Is It Anti-Semitism?

[IndianaGreen]

Here is a provocative article from a progressive Jewish publication on how anti-Semitism has shape shifted into the political Left.

Is It Anti-Semitism?

‘Prejudice is a shape shifter. It is very agile in taking forms that seem acceptable on the surface.’

— David Shipler

Claudia I.Chaves

While millions were “not anti-Semitic ” but against Jews for being “Bolsheviks,” and millions were “not anti-Semitic” but against Jews for being “capitalists,” millions more were affected by the racist worldview that was widely accepted in Western countries until after the Second World War. By the 19th century it was no longer politically correct for “scientific minded ” Europeans to discriminate on the basis of religion. But it was acceptable to view people as an inferior race. There was much pseudo-scientific theorizing about race. The man who coined the term “anti-Semitic,” Wilhelm Marrih in 1879 in Germany, did so for this very reason. He opposed having Jews escape discrimination and persecution by converting to Christianity, and founded the Anti-Semitic League, stating that he wasn’t against Jews because of their religion, but because they were “Semites ” — an inferior race.

Adding ignorance to insult, modern anti-Semites are trying to erase from cultural memory the massacres associated with the concept of “anti-Semitism ” by delegitimitizing the word — saying that it has no validity since Arabs are also “Semites.” Would they also tell the Cherokees that the “Trail of Tears ” is a misnomer because the trail they were forced to trek in the 1830s — at great cost in lives and privation, from Georgia to Oklahoma — was made of dirt?

But prejudice keeps shape-shifting and mask-making. Now that many people have heard complaints about anti-Semitism underlying outrageously disproportionate criticism of Israel, the latest way of covering up is to demonize Sharon! They claim it’s not anti-Semitism and it’s not anti-Israel, it’s being anti-Sharon! Well, I am politically anti-Sharon for real, and I can really tell when someone is against Sharon as a politician and when someone is completely closed to understanding the first thing about Israeli politics or society and is using this “anti-Sharon” posture to justify feelings and prejudices of which they would be very ashamed other wise. And when the anti-Sharon mask wears thin, they revive the old anti-Semitic myth that the Jews control the world, with the formulation that Jews = neocons, therefore Jews = fascist imperialists who are responsible for the war in Iraq.

The bias of the scale, of the measuring tool — that is anti-Semitism. Using two different standards when judging Israel or Israeli Jews as compared with all other countries and ethnic groups — that is anti-Semitism. The understanding that all human beings are entitled to defend themselves, but it is okay to condemn Jews when they do this — that is anti-Semitism. Dehumanizing Jews in Israel, or deriding the Jewishness of a colleague in your movement, so they can be attacked without remorse — that is anti-Semitism.

Read more on pages 17-19:

http://www.meretzusa.org/ih200501.pdf

Israel Horizons - Meretz USA:

http://www.meretzusa.org/israelhorizons.shtml

[Pachamama]

1. There is a difference between being Anti-Zionist vs. Anti-semitic

I think the situation in Israel and the power and thinking of the Likud party and extremist zionist (including powerful members of that club in PNAC) groups is far different of someone being opposed to that way of thinking and philosophy versus anti-semitism. I think the two get confused often.

[IndianaGreen]

2. The line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is often crossed

Judaism is a religion but it also has an identity of nationhood. When one advocates policies that will lead to the end of Israel as a nation, and a Jewish nation at that, that crosses the line.

There are some religious Jews that are anti-Zionists, but their opposition is based on their belief that only a mythical Messiah can establish the real Israel. However, even they are known to cross the line when they rub shoulders with people that are committed to the destruction of Israel.

[TomClash]

6. A nation is not a state

And hasn't the occupation reshaped that identity?

[Coastie for Truth]

15. There is no difference --

and if you don't see it -- you are as Anti-Jewish as Dreyfus's accuser Colonel Esterhazy.

It is blatant, illiberal racism, to say that the "Law of Return" is racist (to provide a haven when the self anointed "civilized" countries closed their borders to Jews fleeing the Holocaust) while "dhimmi" is perfectly legal.

It is blatant, illiberal racism, and moral relativism to equate terror bombing a Sbarros Pizza or a Starbucks or a Passover Seder or a Bar Mitzvah reception with a retaliatory raid on a bomb factory.

It is blatant, illiberal racism, to call pre-teen school kids waiting for a bus "future soldiers" who may be killed as combatants.

I know what anti-Semitism is. After college - and after grad school, I was denied employment by several major companies -- and both the Placement Office and the interviewer admitted that it was a "policy" not to hire Jews.

And my parents were picketed by the KuKluxKlan for daring to move into a "Christian" suburb.

And I am not a Likudnik -- I have family members who ran for the Knesset as "Peace Now" candidates, and a cousin who actually prevailed against the IDF in proving that he was a "Conscientious Objector." And one of my wife's cousins is a regular testifying shrink on getting IDF soldiers discharged on the grounds of "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder." These relatives are walking the streets - free-- never arrested, never charged, never jailed. They would be jailed for doing the same thing in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Saddam's Iraq, Rummie's Iraq, or Iran. Who knows what will happen to "Draft Counselors" or GI's who file an Article 138 - after the inevitable draft is inevitably reinstated.

[King Mongo]

54. this because of that

>>It is blatant, illiberal racism, and moral relativism to equate terror bombing a Sbarros Pizza or a Starbucks or a Passover Seder or a Bar Mitzvah reception with a retaliatory raid on a bomb factory.

Actually, both sides are responsible for the activities of the other. Both sides fuel hatred, seek revenge, kill innocent civilians and both sides dream of a one-state on all of the land. One must understand that suicide bombings resulted many years after very many raids on different facilities for different reasons. One must focus on ending the mad cycle of violence on both sides.

[ikojo]

3. Jewish Voices for peace has a book called Reframing Anti Semitism

https://secure.ga3.org/03/reframing

Reframing Anti-Semitism
Alternative Jewish Perspectives

The new and improved second edition of "Reframing Anti-Semitism" is here. Our first printing sold out in less than two months. So, we printed more this time. Tell your friends and ask your local independent booksellers to contact us about purchasing some copies.

In its many dimensions, anti-Semitism is always a part of our awareness.  This book includes articles by diverse JVP members meant to deepen our collective understanding of anti-Semitism and its bearing on our work as critics of unjust Israeli policies. Individual essays investigate claims that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, the history of anti-Semitism, and the intersections between anti-Mizrahi racism and anti-Semitism.


Articles:

Reclaiming the Struggle Against Anti-Semitism Mitchell Plitnick
In Search of Anti-Semitism at the World Social Forum Cecilie Surasky
No, It's Not Anti-Semitic Judith Butler
What is "Anti-Semitism" and Does It Still Exist? Terry Fletcher
Bogus Charges Henri Picciotto
                                                Discrimination, Racism, and Anti-Semitism in our Community
                                       Laurie Polster
                                                Historical Anti-Semitism--The Invisible Oppression: Stereotyping,
                                                Scapegoating, Discounting   Penny Rosenwasser
                                                Is Criticizing Israel Anti-Semitic? Chuck Sher

[xchrom]

4. can israel BE criticized?

it seems like there is no argument that can't turned around and claimed as anti-semitic if you say it loud and long enough.

the world has millions of displaced people, called palestinians, in this instance.

and they didn't get in this situation by themselves -- they had lots of help, from france, england, the u.s.a. -- and yes, by israelis.
and of course everybody's favorite target -- unethical muftis in jerusalem.

somebody will have to place a list of acceptable critiques made by non-israelis that are acceptable by israelis as not being anti-semitic.

[Toronto Ron]

5. Certainly Israel could (and should) be criticized

But it ought to regard specific policies and actions, in proper context. Blanket, code-word garbage like "Zionism = Racism", "Israel is an apartheid state", "Israel is doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews" is thinly-disguised anti-semitism.

[pnutchuck]

11. Then explain the existence of "ghettos"

where the Palestinians live, the giant fence that Sharon was trying to partition them off with, and the bulldozing of their homes. I really would like to know who else to compare Sharon's policies to. We here at the DU often make comparisons of Bush to Hitler because of his blanket war on terror targeting Muslim countries, his administration's policies regarding torture, his lies to get his war, etc etc... It seems, we non-Jews have to walk on egg shells in our conversations regarding Israel, even when they are based on facts.

Yes, Hitler has to be THE monster of the 20th Century, no doubt. And perhaps, comparing Sharon or any Jewish leader, or their policies to him has to cut pretty deep. But we cannot deny the hatreds that have built over the years of wars and terror attacks. My boyfriend, who's Jewish, strongly dislikes Muslims, he says they're the cause of all the problems in the world. I often here his friends say that we should just drop a bomb on all the Muslim countries. My point is, there seems to be an acceptance that Jews can hate Muslims, and Muslims can hate Jews, but when the Gentiles criticize this and issue their own views regarding the area, we're called anti-semitic. And to be anti-Sharon, does not make one anti-Semitic, unless one happens to not be Jewish.

I live in Paris, France, and I can tell you the "world" does not blame the Jews for the war in Iraq, they blame Bush. And I, like the writer of the story, cannot go anywhere without being "pounced" on regarding America's policies and what's wrong with the Bush administration. They compare Bush to Hitler, and call Americans war mongers, does that make them anti-American? Actually, they love pre-Bush America, but are having a difficulty with her policies now. I just think that more people are sympathetic to the problems in the Middle East, and perhaps sometimes we're too far inside the flame to see the whole picture.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[cantwealljustgetalong]

64. please explain...

how a simple lie can be a simple fact...

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[cantwealljustgetalong]

74. therefore...

your bucket awaits...

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[King Mongo]

85. Happy valentines day :)

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[King Mongo]

63. deleted

appened to other post

[IndianaGreen]

16. The "noble" Arab nations are responsible for much of Palestinian plight

It was the Arab nations that forbade Palestinian refugees dislodged by the 1948 war from being integrated in the nations that took them. Palestinians living in Egypt were refused Egyptian citizenship, while those living in Jordan were refused Jordanian citizenship. Palestinians were forced into refugee camps where they were kept by their Arab hosts living under dismal conditions. The goal was very simple: the Arab governments did not want Israel to exist and they needed canon fodder to wage their war of "liberation."

A rational discussion of the current Middle East situation, and of the need for a just peaceful settlement has seldom been possible when both sides portray themselves as the exclusive victim. For those of us that oppose Israel's Occupation, we need to recognize that there is plenty of blame to go around, and much of it belongs to the Arab side.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. How much blame is on Israel?

As much, if not more, than the Arab states? The only thing I agree with you on is that there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the dispossession of the Palestinian people? Where we diverge is where you say 'much' of the blame lies with the Arab states. You say it's because the Arab states refused to give citizenship to Palestinian refugees, which is correct. But considering the refugees homes were in what was formerly Palestine and Israel refused to allow them to return to their homes, there wouldn't have been a problem with 'integration' if Israel had done the right thing in the first place. That alone places a lot of the blame on Israel as far as I'm concerned. Add to that the short-sightedness of the Zionist movement and its approach to the Palestinian population in the early 20th century and there's much of the blame right there..

Violet...

[eyl]

36. By "done the right thing",

I assume you mean Israel should have let all the refugees return after the war? Well, try considering the matter from an Israeli POV.

Israel had just been through a war, and was struggling to recover (of all Israel's war, the Independence War had the greatest casualties and devastation). Even without the effects of the war, the country's economy was not the greatest (typical of new states). At the same time, Israel was beginning to receive hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the Arab states, as well as the far smaller number of refugees from territory overrun by the Arab armies.

Given all this, just from an economic standpoint alone, it would have been extremely difficult for Israel to (re)absorb another wave of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Add to that the fact that many of those refugees were hostile (many of the Palestinian villages had been supporting Arab marauders), it is, IMO, extremely unrealistic to expect Israel to have accepted the refugees back at that time.

Nevertheless, Israel did offer to accept 100,000 refugees; the offer was refused.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Israeli POV = Israel has never done anything wrong...

I've got little patience and little time for viewpoints such as those that consistantly make excuses for everything Israel does, no matter how unjustifiable it is. I refuse to consider the matter from that particular point of view because views such as those where one side is always right and the other is always wrong aren't dealing in reality....


Israel managed to gain itself a lot more territory despite its 'struggling to recover' blah blah blah. The hard cold fact is that people displaced or expelled in times of war are not subject to the whims of the state that expelled them as to whether it feels it can afford to take them back or not. Especially given the sheer hypocrisy of accepting Jewish immigrants who wanted to move there from other parts of the world....

Where are yr references for claiming that many Palestinian refugees were hostile? Mind you, if someone kicked me out of my home and gave it to someone else, I'd be pretty damn hostile too and for good reason. I'd be interested in seeing where you get this information of yrs from...

Violet...

[eyl]

43. IOW

don't bother me with the facts - I don't care if what I want is possible or not.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. That about sums up the 'pro-Israeli' standpoint...

And a very good reason why those who hold a belief that their particular side is so squeaky clean you could eat yr dinner off them need to get a grip on reality as far as I'm concerned...

Yr claim that Israel economically couldn't allow the refugees to return to their homes is one of those examples and in my opinion, a particularly weak argument. Can you explain where it would have hurt Israel economically to allow people who had lived there all their lies prior to the war to return to their homes and livelihoods? Also, as Israel could economically afford to allow Jews to move to Israel, why would it have cost economically less when it comes to Jews? Sorry, but economics seems to have had nothing to do with anything (and even if it did, international law trumps all). What had something to do with it was whether a person was Jewish or Arab...

Violet...

[eyl]

53. Nope

My statement has nothing do do with whether Israel is "squeaky clean" or not. And Israel was already starting to absorb Jewish refugees; absorbing the Palestinians on top of that would have caused the problem; especially since a lot of the Palestinian population was seen as hostile to Israel (and whether they were or not has no bearing on the matter; the question is what the decision makers believed their attitude to be). Not to mention that for obvious reasons they had more concern for Jewish refugees than for Palestinian ones.

I note you haven't addressed the point that Israel's offer to repatriate at least some of the refugees was rejected.

As for your point on international law - are you seriously claiming law is always correct? Not to mention that international precedent, especially at the time *when their were quite a few new refugee populations, most of them far larger than the Palestinians), leaned against large-scale repatriation of refugees (see, for example, the much greater numbers of Germans expelled from various places in Europe following WW2)

[King Mongo]

58. allowing humans to return home

It is wrong to think about 'absorbing' Palestinians. Rather, it is correct to think in terms of allowing human beings to return home regardless or race, culture or religion.

Why do humans do cruel things to others simply becasue they are not Jews or other groups?

In my opinion, those who fled war should be the first who are allowed to return home. Anyone else should come afterwards.

[King Mongo]

60. offer

>>I note you haven't addressed the point that Israel's offer to repatriate at least some of the refugees was rejected.

The only thing that Israel could offer was for all civilians to return home. Anything else was not an offer. It's not fair to say that Joe can go home but Susan can't simply because both are not Jews who fled war.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Yep....

My statement has nothing do do with whether Israel is "squeaky clean" or not.

Most of us are well aware that neither Israel nor the Palestinians are "squeaky clean". Unfortunately, there's some folk who post and defend every action taken by their chosen side, no matter how hard it is to justify it. When I see a more balanced approach to viewing the conflict, then I'll drop my "squeaky clean" theory :)

And Israel was already starting to absorb Jewish refugees; absorbing the Palestinians on top of that would have caused the problem;

The Palestinian refugees lived in what became Israel before they fled or were forced from their homes. Their homes were either destroyed or given by the state to Jewish immigrants. If there was an economic crunch (which you have provided no evidence of), then Israel should have allowed the refugees from the war to return to THEIR homes, and put a halt to Jewish immigration until the economy could cope with immigrants. Or do you believe it's totally acceptable for people to be dispossessed of their homes during war and then not be allowed to return to their homes afterward if the state decides it doesn't want them?

especially since a lot of the Palestinian population was seen as hostile to Israel (and whether they were or not has no bearing on the matter; the question is what the decision makers believed their attitude to be).

Yes, it does have a bearing on the matter. It's disgusting to claim that the perceptions of one group make the appalling treatment of another group acceptable. You shouldn't have to go far back in history to find plenty of horrific examples of decisions made about one group of people based on the perceptions of another. None of those decisions were any more justified than decisions made to not allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes after the war...

Not to mention that for obvious reasons they had more concern for Jewish refugees than for Palestinian ones.

Actually, the reason's not obvious to me. There was NO concern for the welfare of Palestinian refugees dispossessed from their homes, and there should have been. As there was NO concern for the Palestinian refugees on Israel's part, it probably explains those perceptions that the Palestinians would be hostile to Israel. After all, if someone treats me like total shit just because I'm not a particular ethnic group, then they'd have to be complete morons to expect me to think they're just wonderful...

I note you haven't addressed the point that Israel's offer to repatriate at least some of the refugees was rejected.

Because I read that the offer was withdrawn. Also, 'at least some' is not all the refugees. You also didn't describe what Israeli conditions on that 'offer' was. I'd like to hear more...

As for your point on international law - are you seriously claiming law is always correct?

In this case it is. Care to explain why it isn't and why you believe that people forced from their homes during war should not have the right to return to their homes?


Not to mention that international precedent, especially at the time *when their were quite a few new refugee populations, most of them far larger than the Palestinians), leaned against large-scale repatriation of refugees (see, for example, the much greater numbers of Germans expelled from various places in Europe following WW2)

Are you talking about the Germans who lived in areas taken by force by Germany? Areas where the native populations were treated like shit by the Germans? Gosh, I wonder why they were all sent back to Germany. To compare them with Palestinian refugees is pretty clumsy, imo. Much better to compare the German settlers with Israelis living in the Occupied Territories. International law won't protect them and see them as refugees and I'd like to see anyone try to argue that it should...

Violet...

[eyl]

94. Your text in red

The Palestinian refugees lived in what became Israel before they fled or were forced from their homes. Their homes were either destroyed or given by the state to Jewish immigrants. If there was an economic crunch (which you have provided no evidence of), then Israel should have allowed the refugees from the war to return to THEIR homes, and put a halt to Jewish immigration until the economy could cope with immigrants. Or do you believe it's totally acceptable for people to be dispossessed of their homes during war and then not be allowed to return to their homes afterward if the state decides it doesn't want them?

So Israel should have let the Jewish refugees die? Israel certainly had no expectation anyone else would take them, and no-one was campaigning for a right of return on their behalf; what exactly were they supposed to do?

As for the economic situation, see if you can find something on the "tzena" policy (instituted on April 26, 1949) and the conditions which brought it about, and/or Minister of Supply and Rationing Dov Yosef (I'll see if I can find you some sources, but the only online stuff I've found so far is in Hebrew).

Yes, it does have a bearing on the matter. It's disgusting to claim that the perceptions of one group make the appalling treatment of another group acceptable. You shouldn't have to go far back in history to find plenty of horrific examples of decisions made about one group of people based on the perceptions of another. None of those decisions were any more justified than decisions made to not allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes after the war...

Tell me, Violet, are you clairvoyant or prescient? If not, every single decision you make is based on your perception of reality. The dividing line is whether your perception is reasonable or not; and you yourself admitted upthread Israel could reasonably expect the Palestinian refugees to be hostile (leaving aside the involvement of the populations in the war).

Actually, the reason's not obvious to me.

OK, let me try by analogy. Do you care more about a family member living (and just having been kicked out with extreme prejudice) in the United States or about a virtual stranger from down the street?

Because I read that the offer was withdrawn. Also, 'at least some' is not all the refugees. You also didn't describe what Israeli conditions on that 'offer' was. I'd like to hear more...

Efforts to Help Solve the Arab Refugee Problem*
1. Israel accepted an estimated 70,000 Arab refugees after the war.
2. "Israel offered to make the refugee problem the first item on the agenda of peace talks. This offer was refused by the Arab states"
3. "In August 1949 Israel offered to take back 100,000 refugees, and the offer was immediately rejected (emphasis mine) by the Arab states...Although Israel reiterated her readiness to negotiate, diplomatic channels were closed by the Arabs, who imposed a political and economic blockade"
4. "From 1952 onward Israel released bank balances held by Arab refugees, and hitherto blocked, to an amount of over $10 million. This was done 'without strings', and it should be noted that Arab governments did not respond by releasing bank balances held in their countries by Jews who had emigrated to Israel"
5. "At the 18th session of the UN Special Political Committee in November 1963, Mrs. Golda Meir, Israel's Foreign Minister, offered direct negotiations with Arab governments on the refugee problem, as an urgent priority. The Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Levi Eshkol, did the same two years later. As Prime Minister, Mrs. Meir repeated her offer; so did her Foreign Minister, Abba Even. All offers from the Israeli side have been ignored or denounced (circa 1975)"

Are you talking about the Germans who lived in areas taken by force by Germany? Areas where the native populations were treated like shit by the Germans? Gosh, I wonder why they were all sent back to Germany. To compare them with Palestinian refugees is pretty clumsy, imo. Much better to compare the German settlers with Israelis living in the Occupied Territories. International law won't protect them and see them as refugees and I'd like to see anyone try to argue that it should...

I was referring to the estimated 10 million ethnic Germans (possibly as high as 12 million if you include the ones killed, according to some estimates) who were expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Hungary, Romania, and the rest of Eastern Europe following WWII. Many of them were descendants of families which had been living there for generations.

There were also quite a few refugees from Germany (about 11 million), as well as millions of non-German refugees from various parts of Eastern Europe. None of these refugee populations were repatriated (at least not on a large scale).

For another example - the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 created a refugee population 15 million strong. AFAIK, none of the were repatriated either.

*Summarized from "Middle East Refugees" by Terence Prittie in "The Palestinians: People, History, Politics" (edited by Curtis et al), pages 66-67; I didn't list all items; I particularly left out international attempts to resettle the refugees elsewhere, which were blocked by Egypt, Syria, and the Arab League. Items enclosed by quotation marks are direct quotes from the text

[King Mongo]

96. harming Palestinians

>>So Israel should have let the Jewish refugees die?

There was no need to harm Palestinians. The world is a big place with many options. It's possible to go somewhere without causing harm to others.

>>Israel could reasonably expect the Palestinian refugees to be hostile

Exactly. When we harm others, they become hostile. That's why it makes sense to not harm others.

>>few refugees from Germany

This is not a valid justification to harm Palestinians.

[eyl]

97. Okay

"There was no need to harm Palestinians. The world is a big place with many options. It's possible to go somewhere without causing harm to others."

Explain where else the Jewish refugees could have gone (note - as I pointed out to Violet above, it's not enough for you to show there was such an alternative- you have to show that the Israeli leadership at the time could reasonably be expected to know about it and to know - or be able to establish - if it was a viable option)

[King Mongo]

99. immigration

When immigration is restricted, people go to other places. I am not familiar with the immigration laws in the 50's, but one of my parents did go to Canada. These days, most can still go to Canada. If the Israeli government has anything to worry about, then it's the people of Israel who are currently living in refugee camps. It makes sense for Israeli leaders to welcome it's people back home so that they won't live somewhere else.

[King Mongo]

59. the excuses....

The truth is, that some folks want a Jewish state for Jews with as few Palestinians as possible because some of them hate Palestinians while some others hate Europeans and most others simply think that racist activities are worth the creation of a safe-haven for Jews in a location with a Jewish majority.

[Coastie for Truth]

72. Even in the so-called "civilized" west

where the Rosenbergs were executed on phony charges (while "majority spies" even within the CIA and FBI are not executed), and Dreyfuss was convicted on the lies of Colonel Esterhazy, and Leo Franks was lynched in the USA and even Honorable Sam Brownback could run on a platform that "No Jew can be pro-life" and even Honorable Tom Coburn could call Schindler's List porn...... maybe, just maybe

"... most others simply think that racist activities are worth the creation of a safe-haven for Jews in a location with a Jewish majority."

What alternative do you suggest -- the Wayne LaPierre-Charlton Heston alternative of

"Amendment II - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

where minorities arm themselves like a bunch of right wing militias. Is that a reasonable alternative.

[King Mongo]

81. reasonable alternative

A reasonable alternative is an Israel without an occupation nor a refugee problem, where people who flee their homes because of war are allowed to return home and people can buy land regardless of culture.

[Coastie for Truth]

84. Once upon a time

in the days before Attorney General Palmer (and his friend Director Hoover) the United States was like that.

Once upon a time, when my grand parents were kids--

The New Colussus

"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Then there was the "National Origins Immigration Act of 1929" and Breckenridge Long, and Charles "Lucky Lindy" Lindberg, and Senator Prescott Bush, and the Ship of Fools, the Steam Ship St. Louis.

Don't know about the real world. But, in an ideal world, your idea would very good. Maybe Jimmie Carter and Rev. Jim Wallis, and Rev. Robin Meyers, and Rabbi Michael Lerner, and Rev Jesse Jackson can work on it.

(Please - I am not being facetious - I am a Faith Based Progressive- and proud of it.)

[King Mongo]

86. It's the real world

where religion or culture is not a requirement for nationality.

[Coastie for Truth]

87. I agree with you

it's the real world where people commit GENOCIDE like not "cultural genocide" or "political genocide" with lesser civil rights but CORPOREAL GENOCIDE with guns, and bullets, and asphyxiants and crematories. Not creameries - but crematories.

And, as to "where people who flee their homes because of war are allowed to return home and people can buy land regardless of culture." the Poles and the cultured French (of "liberty, equality, and brotherhood" fame) killed the "Displaced Persons" (mostly Jews and Romany) who attempted to return to their villages after they were liberated from the Concentration Camps.

Most camp and death march survivors were placed in displaced persons camps run by the Allies. Afraid to return to their homes in eastern Europe, many later emigrated to Palestine, the region that in 1948 became Israel. Other survivors made their way home to their villages and towns in Poland, Lithuania, and Romania. In Poland, returning Jews often met with a new shock: hostile townspeople. Rumors of Jews killing Christian children caused savage new pogroms. By early 1945, anti-Semitic Poles had attacked and murdered more than 350 returning camp survivors and had destroyed a hospital for Jewish orphans. In 1944–45, 100,000 Polish Jews fled Poland for new homes in Palestine, western Europe, the United States, and elsewhere. Denmark, Holland, and the United States welcomed their presence, but, to many survivors, Palestine seemed the only safe place in the world.
--http://www.nextext.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=books.resource&target=holocaust&file=holocaust_lsn_24.cfm&type=student

or

"When the Nazis retreated from Poland, individual Polish citizens, Skarb, the Polish Government and other Defendant's sought to capitalize on the misfortune of Poland's Jews, by perpetuating the Nazi scheme of racial cleansing, and deriving profits there from, by moving into and taking possession of Jewish property for commercial purposes.

To force the Jews to flee Poland and abandon their assets and property rights, a murderous plan of anti-Semitic racial and ethnic cleansing was initiated in Poland against returning Jews, who had survived the Holocaust. Upon returning to their homeland in Poland, thousands of Jews were threatened and then savagely beaten and/or murdered in their former homes, villages and cities. This culminated in a mass exodus of the majority of Polish Jewish survivors from Poland. It is estimated that over 60,000 Jews fled Poland between July and September of 1946, as a direct result of the Kielce pogrom and the heinous campaign of violence against Polish Jews. Many others were afraid to return to Poland, abandoning any hopes they may have had to recover their assets and property.
--http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/div/racket/racpol9907xx.html

It's the real world - where there is mass genocide --- not some college dorm in Berkeley where students talk about hypothetical cultural genocide or the basement of a Unitarian Church where we all raise money for Howard Dean.



So, in an ideal world with liberty and peace and justice for all --
"where people who flee their homes because of war are allowed to return home and people can buy land regardless of culture." is a nice idea. but "It's the real world" where people -- and tribes, and clans, and nations get massacred every day for "
religion or culture". and, in fact "religion and culture" IS becoming a "requirement for nationality."

And making "religion and culture" a "requirement for nationality." is not just an Israeli thing. It's a universal thing. Even Belgium. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/12/international/europe/12belgium.html?

[King Mongo]

88. excuses to harm Palestinians

I do not find European activities to be a valid justification to prevent Palestinians from returning home.

If Europe is the excuse for such, then Israel should have been created somewhere else where no humans would have been harmed.

Yet, given the understanding that Europe is the reason why Palestinians are being harmed, we need to do everything possible to help Palestinians and compensate them for the damages that we have done to them. If we are helping Jews so that they won't be harmed, then we must protect Palestinians from harm too.

[Coastie for Truth]

90. Again I agree

with your point --

"Yet, given the understanding that Europe is the reason why Palestinians are being harmed, we need to do everything possible to help Palestinians and compensate them for the damages that we have done to them. If we are helping Jews so that they won't be harmed, then we must protect Palestinians from harm too.

But, the whole world was watching, and shrugged their shoulders - and nobody did a freakin thing - not for Hitler's victims and not for the Palestinians.

I do agree that

"we need to do everything possible to help Palestinians and compensate them for the damages that we have done to them. If we are helping Jews so that they won't be harmed, then we must protect Palestinians from harm too."

I believe that the minimum is for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza leaving the infrastructure intact --- including the irrigation and electrical and telecommunications and highway infrastructure intact.

Second, we need to institute a massive Marshall Plan - universal contributions -- Israel, the Diaspora, and every country that shrugged their shoulders during the Holocaust and said "Not My Problem" and every Middle Eastern country that refused any kind of help of serious, constructive help for the Palestinians. (I do not classify giving aid to Kahane or Hamas as serious aid).

By the way - Israel was "de jure" "created" under the Balfour Declaration when the Allies were carving up the spoils of their WW1 victory over the Ottoman Empire - and creating artificial countries to reward their friends. That's how the Palestinians and the Kurds (and the Azeris, and the Assyrians, and the Chaldeans, among many others, got screwed).

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

37. The refugee problem began in 1948

It was the Arab governments, none of which pass muster as icons of human rights, that have used and exploited the Palestinian refugees for their own purposes. It was the same Arab governments that used brutal force far exceeding what Sharon did in Lebanon against the Palestinians when they became too powerful, such as what the late King Hussein did in September 1970.

Do some reading on Black September and you will find that this was in fact an attempt by Palestinian factions to take over Jordan. King Hussein sent his armor and artillery to smash the Palestinians, using Soviet tactics I may add, leaving a path of death and destruction that outmatches what the IDF did in Jenin.

Look at what the Palestinian organizations that fled Jordan did in Lebanon. They tried to do the same thing there. You won't find a single Lebanese (who are not ethnically Arab) that wanted the Palestinians on their soil. Civil war ensued, and as we all know to well, other players got in the game: US, Israel, and Syria. Any peace settlement in the Middle East will have to include full restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from the country.

There are those on Israel's side that would like to the Palestinian problem disappear, as the European anti-Semites wanted the Jews in their respective countries to go away. There are also those on the Palestinian side that would like to do the same to Israel.

While we can all agree that Likud, and the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu, are as bad for peace as Bush is for us, there is no denying that the Palestinian leadership is just as hypocritical and deceptive as Israel and the US have been on the I/P conflict. Both sides want ultimate victory and engage in terrorism against the other while they speak of peace.

We are enabling this hypocrisy and deception when we focus exclusively on the "crimes" of one side over the other. Some of the post in this forum read more like a local crime section at one of our newspapers. All of this is intended to dehumanize and criminalize the side we oppose while we ignore the same crimes committed by the side that we support.

It is time we condemn the violence from both sides, and their deception that they really want peace. Their concept of peace is as twisted as Bush's version of freedom and democracy. Israel must return to her 1967 borders and give up on this biblical nonsense of a Greater Israel (which is not historically correct). The Palestinians will have to take responsibility for their own actions, and stop blaming Israel for all their woes. Palestinians will also have to give up their biblical nonsense of a Greater Palestine with no Israel in existence.

The world community should pay compensation and reparations to all injured parties.

The bottom line is that instead of spending time and effort keeping litanies of the transgressions of one side or the other, we should be using our time in applying pressure on all parties, and on our own countries, to condemn terrorism from all sides and to push for an immediate end to the Occupation and for a just and lasting peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. And why are you telling me this?

I'm aware of the failings of both successive Israeli govts, the Palestinian leadership, and Arab states. What I was strongly disputing was yr comment that anything but aiming much of the blame at the Arab states isn't rational..

Yes, the refugee problem began in 1948, which is why Israel should shoulder much of the blame for it, imo. Why I mentioned the Zionist movement in the early part of the 20th century is that if the Zionists had taken a different approach to the Arab population instead of ignoring or alienating it, the events of 1948 might not have happened.

I've been thinking for a while about what's needed to end the conflict, and 'we' don't need to do anything. Not if 'we' are Americans, Australians, or whatever - apart from telling our own extremists to pull their noses out of it. The people who need to do something are Israelis and Palestinians, and both groups have to understand that their own side are not the only victims (the exclusive victimhood thing you mentioned), and that both people are entitled to live in peace and security...

Violet...

[IndianaGreen]

44. I beg to differ with you on your interpretation of the 1948 events

Yes, the refugee problem began in 1948, which is why Israel should shoulder much of the blame for it, imo. Why I mentioned the Zionist movement in the early part of the 20th century is that if the Zionists had taken a different approach to the Arab population instead of ignoring or alienating it, the events of 1948 might not have happened.

Had the Holocaust never taken place, I might grant you the point, but the fact is that none of the Arab governments had any intention of allowing the fledging Jewish state from surviving the night of May 14, 1948. Saying that Israel should shoulder much of the blame for the refugee problem is historically inaccurate, and it shifts the blame to Israel from those Arab leaders responsible for the 1948 war, and for the subsequent exploitation of the refugee population that came in the war's aftermath. Let's not forget that many of those Arab leaders have been enthusiastic supporters of Nazi Germany, and that's not Likud propaganda!

This is not to downplay some of the darker events of the 1948 war, such as the massacre at Deir Yassin. But to say that Deir Yassin was typical of what Zionists did in 1948 is as much a stretch as saying that all American troops are war criminals.

We are both aware of the anti-Arab hate propaganda that often gets posted in this forum, but some of that propaganda does have some basis in fact, even though those facts are twisted and exaggerated in order to justify the Occupation. It is not a false statement to say that most of the land purchased by Zionists in Palestine prior to 1948 was done by legal means. It is also not a false statement to say that there were attempts to ban Arabs from selling their property to Jews. In America, we could call that red lining!

[King Mongo]

89. the place wasn't ready.

Sounds like the place was not ready for a "Jewish State". There were simply to many other people already living there.

Shifting the blame on Arabs because of the 1948 war is also historically inaccurate. There was simply to many little wars going on prior to 1948 with to many people pressuring to many people to create some type of a state.

I think that it's correct to say that the place was ready for a democratic state, but not a Jewish state. A Jewish State would have been less damaging somewhere were fewer people lived.

[IndianaGreen]

95. "A Jewish State would have been less damaging somewhere were fewer people

A Jewish State would have been less damaging somewhere were fewer people lived

And where would that place be, the Marianas Trench?

You forget that it was the United Nations that passed a resolution establishing a Jewish and a Palestinian state. It was the Arab states that wanted to snuff out the Jewish state before it was even born. You also forget that there has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine.

I think that it's correct to say that the place was ready for a democratic state, but not a Jewish state.

I don't know of a single country in the region that has been democratic, other than Israel (or Lebanon before the influx of Palestinians fleeing Jordan after Black September).

[Coastie for Truth]

98. Birobidzhan

1. Offered by Stalin as a Jewish homeland
2. In Siberia (my grand father said "Siberia" - and he was in the Czarist Gulag. the map shows "Asian Russia")
3. Part of the Czarist and Stalinist Gulag
4. OIL WAS DISCOVERED THERE -- RECENTLY
:toast: OIL - DOS VADONYA :toast:

<>
<>

Some of the "Card Carrying Communists" in my family really liked this idea. (Yes, I did have real "Card Carrying Communists" in my family - blacklisted, fired, investigated by the FBI and McCarthy - fer real)

Links:
1. http://www.jewishmag.com/75mag/birobidzhan/birobidzhan.htm
2. http://www.eao.ru/eng/
3. http://encarta.msn.com/map_701513490/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast.html

[King Mongo]

101. Montana

You said that Jews had been living in Palestine. This is true. Palestinians had also been living there. So, two different cultural groups had been living together in the place for some time. As we can see, the place was ready for a democratic state. A state for the people living there, the Jews and the Palestinians. It was not ready for a Jewish and a Palestinian state, as we have seen since 1948.

I do not know where a good place for a Jewish state could have been. Maybe somewhere in Montana or Utah? Since most of the natives had already been slaughtered in those locations, maybe something could have been worked out with the US government?

In anycase, the UN did not accomplish much by working against democracy with the partition plan.

[Coastie for Truth]

102. And why not Birobidzhan - Chess Cheer "Get Him With the Horsie"

see my append http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=86349&mesg_id=86738&page=

You got something against borscht and black bread and vodka or Cyrillic letters-- or maybe it's chess (my high school chess team had a cheer leader who used to lead us in the cheer "Get Him With the Horsie")

[King Mongo]

106. Birobidzhan

Birobidzhan sounds great. I was unaware of the place until you mentioned it. I think that Birobidzhan should be declared as an independent homeland for Jews today. That would give people a choice between Israel or Birobidzhan with Birobidzhan being the safer location.

[Coastie for Truth]

107. Why don't we toast it with some Vodka

have some borscht (with a boiled potato) and black bread, and then play some "serious" chess.

(My roots are Russian)

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Can the Arabs and Big Oil BE CRITICIZED

The Palestinians would have had their own land and nation, and there would have been not terrorists -- but for the "protection" paid to Arafat and the terrorists by "big Oil" via the so-called "Charities."

At least Shell was honest about it -- they paid the Indonesian and Philippine terrorists directly.

And Bush, and Poppie Bush and Cheney and Bush family consigliere-House of Saud consigliere are in it up to their necks.

Don't take my word - check out Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/074325337X/ref=dp_primary-product-display_0/104-4637186-1523913?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=507846&s=books

[TomClash]

7. Victimhood is very difficult to countenance anymore

Israel spends more per capita on the military than any other country, dominating its neighbors with the full faith and credit of the United States. It has occupied the West Bank and Gaza for almost 38 years, colonizing parts, forcing people into extreme poverty and degradation, cheapening the lives of non-jews, killing civilians almost daily. Once a shining moral example for ageneration, Israel has turned its back on its own ideal. And so because Europeans and leftists object, Israelis are the victims? You cannot be the powerful and the oppressed at the same time.

Where I live, jews are largely well off, politically powerful, economically dominant in many businesses and professions - deservedly so, for the most part. They are also relatively safe and free of discrimination or bias. It's pretty tough to be the victim under these circumstances.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Djinn]

29. generally we avoid accusations like that at DU

try reading the rules for posting - people get a bit annoyed when you call them a bigot or state unequivocally that anyone who doesn't agree with you is anti-semitic.

It is blatant, illiberal racism, to say that the "Law of Return" is racist (to provide a haven when the self anointed "civilized" countries closed their borders to Jews fleeing the Holocaust) while "dhimmi" is perfectly legal.

GLAD YOU AGREE - for the Israeli to deny the right of return of Palestinians while accepting it for Jews who have NEVER lived in the area is absolutely BIGOTED.

BTW - please state who says that the JEWISH right of return (remember it's awfully specific and blocks return for non jews) is bad but dhimmi is good or would that be a strawman? I'd suggest that pretty much every single poster here is opposed to sharia full stop so whether it should relate to non muslims is a bit of a non starter.

It's much like claiming "the palestinians have to disarm but the IDF can keep shooting children in schools" - because very few people WOULD say that - how 'bout arguing what's actually happening/being said

[eyl]

34. You remember wrong

"remember it's awfully specific and blocks return for non jews"

The LoR includes certain non-Jews - those who have at least one Jewish grandparent, parent, or spouse. It doesn't otherwise deal with non-Jews at all (i.e., it doesn't say "anyoe not coered by this law is excluded from Israeli citizenship). I should add that there are several European countries which have similiar laws preferentially granting citizenship to members of a specific ethinc group (for example, though I've never lived in Germany, I can probably get German citizenship easier than someone immigrating there from Turkey).

[Djinn]

38. disengenuous

you suerly knew what I meant there - someone who is Jewish (the definition being a jewish grandparent/spouse or parent) can "return" to Israel even if no-one in his/her family had EVER lived there, they are not "returning" you can not return to somewhere you have never been.

A Palestinian who fled during the Nakba can not return.

Please explain the fairness of that

[eyl]

42. Please

explain the fairness of Germany's citizenship laws. Or Ireland's. I think Sweden (or is it Switzerland) also has a simliar policy.

[Djinn]

45. really?

so sweden would allow someone who had never ever lived in Sweden (and neither had their ancestors for atleast a thousand odd years) to emigrate but they would ban the return of someone who fled Sweden in terror some tmie around 1948???

I don't think so

[eyl]

48. The exact length of time is immaterial

The point is that there are quite a few European countries which preferentially give citizenship based on ethnic background. For example:

Germany - section 166 of Germany's constitution defines a German (and thus grant German citizenship to) as " who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich, as it existed on December 31, 1937, as a refugee or expellee of German stock or as the spouse or descendant of such person" - IOW, come from German ethnic origins. At least in theory, you can claim citizenship under this based on ancestors in the 18th century (earliest example I saw).

Greece - Greece's citizenship rules grant preferential treatment to "ethnic Greeks".

Bulgaria - Section 25(2) of the constitution of Bulgaria specifies a facilitated citizenship process for people of "Bulgarian origin" (note this does not require any prior residency in Bulgaria.

There are other countries in Eastern Europe with preferential citizenship for a specific ethnicity (e.g., Armenia, Slovenia); I wont list them all.

Ireland - Irish law allows granting citizenship to descendants of Irishmen (two generations back, at least) at the Interior Minister's discretion.

Finland - Finland's Foreigner's Law gives a preferential chance of residency to someone of Finnish origin coming from the former Soviet Union.

[Djinn]

49. You're missing a very BIG point

I don't whether you're doing it deliberately or not.

Do ANY of those countries ban the re-entry of people who lived there less than 50 years ago....any at all????

[eyl]

50. First of all

in some of those places, being born to people who've lived there for years (currently, not 50 years ago) doesn't necessarily qualify you for citizenship. Second, while people who lived there 50 years ago may return, they don't do so by right (except if they belong to that country's ethincity) - they have to start naturalization from scratch just like any other foreign immigrant.

Second - what you said above was "for the Israeli to deny the right of return of Palestinians while accepting it for Jews who have NEVER lived in the area is absolutely BIGOTED.

BTW - please state who says that the JEWISH right of return (remember it's awfully specific and blocks return for non jews)"

Well, I've shown you other countries which also give the "ight of return" to people who've never lived there, nor did their parents. Are you also calling Ireland, Finland, Germany, Bulgaria, Armenia, etc absolutely bigoted?

As for the Law of Return, I've shown it doesn't say what you claim it says; it doesn't address the issue of non-Jews at all (those are covered by the nationalization law)

[Djinn]

51. oh dear this just isn't getting through is it

Imagine if Germany refused to allow Jews who fled the Holocaust to return based on the fact that they are a "different ethnicity" or if German companies/government came out now and said they would not compensate those who fled because "they left"

if THAT compensation or THAT return is reasonable (as it absolutely is) then any PAlestinian who fled what is now Israel deserves to be able to return if they wish or be compensated.

"Well, I've shown you other countries which also give the "ight of return" to people who've never lived there, nor did their parents. Are you also calling Ireland, Finland, Germany, Bulgaria, Armenia, etc absolutely bigoted?"

does Ireland say that Catholics who've never lived there can return but Protestants that left during the troubles can not?? if it did THAT would be the equivalent. Untill then it isn't. The "right of return" isn't a problem (although it is stupidly named you can not return to somewhere you've never been but I digress) it's the PREVENTION of others who DID live there to return that is offensive

[King Mongo]

57. ethnicity

When Israel was created in 1948, it was created with many ethnic groups for many ethnic groups. Two of these ethnic groups were Jews and Palestinians.

In my opinion, the Jewish and Palestinian ethnic groups of Israel should be treated equally with the same respect, free of discrimination and with the understanding that the nation was created for the ethnic groups who live there. It's quite racist (my opinion) to reject the return of the Palestinian refugees while giving citizenship to others simply because they are Jews. I feel that anyone who is against the return of the refugees while supporting Jewish immigration is filled with lots of senseless hatred towards Palestinians. I just can't understand how one can be so rude and careless.

[Djinn]

92. exactly my feelings

if folks who've never lived there (nor have their ancestors for many generations and possibly ever) can emigarte then the right of return for Palestinains should go without saying

[Lexingtonian]

8. It's not "a change"

I've searched for some Internet stuff along the lines of Michael Lerner's 1992 "The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left", but there isn't much there. (I even gave my own copy away a few years ago.) But Lerner got himself into a tussle with A.N.S.W.E.R. two years ago over exactly the issues he describes in his own book ten plus years earlies. And the book stems from a magazine piece he wrote in 1969. This is about as good a rendition/summary as I could find-

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6651

Lerner: Left-wing anti-Semitism remains a marginal phenomenon within the circle of those who have significant critiques of the globalization of capital or the unfair distribution of the wealth of the planet or of the destructive role of corporate power in America’s democracy and in its capacity to develop sane ecological policies. Anti-Semitism is barely present in most of the people who are engaged in raising or struggling against the abuses generated by the global system of capital. However, where it finds most consistent articulation is in some ultra-left sectarian groups whose vulgar Marxist idiocies seem so irrelevant that no one would pay any attention to them were they not able to generate some heat through anti-Semitic rhetoric, and by those on the Left who are genuinely outraged at Israeli behavior and then stupidly allow that outrage to slide into a vulgar assault on Jews or on the fundamental legitimacy of a Jewish state.

If we want to reach to unconscious dynamics, then as I have explained in my book The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left, an important underlying issue is what I call Surplus Powerlenssness. People who feel that they are powerless to challenge those with real power often deflect their anger on to those who have marginally more power than they.  The rapid transformation of Jews from an oppressed group to a beneficiary of global capital has given rise to the essentially false perception that the Jews are really a powerful part of the world’s ruling elites, and the correct perception that they can be fought more successfully than the rest of those elites.

[gottaB]

12. Closed Hearts, Closed Minds, by Michael Lerner

Closed Hearts, Closed Minds, by Michael Lerner.

[bowens43]

9. Being opposed to the oppressive policies of the Israelis

is not being anti-semitic any more then being opposed to the oppressive policies of the bush administration is being anti-Christian.

[bloom]

14. The blind Nationalism

I think that is what it is.

I think that most of the people yelling anti-semitism seem to want blanket immunity or blindness to whatever evil deeds are being done in Israel against the Palestinians. Just like here - people are not supposed to notice/criticize the gov't - we're traitors, etc.

I think it does diminish the word and meaning of anti-semitism to have it be used as a weapon for nationalism.

And the use of the word is a good way to piss off people with good intentions - people who actually would just like to see a peaceful resolution.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. Oil land "dhimmi" is still used by Big Oil to screen applicants

FACT - today - 2005, after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Anti Boycott Act, and losing repeated law suits, oil land "dhimmi" is still used by Big Oil to screen applicants - and keep out "undesirables" who "would not fit in"

I guess that's not anti-Semitism. (A previous appender told me so)

[gottaB]

10. I could not find the fuller version of the article at progressive.org

A fuller version is here: http://www.havurahshirhadash.org/issues13.html

[CindyDale]

13. It isn't anymore anti-Jewish to oppose Sharon than it is

anti-Latino to oppose Gonzales's nomination or anti-Christian to oppose Bush. The people who suggest this are truly irresponsible. They seem to be implying that all Jewish people support oppression and Fascist policies so when you attack these policies you are attacking Jews. That is a lie, and it creates anti-Semitism.

I wish other faiths had voted against Bush in the same proportion that Jews did. He would have lost by a landslide.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. Semi-Valid and Semi-Good Point, BUT

the people most vitriolic against Sharon and Likud were anti-Semitic before Begin and the Likud. Maybe just a little bit more pseudo intellectual then the Bundists and the Klan. But, in their little hearts they still have (hidden) images out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and "Blood Libel" and "Poisoners of Wells" and they still believe that Dreyfus was a traitor and the Rosenbergs gave all of the bomb secrets to Russia and that Judah Benjamen was an unrepentant traitor and that Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle (and not James Baker) "pull the strings."

I do not blame all Christians for the kidnapping and molestation of Edgardo Mortara --
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679768173/qid=1107713492/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4637186-1523913?v=glance&s=books
or for the Holocaust or for the Crusades. (I am told a lot of Muslims blame all Christians for the Crusades, for the Battle of Vienna, and for the Inquisition)

So, friggin stop blaming All Jews for Sharon or Wolfowitz or Perle.

[CindyDale]

20. Saying that criticism of Wolfowitz, Perle, etc., is anti-Semitic

does make it sound as though their ideas are Jewish, ideas that all Jews share. In fact, very few Jews would support these people.

It almost appears to be some kind of trick to scapegoat Jews for policies that favor U.S. corporate interests. So I see it as anti-anti-Semitic to criticize these people as individuals.

[Coastie for Truth]

21. I DID NOT SAY CRITICISM OF THE NEOCONS IS ANTI-SEMITISM

I said that criticism of "All Jews" for the sins of the Neo-Cons or Sharon is anti-Semitism, and that conflating all Jews with the Neo-cons is anti-Semitism (I am old enough to remember when all Jews were conflated with the Rosenbergs and even Emma Goldman).

Conflate us with Jonas Salk or Schwerner and Goodman.

[CindyDale]

22. I agree

[eyl]

25. Salk?

The (Jewish, of course) engineer of the genocide of the polio virus? For shame!

B-)

[Coastie for Truth]

26. Please explain

what you mean. I do not understand where you are going with this one. How is Salk the "engineer of the genocide of the polio virus" and what is the "shame."

I am not getting it. And I was a kid during the polio pandemics of the 1940's.

[newyorican]

27. It's a joke

...

[eyl]

33. It was a slightly sarcastic joke

I thought the smiley made it obvious; if not, I apologize.

[Lithos]

46. Salk was one of the developers of a Polio vaccine

which helped prevent the deaths and crippling of millions of people worldwide. The joke while in slightly bad taste in terms of semantics (genocide), is still nonetheless a very strong compliment to Dr. Salk.

[eyl]

47. It was ntended to be

a humerous take on how even Dr. Salk's achievements could be twisted by an anti-Semite.

[Djinn]

30. by whom?

I am told a lot of Muslims blame all Christians for the Crusades

I've never met a single Muslim (and have met many over the last few years while my government locks them in detention without crime) who beleives that at all.

If I said "I am told a lot of Jews blame all Christians for the Holocaust" would you call me anti-semitic?? because frankly there is a SHITLOAD more prejudice against arabs/muslims on this board than anti-semtism

[newyorican]

31. There is real bigtory in the world...

and then are accusations intended to shut down discussion. It can, sometimes, be difficult to separate the two.

BEYOND CHUTZPAH : ON THE MISUSE OF ANTI-SEMITISM AND THE ABUSE OF HISTORY

Bringing to bear the latest findings on the conflict and recasting the scholarly debate, Finkelstein points to a consensus among historians and human rights organizations on the factual record. Why, then, does so much controversy swirl around the conflict? Finkelstein's answer, copiously documented, is that apologists for Israel contrive controversy. Whenever Israel comes under international pressure, another media campaign alleging a global outbreak of anti-Semitism is mounted.

Source...

Now for the countdown to someone calling Norman a "self-hating" Jew. 10-9-8...

[newyorican]

32. Hmmm....that should be BIGOTRY

whoops

[Djinn]

39. or simply posts

"norman aint nuttin but shit!" :evilgrin:

[Jim Sagle]

105. You mis-spelled "nuthin'."

;-)

[Colorado Blue]

100. Well, here's my opinion...

Frankly I've been shocked by what I feel, feel in my BONES, is anti-Semitism on this board.

I've grown up with it so I know the feeling.

Note: this is NOT a knee-jerk defense of Sharon although I believe he's been demonized on this board. I do not approve of Sharon's policies. But I also do not begin to believe that there is much true understanding of Israel, of the Middle East, of Arabs, of the Levantine culture, of the history of the Sephardim, of the complexity of the cultures in the region. This is "anti-Semitic" in the broadest sense - Arabs are Semites too. We are blood.

Frankly, I think some of you would prefer to see Israel destroyed and her people scattered. Again. This is what I think you would wish.

Am I wrong?

Please answer - if you believe "yes", that's fine this is a free country - so far. But if you believe, 'YES', then what are you doing on Native American land? Do you believe, in that case, that you would be welcomed with open arms should you decide to return to Ireland or to Germany or to Poland, or to Africa or Asia or WHEREVER your people came from, and move into your old neighborhood? You see it becomes complicated. For everybody. And if you look at it this way you will see that there are NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT ANSWERS AND NO ABSOLUTE WRONG ANSWERS. There is only the hope of human good will, of give and take, and the inevitability of both love and bloodshed. And there is ALWAYS CHANGE. People move from block to block. They move from state to state and country to country. Countries rise and nations fall. THAT IS THE HUMAN CONDITION. Expecting Israel, or Jews in general, to somehow be immune from these complexities, is anti-Semitic. Period.

I'm interested too, in why the problems of Israel are such a hot button with some of y'all whom I doubt are either Jewish or Arab. Do you have blood in the region? Are you a dancer or a musician, an exponent of traditional Middle East art or language? Are you a scholar of some kind with a POV? If not, WHY IS THIS SUCH A FOCAL POINT? There is warfare, oppression, unfairness aplenty all over the world. Please explain, I'm really curious.

I got into an argument with an acquaintance during an on-line discussion group. One point he made: the left is anti-Semitic. I was totally shocked. However, after having read some of the stuff that is posted on this board I'm beginning to see his point of view.

Incidentally another point I will argue is precisely this: that Bush's war is actually bringing Arabs and Jews closer together - an accident, I think - but people with interests of love and blood in the region are beginning to see that we are ALL victims of this game, the game that is being played for money, strategic location, and oil. We're ALL pawns in this situation. People who blame Israel, Jews in general, for this war or for 9/11, are completely missing the point. And folks who believe that ISRAEL is somehow running WASHINGTON should GET A MAP AND LOOK AT SOME DEMOGRAPHICS. THAT is anti-Semitic. How the Jewish people, population some 10,000,000 GLOBALLY, can control this planet - that's nuts. And how tiny Israel, 6 miles wide in places if you go by original borders, population 5 million, lacking resources, is supposed to be able to tell America, population over 250,000,000 and loaded with resources money and weapons - give me a break. THAT is anti-Semitism. Squared.

Certainly, as a Democrat, as a HUMAN BEING, I believe in fairness. I do not think that brutal treatment of people or of animals is a good thing. I also believe that Israel exists, she is vital to the Jewish people, and that criticizing people for having created Israel given the political situation of the time are completely all wet. In any case it is too late. Israel is a fact.

Criticism of Israeli policies, such as blowing up Palestinian homes, is not anti-Semitic per se. However, blindly refusing to see Arab terrorism and Arab extremism is also wrong. It is anti-Semitic in another way: by refusing to see it you deny a fact of ARAB culture, of Arab emotion, as well as being anti-Semitic in denying Israel the right to defend herself. You are not "on the ground" in Israel. It is easy to cry for the Palestinian whose home is bulldozed or whose child is dead. It seems to me that it is not so easy for people to mourn the loss of Jewish life.

THAT is anti-Semitic.

I am deeply afraid because I believe the old horror is rising again.

[Coastie for Truth]

103. I am in 100% agreement with Colorado Blue

--- and if you have never been in a Louisiana jail or tutored in Black School or marched with MLK Jr or never (when underemployed) turned down a job in the military-industrial complex --- then YOU ARE NOT A REAL PROGRESSIVE --- AND YOU HAVE NOT PAID YOUR DUES AND EARNED THE RIGHT TO TELL ME THAT I AM NOT A PROGRESSIVE, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO HIT ME WITH UCBERKELEY OR CALSTATE SF NEO LIB CONDESCENSION.

I have paid my dues.

[Yosie]

104. I am glad somebody had the courage and chutzpah

to tell it like it is.

This

1. "Zionist are always wrong - even when they are right"(ooops - I forgot - in the "New Talk" of my party, Zionism is always racist and always wrong) and

2. "The Palestinian cause is always right - even when it is wrong" (ooops - I forgot - in the "New Talk" of my party, the Palestinian Cause can never be wrong) is getting me sick, and

3. "It is racism to ever even inadvertantly cricize Palestinians, even Hamas or Hazbollah" and

4. "It is good Progressive free speech to cricize even Kernels of Peace and Peace Now and Shulamit Aloni and Rabin."

is crap.

Neither side is 100% right -- but neither side is 100% wrong.

Neither side is 100% racist driven by genocidal wet dreams.

Colorado Blue called it like it is..


I am no Conservative -- I am a life long Democrat, a Demo "fat cat contributor" -- and a ACLU pro bono litigator (which has cost me billings and clients)

[Lithos]

108. I will answer

Then I will lock this. Your comments while they express a strong feeling have been covered quite a few issues which frequently get raised.

Note: this is NOT a knee-jerk defense of Sharon although I believe he's been demonized on this board. I do not approve of Sharon's policies. But I also do not begin to believe that there is much true understanding of Israel, of the Middle East, of Arabs, of the Levantine culture, of the history of the Sephardim, of the complexity of the cultures in the region. This is "anti-Semitic" in the broadest sense - Arabs are Semites too. We are blood.

I am glad you emphasized the close, blood ties between Israeli's and Arabs, not enough people do.

As for Sharon, I think there is much to criticize about the man.

Yes he does perform the necessary role of helping to Administer the government of Israel, he also as Prime Minister and head of the RW Likud party implement policies and selectively enforce laws in a way which demean both the honor of the nation of Israel - both Jews, Christians and Muslims, but also fail the obligations to the Palestinians whose status as an occupied nation he is required by International Law to protect and preserve.

If that were not enough, there is much to condemn the man himself from very shady business dealings as Prime Minister that have significantly enriched his and his family, but also the war crimes he committed while a member of the IDF which includes not only Sabra and Shatila, but also his role as military governor of Gaza, commander of Unit 101 and later the 202nd paratroop Brigade.

And if that were not enough you also have his military insubordinance at Mitla Pass in 1956 resulting in the unnecessary deaths of Israel soldiers to promulgate his ego, but also his failure and incompetence in 1973 to bring up necessary equipment to bridge the Suez canal which almost cost the campaign (and had to be covered by General Aden who is the real hero of 1973 Sinai).

And I think I've missed a few things. But unless someone focuses on Sharon as a Jew, then it is not anti-Semitic to criticize him.

Frankly, I think some of you would prefer to see Israel destroyed and her people scattered. Again. This is what I think you would wish.

As for the existence of the State of Israel. While most here are two-stateers, some do argue for a single state which encompasses both
the current citizens of Israel and the Palestinians in a peaceful coexistance. While you might call this latter anti-Zionistic, it is not anti-Semitic. For the two-staters, the usual course starts with the 1967 borders as a point of negotiations.

But the type of scenario you describe of forceful expulsion of Jews from Israel does not feature in the discussions here and would not be tolerated as a viable belief held by a poster here, just as transfer of Palestinians from their lands.

I'm interested too, in why the problems of Israel are such a hot button with some of y'all whom I doubt are either Jewish or Arab. Do you have blood in the region? Are you a dancer or a musician, an exponent of traditional Middle East art or language? Are you a scholar of some kind with a POV? If not, WHY IS THIS SUCH A FOCAL POINT? There is warfare, oppression, unfairness aplenty all over the world. Please explain, I'm really curious.

It would be very nice if this were a side issue, but it's not. I/P affects all of us. Considering the entanglement of I/P in international politics and US domestic politics, there is more than enough reason for people to be interested in the area. The US and the USSR almost went to war as a result. Then again there is the cultural heritage that most people in the West inherited from the region's religious and moral philosophy.

I got into an argument with an acquaintance during an on-line discussion group. One point he made: the left is anti-Semitic. I was totally shocked. However, after having read some of the stuff that is posted on this board I'm beginning to see his point of view.

There are those who while debunking the negative myths associated with the Palestinian cause are creating a few new myths negative to Israel. One such myth is Israel is homogenous in their beliefs and attitudes towards Palestinians. There are many who openly support a two state solution now along with removal of the settlements in the Gaza and OT. Another related myth is that there is only one type of Zionism which is ultra-nationalistic and militaristic. Personally I support the Zionism of Martin Buber.

Join us in myth debunking and education. Knowledge is what sets you free.

Incidentally another point I will argue is precisely this: that Bush's war is actually bringing Arabs and Jews closer together - an accident, I think - but people with interests of love and blood in the region are beginning to see that we are ALL victims of this game, the game that is being played for money, strategic location, and oil. We're ALL pawns in this situation. People who blame Israel, Jews in general, for this war or for 9/11, are completely missing the point. And folks who believe that ISRAEL is somehow running WASHINGTON should GET A MAP AND LOOK AT SOME DEMOGRAPHICS. THAT is anti-Semitic. How the Jewish people, population some 10,000,000 GLOBALLY, can control this planet - that's nuts. And how tiny Israel, 6 miles wide in places if you go by original borders, population 5 million, lacking resources, is supposed to be able to tell America, population over 250,000,000 and loaded with resources money and weapons - give me a break. THAT is anti-Semitism. Squared.

Please read the I/P guidelines. It explicitly states that those who express the view that Jews or Israel itself dictate foreign policy is not allowed here.

However, please also realize that the RW Zionist Christians who while a distinct minority in this country (25 million) do have an oversized share of control over Bush's administration as they formed the most consistent block of voters (apx. 25% of those who voted for Shrub). They are organized and they are focused in their desire to bring about their literalistic interpretations and bowdlerization of Revelation.

Criticism of Israeli policies, such as blowing up Palestinian homes, is not anti-Semitic per se. However, blindly refusing to see Arab terrorism and Arab extremism is also wrong. It is anti-Semitic in another way: by refusing to see it you deny a fact of ARAB culture, of Arab emotion, as well as being anti-Semitic in denying Israel the right to defend herself. You are not "on the ground" in Israel. It is easy to cry for the Palestinian whose home is bulldozed or whose child is dead. It seems to me that it is not so easy for people to mourn the loss of Jewish life.

Criticism of policies on both sides is allowed. However, it is bigoted to examine only one side critically. The facts on the ground do not support giving either side a blind eye.

Israel has as much a right to defend herself as the Palestinians do themselves. It is a natural right, not a character flaw of either culture - to claim such is to perpetuate bigotry that only feeds more bigotry and in turn feeds the circle of violence. It blurs so that it is no longer an issue of Jewish lives or Muslim lives, but rather of human lives.

Mothers and fathers weep, sisters and brothers anguish, spouses and children cry over the human losses of war and violence. This is the real horror.