Term "anti-Semite" Used as a Political Tool

[Kbowe]

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=96072

So is the term - "un-patriotic"

[mmm]

1. anti-zion is not anti-Semitic

plain and simple

[Darranar]

2. Agreed...

n/t

[Jim Sagle]

6. So I guess MLK was all wet, huh?

[Darranar]

7. Didn't Violet Crumble post...

about how the "Letter to an anti-Zionist Friend" is a hoax?

[Jim Sagle]

13. The letter is a hoax, but his general sentiment was not.

[Darranar]

14. Without the letter...

how do you know that his general sentiment was what it was made out to be?

[Jim Sagle]

25. Here.

http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

[Darranar]

27. We don't know...

what the student was saying. Until we do, we can't know what King exactly meant. He might indeed have been spewing anti-semitic propaganda under the cover of anti-Zionist.

[Jackie97]

36. No matter what the truth is about MLK...

He was not well informed of the Palestinian's suffering at the time (nobody was), and he does not hold authority to define what and all anti-Semitism is. I could be wrong, but I believe that even MLK was known for changing his mind.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[jos]

31. Oh, please!

King was killed less than a year after the occupation began. His statement was made before the expanisonist nature of Zionism had become clear. Had he lived, and were alive today, he would be condemning the Israeli occupation while calling for non-violent resistance. This, in turn, may have changed his attitude toward Zionism in general, as it has many others. And it certainly would have changed the view that anti-zionism and anti-semitism are one in the same.

[jos]

32. Not necessarily the same

No doubt there are people who are anti-zionist who are also anti-semitic. But it does not follow that someone who is anti-zionist is therefore anti-semitic. For example, I am Jewish, but I also happen to be anti-zionist and believe a one-state solution is best. However, in no way does that make me anti-semitic.

[Fight_n_back]

38. Yes it is

plain and simple

[jos]

47. No it isn't

And that's a fact.

[Fight_n_back]

55. Yes it is

and thats the truth.

[Darranar]

56. How?

I don't understand why.

[jos]

57. Don't even bother

Because he? says it is. That the extent of his "reasoning."

[Fight_n_back]

58. I know what you are

but what am I?

[Fight_n_back]

59. Simple

Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to a homeland. To be against that right is to say that every other people on the planet has a right to self rule except Jews. To hold rights back from one specific group is the very definition of bigotry. In this case bigotry against Jews is known as "anti semitism" a term coined in France to describe the scientific reasons for European Jew hatred.

If you don't believe in oppressed peoples having the right of self determination in any other case then you would at least be consistent, although that is a view that would be rare on this message board.

Are the people here that are against Zionism also against Palestinain Nationalism? that is a belief that there should be a state expressly for Palestinain Arabs. If you are for one and not the other, how do you reconcile that belief in any construct other than arbitrary dislike for one group or the other?

If someone here expressed the belief that Palestinians should not have a homeleand how would you regard them? Then why should I regard anyone who is against Jewish self rule any other way?

[jos]

60. Judaism is a religion

There is no "right" to a religious homeland. So, for example, there's no right (or should be no right) to a Catholic homeland, a Protestant homeland or a Muslim homeland. Zionism is anthetical to democratic, secular values.

To say you are against a Jewish state is not anti-semitic. Just as saying you are against a Protestant state is not anti-Protestant. It just says that you are a firm believer in the separation of church and state. It says nothing negative about the religion in question, or its adherents.

[The Magistrate]

61. Judaism, Sir

Is as much an ethnicity and a national cultus as it is a religion in any doctrinal sense.

[jos]

62. I must disagree

Your are born a Slav, for example. You can't become one. But you can become Jewish by converting. That's the difference between a religion and an ethnic group. That because of persecution, Jews took on aspects of an ethnic group does not make them an ethnic group.

[The Magistrate]

65. On The Other Hand, Mr. Jos

Is not descent from Abraham of all born Jews something of a dogma? The proportion of converts in Judaism is very small: it has not been much of a proselytizing faith, and most conversions involve marriage. It is hard to know what, beyond displaying the characteristics of an ethnic group, as you acknowledge Jews do, makes an ethnic group. The reasons for such display would not seem to make much difference. Jews certainly began in ancient times as a group, claiming a common ancestry, and emerge in the modern era in similar wise. Nor is your example of Slavs much good in refutation. Many persons believing themselves Slavs today carry some portion of ancestry from other peoples, ranging from Celtic and Scandinavian German to Mongol: those lands have been overrun many a time, and hosted many an outland immigrant as well as conquerors.

[seventhson]

73. On the other hand again - Muslims are also descendants of Abraham

and as such "share" the right to the inheritance of Jerusalem and the "Holy Land" of Israel/Palestine.

IMHO, whatever happens, the land must be shared.

ZIONISM is NOT Monolithic.

It is not ONLY one movement. It generally does say that Jews have a right to return and are entitled to self government. It does not usually say that all Semites and descendants of Abraham should have this right -- but only the descendants of Isaiah and NOT Ishmael, his half brother by Hagar, Abraham's servant.

This is where it gets quite messy, unfortunately.

On the one hand, it is a religious movement and not an ethnic one. It IS, on the other hand, a cultural one in some variants - but Jews are not culturally monolithic either by any means. European Jews and indigenous (middle eastern) Jews are very different. Like Christians from different backgrounds they may share religious rites and rituals (or not) but they can be culturally very different. One sees this in Israel quite clearly with all of the different immigrant communities from Russia, Ethiopia, Latin America, USA, etc.

Interestingly in Israel there are slightly different forms of worship of the Creator by the indigenous Jews and Muslims --- but arguably the "sabrahs" are culturally very much like the Palestinians in their food, love of family, traditions etc.-- especially the secular Jews and Palestinians. They drink Turkish coffee and try to survive. They love middle eastern music (the Yemeni Israeli music is some of the hottest I have ever heard). Anyone who has been to Israerl knows this: the majority of folks who are generally secular eat alike and have a shared history and many shared cultural values.

The influx of American, British, Canadian, Australian (Anglified Jews) and Eastern European Jews and Russians - means that the "new" Jews are NOT like the Sabrahs. This creates more cultural conflict and resentment. The Sabrahs (indigenous middle eastern Jews) are generally way down on the social and economic and political scale in terms of status in relation to the Europeans, etc.


My point is that it is not black and white.

Most of the indigenous Jews are pissed off at the mess the European and anglified Jews immigrants are making of their homelands where they actually coexisted pretty well with the Palestinians and Arabs.


All I'm sayin' is that is not as simple as "Zionism" is wrong or right. There are many complicated layers and nuances. You can be a Jew who believes in true "zionism" - the right of return and the desire for Israel as a homeland for Jewish people --- and still be a vehement opponent of Sharon's style of fascist "Zionism".

Arab propaganda on the point is equally skewed. Blaming "Zionists" or "Jews" for Sharon is like blaminga all Germansd for Hitler or all Americans for Bush. The actual facts are much more subtle and significant distinctions must be made on a minute level sometimes.

But the black and white propaganda on BOTH sides keeps us from seeing the truth,

Fascist Zionism (Sharon, Wolfowitz, Perle) is WRONG. A Zionism which respects the rights of Palestinians is not wrong.

A shared Jerusalem (as Avraham Burg writes in the other brilliant thread on this forum) is required. Zionists can HAVE that if they are willing to reconcile . So can the Muslims and Palestinians.


But if we leave this in black and white terms there is no middle ground for compromise and very little actual truth can result from this debate or discussion.

Love to hear any replies as I venture into this forum with trepidation and good will.

[Darranar]

74. Well, according to the Bible...

The Holy Land is given entirely to Abraham's descendants of the line of Isaac and Jacob: The Jews. This is of course a religious text, and thus should not dictate policy.

[seventhson]

75. But But But -- there is also Hagar's vision of Ishmael's descendants

inheriting the land and producing kings etc.

They are not exclusive rights.

THAT is the crux of the issue.

I will try to find the exact Biblical text (in English since I do not read Hebrew) ---BUT my point is that Abraham's servant, who bore Ishmael for him when Sarah believed she could not get pregnant, had a vision in which her descendants (Arabs) would ALSO get a piece of the pie.

Maybe "G-D's" lesson here is "Y'all cousins need to learn to get along or you will live and die in perpetual hell"


Like a goog mother telling her kids: "SHARE!!!" when there's one piece of cake left. Except here if there is no sharing there is perpetual war.

[Darranar]

76. Not a piece of Canaan...

but land elsewhere. Every inch of the land was promised to the Jews repeatedly in the bible.

[seventhson]

78. Got links? Cites?

and was it "exclusive" right?

Are there maps of what was given ("Canaan" is pretty vague)

Sincerely, the details are important.

To say "the Bible promised every inch" needs a little more for context and to see if it works withg other things the Biblical authors said.

(My biggest problem with the Bible in general is that it is some guys interpretation of their own vision of "God"'s intent. THAT is pretty dangerous in and of itself. Prophets and visionaries may have been speaking God's will 99% accurately (or not) BUT they may also havce been WRONG 1% or more of the time which may make thousands of words and sections in the Bible pure bullshit. Add in translations, transcriptions, editing, heirarchies of authorities deciding what is in and what is out, etc. and you have a potential problem not unlike that of the current media. It is controlled by an elite who wants to spin it to their advantage. This applies to the New Testament as well as the Torah, the law and the prophets and other religious texts. MAYBE they were divinely inspired and even from the DIVINE directly. But some HUMAN had to get it down right on paper and god forbid they Muckked it up somewhere)

[The Magistrate]

79. As Regards Scripture, Sir

Mr. Darranar is correct. The relevance of this to the present day situation is what is questionable. Nothing is going to be decided on the basis of ancient and unsubstantiated tales not even all participants agree upon.

[jos]

80. Exactly

But try telling that to the so-called "Christian Zionists."

That Jews lived on the land is an historical fact. That is what entitles them to live there now. I have no objection to that. Where I part company is with the concept of a "Jewish" homeland.

[seventhson]

77. Correction: I meant the "new" Jews in Israel (or "new" Israelis)

the term "new" Jews in the above post is not what I meant (although conbverted Jews do play some role in politics, I guess, it is a very minor role.) I meant English and Canadian and Australian and Eastern European immigrnats of the past 50 or so years.

At least from my perspective, I could not physically distinguish between indigenous Jewish Israelis and Palestinians (except by their dress).

This is obviously why it is so easy for a Palestinian to pass for a Jew in order to commit a suicide bombing.


Funny story (Maybe) when I discovered that Jews say Shalom Aleichem and Muslims say Salaam Alaikum in greeting (literally the same thing with slightly different pronunciation - it is the eqivlent of the Christian expression and literally means "Peace be with you) and I was in a neihgborhood (I did a lot of wandering) where I did not know what religion or "ethnicity" a person was whom I passed in the street etc. I would say BOTH. This was out of respect fort the people but also to identify myself as not on either "side" --- but that I was honestly wishing them peace and did not know if they were an Arab or a Jew. This got me universally quizzical and amused looks. I was a crazy American who was foolish enough and well-meaning enough to breach a kind of taboo (Jews and Arabs do not usually, in my experience, exchange this greeting because of the obvious differences in pronunciation: aleichem is a guttural "ch" and alaikum is a hard K -- and to say either to the wrong person may start trouble)

To say BOTH, seemed to make people think.

They do, after all, actually share the Abrahamic tradiation of wishing peace to , even, as hard as it seems, each other. Both the Old Testament AND the Koran specifically embrace -- in many instances- this notion of respecting the faith and rights of others.

Incidentally: It seems only Christianity as practiced today essentially teaches that Jews and Muslims are not "blessed" or "saved" by the Creator.

Thanks Gaby'sPoppy for pointing out my error.

[Cassandra]

82. A bit of tweaking

"Most of the indigenous Jews are pissed off at the mess the European and anglified Jews immigrants are making of their homelands where they actually coexisted pretty well with the Palestinians and Arabs."
I wish you wouldn't refer to "indigenous" Jews in quite the blithe way that you do. All Jews (who are not converts) are indigenous. The ones who never left the region are Mizrahi, the ones who went to Spain and Portugal and left there are Sephardic, annd the ones who went to the rest of Europe (starting during Roman times) are Ashkenazic. And yes, there are cultural differences between them, as there are among related people who've lived apart. And I don't think coexisting "pretty well" squares with the periodic massacres Mizrahi Jews endured in the early 1900's.
"but arguably the "sabrahs" are culturally very much like the Palestinians in their food, love of family, traditions"
Obviously you haven't been to a Jewish wedding in NYC lately. Sabras don't have an advantage in their love of food, family and traditions; it's generally a Jewish thing. Ashkenazim aren't less (or more)Jewish because they do Judaism slightly differently than the others do.


"All I'm sayin' is that is not as simple as "Zionism" is wrong or right. There are many complicated layers and nuances. You can be a Jew who believes in true "zionism" - the right of return and the desire for Israel as a homeland for Jewish people --- and still be a vehement opponent of Sharon's style of fascist "Zionism"."
Thank you, that pretty much works for me. You can also say you belive in "America" and still be a vehement opponent of Bush's style of fascist "Amurikanism".

[seventhson]

84. Just to be clear:

You quote me and then respond as follows


"...arguably the "sabrahs" are culturally very much like the Palestinians in their food, love of family, traditions"
Obviously you haven't been to a Jewish wedding in NYC lately. Sabras don't have an advantage in their love of food, family and traditions; it's generally a Jewish thing. Ashkenazim aren't less (or more)Jewish because they do Judaism slightly differently than the others do."



MY RESPONSE:

I never claimed an "advantage" or that anyone was less or more Jewish.

What I was saying is that the Jews who never left the region (I accept your critque on the use of the word "indigenous" - I mean by that those who historically stayed in the region from earliest history and did not migrate back in the past 150-200 years basically) - these "indigenous" Jews - called Sabras (Mizrahim>) are much more like the Palestinians in many ways than they are like the European and Askenazi Jews.

To me they are practically indistinguishable.

I will read up on the Misrahim so as not to confuse the terms again. I was told that Sephardic Jews were Sabrahs too and had not heard the term Mizrahi.

[Cassandra]

85. OK, that's clearer

I hadn't heard of Mizrahi either (except for the clothing designer) until forced by this board to start looking things up. I guess the Sephardim have a superior PR department (and you'll find the Mizrahim have been pissed off about it). I think some of the confusion is due to the migration of the Sephardim. After being forced out of the Iberian penninsula, some went to South America, and from there were the first Jews in America, some went to England and the Netherlands (where they did so well that they were able to look down on the Ashkenazim), and the rest returned to North Africa and the Middle East, where I'm sure they felt more cultured and educated than the rest of the Jewish population. They've been letting the rest of us think all this time that they were the ones more indigenous than the Ashkenazim, but they are apparently only second in line.
As for the other comment, Ashkenazi are just as fond of food, family and traditions. Perhaps a noticably different culture has you notice it more with Sabras and Palestinians who do have some blended traditions. BTW, the Palestinians are offended that Israel pronounced falafel as the official food of Israel. The Palestinians feel hijacked about that. Oh, well. I think Sabras is a term covering those born in Israel, so that now includes descendents of Ashkenazim as well.

[seventhson]

89. Thanks Cassandra ---

One reason I love this board is the vast knowledge of folks who correct me when I'm wrong or off the mark.

My interest in Israel is MOSTLY because I have visited there to do an exhibit at Yad Vashem (the Place of Names) - the Holocaust memorial Museum in Jerusalem. I LOVED the experience and am deeply saddened that in the five years since my visit things have devolved into such wretched excesses and horror for all the people there.

But I learned not to be afraid to speak about issues which are difficult and which reasonable people can disahree about amicably.

The survival of the Jews in Israel and the Nation there is of critical importance to me. But so is the survival of the Palestinians and their Nation. Because these two Nations overlap and intersect and mingle in both community and conflict, there are no really easy answers.


I tend to subscribe to most of the views of the Tikkun community (Tikkun.org) - a progressive and left leaning Jewish organization which opposes Sharon and supports the rights of Palestinians for the most part.

But I enjoy the relatively cordial and important dialogue here.

We can all learn a lot from it.

So thanks Cassandra.


7

[sushi]

223. I think it's the same as Islam

Difference is the Jews already have a homeland. The Muslims are more ambitious. They want the whole world to be the nation of Islam.

[no name no slogan]

226. Just like the Christians

How is this different from the basic teachings of Christianity? They're both evengelical religions.

[sushi]

227. One difference is that

Christianity sends missionaries to try to peacefully convert the non-believers. Muslim extremists are prepared to use violence to achieve their aim, and they're also the only ones who are prepared to blow themselves up. Two Bali bombers, sentenced to death by the Indonesian government, are "looking forward to it," although their lawyers are appealing.

[Fight_n_back]

228. Two words

Jesu it

[sushi]

229. Sorry

I don't know what it means.

[Fight_n_back]

112. Then by your logic

I can soon expect to hear your call for the dismantling of Pakistan.

[rini]

217. anti-semitic Jews

There is no "right" to a religious homeland. So, for example,

there's no right (or should be no right) to a Catholic homeland,(the Vatican, most of Latin America,

a Protestant homeland (Northern Ireland, England)

or a Muslim homeland (Saudi, all Mid east countries except Israel(which BTW is not a Jewsih country per se), many parts of Asia.

Zionism is anthetical to democratic, secular values.

To judge Israel by standards not applied to other countries is anti-semitic.

[Darranar]

63. That's not at all what liberal anti-Zionism is based on...

it is based on the idea that the jewish state shouldn't exclude others from its electoral process and shouldn't have restrictions on immigration based on religion.

[Fight_n_back]

81. More Arabs vote in Israel

than in any nation in the world except Egypt so I don't know what you are going on about. Perhaps you were mistaking Israel for Saudi Arabia, our staunch ally, which kills women for losing their virginity and doesn't allow Jews within its borders.

[Darranar]

83. Saudi Arabias's worse...

when it comes to racism and voting rights. But the fact remains that immigration to Israel is restricted if you aren't a Jew and the palestinians can't vote at all.

[Fight_n_back]

111. I will give you the benefit of the doubt

that you are ignorant of the facts rather than willfully spreading disinformation.

There are Palestians in Sharons Cabinet. How many Jews are in Abbas'?

Palestinains in Israel vote and have their own political parties. It was Baraks inability to get the Palestinain voter turnout that led to Sharons victory.

In the West Bank and Gaza Palestionains also vote, although for their own candidates and not Israels.

[Darranar]

113. They do?

The Palestinians in the West BAnk and Gaza VOTE? Since when?

[The Magistrate]

115. They Voted In A Palestine Authority election Some Years Ago, My Friend

They do not vote in Israeli elections: they are not citizens of Israel.

[Darranar]

118. And how much control does the PA have...

when Israel can enter the West Bank and Gaza and do whatever they wish there?

And how much did those Palestinian votes actually matter? Was it a fair election?

[StandWatie]

130. reasonably fair..

and obviously voting for some entity that is responsible for carrying away garbage and little else is a sham election but not because people had guns to their heads but because a state is defined as it's ability to control a monopoly on violence within it's borders and that will never, ever, happen at a negotiating table.

[Fight_n_back]

138. That differs from your original point

which was proved to be false. Since you need to do a lot of research on the subject anyway why do you come back and tell us how fair the Palestinain elections were and then figure a way to blame that on Israel as well.

[Darranar]

140. HAHAHAHAHA!

The palestinians have VERY LITTLE control over their lives. That is Israel's and the occupation's fault. They have no state and are brutalized daily by israeli soldiers. That was my original point.

As for research, I think you need to do some.

Which of those statements do you contest?

[Fight_n_back]

142. I contest your statement

that Palestinians in Israel cannot vote. This you were incorrect about. I contest your statement that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza do not vote, this you were also wrong about.


You did not answer my question about the makeup of the cabinet of the nascent Palestinian state. How many Jews are their in positions of power?

In Israel there are Palestinain Arab Knesset members, Palestinain Arab Cabinet members and Palestinan Arab mebers of the military. It seems you may have mistargetted your assertions of the racist states in the area.

I would also like to know if you know who the first settlers were and why they went to the West Bank? If you do not know that then why sound off so soon? Are you used to shooting your wad before proper preperations have been made?

[Darranar]

145. Okay...

First of all, when I say Palestinians I am speaking of the Arabs in the west bank and Gaza. I use the term Israeli arabs for the Arabs who are citizens of Israel.

There are no Arab Muslims in the military.

The first settlers went to the West Bank so that Israel could secure the Occupied Territories and so they wouldn't be pressured into giving them up.

There are indeed no Jews in the Palestinian cabinet, but then again there are almost no Palestinians who are Jews, so I don't see your point.

For soem reason, I doubt that there are Arabs in the cabinet of Sharon's government. I could be wrong about this, but do you have a source to the contrary?

[Fight_n_back]

149. Thre is so much

you do not know that it is staggering.

There are Arabs in the Israeli military and they serve proudly. they are Druze which may or may not be a sect of Islam depending on the reference. It is certainly Islam like.

The first settlers went to the West Bank becuase they wanted to live on the lands that there parents were forced from. They "settled" in a hotel at first. Golda Maeir was against allowing the settlers in because of the security headache. Their lobbying eventually got her to reluctantly change her mind. Strategic settling wasn't done until the seventies.

You admit that there are few Palestinian Jews yet somehow it never occurred to you to ask why. When so much is made of Palestinian Arab displacement you never questioned why towns named "Nazareth" or "Bethlehem" have so few Jews in them.

For some reason you doubt there are Arabs in Sharons cabinet yet they are there. Do a Google search for "Sharon's Cabinet". The "some reason" you still doubt me is for you to figure out.

[Darranar]

152. LOL!

I'll avoid the controversy over the Druze, and skip over to your next point.

The parents of the settlers weren't forced from the West Bank and Gaza. All of the West Bank and Gaza was to be part of the Palestinian state according to the partition of 1948. Though some Jews were forced to move, some Palestinians were also, and they haven't been allowed back (right of return, anyone?)

My only point about Jews in the Palestinian cabinet is that it would be unrealistic to assume that there would be Jews when such a small number of Palestinians are Jews.

[Fight_n_back]

155. Your knowledge of the first settlers

is based on what exactly?

Why are such a small number of Palestinians Jews? Surely you have heard of Bethlehem? It was once a rather Hebraic community.

Here is another question you forgot to ask yourself. What stopped the West Bank and Gaza from being a Palestinain state in 1948?

Your ability to ignore when someone shows you to be wrong borders on Bushian.

[Darranar]

156. I'll skip your...

comment about the settlers, since you dodged my points completely.

Almost every Palestinian Jew has become an Israeli citizen. That's why. There would be no reason for them not to.

The Palestinian state was stopped in 1948 by the arab invaders of Israel. That doesn't change the facts that after 1967, the blame for no Palestinian state foes rightfully to the Israelis.

[Fight_n_back]

159. What point was dodged?

you offer nothing to back your assertion that I was incorrect in my characterization of the first settlers.

You seem to think that 400,000 Jews voluntarily left Arab countries in 1948 while every Palestinian left Israel at the point of a gun. That is absurd and can be countered simply by checking the evidence.

[Darranar]

161. Arab countries?

The settlers aren't setttling in those Arab countries that those 400,000 left.

It doesn't matter why either the Palestinians or the Jews left - they still deserve the right of return to their former state, or lacking that massive reperations. All Palestinians not currently in the Wesy Bank and Gaza should be allowed to return to a Palestinian state and recieve reperations as well.

The Jews should be allowed to return as well - but in order to do that, more "wars of liberation" like the atrocity of the one in Iraq will be neccesary.

[Gimel]

210. Bedouin are Arabs

The Druze sects of the Galilee have their own religion. They are descendants of Zipporah's father Jethro (Moses father-in-law). (Exodus, Chapter 18), and thus their history is closely aligned with the Jews. Bedouin practice the Moslem religion, and do serve in the IDF.

[GabysPoppy]

212. Cherkasy (sp?) Muslims also serve in the army

n/t

[The Magistrate]

141. That Has Varied, Mr. Darranar

Certainly for several years preceeding the recent intensification of hostilities, the Palestine Authority enjoyed a good degree of control over the territories where most Arab Palestinians dwell. It certainly lacked the military capability to have fought of an Israeli invasion, and it has never, as Mr. Watie observed, maintained a monopoly on use of force within the area of its control.

The election was as free and fair as might be expected: it was certainly manipulated to a great extent by Arafat, the victor in it, but he would probably have won without the skullduggery. Clearly even to this day most Arab Palestinians consider him their legitimate leader, for better or worse.

[Fight_n_back]

117. Geez

You have a lot of reading to do.

[The Magistrate]

3. Among Its Most Potent Uses As A Political Tool, Sir

Is its employment as a pre-emptive claim of victimization, particularly by persons disposed to broad and imflamatory propagandas against Israel. It is often seen even in this forum, that persons will say "I will probably be called an Anti-Semite for this, but..." or assure another "Expect to be called an Anti-Semite for that, but...." Of course, the looked-for charge seldom follows, but it feels so good and bold to imagine it will.

[newyorican]

4. possibly...

The "looked-for" charge is against the rules and when it is made, the post is deleted. Besides that, there are plenty of thinly-veiled, lame insinuations that try to make the charge without saying it.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

9. There Is Something To That, Sir

Just as there are sometims comments deleted because they do seem to convey Anti-Semitic attitudes, and members expelled for the same cause. Persons who seem more supporters of Likud than of Israel, or unarguably bigoted against Arabs and Islam, too, have been expelled, as well.

We are certainly in agreement that criticism, even harsh criticism, of Israel, is not Anti-Semitism, and it would surprise me if you did noy agree some criticism of Israel is in fact rooted in Anti-Semitism, and some other criticism of Israel conciously plays to common tropes of Anti-Semitic belief.

[newyorican]

10. identifying anti-Israeli criticism is easily accomplished...

identifying anti-semitism is more like mind-reading (unless there is some record of an individuals beliefs).

A more inexact science would be hard to come by.

Some anti-Israeli criticism is rooted in a strong aversion to colonial practices and having no choice in cupability, which is the return on our collective involuntary investment.

[Darranar]

12. Not really...

Saying, for instance, that "All Jews are this" or "All Jews believe that" is at the very least an extremely insensitive exxageration and at most, and most likely, an anti-semitic statement. I don't think anyone here would dispute that David Duke is an anti-semite, mind-reading or not, or that those idiots at Stormfront are.

[newyorican]

15. Those you mention have records...

Speaking specifically of the US, these comments are more likely to be made from ignorance than bigotry. Not that there aren't plenty of bigots here in the USA, there are just more ignorant people, IMO. I can't speak for other regions, though.

[Darranar]

17. Ever been to Stormfront.org?

Those idiots are racist bigots, unquestionably. Aren't all racist bigots ignorant, though?

[newyorican]

18. I said, "Those you mention have records"

No need to discern the motivations of Stormfront, David Duke et al.

No, not all racists and bigots are ignorant. Some revel in being hateful and are quite intelligent. Those are the dangerous ones.

On Edit: I have been to Stormfront, I think about 5 years ago. It was my first experience with a hate site. I have never returned because I don't want to give them a traffic which will only increase their ratings and revenue.

[Darranar]

19. But what is the source of their hatred?

Is it not true that if they knew of the good within those that they hate they would change their minds?

[newyorican]

20. That is beyond me...

I always fall back on "my mother must have raised me right..."

Sorry, no answers, maybe someone else has some.

[rini]

22. unfortunately

hate has no reason, the person or group hated simply has to exist.

[Darranar]

23. I'm aware of that...

my point is that the only way they can believe the racist junk that they believe in is through ignorance.

[newyorican]

26. Don't underestimate the power of

cognitive dissonance. Ignorance in these cases is often intentional.

[Darranar]

28. I never disputed that...

Intentional ignorance is a tactic used by a few of the posters here. I see it almost daily.

[The Magistrate]

16. That Is True As Well, Sir

The colonialist argument is a sound one, particularly in relation to the question of settlements. There are many arguments in this matter that, though finally unpersuasive to me personally, have nothing to do with bigotry.

The task of "mind-reading: is to some degree forced upon our moderators, and not only in relation to this issue: even in the general policing against rightists exercised throughout the forum some degree of ot is required.

[Fight_n_back]

45. calling Israel a colony

is anti semitic..no mind reading required.

[Darranar]

46. That's not true...

how?

[The Magistrate]

49. There Is More To It Than That, Old Friend

There are two substantial definitions of a colony. One is some distant possession of a country, ruled from that foreign locale, generally for the purposes of economic exploitation. Israel certainly is no colony by that definition, and it is that definition at the heart of the concept of anti-colonialism as a political force in the modern era. The second definition is more ancient, and denotes a place to which a portion of the population of some people have moved, from some established center, to take up their residence. This was the major meaning of colony in the ancient world: Grecian cities in Italy, for instance, were colonies of this sort, and were not in any meaningful sense ruled by city-states in Greece, from which their initial settlers derived. In this sense, it is not wholly improper to speak of Israel as a colony, for it does meet a good portion of that definition. Indeed, one of the difficulties in analyzing and responding to this situation is that, in many ways, it is a sort of atavism; an ancient practice played out in the modern era.

In regards to Israel's actions concerning the lands over-run in '67, both forms of colony, it seems to me, are clearly applicable. For most of the period since then, those areas have been in an economic relation to Israel that is more colonial than not, and the establishment of settlements for Isaelis in those areas is certainly colonial in the ancient sense.

[Darranar]

50. It doesn't matter whether the label colony is correct...

the fact remains that calling Israel a colony, true or not true, is not anti-semitic at all.

[The Magistrate]

51. Mr. Yang, My Friend

Is of a view which holds that judging Israel by a standard different than that applied generally to nations, and accusing it of crimes it does not commit, and of illegitimacies that are not in fact present, is a likely indicator of Anti-Semitism, as the only measurable difference between Israel and other nations is that it is a state of Jews. Hence my endeavor to point out to him that there really is some sound basis for this particular charge, and that therefore it can certainly be made in good faith, and has no necessary relation to bogotry.

[Darranar]

52. Okay...

I disagree with him on that point, but I now understand his viewpoint.

I think that someone could easily say something incorrect due to faulty information on his part and not due at all to hatred of Jews. Therefore, knowing that someone is anti-semitic because he makes an incorrect and accusatory statement about Israel would still require mind-reading, as in most cases like this.

[Fight_n_back]

53. Once agin sir

you illuminate my thoughts more coherantly than I.

Thank you as well for the definitions of colonialism. As you are aware, most people use the first definition with regards to Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. What you said about the two different types of colonialism...

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that, even though I agree when you point out to Yang that the use of either regarding Israel isn't anti-semitic. Colonisation by settlers of land that belongs to another people may well have ancient roots, but that sort of colonisation was going on well into the 18th century, with Australia being an obvious example. There was no economic exploitation on the part of the British, and in fact there was a substantial outlay of money to send the first fleet out and to equip them so they'd survive for the first year. Economically and strategically Australia had no value to the British. And I disagree that a colonial power had to have possession to economically exploit it. In the case of India, it was British traders, not the British govt that exploited it and its people, and Britain didn't end up taking possession of India until 18somethingsomething. There's some differences between the colonialism as carried out by the European powers and the colonialism that marked the creation of Israel, but those differences don't make it any less colonialism. Some things stayed the same, despite the centuries of difference. The racist attitude towards the people already on the land remained and seemed to be just as virulent as that of settlers from a few centuries before. Anyway, I wanted to point out that colonialism did happen in the past both for economic exploitation from a distant power, as well as providing a place for some of the population of that distant power to settle, usually with disastrous results for the indigenous population. I don't think both were exclusive of each other, even though I guess with yr comments about the Occupied Territories, yr saying that same thing...

cheers...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

70. It Is True, Ma'am

That the ancient pattern of colonialism survived into the modern era: the United States, along with Australia, is an example of the settlement style of colonialization. Indeed, the difference between North and South America is instructive in this regard, for in the north, the English did have a policy of exporting surplus population, while the French and Spanish did not, and in the south, where Iberian powers remained wholly in charge as colonialists, the indigenous population, though greatly reduced at initial contact, remains the predominant element of the population to this day.

It does seem to me, though, that the ancient pattern was not the predominant one in modern colonialism, which may be dated as that in vogue from the eighteenth century on. This was centered in Asia and Africa, and did not involve generally any great export of population from the metropolitan center to its possessions, beyond the minimum necessary to exploit and administer it. In that period, too, one may see precursors to the present-day of colonialism by pure economic means, without a garrison (even one provided by private enterprise on the John Compamy model), in developments in both South America, and latter Ch'ing China.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Not on THIS forum, it isn't. It's against DU standards...

at least insofar as labelling other posters.

Remember?

[rini]

21. MLK

Even the Rev. Martin
Luther King, Jr. was quoted in the discussion, noting that, during a
1968 speaking engagement at Harvard, he was approached by a student who
attacked Zionism; Dr. King responded, "When people criticize Zionists,
they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism" (Encounter, December 1969,

It is a pretty slippery slope. I think when one can substitute the word Jew for Israeli, or the term Europeans for Israeli, it's anti-semetic. Or maybe it's a blanket condemnation of everything Israeli.
Lots of wiggle room.

[jos]

39. See post 31

Where I put his remark in its proper context.

[Darranar]

24. It is and always will be...

as is almost every other derogatory term.

[Jackie97]

34. No way!

People like Mel Gibson do not deserve the honor of even being considered in the same universe as those who are truly not anti-semitic, un-patriotic, and just want to speak out on what's right.

Mel Gibson took the details for his movie from some blood libelous nuns for goodness sakes.

Ladies and gentlemen, some people really are Jew anti-semitic. Don't let the pain of being falsely accused of anti-semitism or anti-American blind you to real anti-semitism and anti-Americanism.

[Tinoire]

67. Could you please tell me what scenes Gibson took from

" blood libelous nuns"? I keep hearing this charge repeated and yet never any details... It's my understanding that the nun's visions only had to do with Jesus' suffering. Maybe you could shed some light? Thanks

[seventhson]

69. I too am interested in this part of the "controversy"

Maybe if there were some links posted to the alleged writings.


I think there need to be several distinctions made here.

But without viewing the movie it is impossible to have a really intelligent debate.

Rabbi Hier at the Museum of Tolerance in LA (whom I know, admire, and greatly respect -- though I do not always agree with him) identified areas where he had concerns and he said he hoped that changes were made from an early draft of the script.

The final movie may have made these changes and may NOT be based AT ALL on these alleged blood libel nuns.

NOW the nuns in question are interesting and weird.

What is their purported blood libel?

Anybody know?

[The Magistrate]

72. In Broad Outline, Sir

A claim to mystic revelation of extra-canonical detail concerning the execution, fastening blame for it even more securely to the Jews. Among these are the assembly of the cross by Jewish priests in the Temple. The particular figure cited is not familiar to me, but clearly emerges from a long tradition of Catholic devotions focused on this matter beginning in the early Medieval period. She seems to have drawn on the traditions of Passion plays for her visions. That is, in effect, what Gibson's effort is: simply a Medieval Passion play on film. The most basic problem with it is that any attempt to take the gospel narratives as historical documents is, at best, misguided. These are not news accounts, but theological and propagandist documents: fact was not what concerned their authors, but rather the making of points concerning their concept of diety, and seperating themselves, in the eyes of Roman authorities, from Jews rebelling at that time in the name of the Messiah.

[seventhson]

86. Interesting

If, as Hitler did, one views Christianity as a Jewish religion (as is Islam), or an outgrowth of Judaism then there is a (perhaps feeble) argument to be made that Christian mystical visions are as valid as the prophets' visions.

But -- like you, the non Canonical assertion of facts alleged seen in visions of longpast events (or planted there by the passion plays etc. in tradiations only possibly based on facts) is a pretty poor representation of facts.

Ther irony, in some ways is -- as many Jews know - that Jeiwsh tradiation and the xcriptures are replete with criticism of Jews and reiterate their failures.

Just Like Catholicism and other Christian sects, one of the most disappointing aspects of the Jewish religion as practiced is the repetition that God is pissed off at you for refusing to follow HIS laws and therefore whole communities and nations must suffer --- or we deserve our suffering for being sinners.

Unfortunately that sentiment rubs off on those who follow into Christianity from Judaism. Again -- it is a theme of the Old Testament that God repeatedly punishes the Jews as a whole for the sins of the "nation".

Didn't even the Jewish historian Josephus say that the Jews killed Jesus? (I will check that - but he was working for the Romans at the time. Maybe the whole thing was a Roman conspiracy to blame the Jews just like the Protocols is a Fascist conspiracy to paint Zionism as a (red herring) cause of global fascism (when mostly it is anglo-germans who run the show).

I am NOT saying I agree with these perspectives. What I am saying is that the writings, whether in the old testament or the new, of Jewish authors stating that there is a "punishment" of Jews for whatever is pretty darn common. From Jewish authors.

It is like the rabbi who says that the Holocaust was God's punishment for Jewish sins. He is shushed and scolded for saying it. But it is not uncommon to hear that occasionally from Jewish Talmudic scholars or rabbis who think they have it figured out.

In any event 0 I will research these nuns a little more and see the film to form my own opinion.

Clearly there are dangers in how this is presented.

But I do believe that the new testament authors (at least Mathew Mark Luke and John) were TRYING to get the (his)story as right as possible as "witnesses" of the events. If there were Jewish Temple leaders or regular citizens agitating for Jesus' execution --- is that such a big deal when we know the Romans ultimately made the decision?


We can't blame all Christians today for the Iraq war just because of the asshole fundamentalist socalled "christian" assholes whispering in the Klingon president's ear to kill Muslims and their military and/or religious leaders.


The blood libel issue is attributed to one of the nuns and I will investigate her further. She too got her bullshit in a "vision"/ Maybe she was right some of the time and the devil was feeding her visions the other 60% of the time and giving her the stgmata (neat trick, you sneaky diablo you). Very Exorcist.

Maybe she was a schizophrenic Jew hater/

Maybe there was a cannibalistic cult somewhere doing human sacrifices then. Who the hell knows.


Sounds more like a black sabbath than a Jewish ritual to me anyway.


Anyway -- I want to see the film and decide for myself whether it is bullshit or just a religious (or political) masturbation on Gibson's part.


History and religion is too complicated and intricte for these things to be black and white and for us to immediately jump to conclusions about ANYTHING in the media

[Darranar]

87. Josephus?

He was a lying traitor.

[seventhson]

88. Well, I guess so.

But some of his histories are very useful if tainted by his traitorism.

His account of the Masada seige is amazing and the best account I know of documenting this story.

But he could be lying too.

Ever read the Josephus history by Lion Feuchtwanger? Very worthwile to understand him/

Feuchtwanger was Hitler's number one enemy writer.

[rini]

220. Josephus

never said that. It was an added bit of pro-Christian propoganda. Remember, in those times additional "information added" was not seen as wrong. The Greek historians were famous for it too.

[Jackie97]

171. Gibson's info.

I'll show you some of what I posted in a link in this thread.



Gibson, who co-wrote the script for his film, has said he relied on three sources: the New Testament and two nuns. One of the nuns, Mary of Agreda, a 17th century Spanish aristocrat, wrote of the Jews involved in Christ's death: "Although they did not die were chastised with intense pains These disorders consequently upon shedding the blood of Christ descended to their posterity and even to this day continue to afflict this group with horrible impurities."

Mary is blood libelous because she claimed that the Jews killed Jesus with no proof, and furthermore claimed that this is why they get persecuted now.
The other, Anne Catherine Emmerich, was an early 19th century German stigmatic who often described Jews as having hooked noses and who told of a vision she had in which she rescued from purgatory an old Jewish woman who confessed to her that Jews strangled Christian children and used their blood in the observance of their rituals. She claimed the woman in her vision told her that this practice was kept secret so it would not interfere with the Jews' commercial intercourse with Gentiles.
More:

http://www.markcameron.blogspot.com/2003_03_09_markcameron_archive.html

Writer Sandra Miesel frets that:
Mel isn't content to use the Bible and history but is drawing on the private revelation fantasies of Anna Catharina Emmerich and Maria de Agreda. It is no accident that THE DOLOROUS PASSION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST is published by Omni/Christian Book VClub, which also publishes the PROTOCOLS, although that's more for the editor's notes (declaring the truth of the Blood Libel for instance) than Emmerich's text.

Highly emotional evocations of Christ's Passion have a track record of increasing anti-Semitism. That's what happened with mendicant preaching the Middle Ages.

Note: Remember that Anna wrote “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ” and that the “Protocols” are writings that say that Jews are trying to take over the world.

More about Anna here, where it talks about her claims that Jews strangle children, and kill people for ritual sacrifices.

http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_print.cfm?ItemId=7820

[Jackie97]

35. Read here to learn more about this crazy movie....

I'll get something better later. I'm just in a hurry and it's the best that I have.

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/arts/Mels_Passion.asp

I also want to say that the other day, I got to look at the movie "Birth of a Nation", which made Blacks after the Civil War look like evil perferts out to take over the New South and marry white women. The KKK came and "saved the day". The movie said at the beginning that it wasn't meant to say anything bad about any race today (i.e. No, we're not racist). This film was made in 1915, and a lot of whites took it seriously back then. Today, that film is considered to be racism. I also once watched a Nazi propoganda film that made Jews look lazy and dangerous. Today, it's considered anti-semitic. It's been argued with both of these films that they were just "telling the truth" as Gibson claims. Of course, there's no evidence for any of the above and only proof of the opposite. The same goes with "The Passions". Why on earth would we consider "The Passions" any differently?

[The Magistrate]

37. 'Birth Of A Nation'

Was a damned influential film in its time. Woodrow Wilson loved it: he has always been on my short list of those who would never be missed....

[Jackie97]

43. That's the point...

I'm afraid that "The Passions" will be influential.

[seventhson]

41. I'd have to see it first

before I make any conclusion about it. Have you seen it yet?

If so -- can you describe what specifically is antisemitic.

Have you seen "Max" ? That film created a small firestorm, although it was written by a Jew, because it addressed the banality of Hitler's evil persona.

If history is accurate, and the Bible, there are many instances of injustices which can be attributed to ceretain Jews. Today, for excample, we have Sharon and Kissinger and Perleman and Wolfowitz (all of whom many of us consider to be war criminals and killers).

The Torah and Old Testasmrent as a whole is replete with references to Jewish injustice BECAUSE Jews, like everyone else on the planet, are only human. It is also because the Old Testament , in particular, is a full of cautionary tales for Jews about their not doing the right thing. Not EVERY Jew is blamed, but some, by the Jewish authors, for inequities and unrighteousness. It is kind of the foundation of Judeo-Christian religion that we are ALL sinners and none of us are perfect --- we all should feel guilty for whaty we have done wrong.


BUT -- my point is that -- in Gibson';s case (and I have not yet seen the film) there appears to be some historical truth (at least Josephus and the new testament authors wrote) that Jesus pissed of the established hierarchy of the Temple and that , while Jesus was executed by the Roman authorities, that there were SOME Jews , especially in the establishment of the temple, who supported it and may have even been prompting it.

I am not sure I can rely on the accounts of the "people", sounding a lot like a mob, saying that Jesus should die (and besides, there may have been many non-Jews in the crowd, if thisd story is accurate).

It seems to me --- and I may eweel be wrong but am intertested in comments on this, that the authors of the new testament WERE Jews who believed the Jesus was the Jewish messiah and who were critical of those Jews who did not sahre this belief and hence they , with an overbroad stroke like the old testament authors, tended to paint the Jewish people as a whole with responsibility for failing to recognize the Jewish messiah and ulltimately for letting him or encouraging his crucifixion.

The problem is .... how does somebody like Gibson, a man of apparently deep Christian and spiritual faith, tell the story without even covering this part of the story?

It may be that many Jews and others believe the entire story of Jesus is fiction and that this part of it is pure antisemitic fantasy. But I do not share that view.


BUT, to emphasize what I believe on this, ...saying that the entire Jewish people is responsible with a broad stroke is antisemitic, inaccurate and morally wrong. I understand the Jewish new testamant authors, like the old testament authors, perspective of collective blame from a Jewish perspective the same way I can say Christians are responsible for many atrocities as are Americans. Not each and every one of us is responsible for Iraq -- but our tax money pays for the bullets killing the innocent. But this analogy is not apt with the death of Jesus

Like "Max" I imagine there are some who say the story should not even be told and the film not made. I don't necesarily agree with that. BUT, I do feel the need to see the film to judge for myself.



As for antiZionism being anti-semitic -- this is not a simple question. Zionism is NOT monolithis. There are fascist antiZionists and fascist Zionists. There are pacifist Zionists who do not support Likud. There are ultraorthodox antiZionist Jews.

Zionism as generally understood may seem like ultranationalist secular politic power to many of us. To many Jews that's what it has become and they oppose it. But to many Zionism simply means the right to a homeland centered on Jerusalem.

From my point of view one can be opposed to the far-right political zionism and still support the Jewish right of return and a secure homeland.

If such Zionism can accomodate the rights of the Palestinians in and to their historic homeland, then it is okay with me.


So I think the question must be answered: Is antiZionism antisemitic ? It depends on what kind of zionism and who is opposing it and for what reason. A Jew opposing extremist right weing secular zionism (or anyone opposing it) is in my book NOT antisemitic --- but someone denying the right of the Jews to a homeland would be antisemitic.

An for the record, so would someone who opposes the right of Palestinians to their homeland on their historic territories. As descendants of "Shem" they, like Jews, are Semites from my perspective.

That may muddy the waters but it needed to be said for the record.

[Jackie97]

44. Gibson got his "info" from known blood libelers...

I have no idea in my mind that this movie is anti-semitic.

How the NT was written is a debate though because Christians and Jews could not place the blame of Jesus's death on their occupier's the Romans.

[Astarho]

42. The director of Birth of a Nation

was uncomfortable with people (even then) calling to the film as racist which is why he made "Intolerance" a year later.

[Fight_n_back]

54. DW Griffith

was an old time southern "gentleman" who was born in the ante bellum south. Were his views that different from Strom Thurmond or Trent Lott?

[rini]

40. tools

All words are tools used to convey meaning and nuance. The "N" word is a tool. Words in and of themselves are neither pariotic nor unpatriotic. Inflection, context, tone, and facial expression give words life.

Most predjudice is not a lyninging , a pogram, or the mass murder. Most are in large and small slights. But that is not the point. The point is, by using those catch-words of hate, you are becoming a pawn of the enemy trying to dividing us as a people and a nation. But let me tell you something, the vast majority of Americans are a good and decent people and will not fall for enemy propoganda.

[Darranar]

48. So why did so many Americans vote for Bush in 2000?

the vast majority of Americans are a good and decent people and will not fall for enemy propoganda.

[Jackie97]

202. United We Don't Stand...

and never did.

It doesn't make us patriotic or unpatriotic.

[quilp]

64. I am both anti -Israeli and anti-Zionist.

I am not in the least anti-Semetic. In fact I believe Zionists and Israelis, by which I mean Sharon and his ilk, are fundamentally anti-Semetic. If by "Semetic" you mean "Jewish". In the same way that Ben Ladin is anti-Islam, the Christian Right is anti-Christian. Vice is virtue taken to extremes. That is what "fundamentalists" do. I believe these people betray the very beliefs they advocate. I don't know if they consciously do it. But they do.

However, no people are immune from these aberations, and it is very dangerous to believe your own people are. I used to wonder how Hitler did it. Today it is no mystery to me at all. It is frighteningly easy.

[The Magistrate]

66. Oh, Do, Please, Elucidate, Dear

Enquiring minds want very much to know how Israelis and Zionists are Jew-haters.

[quilp]

90. If someone I respect asks the same question I'll be happy to.

n/t

[Darranar]

91. OK, quilp...

I don't know if you respect me or not, but I'll ask you anyway: How are Zionists and Israelis Jew-haters?

[quilp]

92. I most certainly do.

Who has done the most harm to Islam? I think it is arguably Bin Laden. Who does the most harm to the image of Christianity? I think it is the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their bigotry. Who has done the most harm to the image of Jews around the world? Sharon and the brutal behaviour of the Israeli army that is seen in living color almost every week. All these people are the most potent enemies of the very causes they claim to espouse, and have given credibility to the kind of hate filled rhetoric that fills the air today on all sides.

Bernard Lewis made an interesting point in a recent talk. He distingiushed between "Christianity" and Christendom". That is the religion and the civilization that came from it. The single word Islam is used to mean both and it causes confusion. The same, I think, may be said of "Jewism". There is the Jewish religion, and a Jewish civilization, which while it had no particular geographic location, had enormous and I believe, positive humanitarian influence in the world.

Well Hitler came out of "Christendom". Ben Ladin came from "Islanmdom". And Sharon comes from "Jewishdom". But it can be argued that they collectively did more damage to the reputation of their respective religions than any anti-Christian, anti-Islamic, or anti-Semite could have dreamed of.

[Cassandra]

93. Just as Christians here get insulted...

when others bash the Christian right because they feel the term lumps the good with the bad, when you say you are anti-Israel and anti-Zionist when you really mean anti-Sharon and Likud, you shouldn't be surprised when you attract an angry response. There is a certain level of intellectual laziness in your shorthand; we are not mind readers, able to distinguish what you mean when you're speaking in an unclear manner and you shouldn't expect us to be. If you have a problem with Sharon and Likud (as most of us do), say so clearly. If I have a problem with Hamas, I try to distinguish that from blaming the ordinary Palestinian in the street, even while they may be celebrating Hamas' latest killing.
Sharon is not a religious leader and Judaism has no centralized authority. I don't see Sharon as representing Judaism, I see him as one of those power-hungry shits that arise in any newly-powerful population that has been long out of power. He isn't improving the lot of Israel or Jews, Hamas et al and Bin Laden are not improving the lot of Arabs or Muslims, and Robertson and Fallwell are not doing Christianity or America any good either. Don't blame entire populations for the crazies; it can take a while to figure out how to get the crazies under control.

[quilp]

94. There has been more than enough "intellectual laziness" on both sides!

Plus a determination to give what is being said the worst possible interpretation. Add to that the cowardly use of the "alert" button.

I am not consumed by this issue. I have no "agenda". I simply believe the treatment of Palestinians has parallels to the treatment of the Jews. And I find it inexplicable and inexcusable that Jews are the themselves the culprits. I find a contradiction in describing Palestinian resistors as "terrorists" and then holding the entire people as culpable and punishing them accordingly. You can't have it both ways.

I may be confused about this. But I thought the "settlers" were Zionists. I believe the problem is the "settlers", and ther relentless land grabs. They are the primary cause of the violence, and are the primary obstacle to peace. If this is true then there is no "intellectual laziness" in my anti-Zionism. If it is not true then Zionists should screaming a lot louder than they are. They are taking a bum rap. Incidently, I have on a number of occasions asked for an explanation of what it is Zionists believe about the "Promised Land", without a response I can understand.

I see the Israelis as an invading force in the country of the Palestinians. Since I'm sure my veiws on "invaders" of ANY NATIONALITY is well known to other posters, I see no "intellectual laziness" there either. I am not anti-Israeli as a "people". I am anti-Israeli in their occupation of someone elses country.

I plead guilty to the "shorthand". But that is more physical laziness in the reluctance to type all day. And the assumption that people reading what I post will take the trouble to read a little "between the lines". And not make "knee-jerk" assumptions.

[Lithos]

98. Quilp

DU prefers and expects people to use the alert button to designate posts which might be over the line either due to language or civility issues. As a suggestion, I would examine which posts were deleted to understand which is the case.

Obviously incivility is inexcusable and no amount of explanation can cover for it. However, if, as you stated, you feel that you've been remiss in explaining your position adequately, then the onus is on you to add the missing text, not other DU posters to fill in the gaps.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[quilp]

99. I think the "line" is arbitrary.

Since the posts are deleted I have no way to examine them. I certainly don't believe myself any more lacking in "civility" than most, and almost never use "bad language". I have to believe it was content.

The only way I can argue a point is to argue it the clearest way I can. What seems to happen is my posts are carefully scrutinized for any comment that may be construed as "over the line', without regard to context. And an entire arguement gets deleted for the sake of a single sentence or word.

I would also make the observation that there are two moderators, and all my posts where I knew the name of the moderator who deleted it, it was yours.

[Jim Sagle]

100. If I see antisemitic filth being posted, I hit ALERT.

Period.

If you don't like it, find another board.

(And I don't recall ALERTing on any of your posts - but if I did, I doubledamn sure don't apologize.)

[quilp]

101. Since you admit have no clue whether you have "alerted" one of my posts

or not, I don't see the point of your self righteousness. By the way, is there any such thing as "Semetic filth" in your world? Have you ever "doubledamn" hit the "alert" button then?

I admit I wouldn't hit the "alert" button in any case. I'd prefer to at least confront the poster with it. After all we are not all in the Henry James league. It often happens words written down in cold print lose the sentiments in which they were actually expressed. But in a way I'm glad you do, for as far as I am concerned, "anti-Semetic filth" only detracts from Palestinian support.

[Lithos]

102. Quilp

The only way I can argue a point is to argue it the clearest way I can. What seems to happen is my posts are carefully scrutinized for any comment that may be construed as "over the line', without regard to context. And an entire arguement gets deleted for the sake of a single sentence or word.

The vast majority of posts which are deleted are those which fall into these categories:

1) Personally directed, comments which attack a poster or small group of posters.

2) Sterotyping posts which make over-arching statements about one group or the other.

As for knowing who deleted the posts, given how the system works, the only way you could know the name of the moderator is when the moderator tells you. Thus if you knew it was me, then I told you via PM or through a comment in the public forum why the post was deleted. However, if you wish specific examples, I would be more than happy to review the archive of your deleted posts and discuss them with you via PM.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[quilp]

103. I appreciate your offer. The problem is I don't know what "PM" means.

n/t

[Lithos]

105. PM = Private Message

The DU Inbox.



Lithos

[quilp]

106. I'm sorry. I don't know what The "DU Inbox" is either.

Perhaps if you just chose one of my disputed posts and then directed me to it so I can see what the problem is. I regret taking up your time like this.

[Darranar]

109. At the top of the "Lobby" or "Latest" page...

there is an icon with the word "Inbox" next ot it. Clicking on that icon allows you to access it and read all the private messges that have been sent to you.

Sending a private message involves clicking on the icon of a page at the top of the target's post. When you recieve one, a blinking message will appear on the screen of the "Lobby" or "Latest" page informing you.

If you want, I'll send you one right now.

[quilp]

125. OK thanks.

I have found it now. But I don't know how to send Lithos a Private message.

[Darranar]

158. The icon of the page...

above his post - the furthest to the left for him, but not for everyone.

[Cassandra]

110. Settlers are Zionists, I guess

but most Zionists are not settlers and have little sympathy for them. So, if you mean settlers, say settlers. If you mean the government of Israel, use GOI or anti-Likud instead of saying you're anti-Israeli. The clearer you are, the less pissed off others will be and you will be a bit calmer in response. You will also communicate what you really mean the first time around without having to go back over the same ground later. Sweeping generalizations don't communicate well and I hope I avoid them when speaking of Palestinians.

" Incidently, I have on a number of occasions asked for an explanation of what it is Zionists believe about the "Promised Land", without a response I can understand."
Zionism is the belief in a Jewish Homeland. Because Jerusalem contains Judaism's holiest place, that was, of course, the most desirable location. Different branches of Judaism believe different things about how much of the land should belong to Jews. The more Orthodox, the more likely one is to be either anti-Zionist, or very pro-Zionist. The more fundamentalist types like the idea of having it all, as most fundies in most religions do.

"And I find it inexplicable and inexcusable that Jews are the themselves the culprits."
I find it sad that my fellow Jews are not more perfect than other humans, but hardly inexcusable. Jews have the same range of personality types as other populations. I'm still waiting for Christians to give me valid excuses for the Crusades. ;-)

[quilp]

123. Cassandra. Thank you.

Asking me to distinguish between Sharon, Likud, and Zionists is a bit like asking me to distinguish between Bush, conservatives, and Republicans. I'm sure there are differences, but I'm not writng a book every time I post.

Most of the time I am "pissed Off" because it seems to me I am being willfully misunderstood in order to make silly "debating" points. Or, worse, to imply I am some kind of bigot.

Thank you for the Zionist belief about the Jewish Homeland. I assume this comes from a belief in a God that made the world and created this Homeland for Jews at the same time. As I further understand it this Homeland was for ever, but also contingent on a Covenant. If Jews broke faith then they would be punished by either occupation or even exile. But even while in exile they believe land still belongs to them. Further, as again I understand it, came the diaspora. This lasted for centuries till it seemed God and his people had almost "forgotten" the Homeland covenant except in ritual. Then came the holocaust. A reminder and a half. Both God and the Jews "realized" that if they didn't return to their Homeland they were in danger of extinction. And what ever Balfour thought he was doing, he was acting not unlike the Pharaoh in making the way to the "Promised Land" open. And just as Jews had to fight the Philistines to gain it, they are now fighting the Palestinians to get it back. All sanctioned by God. Unfortunate for teh Palestinians, but not open to argument.

The problem is that people like me just see it as an old fashioned land grab decorated by religion.

I am an athiest. Therefore I take religion very seriously. I cannot defend the Christian crimes any more than Islamic or Jewish. There are no "valid" excuses. The "Crusades" were just another land grab decorated by religion, as was Spain by Islam, and is Palestine by the Israelis.

Your last paragraph is the one that gets me in most trouble. But at risk of getting this entire post deleted I will answer it.

This is my personal belief. Jews wrote the Bible including the New Testament. They have, through history, seen themselves as having a "special relationship" with God. And this relationship is also bound up with human conduct. Hence the Ten Commandments.

It is futile to now claim to me Jews are "no more perfect" than everyone else. If they are no more perfect than anyone else what did the world need them for? The fact is you, as Jews, carry a burden. The "Promised Land" wasn't free. The "Covenant" came with a price. Surely the essence of the Covenant is the pain of example? Just as for Christians it is the Cross. It may be I have no more right to expect Jews to act as Jews, as to expect Christians to act as Christians. But while I never had any faith in the Christians, I did in the Jews. It appears it was misplaced.

It also seems to me you are trying to have it both ways. You want the "Promised Land", but you also want to keep your hands clean.

[Darranar]

126. Quilp...

you are making a number of unfair assumptions here.

The first is that the basis for a Jewish state in Palestine is purely based on the religious right to the land. That's not true. I am an agnostic. I personally don't know if God gave the land to the Jews or not, and because that is an unknowable that no one can claim to know without faith (which isn't applicable when it comes to politics and policies because different people believe different things) it shouldn't influence policy on this issue, IMO.

The only reason I think that the Jewish state should exist in Palestine is because of the Jews' strong histrocial ties to that land. There is lots of evidence for that and it is a fact I have never seen disputed by a rational person.

EVERY persecuted group of people deserves a place where they can flee to in the case of genocide. If the Jews had had that place before the Holocaust, 6,000,000 of them would be alive today.

Jews are no better than anyone else. They are simply Jews. I have never disputed that. However, they HAVE been persecuted. Because of that, they need a state (as you have admitted.)

[quilp]

131. I was describing what I thought Zionists believe

Not what an "Agnostic Jew" (bit of an oxymoron here don't you think?)believes. Does what I say describe a Zionist who is a "believer"? Which it seems to me most "settlers" are, or rather were. It seems there are now financial incentives to be a "settler" which muddies the waters even more.

I don't see that "historic ties" justify anything. The English kings had "historic ties" to France. But I wouldn't shed a drop of French, let alone my own, for that cause.

Well, I'm glad the point I have been trying to make has registered. I don't merely "admit" Jews need a state. I insist on it, and would make, along with others, what ever accomodation is required to achieve it. What I abhor is that another such people is now being created by the very people who suffered in the first place and should show compassion.

As to "Jews" being better. I suppose I am incurably romantic about this. I remember the first time I went in a Jewish friends home how disappointed I was to find it just like mine. He said, "what did you expect? A string of foreskins along the wall?" Perhaps it's because my heroes are Jews. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman etc. Not only because of their contributions to science (which I have a rather an amateur interest in), but because of the men they were and the beliefs they held and payed for.

[Darranar]

132. My dislike for the settlers...

is similar to yours. Many of them indeed are religious fanatics who believe everything you said.

As for Agnositc Jew, I make the distinction between Jewish theology and Jewish philosiphy.

[Fight_n_back]

114. What this post shows

is how much you do not know.

you don't know what "Zionism" is, even though the meaning is simple to understand and easy to find.

You have done no research into who the settlers are.

You seem to have no idea when the violence started. If your "hypothesis" on the settlers being the problem is correct why does anti Jewish violence in the region predate the settlers by many decades? Why did the PLO start before the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? (let me take a cue from the deluded who pretend to be "pro Palestinian" and call the occupation the "Liberation of Palestine from Jordanian Occupation)

There are many online sources you can access to enlighten you on the subject and you will find few absolute truths.

[quilp]

120. I don't know any "absolute truths". And fear those that do.

n/t

[Darranar]

95. I must say...

that I see your point of view. But Ariel Sharon hasn't killed six million Jews. The settlers didn't expel the Jews from Spain. Those incidents of genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Jews weren't committed by Jews, but by non-Jewish anti-semites. When it comes to the reputation of the religion, I think you're right, but only in regard to the last half of the 20th century.

[quilp]

96. There has been more than one innuendo that I am anti-Semetic.

as well as ignorant, stupid, and a liar.

That the history of the Jews has been one on relentless persecution, I am the last one to deny. That this has been achieved because the Jews had nowhere to go is also glaringly obvious. I fully believe that the Jews should have a state. But not one chosen to suit the convenience of two superpowers at the expense of an innocent and powerless people.

The Jews have rightly bitterly criticised the European and American lack of protest and help during the holocaust. And their failure to stop it. Where are those Jews now in speaking up for the Palestinians? Surely they must recognise their plight! WHERE ARE THEY???

[Darranar]

97. n/t

n/t

[quilp]

104. Darranar. If you have something to say. Say it.

If I am being misunderstood the only way I can know that is if someone questions what I say. And anyone has the right to do that. Providing it isn't some "nitpicking". All I ask is that it not be assumed I am intentionally insulting anyone. I well might be. But I don't like it being assumed I am.

[Darranar]

108. It wasn't insulting to anyone...

It was just a post that didn't say anything of worth.

Back to the subject, anyway. Are you aware that there are Jewish organizations that do empathize with the Palestinians and do speak out?

[quilp]

124. I didn't think it was.

Of course I believe that there are Jews who empathize with the Palestinians. You clearly do yourself. It must be the same for you as it was for me during the "Irish troubles". You hate what the Israeli army is doing, but every time an Israeli soldier is killed or wounded it goes through you like a knife. Life seems a lot more painless for "patriots" and "fanatics".

It may be that there are many Jewish intellectuals who are screaming in protest, but, just as for the Iraq war protestors over here, they have no microphones. But I honestly don't think that is the case. They want their cake and eat it. They quietly decry the bloodshed, but will share in the benefits.

[Darranar]

127. The killing of Israeli soldiers...

doesn't bother me very much. What DOES bother me is the killing of innocent civilians by Palestinian terrorists. The suffering of the Palestinians also bothers me greatly, as it bothers many others.

[quilp]

128. I'm surprised you say that.

It may be that our difference in perspective is that I was in the military and perhaps you were not. After all those soldiers didn't volunteer either.

I once made up a ditty about this which I only half remember

The civillian's Ditty

You can't kill me I'm a civilian
Though I occupy your land by the million
Of me you must take care
Just kill that soldier - over there
Meanwhile, we'll screw till we make it a billion.

[Darranar]

129. The Israeli soldiers are...

enemy combatants, and the targeting of them is tehrefore a legitimate tactic to end the occupation.

As for the ditty: I assume you know that the Arab population in Israel is growing far faster then the Jewish population? I think your worry of them screwing "till we make it a billion" is unwarranted, because by then the Arabs will be a great majority and the Jews will be a tiny minority within their own state.

[quilp]

133. My ditty wasn't specifically aimed at "Israelis".

It just seems to me that "civilians" demand safety while the soldiers die. If they "civilians" accept the benifits they can pay the price too.

[Darranar]

134. The distinction should be clear...

one is a combatant and the other is not a combatant. One is a real threat to the combatants of the other side and the other is not.

[quilp]

135. No occupier of some one elses country is a "non-combatant."

For instance. We are now sending "civilian contractors" into Iraq to support the army. Are they "non-combatants"? If a civilian population moves into another country to benefit from its capture by their army, are they "non-combatants"? To me the answer is no in both cases. But the civilians who remain behind in their own country even though their army has invaded another ARE "non-combatants". Once you cross someone elses border without consent you are a "combatant". Whether in uniform or not.

[Darranar]

136. You say all this...

becuase you claim that dispersed peoples will suffer greatly for generations. The palestinian sucide bombers are justified, you say, because they fight against the possibility of that dispersion. But is Israel not doing the same thing, working to secure the Jewish state so the Jews will have a homeland?

By your logic, Israel has the right to slaughter every last Palestinian brutally.

[quilp]

167. Yes and No

The Palestinans are "justified". The Israelis are not. This is based on my "absolute" regarding the "sanctity" of land. The Palestinians are the only "victims" here. If the situation were reversed I would be making the same argument on behalf of the Israelis.

Jews should never have been allowed to "emigrate" to Palestine in the first place. They should have been "given" Alaska. There they could have built a new "Jerusalem", and why not? Think what a marvelous example that would be in today's world. In contrast to the one we have now.

To me to invade a country is the greatest crime. It cannot be done without effectively destroying the original inhabitants. That fool Bush is about to teach us all that in Iraq AGAIN.

[The Magistrate]

168. Your Concept Of Justified, Q.

Has no weight at all: it boils down to asserting the side you support, being right, can do no wrong, while the side you oppose, being wrong, can do no right.

The Zionist enterprise began not as an invasion by force of arms, but as the purchase of land, a legal means, even a non-violent one. Violence entered the equation as a choice of Arab Nationalist leadership and its followers after the Great War. Jewish violence did not become a great factor till much later.

Why you feel Jews should not be allowed to immigrate to any particular locale interests me, and probably others as well. What other parts of the world do think ought to have been kept free from Jewish immigration?

Do you imagine, by the way, there was no native populace in Alaska? By the modern era, no inhabitable portion of the globe remained without human occupants.

[Darranar]

169. That land once belonged to the Jews....

the palestinians were the last in a long line of heirs when the Jews returned.

Since it was once their land, and the Palestinians owned it, don't they have a right to ethnic cleanse the Palestinians, by your logic?

[quilp]

172. No. There has to be some kind of "statute of limitations"

Before the Jews "owned" the "Promised Land" the Philistines did. But what is left of their "occupation"? What was left of the Jewish occupation beside a wall? The Palestinians did not drive out the Israelis a thousand years ago. many were indigenous, or merely migrated there over hundreds of years.

The Palestinians who have lost their land are still alive. They have mosques, markets, homes, farms, and I suppose public buildings. Some even claim to have "deeds". No, by my "logic" the Israelis, or anyone else, have no "right" to "ethnic cleanse" any people peacefully dwelling in their land.

[Darranar]

175. The Phillistines did not own all the land...

they controlled the area of and around what is now the Gaza Strip.

No, by my "logic" the Israelis, or anyone else, have no "right" to "ethnic cleanse" any people peacefully dwelling in their land.

So why can the Palestinians?

[The Magistrate]

166. The Status Of Combatant, Q.

Is defined in the Geneva Accords. Neither of the groups you mentioned count clearly as combatants. The example of civilian population moved into a territory is clearly excluded. Civilian contractors, working in direct support of a military force, handling, say, logistics support, would probably be legitimate targets of attack, as this would have direct military value, and as employees of a military force, they could reasonably be considered members of it. Generally, combatants are considered serving members of a recognized armed force, whether a regular force fielded by a state, or an irregular force operating in arms under a disciplined chain of command: these latter are supposed to bear some distinguishing sign, but seldom do in practice.

The formula you assert is nothing but an attempt to claim the irregular forces of Arab Palestine do not commit crimes of war. That is false; they routinely commit crimes of war.

[quilp]

173. Since you have made two posts unlarded with you customary gratuitous

insults, I'll respond.

I am not all that impressed with what is "legal". More with what is "just". Power makes laws in its own interest. As far as I am concerned once you have invaded some elses country you can do no right. Except get out.

Combatants.

In the case of England and Germany, both "declared war", and were "combatants" obligated by the "Geneva laws". Of course, both routinely bombed each others civilians. I'm not sure either were ever prosecuted for that particular "war crime".

When Germany invaded Holland this was a "declaration of war" by Germany, and the "rules" apply. But the Dutch did not "declared war" on Germany. They were simply defending their country. They were not, therefore, constrained by any laws. Had the Germans brought their families to Holland they would have been legitimate targets of the Dutch resistance. As long as the Dutch confined their actions within their own borders and against the occupying Germans they could not, in my view, commit a "war crime". But the Germans certainly could.

The Palestine situation is unique. The "invaders" were civilians, who then created an army to consolidate and expand their occupation. This is one reason I don't buy the "innocent civilian" argument. And you are right. I don't think the Palestinians can be guilty of a "war crime". The Israelis, as occupiers, can.

This is where Bush has put us in Iraq. As long as they are resisting occupation within their borders, they can't be "terrorists". We've just given them a "free ride".

You also claim that the Jews acted "legally" in procuring land. The Americans made the same claim when appropriating Native American land. But who made the "laws"? What duress was put on the "sellers"? Where did the "financing" come from? Bland statements of "legality" don't cut much ice with me where one side has overwhelming power. Or has a "hidden agenda".


By the way, if you have ever come across anything about this:

How did the colonials retain legal right to land after the American revolution (1776 and all that)? Surely much of the land was owned under "grants" of the King of England, or British law, at least. After the "Declaration" what was the legal basis of land title? This problem, rather than "loyalty" may have motivated the reluctance of the "Loyalists" to support the "Traitors". Any thoughts on this?

[The Magistrate]

176. It Is Hard To Know Where To Begin, Fellow

Perhaps the best is simply to observe the legal definition of combatant and non-combatant exists, and is currently applied by tribunals to cases of war crimes, without regard to your off the shelf quibbles over the difference between moral and legal concerns: a thing must be a violation of law to be a crime; otherwise, it may be a sin, perhaps, but that is a different concept entirely.

You mistake the belligerent status of nations for the combatant status of individuals: they are, of course, completely different concepts. Nor does existence of a state of war require a declaration by both participants, or even by one of them. Armed forces are subject to the laws of war, period, full stop. The Dutch, the Arab Palestinians, everyone, is subject to them while under arms, and whether regular or irregular in organization to boot. Your "view" has no more influence on this fact than would your view you could fly by flapping your arms, should you hold such, would influence your trajectory from the garage roof. Arab Palestinian irregulars who take for the object of their operations the killing of Israeli civilians commit crimes of war, whether they do this outside Nablus, in Tel Aviv, or in Timbuktu: location makes no difference whatever. Nor does the fact that Allied powers in World War Two did not prosecute themselves for their conduct during it matter a whit. Even if one accepts for argument's sake they committed war crimes that went unpunished, that has no bearing whatever on the culpability of some current war criminal: many, many crimes go unpunished, and no one is let free from trial or jail because of it.



There is no question the Jews purchased land legally, both under Ottoman and English rule in Palestine. Your farrago of ominous "quotation marks" aside, the principal "duress" put on the sellers was the offer of a price in ready cash, generally in excess of the current market valuation, and the "financing" generally came from donations by Jews around the world to the Zionist National Fund, ranging from collection tins for coins to sizeable donations by wealthy magnates. It might well be argued that the aborigional populace of North America, whose culture lacked the concept of conveyance and title where land was concerned, was certainly, and easily, swindled by sham transactions, many of them essentially conducted at gun-point, but the Arab landowners of Palestine, title in hand, knew perfectly well what they were doing, and sold for great profit they devoutly desired. The laws under which they did were those of the universally recognized legitimate governments of the place; no other entity being able to make, or enforce, laws.

The Revolution in the United States did not affect land titles at all, save where these were confiscated due to Tory sentiments. The Revolution here was not a social revolution on some proto-Bolshevik model, but a mere dispute between factions of the ruling class, who had no intention of upsetting arrangements beyond the severing of ties to the English Crown. To this day grants from the English, as well as the old Spanish monarchy, remain in legal force here.

The great bulk of the acts of resistance in Iraq are legitimate, and by no honest construction crimes of war, because they target serving military personnel. That directed at the United Nations Headquarters, and the recent outrage at Najaf, were criminal acts.

[Fight_n_back]

178. It might just be me

but Magistrate seems like the only sane person involved in this discussion and that includes myself.

I miss Jack Rabbit who was sane on the "other side".

Someday, may I be as wise, articulate, balanced and forthright as Magistrate....but still be aas cute as I am.

[quilp]

185. Since, by your own admission these laws are either never enforced

or so selectively as to be meaningless, I can't see how they qualify as "laws" at all. I believe the reason the Palestinian resistance haven't wiped out the Israelis has nothing to do with "laws of combat". They just don't have a bomb big enough. The reason the Israelis have not done the same to the Palestinians is not concern for "law" either. It is their fear of the political repercussions if they did.

You sarcastic comment on "flapping arms" makes my point. That exactly describes what these "combatant laws" are. The reason I don't jump from my garage roof is that while I don't know what the real source of gravity is, I can fully rely on the consequencies of ignoring its laws. If the "Laws of Gravity" carried the same force of the "laws" you seem to have so much faith in, I could leap from the Empire state building wiggling my eyebrows, and would be unlucky to sprain an ankle.

It is very obvious the Arabs did not know what they were doing. They thought they were making private financial transactions, when in fact the Jews were making fully conscious political ones.

[The Magistrate]

186. Your Low Opinion Of The Intelligence Of Arab Magnates, Q.,

Is duly noted, and it is worth noting also that such an expression, from someone on the other side of this dispute, would certainly draw howls of denunciation for the bigotry such an expression embodies. Your contempt for the little brown objects of your charitable passions shows through clearly in such a remark. The Zionist enterprise was no secret from anyone at the time: indeed, Arab Nationalist leaders routinely petitioned the English authorities of the Mandate to make the purchase of land by Jews illegal. This did not stop many of the Arab Nationalist leaders, including Haj Amin himself, from selling land to Jews for their own profit, but as you have said elsewhere yourself, if these people wanted to choose personal gain over success, and the interests of the people they led, that is their right, and they cannot be denounced for it. Everyone knew what was going on, Dear, on both sides of such purchases.

Again, you seem unable to grasp the concept of laws of war, and their purpose and effect. In modern incarnation, these represent an attempt to impose, by international consensus, some mitigating element into the conduct of warfare, particularly to shield the unarmed, whether civilians or prisoners, from abuse. Their weakness has been, into the present day, that no international body exists with a competent police power to enforce them. This is beginning to change, with the establishment of tribunals under U.N. authority to adjudicate charges in two of the most glaring modern criminal wars, namely the Balkan massacres, and the Rwandan genocide. Both of these, of course, dwarf anything that has occured in the Levant, though you will probably make some feeble attempt to contest that statement. These tribunals are an encouraging development, which persons of progressive views would do well to foster, rather than to proclaim the nullity of the concept of laws of war, and refuse to accept their application to some cause or other that enjoys favor from some on the left. Shrill noises about selectivity, particularly past selectivity, can carry no weight whatever: all law is, and of necessity, enforced with a degree of selectivity, because all human agency is limited well short of perfection. Most criminals are surprised when taken into the hands of the police: all feel, when embarking on their crimes, nothing whatever will happen to them in consequence.

You are correct that abiding by the laws of war is no part of the failure of Arab opposition to Israel to succeed. You are wrong that this failure owes only to lack of sufficient weaponry. In the early stages, when the Zionist enterprise succeeded in establishing Israel, the balance of weaponry was other than it is today: at the start of the climactic war of '48, the equipment of the Arab powers was much superior to that of the Zionist forces, and up until the late sixties, was not inferior to that at the disposal of Israeli forces. The failures occured because of poor leadership, which is generally the case in war.

You do not seem to notice that, by saying it is Israeli fear of political repercussions that prevents their wiping out Arab Palestinians, you are in fact acknowledging that the law of war as currently in force is operating to restrain Israeli actions. For the basis of these political repercussions is precisely that to expell by force the whole populace of Arab Palestine would clearly constitute a crime of war, and the outcry that would arise if this was done would take the form of denuciation of such a war crime, and demands that the laws of war be enforced against Israel for doing so.

[Fight_n_back]

187. So are you accusing

Jordan of war crimes for its mass deprtations of Paelstinians? Why do they get off scott free? Perhaps we shoould end all US aid to Jordan until they are held accountable for their war crimes.

[quilp]

188. M. Don't transfer your own bigotry to me!

I said nothing about anyone's "intelligence". Show where I have refered to Arab 'intelligence", or anyone elses. You read far more into people's words than are there. Your pretentions to instant psychological analysis really are absurd and offensive.

I cannot recall ever saying, "if these people wanted to choose personal gain over success, and the interests of the people they led, that is their right, and they cannot be denounced for it." I can only assume it just another example of your habitual quoting out of context.

Your comparison of the position of Arabs and Isrealis today with 1948 is irrelevant. What has taken place in over forty years of USA military and financial subsidy of Israel is not. Nor was my argument on what restrains Israel at all based on "force of law". I said it was "political". You really must learn to pay attention. "Law" and "political" are not the same.

"Everyone knew what was going on, Dear, on both sides of such purchases." Simply confirms my contention of conscious Jewish duplicity in their dealings. That "intelligent" people can be deceived by the ruthlessly cunning is a fact of everyday life. That some Arabs chose to betray the Palestinian people is nothing new. Nor, by your own words, is Jewish complicity in that deceit. These people were, after all, their fellow citizens. Weren't they? Or was it all as racist as you make it sound?

Frankly, I find no point in our continuing exchange. Admittedly I was persuaded by Dannahr that my reaction to you was unjustifiably hasty. I didn't think so then, and I think I was right. I would greatly prefer you to ignore my future posts, no matter how ignorant you and "Yang" believe them to be. You can rest assured I will ignore both those of yours and "Yang".

[Cassandra]

189. WHAT are you talking about?

" Simply confirms my contention of conscious Jewish duplicity in their dealings. That "intelligent" people can be deceived by the ruthlessly cunning is a fact of everyday life. That some Arabs chose to betray the Palestinian people is nothing new. Nor, by your own words, is Jewish complicity in that deceit. These people were, after all, their fellow citizens. Weren't they? Or was it all as racist as you make it sound? "

Where in what the Magistrate said do you see Jewish duplicity?

"The Zionist enterprise was no secret from anyone at the time: indeed, Arab Nationalist leaders routinely petitioned the English authorities of the Mandate to make the purchase of land by Jews illegal. This did not stop many of the Arab Nationalist leaders, including Haj Amin himself, from selling land to Jews for their own profit, but as you have said elsewhere yourself, if these people wanted to choose personal gain over success, and the interests of the people they led, that is their right, and they cannot be denounced for it. Everyone knew what was going on, Dear, on both sides of such purchases."

That seems fairly staightforward; the Jews openly purchased land for the settling of other Jews, no cunning, no duplicity, and the Arab landowners couldn't resist the money, all the while petitioning the British to "stop them before they sell again". Why do you persist in infantalizing the Arabs, suggesting that they just didn't understand. They understood perfectly well. We here may find it disgusting when a farmer sells good land to Wal-Mart, but we don't call him a foolish child for taking the best deal he may get.
The only racism I see here at the moment is your comment about ruthlessly cunning Jews and your assumption that the Arabs who sold their land were too stupid to know better.

[quilp]

190. Another of the "Tag Team"?

If it was so "straight forward", what did "everyone knew what was going on " mean?

Please show me where I said "ruthlessly cunning Jews". And where I said "Arabs who sold there land were stupid to know better". Don't you find it necessary to at least read a post before you make a reply?

[Cassandra]

194. It would be an honor to be part of the Magistrate's Tag Team

but we have to work on the logo before we can order uniforms. :-)

You said: "Simply confirms my contention of conscious Jewish duplicity in their dealings. That "intelligent" people can be deceived by the ruthlessly cunning is a fact of everyday life. "

Was the "ruthlessly cunning" meant to apply to Jews or Arabs (I was assuming Jews)? Either way doesn't sound so good as a generalization. Should I have just stuck with conscious Jewish duplicity? Do you think that sounds any better?
I never claimed you said: "Arabs who sold there land were stupid to know better". I claimed you said that Arabs who sold their land were too stupid to know better. That was a paraphrase. If I am incorrect as to your meaning, please clarify.

Tag, you're it.

[quilp]

195. (I was assuming Jews) says it all. More "anti-semitic" tools?

"That "intelligent" people can be deceived by the ruthlessly cunning is a fact of everyday life." Means what is says. If I'd have meant it excusively to Jews I would have said so.

Even if I cared to, I can't "clarify" something YOU have paraphrased.

[The Magistrate]

196. Your Reading Was Correct, Ma'am

The second sentence was an amplification of the first, with the ironic quote enclosed intelligence applying to Arabs, and the "ruthlessly cunning" to Jews, extending the "concious duplicity in their dealings" of the initial sentence. No person conversant with the language, save one desperately attempting to weasel his way out of a sad predicament of their own making, would attempt to argue otherwise.

[Cassandra]

199. Thank you, Sir

Personally, I can't see any explanation that's going to improve Q's position; the patronising comments having already been made. But, those who would like to wriggle out of the noose they've tied for themselves should be given the opportunity to try.
Now, for the logo. Would you prefer TMTT or MTT? :-)

[quilp]

208. Stop whining! You both got caught in the "Thread".

You both confirmed the premise of this thread about the uses of "anti-semitism". You didn't read the posts. You just scanned them for any sentence or phrase you could hang a perjorative label on, and then cried "Gottcha". Like cops certain of the guilt of their suspect, you even planted evidence to ensure a conviction.

Magistrate's patina of pretentious scholarship peeled off like like gaudy paint on a cheap toy. He actually ascribed about a twenty word sentence to me, as a direct quote, that was a complete fabrication.

Cassandra actually managed to construct her own Trojan Horse. She took two words I did use, and inserted a third I didn't. And she also posted it as a direct quote. Which, when challenged, morphed into an "assumption".

What is most disturbing about this is that I don't think either of you did it deliberately. I believe you actually saw words that were not there. You should really reflect on that.

As for me, I can't say that this has all been a complete waste of time. But it has been a considerable disappointment.

[The Magistrate]

211. If You Say So, Dear

You clearly set the standard of literacy, precise expression, and knowledgeability in this place.

"The most perfect expression of scorn is silence."

[quilp]

213. M: You ignore my posts. I will ignore yours. Agreed? Q

n/t

[The Magistrate]

214. You Really Are Not Very Good At This, Are You, Dear?

Once returning from court, the Master was told of a fire in his stables. He asked, "Was anyone hurt?" He did not ask about the horses.

[quilp]

215. What is the "this" I am "not very good at"?

If you mean playing silly one-upmanship games, you are right. I have no interest. Nor did I understand the relevance your "fire in the stable" story.

[The Magistrate]

192. You Provide So Much Humor, Dear

Your attempt at accusing me of bigotry against Arab Palestinians is your best jest yet. Particularly as an hors d'oeuvre for your memorable "Simply confirms my contention of concious Jewish duplicity in their dealings." This is, at the very least, an invocation of one of the standard tropes of Western Anti-Semitic belief, and may well be read as an indication you hope to influence others by invoking that old body of beliefs, or even that you are yourself influenced by them.

What you have certainly done in these latest efforts is lay bare your own paternalism toward the people of Arab Palestine. An Arab Palestinian landowner is simply the dupe of those wiley Jews. Arab Palestinian fighting men cannot be held to the same standards expected of Jews and other Westerners. They are, in short, children, who cannot be held responsible for their actions, and doubtless would, in a state of nature, do little but dance and sing the days away in happiness: all that is missing, Dear, is the watermelon.

Anyone interested in your distress at being fed your own position in an earlier exchange may consult the following discussion, and after reading my No.35, and your No. 48 in reply to it, form their own conclusions in the matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=7820&mesg_id=7820#8238

[quilp]

193. I'm a "bigot" and you talk about "watermelons"? Well! Well!

I'm still looking for where I said "if these people wanted to choose personal gain over success, and the interests of the people they led, that is their right, and they cannot be denounced for it." Again, I can only assume it just another example of your habitual quoting out of context.


First I'm a "bigot". And you make the comment about "watermelons"? Try a mirror!

Now you accuse me of "paternalism". If "paternalism" means you leave people alone in their own country you are right. Do you have any more "labels" rather than argument?

"Conscious Jewish duplicity" means exactly, and only, what it says. Had the discussion been about the betrayal of the Arabs after WW1 by the British I might have described it as "conscious British duplicity". The "trope" is in your mind, and is just another example of Jewish use of "anti-semitism" as a political tool.

[Fight_n_back]

146. Perhaps

you should read alittle about Israeli politics before you talk out of your hat that way.

You really know surprisingly little about the situation.

[The Magistrate]

107. In Your No. 92 Above, Q.

You have gone beyond the traditional grouping of apples with oranges, into what might best be called a case of blueberries and potatoes. Your grounds, apparently, for equating Zionists with Jew-haters is that, in your view, they have done harm to Judaism, amd you adduce the likes of Bin Laden and Robertson as doing similar harm to Islam and Christianity.

But even you seem aware that neither of these are like those bigoted against those religions: you have not likened Robertson to an anti-Christian bigot, as you have likened Zionists to Anti-Semites. Neither Robertson nor Bin Laden conceives of himself as doing harm to his religion. Rather, each holds himself to be exalting and vindicating it, and that against vile opposition to it from unbelievers. Neither is particularly concerned that those who do not share his faith do not approve of what he does; each is concerned rather to rally those who adhere to his faith, and steel them to struggle against those who, by his view of things, seek to destroy it. No one who views himself at war is much concerned by the enemy's view of his actions.

The fact is, you rather enjoy making absurd and sweeping charges against Zionists, and the impudence of likening them Anti-Semites, like the impudence of comparing the founding of Israel to the massacre of European Jewry, appeals to you, for reasons you are probably best qualified to disclose. You have said that your views on this matter are conditioned by feelings of personal guilt for the actions of England and the United States, though the most important acts of the former in this matter took place before your birth, and you have no responsibility whatever for any action of either. Emotion is not the best guide to this sort of thing.

[quilp]

174. M. If you would care to make this post deleting the personal

characterizations, I will be happy to answer.

[The Magistrate]

177. You May Answer Or No, Fellow, It Makes No Mind To Me

You have stated yourself the emotional well-springs of your views in this matter: by mine, these rather excuse you from serious discussion of it.

[quilp]

183. M. In that case I choose not to.

If you respond to a post of mine, and wish me to do the same to yours, then you must control your penchant for gratuitous disparagement. Any lapse from this will simply result in a non-response.

By the way, are you and "Yang" a tag ream?

[Fight_n_back]

184. Please do not insult

Magistrate by linking him with a loose cannon like myself.

[quilp]

191. If you are indeed be a "loose cannon"

Magistrate is the "rolling deck".

[seventhson]

71. Tinoire, Jackie and anyone else interested in Gibson/blood libel claims

A perspective written by a man I consider a friend (I did an exhibit at the Museum of Tolerance in LA which he runs - on Holocaust rescue, and he was a gracious and generous host) offers much on the Gibson deal/issue.

Here is his perspective on the Gibson film and the nuns:

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/arts/Mels_Passion.asp

His perspective has a lot of merit.

Rabbis Hier and Cooper from the Simon Weisenthal Center and Museum of Tolerance are usually the most sought after for their opinions on these subjects. I know them both as very good men of integrity and sound ideas who have exceptional sensitivities. They also zealously guard the Jewish people and Israel from all enemies, so they are very pro=Israel and, in my opinion, may be too tolerant of the evils of Sharon and the right in Israel.

But I have much respect for their perspective even where I disagree on some issues.

[Fight_n_back]

116. Much ado about nothing

Some of the people branded as Anti Semites, tell me how it hurt them.

Jesse Jackson
Pat Buchanon
Richard Nixon
George HW Bush
Prescott Bush
Gore Vidal
Joseph Campbell
Pat Robertson
Billy Graham
Henry Ford



Even Yassir Arafat, who has made a good living targetting Jews for extinction is taken very seriously by most of the people on the left.

Until you can show me where being an anti semite haas hurt anyone at all, either politically or professionally, I will withold my tears.

Which do you hear more, that Arnold won't be governor because his father was a Nazi or that Lieberman shouldn't be trusted because of his relationship to Israel?

Who won the last elevtion? The guy with the support of Jews or the guy whose family fortune helped arm Hitler?

[Darranar]

119. Answer:

Cynthia Mckinney.

[seventhson]

121. Tour answer is that Cynthis McKinney is an antisemite?

Care to document that with facts or links?


Seems what made her suffer was claiming Bush and Halliburton and Carlyle were responsible for MIHOP on 9-11.

But I am sure there were some right wing Jews who work with the BFEE who helped destroy her -- so maybe it was being anti-fascism that got her and NOT antisemitism.

They are often confused in the PR wars.

[Darranar]

122. You misunderstood me!

You are correct. My point was that not only did people calling her an anti-semite ruin her political career, but she really wasn't an anti-semite.

[Fight_n_back]

137. In her district

being called an anti semite would get her more votes than it would lose her.

The only person who said that "Jews" cost her the election was her father. The facts of who voted and who didn't speak otherwise.

But for some reason you want to believe that Jews weild some sort of super political power in this coountry, against all eveidence, perhaps you are an Anglo-Israelite or something.

[Darranar]

139. That's not what I believe at all...

the fact is that some right-wing pro-Israel organizations criticized her greatly. She lost to a more pro-Israel candidate after being smeared greatly by a number of pro-Israel lobbyists.

[Fight_n_back]

143. She lost

because she got almost none of the white men in her district to vote for her. How many Jews do you think live in her district? She lost to a more conservative candidate on many issues, yet you decide to focus on Israel, against all evidence.

[Darranar]

147. Against all evidence?

Where are IndianaGreen and Resistance when I need them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=3853

[Fight_n_back]

151. How is that evidence

that Cynthia McKinney lost because of some non tendered charge of Anti Semitism?

Let me give you a clue on what some evidence may be:

Perhaps find evidence of a charge of her being called an anti semite

Then perhaps find evidence that anyone gave a damn

Then find evidence of exit polling showing the demographics she carried and didn't carry.

The fact the her successor went on a trip to Israel is only evidence that her successor went on a trip to Israel.

[Darranar]

153. Did you read the replies to that thread?

That's what I was speaking of.

[Fight_n_back]

157. From what I read in that thread

no one posted evidence of anyone calling McKinney an Anti Semite.

You called McKinney an Anti Semite in the thread.

No one posted evidence that AIPAC had anything to do with the election.

People did post "evidence" that McKinney was anti semitic.

It was conjecture. From the same people who generally conjecture about the Jewish problem in American politics. Wheter it be AIPAC, Wolfowitz or the New York Times.

[Darranar]

160. No one posted evidence?

A poster called her an anti-semite, and I believed him - but if you read reply #100, you'll see that I changed my mind.

Read every post by Tinoire on that thread about AIPAC.

[Fight_n_back]

162. Beside the fact

that I rarely read Tinear's posts, wouldn't it be easoer for everyone invoved if you just pointed me to what you want me to see?

[Darranar]

163. I repeat: All of Tinoire's posts on that thread...

That is what I want you to see. if you refuse to read them I'll let you keep your head in the sand and end this argument.

[Fight_n_back]

164. If I read all of Tinears posts

on any thread, my head wouldn't be in the sand, it would be in a noose.

What evidence does the fair and balanced tinear present that McKinney was labelled an anti semite or that this cost any significant number of votes.

[Darranar]

165. It shows the extremely bad relationship...

between McKinney and AIPAC.

I'm not saying that people calling her an anti-semite lost her the election - however, I am saying that it certainly helped greatly. This was a Democratic primary. Democrats (usually) are tolerant of others and don't like racists. I don't have proof that Cynthia McKinney lost the election due to charges that she was an anti-semite, but then I don't have proof that you aren't really George Bush in disguise. I don't even have proof that you exist.

And please stop attacking Tinoire. There are many on this board, myself included, who have a great respect for her and her dedication to peace and justice.

[Fight_n_back]

170. First of all

I didn't "attack" Tinear. I attacked her posts. I have a longer history with her than you. She won't see any comments I make about her because she doesn't read my posts either.

Second of all, you or anyone else has yet to provide the incidence of McKinney being called an Anti Semite by anyone. That is the place to start in your exercise. Who called her an anti semite? Who heard the claim?

So far the only place I saw it posted was by you. You say you later changed your mind which seems to indicate that the only pewrson around who needs to be careful about issuing that epithet is you.

[rini]

218. yes she was,

yes she is, and she did herself in

[Darranar]

219. That's junk...

How is she an anti-semite? What comments did she make that would indicate that?

[rini]

221. she is antisemitic (my family in GA had a list of things

but that is not why she lost. She lost because she was perceived as Anti-American, I know she wanted Guiliani to take money from the Saudis and she made some very ill chosen remarks about the WTC and the Pentagon. Southerners are extremely patriotic, as an aside, Texans even more so. As for some Jewish PAC, heck they have as much right as any other group to lobby and get their point across. To even mention them is not right. Unless and until PACs of any sort are outlawed they still have the right of free speech, just as any group has.

[Darranar]

222. I repeat...

how was she anti-semitic?

[Fight_n_back]

144. Even if I

give you that one, which I don't, explain away the others. Explain away the weightlifter,explain away the Bush family.

Being called an anti semite will make no difference anywhere other than possibly the city of New York.

No one really cares if you dislike Jews. It is the status quo.

[Darranar]

148. Uh... not true...

People DO care. Jews care, for one. Tolerant non-jews, of which there are many, also care. And, of course, far-right wingers who don't really care about anti-semitism use it as an excuse to attack her.

[Fight_n_back]

150. Prove it

show me how the inhabiotants of the list I mentioned were harmed by being called Anti Semites.

[Darranar]

154. I never said that...

I said that there are people who do care. And it also depends on who's doing the name calling. I need to know who is before I can judge those situations.

[Fight_n_back]

179. Reasonable people can disagree

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0825-01.htm

snip
To begin with, there were more significant factors that led to Cynthia McKinney's defeat:

The first is Georgia's system of crossover voting, where voters can cast their primary ballots within any political party they choose regardless of their own party affiliation. In a district where barely half of all registered voters were Democrats, 14 out of 15 primary ballots cast were in the Democratic Party. In short, thousands of conservative Republicans -- without a similarly significant primary race in their own party -- voted in the Democratic primary for the sole purpose of defeating one of Congress' most outspoken defenders of civil rights, labor and the environment and one of its most vocal critics of President George W. Bush.

These Republicans were particularly incensed at McKinney's criticism of President Bush's "war on terrorism," including a couple of remarks that even progressives believed went too far, such as her claim that the Bush Administration may have known about the September 11 terrorist attacks beforehand. The media added to the fury by blowing these comments way out of proportion.

By some estimates, as many as two-thirds of Majette's votes came from registered Republicans. Without these Republican votes, McKinney would have easily won.

Furthermore, her opponent's campaign coffers were enriched by contributions from individuals and PACs affiliated with big business and other special interests that surpassed that of the "pro-Israel" groups. Majette had the backing of such wealthy corporate donors as Home Depot founders Arthur Blank and Bernie Marcus, Georgia-Pacific's Pete Correll, Fidelity Bank's James Miller, Cousins Properties' Tom Cousins, Mirant Corporations's Bill Dahlberg, and Alston & Bird's Ben Johnson. Other leading business figures in the Majette camp included Marce Fuller, Virgil Williams, J.B. Fuqua and Inman Allen. Money to oust McKinney also came from donors associated with Wachovia Corporation, Equifax, SunTrust Banks, and other corporations. None of these donors are known to have any affiliation with groups supporting the Israeli government. A look at the records currently available show that Majette's top contributors include a sizable number of major Republican donors and very few names commonly associated with a Jewish ethnicity.


snip
For progressives to instead overstate the role of Jewish campaign contributions serves to re-enforce ugly anti-Semitic stereotypes and exacerbates the divisions between Jews and African-Americans. Once close allies in historic struggles for civil rights, labor and social justice, there has been a growing division between these two communities in recent decades as the increasingly affluent Jewish community has drifted to the right and African-Americans have asserted their support for Third World causes, including the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.

<<snippage fini>>

I have searched for days and can find NO EVIDENCE of anyone calling McKinney and anti semite unil AFTER the election her father blamed the "Jews" for everything.

[Darranar]

180. I concede...

that it is very possible that other factors played a more important role in the loss of Cynthia McKinney than the cry of anti-semitism. My change of opinion is probably due to the fact that my respect for you has grown since we last had this argument, which makes me believe your claims more.

A few points, however: Whether it hurts political campaigns or not, many people are unjustly accused of anti-semitism by "pro-Israel" groups. Cynthia McKinney was one of those people. Additionally, I am sure that I can find an example somewhere of how someone's career was ruined due to charges of anti-semitism. Currently, I am a little too tired to wade through the websites I'll need to wade through, but perhaps I can find a link within a day or so.

[Fight_n_back]

181. It would be helpful

thank you. I could find no evidence of McKinney being called an anti semite.

[Laxness]

224. She's been called an anti-Semite at least once

Liberal columnist Michael Tomasky called McKinney a "discredited anti-Semite" in his hysterical attack on the Green Party.

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/07/tomasky-m-07-23.html

P. S. Before flaming me, I agree with Tomasky that the Greens shouldn't run for President (I'm probably a Green sympathizer, though). However, his attack is way over the top, IMHO.

[Fight_n_back]

225. If the date on that article is correct

it happened a year after the election and therefore probably had little effect on who voted for her.

does anyone have any evidence of anyone charging her anti semitism? Can anyone show evidence that it ever harmed anyone in ayway?

It is amazing to me that the great fear is now being called an anti semite rather than antisemitism itself.

[The Magistrate]

182. My Thanks To You Both, Gentlemen

For so amicable a resolution here. You may not mind my statement in passing that this matter has been flogged to death many times: the defeat of Ms. McKinney occassioned some of the most brutal and divisive wrangles in my experience on this forum.

[TheYellowDog]

197. Palestinians aren't suffering

:shrug: Israelis are suffering. I think it's great that Israel gets so much foreign aid, personally. We should probably increase it by another billion.

[Darranar]

198. Plaestinians aren't suffering?

They can't vote in elections, they have a tremendous poverty rate, many are hungry, they are brutalized almost daily at Israeli checkpoints, their land has been taken away, adn the Israeli army sees fit to ignore their concerns and do horrible things to them like building giant walls on their land.

[Gimel]

200. Yes they suffer

Many Palestinians, at least, are suffering. The causes of the suffering vary, according to the observer. The wall disturbes their concept of national aspirations, but so does the existence of Israel. They can survive with a wall, if it is necessary. One can adjust to many things, but without food, water proper medicine, clothing and shelter, education for the children and meaningful jobs, they cannot have a meaningful life existence. This is true of everyone. Many Israelis lack some of these things, and I dare say many Americans do as well.

The wall is a difficult medicine, but if accepted, it may promote a peaceful existence. The end to the conflict is vital for existence to be ensured in this land of Arabs and Jews. People can survive with a minumum of food for a time, can endure months or years of relative hardships, yet survive. Some even call such times a great learning experience. It all depends on your outlook and attitude. To continually blame your hardshiips in life on others does little in the way of solving the problems.

[The Magistrate]

201. The Problem, Ma'am

That many, myself included, have with this wall is that it does not run along the borders of Israel. If it did, it would meet no objection from me, at least no immediate objection: it does seem to me that, in the long term, economic ties between Israel and a state of Arab Palestine would benefit both parties greatly, and this is incompatible with an impervious barrier. But such ties would also require a state of peace, that certainly is now, and for the foreseeable immediate future, clearly absent.

Since the wall does enclose a substantial portion of the '67 conquests, it has the appearance of a de facto annexation. While it can certainly be argued that what is built may be torn down, and therefore there is no permanence to this, the temporary has a way of stretching out into the indeterminate future in this matter. No one, for example, in 1949, thought there would be no resolution to the refugee question for many decades to come, or even that the armistice line would not undergo some adjustment within a few years.

[TheYellowDog]

203. What is wrong with annexing the territory?

The armies should not have threatened Israel if they did not want their land taken.

[rini]

204. how

very nice to see some plain common sense.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

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

[StandWatie]

209. nice to see a bunch of indoctrination

[StandWatie]

216. unless you mean actually letting Palestinians vote in Israeli elections..

It's not "common sense" it's an endorsement of Jewish Supremacy.

[The Magistrate]

205. Aside From The Illegality Of The Act, Fellow, Nothing

Certainly nothing can, and no power will, halt Israel doing so, save perhaps Israel itself. But Israel has no legitimate title or claim to the land: it is part of the territory set aside by the United Nations partition of Mandatory Palestine as part of the Arab Zone, on which it was intended a state of Arab Palestine be established. As Israel owes its legitimacy to that enactment, and has indeed been allowed, as an immediate consequence of the war in '48, to appropriate almost half of that Arab Zone already, it would not seem adviseable for Israel to disregard it completely.

[durutti]

206. A Lot of Things

First of all, Israel wasn't threatened.

In the years prior to the Six Day War, Israel repeatedly sent armed soldiers and paramilitary settlers into the DMZ between Israel and Syria. Israel constantly provoked Syria, leading to exchanges of fire.

At this point, Israeli officials began talking publicly of invading Syria. Syria was justly concerned.

Eventually, the Soviets told Syria (wrongly) that Israel was massing troops at its borders and was about to invade. Syria told Egypt, which responded by placing Egyptian troops in defensive positions and closing the Straits of Tiran. Israel claimed that the closing of the straights was an act of war, but in reality, only 5 percent of Israel's trade came by way of the straits, and an Israeli vessel hadn't made use of the straits for two years.

Nasser offered to let the World Court resolve the matter of the Straits, and was in dialogue with the United States in an effort to avoid war.

Nonetheless, Israel simultaneously attacked Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. It used this opportunity to ethnically cleanse the land of thousands more Palestinians.

Israeli intelligence never believed that Egypt was going to attack. Indeed, years later, many of the architects of Israel's offensive admitted that they did not believe Nasser was really going to attack. Even then, Israel's military was much more powerful than the Arab forces. The CIA estimated that Israel would win the war within a week, even if all the Arab countries joined in. British intelligence gave it 10 days.

But even if we ignore all these facts and pretend that the Six Day War was nothing but an act of self-defense, it still doesn't justify holding on to land that was taking over in a war almost 40 years ago. UN Resolution 242 as well as the UN Charter make it clear that the acquisition of land by force is forbidden by international law.