codified concept. It openly conflicts with laws in many nations, ours for example.

[drdon326]

24. THIS is a great article.

"In a word, Israel is the only state in the world today, and the Jews the only people in the world today, that are the object of a standing set of threats from governmental, religious, and terrorist bodies seeking their destruction. And what is most disturbing is the silence, the indifference, and sometimes even the indulgence, in the face of such genocidal antisemitism."

silence,indifference,indulgence??

much worse than than.....complicity.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. A very interesting piece

I agree with much of what Mr. Colter says, but I have some serious problems with it as well.

He continually brings up UN Resolution 3379 (1975): The General Assembly . . . determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. The world body will probably never completely heal from that self-inflicted wound. Zionism is not racism; it is the belief in the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state as a positive goal. We should leave it at that.

However, Israel is one nation among many. If one brings special criticism for Israel in to play, such as declaring the national ideology racist, then one might be accused of anti-Semitism. On the other hand, if one criticizes Israel for behavior that one feels is unacceptable for any member of the world community, then one is not necessarily engaged in anti-Semitism. Indeed, attempts to elevate Israel above this kind of criticism is itself racist or jingoist.

In this piece, Mr. Colter emphasizes the anti-Semitic nature of criticism of Israel and minimizes the possibility that some criticism of Israel is valid. While it is right to point out that some criticism of Israel is simply aimed at Jews as a whole, to acknowledge that some criticism of Israel arises out of a genuine concern for human rights leaves the mistaken impression that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

The Arab boycott of Israel is aimed Israel's right to exist as a nation. This could be construed as anti-Semitic. Arab state-sponsored media presentations of Holocaust denial, blood-libel or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are anti-Semitic, period. These are rightly condemned.

However, should one be called anti-Semitic for suggesting that Israel is a violator of human rights? Not if one cites specific Israeli policies and makes a case that those policies violate international conventions and norms about human rights. It can be argued that many features of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza have little or nothing to do with Israel's security and are carried out with a callous disregard for the rights and even the lives of the Arab residents of the territories. The displacement of Palestinian Arabs in the Territories in order to make way for housing in which only Jews may live and the existence of segregated roads accessing those settlements does not protect Israeli citizens in Israel and, one may credibly argue, violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. Even if the person making the case is wrong, if the case is arguable then, in the absence of other evidence to the contrary, that person should not be subjected to the abuse of being labeled anti-Semitic. This is especially true if the person making the argument holds that any transfer by any nation of parts of that nation's own population to territory seized in war violates international law.

The concerns cited by Mr. Colter are valid ones. At the same time, one should also be concerned that those who make valid criticism of Israel should be tarred with the same brush as bona fide anti-Semites. There is a difference between boycotting Israel in order to starve Jews and boycotting Israel in order to persuade Israel to modify her policies in the Occupied Territories. That difference needs to be recognized and respected.

[drdon326]

28. Yes....and no.

"At the same time, one should also be concerned that those who make valid criticism of Israel should be tarred with the same brush as bona fide anti-Semites."

Israel,as all countries,are not above criticism.

The problem arrives when the criticism is out of proportion to
to the realities on this earth.

When the Durbin conf. IGNORES slavery in the sudan and takes the
opportunity to bash a democracy,yeah...i have suspicions of anti-semitism.

When people IGNORE the treatment of women in middle east socities
and choose to bash israel on human rights...yeah,i have suspicions
of anti-semitism.

When people IGNORE the blantant incessant anti-semitism that has saturated the muslim and arab media and choose to accuse israel of racism,...yeah...i have suspicions of anti-semitism.

When thugocracies like Iran,SA,Syria who suppress their people
and control any free thought are IGNORED BUT israel is pariah nation
based on the desire to survive....yeah....i have suspicions of anti-semitism.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Yes . . . and no

I get mailings from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. While these organizations are rightly concerned about human rights violations in Israel and the Occupied Territories, very little of their material concerns that. Most of it concerns other human issues, including some of those you address above.

The issues you raise are good ones. They deserve more attention than they get. However, unless they specifically involve Israel or the Palestinian Territories, they don't get discussed here.

Just an idea to float: Would it be beneficial if DU had a Human Rights Forum in order to discuss such issues? Of course, issues related to the Palestinian Territories would be discussed here, but issues related to women's rights in Arab countries or slavery in the Sudan could be discussed there. Many of us, including several who frequent this forum, might welcome a place to discuss human rights issues on a broader scale than as it pertains to the I/P conflict.

[drdon326]

30. Yes....and yes.

A Human rights forum is an exxxxxxcellent idea.

And it really covers many different issues accross
political,military,religious and social debates.

[bluesoul]

31. But this is I/P

don't complain about not mentioning others which don't have anything to do with it. There's plenty of other sections (Foreign policy etc...)

[drdon326]

32. Excuse me....

first, "dont complain"....is that an order or request??

2nd...did you read Jacks idea...a SEPARATE FORUM.

BLUESOUL.....unbelieveable.

[bluesoul]

34. What is unbelieveable is

some of the things I read here. Enough said...

[GabysPoppy]

36. Enough said? - NOT

Unless links to the "unbelievable" are also posted.



edit: note to mods, only the post was addressed.

[bluesoul]

39. Links?

LOL

[drdon326]

37. Seriously,bluesoul

what is/are some of the incredible things you read here??

i'm interested in your perspective.

[bluesoul]

38. I'm afraid

I can't tell you that...

[drdon326]

40. Why??

its not a trick question.

i'm asking for your perspective....

what is/are some of the things you have read HERE that
is so incredible to you??

(note to mods-asking bluesoul his opinion should not be
construed as a personal attack)

[bluesoul]

43. The fact that some people trust Jpost so much

I won't go further in details Don.

[drdon326]

44. I'll drop it...

but thank you for responding.

[GabysPoppy]

41. wouldn't a withdrawal of that charge be in order

until you are able to substantiate your charge?

[bluesoul]

42. Nope

I have a right to my personal opinion about certain views expressed here. And I have the right not to be explicit about it.

[GabysPoppy]

45. You most certainly do.

I fully understand your answer.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. Responding to BlueSoul's number 31

That's the whole point. This is I/P. Unless it somehow pertains to the I/P conflict, we should not be discussing human rights conditions in Arab countries in this forum. The fact that women are treated like doormats in some places has nothing to do with human rights issues rising out of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.

However, that does not mean they aren't concerns. There should be a place to discuss them.

I'd like your views on this idea. That is, if I am not mistaken, an Amnesty International logo that serves as your avatar. Your input on this matter would be of some value.

[drdon326]

47. lol

" The fact that women are treated like doormats in some places has nothing to do with human rights issues rising out of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories."

give it time jack.....give it time.

[Jack Rabbit]

48. Comments on a proposed Human Rights Forum are now open in ATA

Please click here.

Please leave I/P out of it. That isn't the place to discuss I/P and the Admins have threatened to nuke anybody who uses ATA to carry on I/P discussions.

So, if anyone has any comments on the proposal that pertain to I/P, please put them on this thread, not the one in ATA.