Is criticism of Israel anti Semitic?

[TakebackAmerica]

How do you distinguish between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism?

[Walt Starr]

1. One is criticism of a nation

the other is speading falsehoods about a religion.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. no it is not being anti-zionism is quite different from being anti-semetic

i know of some orthodox rabbi's that have lived in Israel from pre 48 who are anti-zionists...i also have hebrew friends that are anti-zionists.

and BTW ...Arabs are also semites..so anti-semetism includes hatred of both jew and arab (technically anyway)

[Mairead]

34. What's rather sad and a bit stupid

is that most Israelis aren't even Semites -- they're mostly of east-European-immigrant stock, and they actually look down on the semitic Jews.

[Cassandra]

40. Here we go again

http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/the_dna_chain_of_tradition.htm

"Wider genetic studies of diverse present day Jewish communities show a remarkable genetic cohesiveness. Jews from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa and European Ashkenazim all cluster together with other Semitic groups, with their origin in the Middle East. A common geographical origin can be seen for all mainstream Jewish groups studied.

This genetic research has clearly refuted the once-current libel that the Ashkenazi Jews are not related to the ancient Hebrews, but are descendants of the Kuzar tribe--a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which reportedly converted en masse to Judaism. Researchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no correspondence."

So could you stop spreading that anti-Semitic slop considering you don't know what you're talking about?

[Mairead]

60. Straw horses are so easy to overcome, aren't they.

Note that I said nothing about any Kuzar tribe. So, were you not reading carefully? Or were you being intentionally dishonest?

My point is that Russian and Polish Jews are genetically Slavs, not Semites; German Jews are Germanic, not Semitic; etc. It's the Sephardim, not the Ashkenazim, who are the Semites.

"In both cases {Basques and Jews}, the canons of common descent can be satisfied only by disregarding large numbers of foreign ancestral lines. Using blood groups and other immunological markers, researchers have repeatedly shown that in any given region, Jews are genetically more like their neighbors than they are like Jews in other regions."

p. 104, Our Kind by the late anthropologist Dr. Marvin Harris

[Cassandra]

97. WRONG

My grandparents were from Poland and Russia, but they immigrated in earlier generations through France. They were no more Slavic, having not intermarried when they got there, than they were French. The link I showed you used DNA; more accurate than blood groups to judge genetic linkage with more recent data. It's hard to intermarry when you're routinely kept away from the general population, and if you're part of a large population that's regularly on the move, you wouldn't have to. You would be more accurate about this if speaking about Chinese, Indian or African Jews, some of whom are descended from small trading populations who were forced to intermarry for lack of other choices.
I didn't include the material about the Khazars to accuse you of putting that forward; it was part of that section of the site and I assumed it would come up with someone and I hoped to head them off.
Regardless, the claim that Ashkenazim are not Semites is anti-Semitic, as it is both wrong and seeks to claim that Ashkenazic Jews have no right to be in Israel.

[SPAZtazticman]

99. HELLO!!!!!!!

does a persons racial or ethnic background matter at all?!?!? the last like 15 threads were all irrelevant.

[Cassandra]

118. There were only 4 posts above yours..

that dealt with ethnicity. When someone decides to state as a fact that I'm not who I know myself to be, then I feel the need to correct that. If relevance were the only criteria in responding to a post, we would hardly have a board at all.
Ethnicity has more to do with this subject than you are willing to acknowledge.

[Mairead]

155. Sorry, not wrong.

If your people came from Spain, then they're not Ashkenazim (except by adoption, as it were). They're Sephardim, and thus actual Semites.

I'll also point out
"Jewish men appear to have intermarried frequently enough with local non-Jewish women (probably all of whom converted) to create a Jewish population of decidedly mixed genetic origins. Modern physical anthropological studies of European Jews have demonstrated conclusively that the term 'Semitic' masks the large European component in the Jewish genetic pool." (anthropologist Leonard B. Glick in Abraham's Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe.)

[Brian Sweat]

63. Inflammatory Straw Man Argument

Mairead never said that these people were not descended from ancient Hebrews. Nor did Mairead say anything about "Ashkenazi Jews" being the descendants of the "Kuzar tribe." Mairead said that most of the jews in Isreal are of "east-European-immigrant stock." This "Kuzar tribe" you speak of is supposedly "Turko-Asian". How do you get "Turko-Asian" out of "east-European?" Also, "Turko-Asian" is redundant. Turkey is in Asia.

I don't know if most of the Jews in Isreal are of European stock or not, but I do know that most of the Jews that I know that are of European stock do not look the least bit Middle Eastern. It is clear that over the nearly 2000 year history of Jews in Europe, that they have inter-married with Europeans and have become mostly European even if they do still have some "genetic cohesiveness."

You accusation that Mairead is spread "anti-Semitic slop" is false, imflammatory and uncalled for.

[Cassandra]

98. The Khazar claim states...

that Eastern European Jews were their descendents who traveled north. It wasn't immediately obvious that the discussion wasn't headed in that direction, but instead was an interesting offshoot. As I've said before, my ancestors took the scenic route and traveled through France from Spain. I have been in Europe and been pegged as a Jew by other Jews immediately, so obviously they can tell. Perhaps it's the Sephardic Jews who've been intermarrying.

[Cassandra]

44. Hebrew friends?

What are those, exactly? As a Jew, with many Jewish friends, I know of no one who refers to themselves as a Hebrew, including Israelis.
The orthodox rabbis who are anti-Zionists are claiming a biblical position (that it's not the place of humans to create the Jewish state on Earth; that that's the work of God or the Messiah). That's not exactly a position that says that a Jewish state has no right to exist; more of a debate about who and when (the where is not in dispute).
For the upteenth time, the term anti-Semitism was coined to be specifically about Jews, despite the fact that both Jews and Arabs are Semites.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Zionism

Is the belief in Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. To criticize Israel is one thing, to criticize Zionism in all its forms is anti-semitic.

[ikojo]

105. I disagree that to criticize Zionism is antisemitic

Zionism is a POLITICAL philosophy and one that was not universally shared by all Jews until the enormity of the Holocaust was known following WWII. It is not antisemitic to criticize a POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.

Reform Jewish leaders before and during WWII were not in full support of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They were of the opinion that it would fuel the fires of antisemitism for Jews to settle in Palestine. American Reform leaders also saw America as the "New Jerusalem" and thought American Jews should look to America and not Palestine.

It was only after WWII that many Reform Jewish leaders signed on as full fledged Zionists.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. OK

So if you want to go back in history about 70 years and criticize Zionism, maybe it won't be anti-semitic. However, if you want to criticize it NOW and in the future, that means you don't even believe Israel has the right to be a Jewish state and I consider THAT to be antisemitic.

[qanda]

3. Saying it's anti semitic to criticize Israel...

Is like saying it's racist to criticize South Africa. Just my black humble opinion.

[jody]

4. Outstanding question. I hope replies will tell me the correct words and

phrases that I can use to write letters to the editor that place issues on the table for discussion without being summarily rejected by a cry of "anti semetic".

That said, I'll go to the background and wait for enlightment. :hi:

[SPAZtazticman]

100. heres an argument:

is it racist (against arabs) to critisize terrorists like al qaeda?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

153. No

but if I was to infer that all Muslims are terrorists I'd be a racist.

[papau]

5. No - When you criticize Israel you are not per see being anti-semitic

But then some if not all of those who are anti-semitic do indeed critize Israel - so the reader or listener must use their own judgement and determine for themselves if they consider your presentation anti-semitic.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

6. The Difference between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism

Anti-Semitism equates Jews with rats.

Anti-Semitism seriously maintains that Jews eat Christian and Muslim babies.

Anti-Semitism holds that Jews rot a society from the inside out.

Anti-Semitism equates Jews with disease.

Anti-Semitism always ends in violence against Jews.

Anti-Semitism holds that Jews are Demonic children of Satan.



Anti-Zionism holds that Zionism is European imperialism and that history has proved imperialism wrong.

Anti-Zionism holds that a nation based on preferences for people of certain religous or ethnic identities is fundamentally wrong.

Anti-Zionism holds that collective punishment by a government of a certain ethnic group for actions of individuals of that wrong is wrong.

Anti-Zionism holds that transference of a certain ethnic group off of land they currently live on is wrong.

Anti-Zionism holds that the settlement of land occupied after a war is wrong.


Notice how the language differs. Notice the application of logic in one, emotion in the other. Notice the universal principles in one, the ethnic based bigotry in the other - The Jewish people aren't even mentioned, nor need be mentioned, by the Anti-Zionist.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. ThorsteinVeblen very succinct! thank you

[SmileyBoy]

8. Exactly. I'm Anti-Zionist. NOT Anti-Semitic.

Zionism is a major evil that's plaguing the society of the middle east. Zionism is something I personally hope is eventually irraticated from the world. "Semitic" describes anyone who's Hebrew, Arabic or anyone else who's middle-eastern ethnic group traces back to the Semites. And in that case, considering the fact that I have Jewish friends, I am TOTALLY not Anti-Semitic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Would You irraticate(sp)

the five million Zionists living in Israel proper?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

62. Of course not - that is a ridiculous question

That kind of action would not be consistant with my Anti-Zionist values stated above.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. Please Check

That post was not directed to you


Peace

[Cassandra]

46. If you think Zionism is a major evil

then that makes me wonder about your definition of Zionism. It is officially about the right of Jews to have a homeland in Israel, where Judaism began. What does the word Zionism mean to you?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

65. Right you are

Zionism is the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. A homeland that requires a majority of Jews and Jewish control. That means that the Jewish race/ethnicity/religion gets preferential treatment within the country. That preferential treatment is incompatible with Democracy. Even Pakistan does not put Muslims in a privleged position.

Would you agree to the concept of an "Aryan Homeland" where those of Aryan descent are given superior position by law? Where a majority of white people was guaranteed by the Constitution or Articles of Confederation?

There are also Malthusian concerns. The water resources in the West Bank and Gaza are necessitated by the modern state of Israel in order to sustain and expand its population.

Combine this with the fact that the total Arab popluation in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel proper will outnumber the Jewish popluation within ten years.

In short the Zionist attitude leaves us with an intractable problem:

1.) The natural resources of the West Bank and Gaza are needed to sustain Israel.

2.) The human population of the West Bank and Gaza would destroy the Jewish character of Israel.

So we see, Zionism, in addition to being fundamentally racist and incompatible with Democracy (just like an "Aryan Homeland") is facing a huge Malthusian problem in how to secure a Jewish majority while also securing much needed natural resources.


The basic problem in Israel is the Zionist goal of a Jewish homeland. It is by nature oppressive because it discriminates against the Arab popluation indemnic to the area.

Only a truly Democratic society that gives equal consideration to both Jews and Arabs can bring peace.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. I Am A Christian Zionist

but I oppose discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, et cetera.

I just think the Israeli's have a right to control emigration to maintain their Jewish character.

History has proven they don't fare very well when they don't have a land of their own.

As I understand it there are 1,000,000 Arabs living in Israeli proper. They have all the rights of citizenship except serving in the military. This is for prudential reasons but if they want to serve I say let them.

The Israeli's should vacate the occupied territories and let the Palestinians set up a state of their own and create their own destiny.

I think a binational state would just result in more misery for a people who are too familiar with it.

The practical problems are staggering. It would be like reuniting Mexico and Texas and throwing these two different peoples together.

Can anybody really see it working?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

87. You're ignoring a whole host of problems

Retaining the Jewish Charachter means retaining a Jewish majority. As Arab Israelis have more children than Jewish Israelis, this means restricing the number of children Arab can have.

Also, what do you about the water resources in the West Bank and Gaza that the Israeli state requires?

By taking this resources, you create an unviable Palestinian state. The current settlement policy has also created an unvaible Palestinian state that is more akin to the reservation or "homeland" system of South Africa where the indigenous population is relagated to barely autonmous regions devoid of any natural resources or economic potential, walled off on all sides by gates and military checkpoints.

This kind of system is completely unviable and only perpetuate the violence in "Israel".

In other words, a two state solution is not viable. Period.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. There Are 5,000,000 Jews

in Israel and there are 1,000,000 Arabs .

Even if Arabs have higer fertility rates it will take generations to upset this balance.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

104. On the eve of the 1948 War

On the eve of the 1948 war some 1,200,000 Arabs and some 635,000 Jews lived in Palestine.

Since a majority of Jews was required for a Jewish State, Israel had to get rid of a major portion of the Arab population. In 1948 over 700,00 Arabs fled the newly recognized "Israel" into Jordon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

After the war, the internationally recognized right of return was denied to these refugees because it threatened the Jewish nature of "Israel". The new Jewish state could not exist as such if the number of its Arab citizens outnumbered the number of its Jewish citizens. Whether or not you blame the Zionists or the surrounding Arab governments for the initial evacuation during the 1948 war, you must admit that a Israel as a Jewish State necessitated the removal of enough of the Arab population from within its borders to ensure a Jewish majority.

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/palestineisrael/palestineisrael.html

Currently Jewish population growth is progressing LINEARLY due to a low birth rate. The Jewish population growth in Israel is almost entirely due to IMMIGRATION. Meanwhile the Arab population is growing EXPONENTIALLY do to the highest BIRTH RATE in the world. In 2002 the Arab population in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip totaled 4.4 million compared to 5 million Jews in Israel.

By 2020 there will be 6.5 million Jews and 8.5 million Arabs in the region currently made up of Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

By 2050 the occupied territories alone will contain 11.2 million Arabs. Combine that with the projected 3.5 million Arabs in Israel and then compare it to the 7.5 million projected Jews in Israel and you have 14.7 million vs. 7.5 million.

Israel requires the water resources of the West Bank so it must keep control of it. Israel also requires land in which to expand into which is the ultimate goal of the settlement policy. The land available for a Palestinian State gets smaller and smaller as Sharon continues to create "facts on the ground".

There is NO viable two state solution for the Zionist. The Zionist MUST NOT incorporate the Arab population on the occupied territories yet he MUST keep the water resources of the occupied territories. The only two viable models for the Zionist is 1.) the forced transference of the Arab popuation out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip 2.) the creation of two Arab "homelands" (one in Gaza and one in the West Bank) that do not have control or rights to their natural resources, that are surrounded by an Israeli security fence, that are cut off geographically from each other and that are under de facto control of the Israeli government.

Unfortunately, neither of these options is legal or workable. The violence will continue unitl Zionism comes to an end.

[Julien Sorel]

112. Usually, these discussions pit the

ignorant on one side against the ignorant and mendacious on the other. It's refreshing to find someone posting who is neither . :thumbsup:

[waggawagga]

120. Huh?

You can't seriously mean until the state of Israel comes to an end? How is that going to happen? That's easier for you to imagine than some brokered deal on water rights?

I think Clinton came very close to negotiating a two state solution his last set of proposals are the model for any peaceful settlement. The alternative is perpetual war.

[Julien Sorel]

123. Israel currrently takes 90% of West Bank water, iirc.

There simply isn't enough water there to 'broker a deal' with. The most recent deal, the one you think Clinton was close to making, would have codified that water usage ratio, by the way, which was one of the many travesties to come out of Oslo.

[waggawagga]

132. Hmmm

If Palestine ever became an independent state and a comprehensive peace took hold who doubts that some solution to the water problem would be found 20 years from now? The problem at this point is political.

[Julien Sorel]

137. In 20 years, the problem will only get worse with population growth,

unless some technological miracle comes along and allows crops to grow and humans to live with no water. What do you think informs the 'political' problems?

[waggawagga]

174. I Get Your Point, But...

The conflict is about two peoples who claim the same land.

[Julien Sorel]

176. U huh.

And the sky is blue. And chocolate tastes good. There's no sure thing except death and taxes. You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish.

So why did you make your post?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

154. I Believe There Should Be A Two State Solution

Problems like water rights are easier to work out than dismantling a state that has been in existence longer than a majority of the states now in the U.N.

What happens to the Israelis who reject your one state solution?

[Julien Sorel]

157. They leave. They will certainly fare better

than the Palestinians who were rejected by Israel and Israel's version of a one-state solution.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

159. What If They Refuse To Leave

[Julien Sorel]

168. Then they stay and participate in the resultant nation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

170. What If They Don't Want To Be Part Of The Resultant Nation?

What if they like living in a Jewish state?


edited for spelling. Sometimes I just leave the spelling mistakes. It's not like we're going to get graded.

[Julien Sorel]

173. Then they suffer the same fate

as the white supremicists who live in the U.S. do.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

175. But White Supremicists Never Had Their Own Nation In

America that they were asked to relinquish.

And to equate Zionism with white supremacy is obscene.

Sure there is inequality in Israel but the Arabs in Israel have more rights than Arabs in any of the other twenty two Arab States in the region. They have all the rights of citizenship except serving in the Army for prudential reasons. They are well represented in the Knesset.

Let's stop playing parlor games.

The Israeli's are not going to give up their flag, their self rule, their lives without a fight.

I'm a little obtuse so you could you please give me a broad picture of what this final solution will look like.

[Julien Sorel]

177. Like South Africa today.

The obtuseness is wearing thin, I might add.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

180. "The obtuseness is wearing thin" I might add...."

the hits just keep on coming.

Muddle is drunk.....


Democrartic Since Birth is obtuse.....


Have you ever read Theodore Adorno's "The Authoritarian Personality"?


It's a good read...


He descibes the malady under which you labor.


But you seem like a bright fella so there's a chance you might
overcome it.

Now that I addressed your persoanl attack I don't accept your premise that Israel=South Africa. Arabs living in Israel proper have the full rights of citizenship except serving in the Army which is done for prudential reasons. They don't live in Bantustans.

[Mairead]

179. As Uri Avnery points out,

there are many Israeli laws that obliquely make Arabs second-class citizens because of that 'serve in the Army' distinction.

And as he also points out, not one Arab MK has ever held even the most minor Cabinet post. Even in the most liberal government.

Food for thought. Or not, I suppose.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

182. I Don't Dispute That Israel is An Imperfect Democracy

but I refuse to make the leap that it is an apartheid state.

So I enjoyed your "food" . Care to prepare anything else for me. -:)






on edit - I changed cook to prepare because I realized all food doesn't need to be cooked to be edible.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. So you hope for the destruction of Israel

That is what you seem to be saying.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. He Did Say He Had Some Jewish Friends -:)

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Now that's funny

Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Is It Funny Or Tragic

We all have our darker angels and none of us on the left or right are immune from their bitter disease of bigotry.


This is the fortieth anniversary of MLK's March on Washington.

Sure, dejure racism is gone but I wonder how much bigotry still resides in some folks heart.

It seems we are constantly trading one form of bigotry for another, sometimes resurrecting old bigotries long believe discarded.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. I don't believe bigotry is ever truly discarded

Maybe mostly, but never entirely.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

61. And the Jewish People are just like anyone else

"I don't believe bigotry is ever truly discarded"

No better, no worse.

Hearts as full or empty of bigotry as any other human being.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. The big difference

Is that, as a group, they have been hunted and persecuted for 2,000 years. Israel was built to be a homeland to cut down on this abuse. To oppose what Israel does is legit. To oppose the existence of Israel is IMHO anti-semitic.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

102. I oppose a state based on ethnic preference on principle

The historical suffering of the preferred ethnicity is incidental.
A state based on ethnic preferences that displaces an indemnic population is immoral.

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. Incidental?

Everywhere Jews have gone in the world, they have encountered varying degrees of persecution. (Yes, that does include the U.S.) The only place they can guarantee that won't happen is a state of their own.

That state is already there. To support its dissolution is also immoral.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

67. I have some Arab friends too.

"He Did Say He Had Some Jewish Friends -:)"

I have some Arab friends too.

Does that mean I hate Jews or Arabs or both?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

162. You Are A Bright Man

so the faux naivete doesn't fool us....

The "some of best friends are__________________ "fill in the blank is the oldest and most (in)credible argument in the world.... The fig leaf for bigots.....

Kind of like that old All in The Family episode where Archie is bragging to Sammy Davis Jr. about his African American neighbors.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

66. No, that is exactly not what I am saying

"So you hope for the destruction of Israel"


I am saying that the ONLY solution that is compatible with peace is a Democratic state that gives equal weight to both Arab and Jewish populations.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Then there will be no peace

nt

[ThorsteinVeblen]

103. Justice must come before peace

No peace can be built on something that is fundamentally unjust.

[Muddleoftheroad]

139. Life is fundamentally unjust

Some people are born healthy, others sick. Some are beautiful, others ugly. Some fat, some thing. Some rich, lots more poor.

Yet the world builds tons of things. Because, in the real world, nothing is ever perfect. We live in a democracy that is far from perfect, but it's sure a hell of a lot better than ANY Mideast nation -- Arab or Israeli.

You may think it unjust for a nation to be made a homeland for Jews, but that is just a fact. As an African-American, I can see how a minority might be persecuted to the point where they need someplace to be themselves and not fear discrimination or pogrom or worse.

If the Arab world can't come to terms with that, then THEY are the ones who are committing the world to a path of endless war and destruction.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

164. Let's live in the real world

There is no perfect society....


"No peace can be built on something that is fundamentally unjust."


Given the fact that America was built on stolen land and pilfered labor it hasn't done so bad.

There are alot of countries including some as large as Turkey where the rights of the indigenous people were usurped by invaders but at least the Israeli's can make a decent original deed argument.

Throwing Jews and Arabs together in one country where Jews would be the minority would be as fruitful as throwing Mexicans and Texans together in one country where the Texans would be the minority.

It would be the mother of all conflagrations with the Alamo, the Crusade and Aramaggedon happening simultaneously.

As Orwell said "some ideas are so bizzare only an intellectual can believe them."

[Swede]

111. You poor clueless person

So buses are blowing up at pizzarias in Philadelphia

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. How Does The Fact That Most Jews Inside And outside

of Israel are Zionists affect your definition?

[Aaron]

14. You have a link for that? (n/t)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. You Mean Do I Have A Link

to a poll that demonstrates that Jews inside and outside of Israel believe it has a right to exist?

[Aaron]

19. A poll that demonstrates they believe it should exist as a Jewish state

rather than a secular state or a poll that shows they identify themselves as zionists would be nice - in the case of the second it would be super if they had a follow-up question regarding the respondent's definition of 'zionist'. I don't expect that either poll exists, I imagine the logistics of some manner of worldwide poll to be difficult, but I suppose it might - I'm not much of a pollster so maybe there are ways that I'm not imagining right now that would make such possible :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I Can't Get The Link To Work

go to yahoo and type in american attitudes towards israel or jewish attitudes towards israel.

I don't think pollsters break it down as you suggest.

They ask Jews and non Jews if they suuport the state of Israel.

One can presume if one supports the state of Israel they support it as a state for the Jew.

I presume if you support the right of Israel to exist you are a Zionist since Zionism is the belief that the Jews have a homeland in Palestine.

It's like if you tell me you belive Jesus is your savior you are a Christian.

[donco6]

25. I don't believe that's a valid assumption at all.

>>I presume if you support the right of Israel to exist you are a Zionist since Zionism is the belief that the Jews have a homeland in Palestine.<<

I support Israel's right to exist, but I would not classify myself as a Zionist, because I believe Zionism is a belief in the *exclusive* right of Israel to exist. That I do not believe.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. How Can A Right To Exist Be

Exclusive?

All Zionism means is that Jews should have a home in Palestine which was the land of their birth.

If that is the definition of Zionism I and about 90% of Americans are Zionists.

Nothing in that belief precludes me from favoring a two state solution or acknowledging the legitimate grievances of Palestinians.

[Brian Sweat]

69. Land of their birth?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

77. No - Zionism demands a Jewish State

"All Zionism means is that Jews should have a home in Palestine which was the land of their birth."



Jews should have every right to live in "Israel" but the Zionist demand of a Jewish State, where Jews are given a superior position to other indeminic folk is fundamentally racist and incompatible with Democracy.

Zionism demands a Jewish State with Jewish majority and thereby necessitates either the 1.) transference of the Arab population or 2.) the relegation of the Arab population to second class citizen status.

Israel requires the natural resoucres of the West Bank and Gaza but also requires the exclusion of the human population of the West Bank and Gaza. It is an intractable problem whose only solution is a Democratic State that includes both Jewish and Arab populations.

Period.

[Cassandra]

126. Since anyone can convert to Judaism who has a sincere interest...

Zionism is not fundamentally racist.

[Aaron]

127. What about that law that you have to have a Jewish mother

or is that not enforced or I'm mistaken or something?

[Cassandra]

133. If your mother is Jewish...

you are automatically Jewish. Anyone can convert.

[Julien Sorel]

128. And those people who refuse to convert, like Palestinians,

are discriminated against, thus Zionism is fundamentally and practically racist, since religion in the region (in fact,in the world) is intimately tied to race.

[Cassandra]

134. Religion in the world is intimately tied to race?

Does that mean that all Christians are white (or Aramaic)? By that "logic", all religion is racist and any country with a state religion is racist.
Oh, I'm sorry. This was just about Jews. Of course.

[Julien Sorel]

136. Nice post!

The vast majority of Arabs are Muslim. The vast majority of whites are Christian -- protestant, to be exact. The vast majority of Hispanics are Christian -- Catholic, to be exact. Race is tied to religion -- any honest person would acknowledge that from the start, and not try to run and hide behind nonsense like 'this is about the Jews, of course,' which is cowardly, as well as a particularly weak attempt at ducking the issue.

all religion is racist and any country with a state religion is racist.

Any country with a state religion that discriminates against all others would be racist, when that discrimination results in a racial group being singled out for unequal treatment(Israel vis a vis the Palestinians). Practically speaking, any country with a state religion would be guilty of this, although in a few countries, the racial divide isn't as clear as it is in Israel.

Most religions, in and of in and of themselves, aren't racist, contrary to what you (not I) stated; it's when religion is used to inform racist policy that racism happens. Realistically, people do not abjure centuries of custom and mass-convert to a religion (and if the Palestinians did, Israel would quickly shut that down anyway, and in fact, there's a growing movement in Israel to do just that); therefore, Israel's policies, using religion as the divider between the haves and the have-nots, are racist. It's kind of odd that most people see this without needing it spelled out for them, but something about defending Israel results in some unusual cognitive problems for some people.

Incidentally, one can be a Jew by birth ('race'), and not be religious -- yet still be allowed to immigrate by Israel. You left that out of your earlier post.

Speaking of which, weren't you the one above arguing that Jews were a seperate race from Arabs, and that status gives them a special claim to Palestinian land? Yes, you were. But now it turns out, race isn't it at all -- it's about religion! I can convert to Judaism, and I, too, can get in on the 40 acres and a mule mentality that still rules Israel -- and damn the Indians (oops, Palestinians). My fortune is made. Too bad about the Palestinians -- I want the land that converting to Judaism gives me the 'historical' right to!

[Cassandra]

138. No, dear

"Speaking of which, weren't you the one above arguing that Jews were a seperate race from Arabs, and that status gives them a special claim to Palestinian land? Yes, you were. "

I was the one stating that Jews and Arabs have a common Semitic ancestry, even the Ashkenazis. I know this is a long thread but try not to make up lies about me.

"Incidentally, one can be a Jew by birth ('race'), and not be religious -- yet still be allowed to immigrate by Israel. You left that out of your earlier post. "

Yes, I know, but no one had asked me about that so I didn't answer the non-question.
The rest of your post is garbage, since you seem to be saying that when Jews favor their religion, it's racist, but when anyone else does, it's not. Good night.

[Julien Sorel]

143. LOL

Always with the 'Dear' and the 'sweeties' from Israel's friends when things go against them...

I was the one stating that Jews and Arabs have a common Semitic ancestry, even the Ashkenazis. I know this is a long thread but try not to make up lies about me.

I mis-spoke to a degree. You did, however, claim that the Jews' heritage give them a right to Palestinian land. Since you now acknowledge racial ties between Arabs and Jews, why is it that Jews have a special claim to the land, but Palestinians do not? Or do you support the Right of Return for Palestinians? Well, why bother asking questions that require logical reasoning and consistency in the response....

Yes, I know, but no one had asked me about that so I didn't answer the non-question.
The rest of your post is garbage, since you seem to be saying that when Jews favor their religion, it's racist, but when anyone else does, it's not. Good night.

Uhhh, not only did I not say that, but I said the exact opposite:


Practically speaking, any country with a state religion would be guilty of this, although in a few countries, the racial divide isn't as clear as it is in Israel. (me, emphasis added)


Only the dishonest or the disturbed could take that sentence and feel that it's an example of Israel bashing. Cognitive problems at work again.

[StandWatie]

167. Hamas would accept conversions also

and since it's actually way, way, easier to covert to Islam than Judaism (it usually requires paying a Rabbi an obscene amount of money to get that done in Israel if you marry in and don't want the stigma of a cross or crescent on your ID card) than that would mean there is nothing fundamentally undemocratic about their vision of an Islamic state.

[Aaron]

28. I'm not sure about that presumption

I can think of at least a few Jews I know that I suspect while supporting the right of the country of Israel and the people there to exist believe it should be a secular state, like the US or Canada or something - that even if it is predominantly Jewish, it's laws shouldn't favor Jews over others or enforce Jewish religious law. Sort of a seperation of synagogue and state like the First Amendment.

I appreciate your effort in finding a link. I'll take your direction and see if I can't find that Yahoo link in a moment. I know sometimes linking can be tricky, if I can get it to link properly I'll shoot you a pm and let you know how I did it :)

[ikojo]

106. When Theodor Herzl came up with the

idea of modern Zionism he did not necessarily intend that the Jewish homeland be in Palestine. Herzl was a thoroughly assimilated Austrian Jew who turned to the idea of Zionism (remember at the time of Herzl European Nationalism was at its peak) while observing the Dreyfus trial in France (if you know nothing of L'Affair Dreyfus go to google.com and type in L'Affair Dreyfus or J'accuse and go from there).

I believe Herzl even entertained Madagascar as a home for the Jewish people but later focused on Palestine in order to get the more religious elements of Eastern European Jewry to sign onto his philosophy.

As others have said not all Jews, today or yesterday, considered themselves Zionists. I would say over 90% of Jews support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state but this does not make them Zionists. A true Zionist will make aliya to Israel.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. The Link

Zionism- the belief that the Jews should reestablish their historical homeland in Israel

http:///www.jewishsgpv.org/content_display.html?articlelD=8434

[Aaron]

20. I'm not having any luck accessing that link

Maybe it's a problem on my end? If you're accessing it fine let me know and I'll root around and try to figure out why I can't get to it.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

73. Most Southerners thought slavery was a mandated by God.

"How Does The Fact That Most Jews Inside And outside of Israel are Zionists affect your definition?"

[Cassandra]

124. Sorry I'm not The Magistrate to go over this with you again, but...

"Anti-Zionism holds that Zionism is European imperialism and that history has proved imperialism wrong."

How is Zionizm European Imperialism, which was based on countries stripping others of their natural resources to send home and using them as a dumping ground/captive market for their own resources? There is certainly a struggle going on about water, as there is in most of the third world, but other than that, how is this imperialism without an empire?

"Anti-Zionism holds that a nation based on preferences for people of certain religous or ethnic identities is fundamentally wrong."

Gee, there goes most of the known world. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, India, Pakistan, Japan, China, the rest of the Middle East....
Most nations are based on religious or ethnic identities.

"Anti-Zionism holds that collective punishment by a government of a certain ethnic group for actions of individuals of that wrong is wrong."

Zionism hold that a certain ethnic group, namely the Jews, have had enough collective punishment, thank you.

"Anti-Zionism holds that transference of a certain ethnic group off of land they currently live on is wrong."

And only anti-Zionism? Not anti-Texanism, or anti-Hinduism. Since Saudis hate everyone who isn't like them, I guess they aren't targeting any particular ethnic group so they're ok with you.

"Anti-Zionism holds that the settlement of land occupied after a war is wrong."

I guess America shouldn't exist, and maybe we should overturn most of Europe and South America as well. Israel didn't invent war, occupation or settlement.


"Notice how the language differs. Notice the application of logic in one, emotion in the other. Notice the universal principles in one, the ethnic based bigotry in the other - The Jewish people aren't even mentioned, nor need be mentioned, by the Anti-Zionist."

When you talk about Anti-Zionism, you are talking ethnicity, even if you never explicitly mention Jews.

[JI7]

9. depends on the criticism i guess

in general i would say it's never racist or anti semetic to criticize a nation since it's usually directed at the government of the nation. but criticisms can be racist i guess, like one right wing asshole who once said africa has problems because of black people and his ass did n't even k now the history of colonialism of the continent and resulting exploitation of people and resources. but a criticism like saying one reason africa has a problem with aids is because some of the leaders wont recognize the problem in the first place is not racist. same goes for israel, the criticisms are usually directed at the government of israel and their policies which i mostly have no problem with.

[dflprincess]

12. I don't see how criticism of the actions of a government

would make you anti Semitic. It does not even necessarily make you anti-Israel. Just like criticism of actions taken by the US government does not make you anti-American.

[JackSwift]

13. Look, it's my experience that if you

criticize Israel that someone is going to call you an anti-Semite, and more are going to think it. Don't let it stop you from making your argument if you believe in your argument.

[Ein]

15. Yes

and criticism of America is anti-American. (SARCASM) Hell no.

If someone says Israel is being crappy b/c the attacked us, did this, that, blah blah blah... <---not an anti-semite

If someone says Israel is the devil and we need to get an army of bulldozers to plow them jews into the ocean <---- anti-semite

[John_H]

17. To euate criticism of isreal's occupation with anti semitism is a cop out

It's akin to the Rethuglican tactic of calling anyone who dissents from US war policy a traitor. The main problem with tactics like this is that they're too-easy ways of avoiding an argument on the merits--a way to automatically dismiss criticism by leveling a personal attack against what you believe.

By definition, attacking a government's policies is not the same as attacking a religion.

Whenever I hear a pro-sharon person play the anti-semitism card on tv or in a discusiion, I immediately come to the conclusion that they're unable to answer a charge on its merits.

[Bombtrack]

21. I really am unnerved by most of the pro-palistinian element

that seems to exist on both the right-wing fringe and more recently the left

yes Likud is not my preferred Israeli party and they deserve critism but Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are murderers and nothing better and the PLO seems to be friendly to all of those groups

[mitchum]

22. And the Stern Gang were what?

[Cassandra]

42. The Stern Gang are long gone

because their actions were not celebrated by the population. Hamas, however, continues to enjoy the support of the Palestinian street. Maybe when they give that up, there will be peace.

[Adjoran]

26. I agree

It is unbelievable the degree to which some will go to excuse the killing of innocent civilians.

It is not necessarily anti-semitic to criticize actions of Israel. The more pertinent question is: Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. You Are 100% Right

That is the pregnant question?

Does Israel have the right to exist as a Jewish state?

I support Israel's right to exist and like Bill Clinton said I would take up arms to defend it if an Arab Army crossed the Jordan Valley.

That being said I support a two state solution.

I also support a Labour government over a Likud government but as in America terrorism in Israel has succeded in bringing the most right wing elements to power.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

35. No. 100% hyperbole.

"Do you believe Israel has the right to exist?"

A wonderful debate-killer.

Do you support Iraq's right to exist? Saddam Hussein was forceably removed from power, but Iraq still exists. Do you support South Africa's right to exist? Apartheid is over, but South Africa is still on the map. Just because somebody might think Zionism's dicey, it doesn't mean that they think the existence of Israel as a political entity should dry up and blow away. The question is pure demagoguery and an an intellectual insult.

So cut the crap with this stupid question already. Israel exists. It's what they call a "fact on the ground." A full scale invasion or a lethal nuclear attack isn't going to happen. Not on our watch. Not with the billions in military aid we've already pumped into Israel. There is plenty of goodwill left in America to make sure this is never going to happen. Stop being so paranoid.

"Oh but we are victims of suicide bombers!" I can just hear the reply. Sorry, but there's plenty of victimhood to go around. That's the problem. Victimhood breeds more terrorism and more reprisals. Nobody in this fight is in the right. When the IDF stops killing 3 innocent Palestinians for every innocent Israeli killed in a suicide bombing, you can take the moral high ground. When the settlements are disbanded and the wall comes down you can take the moral high ground. Until then, cut the crap, put on some humility and admit there's very bad stuff being perpetrated by both sides, and, if you care so much about the region, try to get serious about breaking the endless cycle of retribution and support peace for a change. Only honest dialog will give peace a chance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. As

Mao said "Before you speak investigate"


Your logic is flawed. You set up a straw man just to knock it down.

If you would have read the entire thread you would have seen I wrote

"......Nothing in that belief precludes me from favoring a two state solution or acknowledging the legitimate grievances of the Palestinians."

Yes, the pregnant question remains should Israel exist as a Jewish state

There are many who believe that Israel should yield it's independence and live in a bi-national state with the Palestinians.

I disagree......

[Mike_from_NoVa]

39. Huh? Whaaa?

No matter what solution were to occur, Israel would never "yield" any independence. That's just paranoid talk. Israel isn't going anywhere. Stop scaring yourself and everybody else.

Implying that somehow Israel's existence is "threatened" by insisting we address your "pregnant question" is the real strawman here. Nice try at transferrance though.

Now I've got stuff to go do. Feel free have the last word. bye bye :hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. There's Nothing To Respond To Since You Didn't Address My Point

[Mike_from_NoVa]

91. DSB sent me a private message...

I can't respond to it in private because I have insufficient posts so far. (pity the poor newbie) I won't divulge the message's contents - it was sent "privately" after all. Let's just say it was an umm, "encouragement" to continue this part of the thread.

I really had to go do stuff (can't sit on the Internet all day, you know!) after my last post this morning and it was obvious we were talking past each other anyway - so off I went.

By puffing up the importance of the "right to exist" question, DSB has bought into the idea that there's still a serious threat to Israel's existence. On the other hand, I think generous unwavering uncritical US support makes this supposed threat a total non-issue and giving credence to it by going on and on about the "right to exist" only serves to ratchet up the hysteria level surrounding Middle East issues. Because of this difference of opinion, I don't think we can have a productive discussion about this, but I respect that he's deeply committed to the idea, don't hold it against him, and I realize my opinion that this is a non-issue is likely a minority opinion. And I guess I can see how challenging his belief in the issue's importance can be taken as offensive too. After all, we all love our ideas.

Mine idea is that I'd like to live in a world where every criticism of Israel didn't have to be accompanied by a denial of anti-Semitism and a litmus-test pledge-of-allegiance disclaimer about supporting Israel's "right to exist." I simply love this idea.

So have a nice evening DSB. I am going out for the evening. Can't promise I'll be back to this thread anytime before tomorrow. No offense, ok?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. Let History Judge

I accused you of employing a straw man in your argument. You accused me of transferrance.

Here's the strawman "Oh but we are victims of suicide bombers"

That's the strawman. I defy you to read this thread and cite where I suggested that.

To attribute a position to someone they do not hold and than knock it down is the text book definition of a strawman.

Terror on one side doesn't justify terror on the other side or as my daddy with his ninth grade education said "two wrongs don't make a right"

Next point. Thorstein Veiblen in this thread has argued as is his right that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. I believe he is misguided but not evil.

That prompted the question "Does Israel have the right to exist as a Jewish state"

I agree it's a non starter. A state with Israel's awesome military might and 300-400 nukes isn't going anywhere.

I was just posing the question that Thorstein gave birth to you hence the pregnant question waitiing to be asked.

Next point. You pissed all over my argument and didn't give me a chance to rebut it and you use the emotional icon wave to add insult to injury. The proof is in this thread.

Ah, the contents of the infamous private message. I compared your trashing of my argument without giving me a chance to rebut it with the practice of giving the finger to someone without looking at them and letting them simmer because they can't respond.

It's kind of like having a fight with your neighbor picking up the phone, calling him a dick and than hanging up before he can respond.

[Julien Sorel]

110. Unfortunately,

I agree it's a non starter. A state with Israel's awesome military might and 300-400 nukes isn't going anywhere

Apartheid South Africa had nukes (helped along by Israel), and a powerful military. They are gone, collapsed under the weight of their own moral corruption. The only thing keeping Israel and the occupation going is the essentially bottomless nature of American economic and military aid; else Israel, at the very least, would have been forced to negotiate an end to the occupation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. That is incorrect

The South Africans ultimately HAD a place to go. Many of the white South Africans fled to other nations and were welcomed with open arms.

Funny, that NEVER really happens for Jews. Even the U.S. didn't embrace the Jewish refugees prior to WWII.

So, they will not leave. They cannot lose. They have only one choice if their neighbors don't accept them and that is to fight. If you want that choice, that is fine. As long as you like the concept of nuclear winter brought on by the anti-Israeli prejudice of the Arab world.

Israel will negotiate, but NO the Palestinians won't get everything they want which seems to be what many here expect.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

149. You Employed A Classic Strawman Argument

and I am suprised that a man of your intellectual capacity would make it.

Muddle Of The Road said that the Afrikanners had somewhere to go. History has proven that the nations of the world have not welcomed the Jews with open arms.

He meant that when Jews were fleeing persecution en masse like in WW2 they had nowhere to go. Even in World War 2 U.S. Jewish mass emigration was widely opposed.

That is what he meant. Not that the isolated Israeli couldn't leave and find a home elsewhere.


And then you made an ad hominen attack. "Have you been drinking"

Again I'm disappointed. Invectives like that poison the well from which we must drink.

Now to my points....

I'm not a Middle Eastern scholar but I do believe the Israeli's have a greater claim to the land of Israel than the Afrikanner's had to South Africa.

The occupation must end. There must be a brokered agreement.

A binational state is a non-starter. It would be like reuniting Mexico and Texas under a common government where the Texans would find themselves a minority. That will never work...

[Julien Sorel]

166. Nonsense.

There are more Jews living in the U.S. than there are Jews living in Israel. There are 3 times the number of Jews living around the world than there are Jews living in Israel. Jews lived for thousands of years around the world, but now all of a sudden the only place they can be safe is in Israel? And yet, Israel's friends claim they are in mortal danger, at the hands of Arabs who are dying for the chance to wipe them out to a person. Where? In Israel! It makes no sense.

An ad-hominem, by the way, is an insult used in place of an argument. Since "Muddle's" bizarre rantings about nuclear winter were not an argument, (although it was, yet again, an instance of "Muddle" mentioning, with implied approval, massive violence against Arabs) there was no need for me to construct an argument in return.

I'm not a Middle Eastern scholar but I do believe the Israeli's have a greater claim to the land of Israel than the Afrikanner's had to South Africa.

And your point is? Neither the Jews in Israel nor the whites in South Africa have/had a right to treat their 'minority' populations the way they did and do. Land rights are a secondary issue -- basic human rights are the primary issue.

A binational state is a non-starter. It would be like reuniting Mexico and Texas under a common government where the Texans would find themselves a minority. That will never work...

Opinion disguised as fact, as well as applying an improper analogy: there is no ongoing dispute between Mexico and Texas over who has a right to the land; there is no problem to solve. There are currently roughly 4 million Palestinian refugees left homeless by Israel's actions, however. If you want to use this analogy, have Mexico invade Texas, kick a majority of Texans out and claim Texas for themselves, then start hunting for a solution to the resultant mess. That's where we stand with regards to the Palestinians. Under such a situation, one could easily imagine a single-state solution as the only viable alternative.

I will point out, by the way, that if the Mexicans did begin asserting their 'historic' right to Texas, which is a far stronger claim, I might add, than the Jews' claim to Palestine, I can only imagine the sort of violence they would be met with when they tried to assert their rights. I wonder how many Texans would be dismissed as 'terrorists' and the like as a result. Many of the exact same people who now support Israel would revile the Mexicans; what is right in Israel would be wrong anywhere else.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

178. You Asked Muddle Of The Road If He Was Drunk

Since your post was deleted by the monitors your problem is with them not with me. I suggest you contact the monitors and tell them why your attack was not ad -hominem. Perhaps they will be persuaded by your argument and re-post it. In absence of that posters are free to infer that your deleted post was an ad- hominem or personal attack on Muddle.

But don't get upset we all lose our cool sometimes. And I read your other posts and damn it I like you...-:)

As for the 4,000,000 figure I believe some 600,000 to 750,000 Palestinians were displaced by the birth of Israel . The 4,000,000 are their progeny.

How about the Jews that were exiled from the Arab states in retribution for the 1948 war where do they go for compensation.

If my comparison with Mexico is flawed it only flawed because the Mexicans are not crazy enough to take up the banner of revanchism.

I live in Florida... Probably on land where the Seminoles once roamed would a Seminole Indian or his progeny be in his rights to ask me to leave?

[Muddleoftheroad]

183. Jewish populations

Yes, there are currently more Jews living in the U.S. But for how long? France used to be thought of as a good place for Jews too. Then Vichy helped the Nazis and these days anti-semitism is an ongoing problem enough that many Jews are considering moving to Israel.

It is possible to be in mortal danger longterm and still live a day to day life that lacks persecution. The Jewish people know that many around the world, especially in the Arab world, still demonize them. The have seen the product of that attitude time and time again throughout history.

As for my comments, why is it that YOUR post was the one deleted?

Again, more single-state nonsense. Israel cannot and will not embrace its own destruction no matter how much the extreme left rants about it.

Yes, I too can imagine what would happen if Mexico tried to retake land it lost in a war. It would be squashed. That's the way EVERY nation in the world would react. Funny, only Israel gets criticized for it though.

[Andromeda]

146. I totally agree with you...

that there is a growing pro-Palestinian bias on the far left.

[donco6]

24. Some would say you can't

I disagree, however. One is criticism of a nation's policies and actions, the other is prejudice displayed toward another culture. Totally different things, IMO.

[truth2power]

27. There's an article in The Nation which attempts to clarify this issue,

May 5, 2003. "Anti-Semitism, Israel and the Left" by Philip Green.

"This fraught accusation of “left-wing anti-Semitism” surfaces so regularly that before considering it, we need to remind ourselves what anti-Semitism – the real thing – has actually looked like over the centuries. It had (and has) nothing to do with Israel or Zionism, but was rather a prototypical racist stereotyping, by means of which the alleged traits of certain individuals – “money-grubbing,” “pushiness,” moral degeneracy – are transformed via the alchemy of paranoid fantasy into the collective persona of “Jews” or “the Jew.”"

snip

"But precisely because that is the nature of classical anti-Semitism, we also have to insist that not every reference to a Jew or to Jews is by that token anti-Semitic; to be unable to distinguish ordinary political discourse from hate-mongering is to be willfully obtuse."

snip

"it is not anti-Semitic to say, .... that “the Jewish lobby is one of the biggest obstacles to a rational American Middle East policy.” That statement is arguable, and hyperbolic, but at the same time perfectly reasonable in its broad outline – reasonable judgments are often arguable or hyperbolic. The main point is that there undeniably is a pro-Israel lobby in Washington composed in great part of the representatives of several major Jewish organizations, and if those organizations had their way American policy would always tilt unequivocally toward Israel: just as if the Irish political elite in Massachusetts had had their way policy would for many years have tilted toward Irish Republicanism;"

http://home.mindspring.com/~fontenelles/greenp/pgreen1.htm

Note: The article on The Nation site is available only to Nation subscribers. But I did manage to find it posted on the above site.

edit> deleted duplicate line

[Aaron]

29. TY for the link very interesting article :) (n/t)

[no_hypocrisy]

30. No more than criticizing this country and its adminstration being

equivalent to being unpatriotic. Two different standards that can't be paired.

[Cujo]

33. no criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic

just like criticism of dubya isn't anti-American, but like the right wingers howl that any criticism of bush is in essence America bashing. They also use the word Anti-Semitic when any criticism of Israel is implied. its an intimidation thing. for example you say "Bush created a dangereous, destabilized country in Iraq" a right winger says "you UnAmerican traitor!!!!! you probably wish Saddam were president of the US!!!!" So you have to explain how you're not now and never were a Saddam supporter and precede every criticism of Bush with the words, "its good that Saddam is gone...". its like that with Israel...you say "Sharons heavy handedness creates much of the terrorism in Israel" right wingers say "you probably eat Israeli children for breakfast you nazi anti-semite!!!!"

[truth2power]

37. Thank you, Cujo.

I was called "another Hitler" by a Jewish acquaintance because I expressed my opinion that Sharon was guilty of war crimes.

No, condemning the actions of Sharon and the Likudists is not anti-semitism. Those who use that epithet are simply trying to shut down all discussion, much as those who say you're anti-American if you express dissent about the war.

on edit> This applies also to those who accuse someone who doesn't like Leiberman of anti-semitism. I think someone is permitted to dislike Leiberman just because they don't like the way he combs his hair. Whatever. That may very well be a fatuous reason not to vote for him - but it's not anti-semitic.

[Cujo]

74. exactly

the right wingers (because I find these are mostly the people who accuse me of being an anti-semite when I fault sharon for anything) often accuse other people of using the word Nazi when they're losing a debate, but they are doing the same thing. the fact is Ariel sharon is guilty of many war crimes, his own country has faced up to this fact. Anti-semite is simply an intimidation tactic and criticism of Israel or anyone who is Jewish is NOT anti-Semitic.

[Cassandra]

43. Before Sharon...

there wasn't any terrorism? REALLY? Who knew?
It would be more accurate to say that the terrorism has created Sharon, as he wouldn't be in power otherwise.

[Cujo]

78. of course there was

Sharon just aggravated the situation. you could also say putting a war criminal in charge of the goverment created more terrorists..Sharon makes it seem like its only the Palestinians that are violent and he's not. its both sides, both must work to make the violence cease not just one and up to this point all the burden has been on the Palestinians.

[Kamika]

38. Kinda depends on what you criticise

If you criticise it like like "damn jews" yeah it is, but if youre just angry over some govermental decision no it isnt

[T_i_B]

45. Anti-semetism is Sharon's best weapon

Superb old article from Naomi Klein.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,690168,00.html

Why bother with such subtleties while bodies are still being pulled out of the wreckage in Jenin? Because anyone interested in fighting Le Pen-style fascism or Sharon-style brutality has to confront the reality of anti-semitism head-on. The hatred of Jews is a potent political tool in the hands of both the right in Europe and in Israel. For Ariel Sharon, it is the fear of anti-semitism, both real and imagined, that is the weapon. Mr Sharon likes to say that he stands up to terrorists to show he is not afraid. In fact, his policies are driven by fear. His great talent is that he fully understands the depths of Jewish fear of another Holocaust. He knows how to draw parallels between Jewish anxieties about anti-semitism and American fears of terrorism, and he is an expert at harnessing all of it for his political ends.

The primary and familiar fear that Sharon draws on, the one that allows him to disguise all aggressive actions as defensive ones, is the fear that Israel's neighbours want to drive the Jews into the sea. The secondary fear Sharon manipulates is the fear among Jews in the diaspora that they will eventually be driven to seek a safe haven in Israel. This leads millions of Jews around the world, many of them sickened by Israeli aggression, to shut up and send their cheques, a down-payment on future sanctuary.

The equation is simple: the more fearful Jews are, the more powerful Sharon is. Elected on a platform of "peace through security", Sharon's administration could barely hide its delight at Le Pen's ascendancy, immediately calling on French Jews to pack their bags and come to the promised land. For Sharon, Jewish fear is a guarantee that his power will go unchecked, granting him the impunity needed to do the unthinkable: send troops into the Palestinian Authority's education ministry to steal and destroy records, bury children alive in their homes, block ambulances from getting to the dying, sabotage all international attempts to get at the truth of what happened in Jenin.

Jews outside Israel now find themselves in a tightening vice: the actions of the country that was supposed to ensure their future safety are making them less safe right now. Sharon is deliberately erasing distinctions between the terms "Jew" and "Israeli", claiming he is fighting not for Israeli territory but for the survival of the Jewish people. When anti-semitism rises at least partly as a result of his actions, it is Sharon who is positioned once again to collect the political dividends.

[truth2power]

95. Great article!

Naomi Klein has a way of cutting right to the core of an issue.

I highly recommend her book, Fences and Windows.

[JNelson6563]

48. Is criticism of America anti-American?

um, no.

[bitchkitty]

51. No, but criticism of

Ariel Sharon is anti-war criminal.

[Blue_Chill]

52. How about we drop the 'Anti' tag completely? Is that so hard?

How about we say - we are against the current policy put forth by the Israeli goverment concerning the palestinian crisis.

[Cassandra]

55. Works for me

I'm less than thrilled with the current policy myself. It's counter-productive.

[DealsGapRider]

56. I'm new here...

...so I don't know -- are the majority of DUers pro-Israel or anti-Israel? I am not totally uncritical of the Israelis, as their motives aren't always competely pure, but when push comes to shove, I must say that I side with them. I must say, the comparisons made between the Israelis and the Nazis really offend me. I was at an anti-war march in Washington last fall and I saw a few Israeli flags with a swatika in the place of the Star of David. That is just plain revolting to me.

[Blue_Chill]

58. yeah the whole nazi = Israel thing is stupid.

Let this be clear - If Nazi's ran Israel Palestine would be have been turned to ash and bone long ago.

Not supporting Israel's current actions at all, but saying they are on par with the Nazi's just doesn't make sense.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Blue_Chill]

79. Damn I missed this post

These deleted things always make me curious.

[bicentennial_baby]

81. You did'nt miss much

It was quite distasteful, imho

[Blue_Chill]

84. really?

The person PM'd me saying that a branch of judaism had some members referring to Arabs as bugs of some sort.

That's not so bad.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. You Have Some Jews Who Refer To

Palestinians as cockroaches but you also have Muslims saying that Jews are descendants of pigs and monkeys.

It's sick....

[Kamika]

92. confessing

Yes i wrote a post which i got pmed was a big nono to write. anyway i did also write in the end of the post that i wasnt excusing arabs either since they are probably calling jews equally bad things.

/hides

[Kamika]

64. id like a definition of pro or anti israel

See i am pretty critical about certain politics israel has, but i have several friends there i have visited the country and i have had a boyfriend from there.

So what does that make me ?

I just get abit mad when ppl say are you anti or pro israel?? what the h*ll does that mean am i anti israel kills children or pro israel kills children? am i anti that arabs would want to murder every single jew in israel or am i pro arabs want to kill every single jew in israel?

No, give me a proper definition of what it means to be anti or pro israel please.

[DealsGapRider]

68. Fair enough

But I think most people would understand that being pro israel would mean generally supporting the country's policies while being anti israel would mean generally opposing the country's policies.

Let me re-phrase the question... Are there large numbers of DUers who think Sharon is a racist murderer and that Israel oppresses the Palestinian people, or are they outnumbered by people who generally believe that the Palestinians bear the lion's share of the responsibility for the failure to establish lasting peace?

[Kamika]

70. I think its like this

Ok so you are talking only about israels policy with the palestinian areas?

I think the silent majority has no problem with Israel but do think Israel has asmuch responsibility for making peace as the palestinians.. if not more since israel has so much more power both financially and military.

There are radicals here ofcourse, they are loud but not that many

[DealsGapRider]

75. No, not just the territories...

Just Israeli policy in general. Obviously, there are some who believe that the very founding of the state of Israel was a morally questionable act, as they claim the Jews uprooted tens of thousands of Arabs from their ancestral homes. Those with this view aren't going to limit their criticism of Israel simply to their treatment of the Palestinians in the territories.

I happen to think that Arafat blew it big time when he rejected the Clinton-Barak offer. Quoting Christopher Walken in True Romance..."That's as good as it's gonna get, and it's never gonna be that good again." The Palestinians will never get such a generous offer again.

[Kamika]

76. well

They have alot of different policys about a great deal of things lol.. you have to define it.

Im curious if you actually seen the offer barak put forth?

If you havent check it out.

[DealsGapRider]

82. I confess, I haven't read it in detail

But I do remember reading a column by David Broder of the Washington Post that said that Arafat could never hope to get more than what he was offered, yet he rejected it anyway.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. Isreal Should Be Held To The Same Standards As Other Countries

Nothing more.....


Nothing less....

[Julien Sorel]

113. But it isn't.

So now what?

[Julien Sorel]

114. But it isn't.

So now what?

[AntiCoup2K4]

59. I am neither anti semitic or anti zionist...

It is not anti semitic to be opposed to Sharon, Perle, and Wolfowitz. For it is their sickening fascist policies and practices which sicken me, not their ethnic and religious origin. Nor do I blame any other Jews (either Israeli or American) for the actions of these 21st century Nazis. Though I'm also not happy with those who support them without question, be they Jew or Gentile.

I am also not anti zionist, in the fact that I support Israel's right to exist. However I do not support them running over children with bulldozers or building Berlin style walls around Palestininan settlements. Nor do I support Palestininans blowing up buses for that matter.

So if you're creating a third category for criticism of Israel, let's call it "Anti Likud", you can definitely count me in!

[StandWatie]

160. likud has nothing to do with it

Likud is vulgar and expansionist and has no vision for what to do with the Palestinians outside of transfer (ethnic cleansing).

Labour is slick and western sounding and has a dressed up plan to make semi-autonomous reservations for non-voting Arabs.

That's the entire difference, it's just PR.

[LoneStarLiberal]

71. In Cases, Yes; In Cases, No.

There is no blanket answer to this question because it is one of those that demands a relative context. Certain criticisms of Israel are most definitely anti-Semetic; I haven't seen any here at Democratic Underground, but I have read both digitally and in print some stuff that is unexcusably ignorant.

Certain criticisms are not anti-Semetic. To criticize the Israeli government for past expansionist policies and for standing by while violent Zionists "settle" land belonging to Palestinians and driving them off is not anti-Semetic.

Claiming that it is anti-Semetic to criticize Israel for anything is akin to claiming that criticizing George Bush is being anti-Christian.

[NightTrain]

80. Of course not!

That's just more right-wing propaganda.

[Malva Zebrina]

96. If a book that is holy and that was written 5 thousand years ago

by those who were inspired by a god who was in the real estate business, who would dare criticize the killings and wars to take back that god given legacy? If you have to kill and such to get that land back--so be it--Kill

[SPAZtazticman]

101. heres the situation, as i see it:

the jewish people have gone through a great deal of oppression and discrimination (not to mention mass murder) in our history. however, races do not have personalities. races do not commit crimes. people do. just because we were oppressed does not give us the right to oppress others. and the simple fact of the matter is that israel has long since stopped being the oppressed, and has been, for a long time now, the oppressor. muslims in israel are subject to discrimination and segregation. israel has repeatedly violated u.n. accords and treaties, yet it's near-constant violation of international law is, time and again, overlooked, simply because no one wants to appear anti-semetic. Well, i am jewish, and i am saying that what israel is doing in palastine is wrong. the settlements, the bulldozing of palastinian homes, and the assasination squads, to name a few things, are all violations of international law, not to mention common morality. while this by no means means that the palastinian suicide bombings of civilians are okay, the fact of the matter is that no, critisism of israel is not anti-semetic, because israel has done, and continues to do, things that are well worthy of being critisised.

[Swede]

109. Anti zionism is anti semitism

but critism of government policy is neither.

[durutti]

117. How?

It's one thing to defend a people's right to self-determination. It's quite another to defend a people's right to deprive another people of their right to self-determination.

[Swede]

115. At the end of WWII Palestine was divided between Jews and Arabs

The arabs tried to expell the jews in 1948 and lost. Germany lost hundreds of thousands of miles in eastern europe. Two hundred years ago Native americans lost and we took over. Winner take all. Someone tell me why Israel is different.

[durutti]

121. Because now we have the UN

The UN charter prohibits the acquisition of land by force. By effectively outlawing expansionism, the purpose of the UN is to prevent future Hitlers from arising.

And the Arabs hardly tried to "expel the jews in 1948".

Starting in 1947, the Zionists ethnically cleansed 750,000 Arabs from the area. The World Zionist Organization went on record as opposing the partition -- they wanted all of Palestine. Prior to Israel's war of independence, the Zionists arranged to divide up the territory that was to become to Palestinian state to Jordan.

When Israel declared its independence in May 1948, it did so illegally. UN General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding. The partition was not law; it had no legal force. It was against international law to partition the area when it went against the will of the majority of its inhabitants.

The neighboring Arab states intervened reluctantly, primarily to prevent Jordan (whose ruler they viewed as a puppet of the British, and who wanted to conquer the rest of the Arab world) from acquiring part of the Palestinian territory.

The majority of Palestinians did not take part in the armed resistance against Israel, though one couldn't blame them if they did -- they were going to be forced to become an almost 50 percent minority without any political rights in the area allocated for the Jewish state. The Arab armies were outnumbered and outgunned.

The Palestinian refugees deserve the right of return or compensation enshrined in international law. They deserve the right to self-determination, also enshrined in international law. Self-determination is defined (in international law) as the right of any oppressed group to seek political independence. Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are an oppressed group. They therefore have the right to seek political independence for the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

[Cassandra]

129. That's quite a fantasy you have there

"And the Arabs hardly tried to "expel the jews in 1948". "

Really?

"When Israel declared its independence in May 1948, it did so illegally. UN General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding. The partition was not law; it had no legal force. "

That's the first I've heard that Israel was an illegal creation. Which Palestinian publication did you find that in?

"The neighboring Arab states intervened reluctantly,..."

You're kidding, right?

" The Arab armies were outnumbered and outgunned."

OUTNUMBERED?!? or outgunned? Hardly.

"They therefore have the right to seek political independence for the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

Yes, they have always had that right. When are they going to act like a state instead of a gang of thugs with a large cheering section? Israel got a state because it already had governmental organizations in place to handle a state, even under British occupation. Palestinians have yet to have any functioning government that runs its territory for the benefit of its people (other than Arafat). Occupation is not an excuse. If Jews could manage quasi- governmental organizations in the ghetto, in the Warsaw ghetto, even in Auschwitz, then Palestinians can manage this, too, under better conditions by far. They are not lesser beings who are incapable of this, they just, along with you, need to stop living in Never-Never Land.

[durutti]

135. Rebuttal

"And the Arabs hardly tried to "expel the jews in 1948". "

Really?

Are you going to present any evidence to the contrary?

The Arabs intended to secure the area allocated for the Palestinian state, not to attack Israel.

"When Israel declared its independence in May 1948, it did so illegally. UN General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding. The partition was not law; it had no legal force. "

That's the first I've heard that Israel was an illegal creation. Which Palestinian publication did you find that in?

This is hardly a revelation. It's commonly brought up in discussions of the history of the conflict outside of the United States, where the media don't all hold to the doctrine of Israel Does No Wrong. I recommend the book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein is a Jew, the son of Holocaust survivors. Or check out Arabs & Israel for Beginners by Ron David, also an American Jew.

" The Arab armies were outnumbered and outgunned."

OUTNUMBERED?!? or outgunned? Hardly.

Now you're really displaying your ignorance...

The myth of the 1948 war is that it was the Israeli David vs. the Arab Goliath. Because of declassified documents, we now know the reality is quite different.

According to the records of the U.S. Army Intelligence Division, the Arab forces consisted of about 30,000 ill-equipped, poorly-trained men. The Zionist army numbered 90,000 and was armed with modern equipment, including up-to-date fighters and bombers with well-trained pilots. The U.S. Army, British Intelligence, and the CIA all agreed that it would be no contest, and the Zionists would win in short order. The only formidable force, King Abdullah's Arab League, had agreed not to attack Jewish settlements.

More information is available in the books The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities (one of the growing legion of "Palestinian propagandists" who happens to be an Israeli Jew) and The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists and Palestine, 1921-1951.

Yes, they have always had that right. When are they going to act like a state instead of a gang of thugs with a large cheering section? Israel got a state because it already had governmental organizations in place to handle a state, even under British occupation. Palestinians have yet to have any functioning government that runs its territory for the benefit of its people (other than Arafat).

The obvious difference is that for most of the mandate period, the Zionists acted as an extension of British colonialism. The British collaborated with the Zionists, allowing them to immigrate against the will of the League of Nations, arming and subsidizing them.

In contrast, the Israelis have not helped the Palestinians establish governmental bodies. Rather, they've taken every measure to make that task as difficult for the Palestinians as possible.

The Palestinian Authority itself has very little power over anything. It controls only tiny slivers of territory. Its security forces have been decimated by Israel. This recent suicide bombing that killed 20 people was committed by a resident of a town that the Israelis had sealed off. It was completely under their control.

Why are Israelis not "gangs of thugs" when they deliberately target civilians (as thoroughly documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, and Physicians for Human Rights, among others), and chant, "Expel the Arab enemy!"

I oppose suicide bombing. I don't see how anyone with a conscience could support suicide bombing. But I do support the right of Palestinians to resist foreign occupation by any means consistent with international law, violent or otherwise. Killings of Israeli soldiers and paramilitary settlers are entirely justified.

If Jews could manage quasi- governmental organizations in the ghetto, in the Warsaw ghetto, even in Auschwitz, then Palestinians can manage this, too, under better conditions by far.

If you read something other than AIPAC leaflets, you'd realize that the organizations Jews formed in these situations were actually quite similar to those formed and being formed by Palestinians. Jews routinely killed collaborators, for example.

They are not lesser beings who are incapable of this, they just, along with you, need to stop living in Never-Never Land.

Translation: Israel Does No Wrong. Anyone who contradicts this statement is evil, stupid, or insane, because Israel Says So.

[Muddleoftheroad]

142. Oh my God

Your post is so horribly wrong I won't even bother with it. Just one question, where did Israel magically get all these trained troops? What were they doing, military training while in the camps?

[Julien Sorel]

145. Yes, you were.

The poster you claimed was 'horribly wrong' cited sources. I've read the stuff he cited, and it's more or less correct. So before shooting off your mouth about 'horribly wrong,' support your claim with evidence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

152. Don't You Think The Poster's Sources Were A Tad Biased

For instance Norman Finkelstein is not a dispassionate scholar on this issue.

For instance if I was looking for a critique of Marxism I would be on firmer ground if I cited Robert Heilbronner and not George Will.

Much of this debate is tautological. Covering ground that has been covered many times before.

As Burke said "we must take man as he is not the way we want him to be"

Whether or not Israel was born in sin is of no more consequence as whether or not America was born in sin.

Israel is a fact.

Palestinian nationalism is a fact.

Let's talk about how we can accommodate those facts.

[durutti]

156. No Scholar is Dispassionate

All scholars have opinions, drawn mostly from their own research. Finkelstein is no exception.

I wouldn't dismiss a poster who cites Daniel Pipes just because s/he cites Daniel Pipes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

161. I'm Not A Big Daniel Pipes Fan

He strikes me as reactionary.

I oppose all forms of reaction regardless of the direction from which it comes.

Finkelstein and Pipes are mirror images of one another. The Israel that can do no wrong and the Israel that can do no good.

[durutti]

169. Neither Am I

But it's wrong to dismiss an argument just because of the research upon which it relies.

Rather than dismissing Daniel Pipes out of hand, one should instead critically examine the merits (or lack thereof) of his arguments. The same goes for Finkelstein.

I've done both, and found that Finkelstein's are, IMHO, much closer to the truth.

I accept the fact that Israel exists. That's not going to change. I would like to see Israel become secular and more truly democratic, but that's a separate issue.

I only want to see civil, human, and national rights for Palestinians. And that means the right of return or compensation, an end to the settlements, and an independent, secular, democratic state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

[Julien Sorel]

172. The issue isn't 'bias,' but correct and incorrect.

If you have credible scholars refuting what Finkelstein, Morris, Porath, et all have said, bring them forward. Talk about 'bias' is simply finding a way to duck the issue without providing proof that that 'bias' has resulted in sub-par scholarship. I imagine the Jesuits found Galileo quite 'biased,' but they were never quite able to prove him wrong.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

185. We're Making Progress Now

At least you didn't call me drunk or obtuse.

Thank you.


I feel I am contributing to your personal growth.

Perhaps you are reading that book I reccommended.


I hardly consider a debate on the Middle East can be broken down into camps as diametrically opposed as the geocentric and heliocentric camps of Galileo's time. After all hard science can be reduced to a set of theories which can be replicated and tested.

We don't usually reach that level of specificity in politics.

There are many Isreali and American scholars such as Amos Az or Shlomo Ben Veneri who are on the left that offer a much more nuanced critique of Israel than Finkelstein, Morris,Porath.

[StandWatie]

163. UN refugee camps..

The DP camps had MI5 agents doing military training post-WWII. Think about that the next time Israel starts acting paranoid about UNRWA camps.

[durutti]

165. Horribly Wrong?

Your post is so horribly wrong I won't even bother with it.

Because Israel Does No Wrong. It contradicts that idea, so it must be wrong.

Just one question, where did Israel magically get all these trained troops?

They'd been trained by the British, and later the United States. The Zionists had many wealthy sponsors, which enabled them to buy modern arms. In contrast, the British (the prime supplier at the time) refused to sell arms to the Arabs.

The Zionists also had a united leadership, whereas the Arabs did not.

What were they doing, military training while in the camps?

It's an insult to the memory of victims of the Holocaust to invoke the Holocaust to defend Zionism, not least because Zionism is a racist ideology.

Zionists worked to keep Jews under Nazi rule from emigrating to America and other countries. They wouldn't accept emigration to anywhere but Palestine. Millions of Jews that could've been accepted by the Allies died, in part because Zionists valued their political agenda more than human life.

In 1941, and again in 1942, the Nazis offered all European Jews transit to Spain, so long as they did not go to Palestine from Spain. They made this offer directly to Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey. Zionist leaders refused.

The Irgun and the Stern Gang infiltrated Jewish Displaced Persons camps after World War II, using violence against fellow Jews to coerce them into emigrating to Palestine. They killed at least 40.

[The Magistrate]

171. The Version Of Events In '48 You Present, Mr. Durutti

Is somewhat distorted, both as to character of the forces involved, and the course of the conflict.

The 90,000 figure for Jewish military forces, for instance, does not represent trained and armed soldiers, but enrollment only in the various parties' "self defense" wings. At the time of the Partition, only a small fraction of these were armed, and most available arms were unsuited to military operations, consisting of pocket pistols and the like. Most were completely untrained in combat operations. There was some cadre, numbering several thousands, of persons with military experience in various forces raised under English auspices during World War Two.

Your characterization of Arab forces as ill-trained and ill-equipped is far too sweeping for accuracy: there was a considerable variety of Arab forces involved; some were as you state, others were crack units by any standard. Viewed broadly, Arab forces comprised three distinct groups of largely Arab Palestinian irregulars, as well as regular forces from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq: the contribution of Lebanese and Saudi forces to the conflict was too minor to spend much time on here.

The irregular forces comprised Kwajuk's men at the north in the Galilee, the Mufti's in the center, and a smaller group of Moslem Brothers at the south. The first was sponsored by Syria, and was the best armed and trained of these groups, including a number of veterans and soldiers of fortune, but none of them were particularly effective in conventional terms, though well suited to ambushcade and guerrilla usages.

The regular forces of Jordan consisted of the Jordanian Legion, a crack unit of brigade strength, equipped to English standard and officered by Englishmen seconded from the English Army. Egyptian forces, too, were equipped to an early World War Two English standard, and suitably trained, though not particularly well led in some instances. The principal Syrian force was an armor brigade. Iraqi forces were the poorest of the lot: since Iraq's armed forces had rebelled against England with Nazi assistance in 1941, they had since been starved of funds and eqiupment. In whole, the regular Arab forces could boast effective armor, artillery, and air equipments, while Jewish forces at the outbreak of major fighting were wholly lacking in these essentials of modern war, with the exception of a handful of field-pieces.

The opinion of professional military observers at the time was that the Jewish forces would be handily defeated: this view was expressed at length by no less than Field Marshal Montgomery, who had had charge of English forces and operations in Mandatory Palestine after World War Two. Indeed, it was the confident expectation of Prime Minister Bevin that the Jews would be quickly reduced to appealing to England for resue from the Arabs, and much of his policy at the time was based on that presumption.

The commencement of major hostilities hardly consisted in "Zionists launching a campaign of ethnic cleansing" before the declaration of Israel. From the end of the Second World War there had been a bitter campaign of murder gangs conducted by the most militant on both sides against one another on a small scale. With the vote for Partition by the United Nations, Arab Nationalist activities intensified enormously in Mandatory Palestine, and were accompanied by riotous outbreaks against Jews in neighboring Arab countries. During February and March of 1947, Arab irregulars undertook a systematic campaign to isolate Jewish lodgements, sometimes known as the war of the roads. This campaign was highly effective, particularly in the Galilee and the environs of Jerusalem. The Hagganah was unable to maintain communications in the face of numerous successful ambushcades, which were invariably followed up by torturous killing of any taken alive by the irregulars.

It was at this time the Jews received their first signifigant quanties of modern arms, comprising roughly twenty thousand rifles, along with machine guns and munitions, shipped from Czechoslovakia with Soviet conivance. Using these arms, the Hagganah, in company with Irgun formations, launched a counter-attack aimed at restoring communications with Jewish communities in the Galilee and Jerusalem during April. This was largely successful, and it was at this time that, in the approaches to Jerusalem, the Dier Yassin killings occured.

During this period, regular Arab forces were massed and prepared for invasion of Palestine. It is true that the intention of these was as much to carve up the territory of the Mandate for themselves as to break Jewish power in the region. Syria covetted the Galilee and Jerusalem; Jordan's monarch Abdullah was determined to prevent any state being established by the Mufti, for whom he held a great personal animus, and Egypt wished as much territory as could be acquired on the coast and interior south of Jerusalem. There was an understanding between Abdullah and Ben Gurion that Jordanian forces would direct efforts against the Mufti's forces rather than the Jews.

Within forty-eight hours of the declaration of Israel, the various Arab regular forces advanced. Syrian armor was poorly used in the Galilee, and after initial successes was stood off by a tiny element of artillery, which, put bluntly, ought not to have sufficed to do the job it did. The understanding with Abdullah broke down quickly as the Jordanian Legion commenced a seige of Jerusalem, featuring sustained artillery bombardment of Jewish neighborhoods on a scale that would have done credit to any similarly scaled engagement in the Second World War. Egyptian forces advanced effectively in the Negev and past Gaza on the coast.

It was at this period that Jewish forces at last began to receive from the "boneyards" of discarded World War Two equipments in France and Italy, heavy equipment and aircraft, though to the end they were afflicted by serious scarcity of armor, and employed instead in shock columns light soft-skin vehicles, mostly jeeps, equipped with numerous machine-guns, rather like the recent fashion of armed pick-up trucks employed effectively in Chad and Somalia, among other places, in our own day.

In broad outline, the Jewish forces employed a strategy of interior lines, assailing each of the Arab thrusts in turn, halting or breaking it, and swiftly redeploying against the next. The bitterest fighting was in clearing communications through to Jerusalem, and in reducing the Egyptian lodgements round Falujah. The final stage was a campaign to clear the Galilee of the irregular forces of Kwajuk: this was an extraordinarily brutal business.

[Julien Sorel]

122. The ignorant and the mendacious...

Besides the rather glaring factual innaccuracies of your post, a 'winner take all' mentality is what led to WWI and WWII. The world came to realize that conquering land through warfare created too many problems, and outlawed the practice -- it is literally against the law to take territory through conquest. Just as I cannot legally, for example, come to your house, beat you up, and take it for myself, so countries cannot do the same to other countries.

The U.S. just defeated Iraq. Do we now have a right to their land? By your logic we do. Should we invade Mexico and Canada, and take whatever we like from them? The Mexicans have oil, we could sure use it. Why not? According to the immoral principles you espouse, we have the right to do it.

[durutti]

116. No. Here's why...

First of all, Arabs are Semites. Advocating for Arab rights therefore can't be construed as anti-Semitism.

In the West, there's been a decline in anti-Jewish sentiment since World War II. At the same time, anti-Arab sentiment has increased. Yet the term "anti-Semitism" is still used to refer exclusively to anti-Jewish attitudes. This in itself reflects our society's pervasive bias against Arabs.

Not all Jews are Zionists. Many secular Jews are anti-Zionist, as are some sects of Orthodox Judaism. Thus, the assumption that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic (in that sense that it reflects anti-Jewish sentiment) is itself bigoted, because it portrays Jews as some monolithic population who invariably hold the same views, rather than as unique individuals.

Zionists claim that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because there are other nations with worse human rights records. This argument fails on a number of grounds...

First of all, which regimes are "worse" than others is ultimately a matter of opinion. By this logic, we shouldn't criticize any country, since there's always some regime that's arguably worse. Indeed, by this criteria, we shouldn't criticize atrocities at the hands of Palestinian terrorists, since there are certainly worse atrocities.

The citizens countries that supply a great deal of aid to Israel (like the U.S.) have a special obligation to critically evaluate those countries' governments.

All that said, there are anti-Zionists who are anti-Semites. (There are also Zionists who are anti-Semites). Most anti-Zionists, however, are not anti-Semites.

[Droopy]

119. For me it's simple

Criticism of Israel's policies does not equate to anti-Semitism just as criticism of America's policies does not equate to being anti-American.

Examples:

Saying the war in Iraq was wrong does not equal anti-Americanism.

Saying the settlements are wrong does not equal anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is when you hate Jews. Anti-Americanism is when you hate Americans. It's all really easy. Hitler was anti-Semitic. bin Laden is anti-American.

[The Lone Liberal]

125. It might be if you were talking about Jews

Hell Israel is nothing more than Club Med for Europeans.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

151. Really I Thought

more than half the population of Israel were Sephardic or Arab Jews and their progeny who escaped persecution in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Morrocco, et cetera.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

130. There is a fine line

But generally, I would say criticism of Israel's policies is fine, but it is inappropriate to hold Israel to a higher standard than you would hold any other country, and I feel like Israel gets singled out a lot for criticism while far worse injustices perpetrated by other countries receive far less attention here at DU and in general. Furthermore, what I consider to be definitely anti-Semitic is when people make reference to the "Zionist lobby" controlling America, saying that Jewish officials such as Lieberman represent the interests of Israel more than the interests of the US, and any references to a Jewish conspiracy or Zionist conspiracy or Jews controlling the country, etc. And saying that you are not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist is crap, because 90% of Americans who identify as Jews also identify as Zionists. Being a Zionist simply means you believe in the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state, however you define its borders and however you define Jewish state. Even my grandparents, who are very far to the left and extremely critical of Israel, consider themselves Zionists.

[bpilgrim]

131. of course not

but to many partisians it is so be careful :hi:

peace

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

141. Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic

as long as you're criticizing policy. Some hardcore radicals while go too far and make satements comparing Sharon to Hitler, or the Jews as the enemy. Saying that Israel needs to take down the security fence is one thing, saying the israel knew about 9-11, or that Israelis are Nazis, is something infinitely worse.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. Like The Post That Immediately Folowed Yours

[bpilgrim]

181. huh?

did you mis post :shrug:

peace

[western mass]

147. higher standard...absolutely

Should Israel be held to a higher standard than other places where far worse things are happening? Damn right they should, as long as Israel remains the single greatest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.

My tax $ aren't directly funding the slaughter of innocents in the Congo.

My tax $ *are* directly funding the Israeli occupation/apartheid. My tax $ are propping up right-wing zealots bent on ethnic cleansing.

www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html

(note those figures don't include many loan guarantees)

http://www.mediamonitors.net/susan3.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

148. Your tax dollars

and mine go all the hell over the place. From Pakistan to Egypt and none of those nations is held to the same standard Israel is. Israel is singled out for treatment because it is the Jewish homeland and because the nations that oppose it sit on much of the world's oil supply.

[Neecy]

158. Sometimes yes, sometimes no

Of course I believe there can be valid criticism of Israeli policy, and that this criticism does not automatically make someone anti-Semitic.

What's concerned me in the past, however, is that when some individuals express these concerns they do not limit their critiques to "Israelis", instead, I've seen posts splattered liberally with the phrase "the Jews", which give the impression that the author believes that ALL Jews are part of this worldwide "Zionist conspiracy" and guilty of "atrocities". This kind of tirade is as old as anti-Semitism itself.

All Jews are not Israelis. All Israelis are not Jews.

Unfortunately, I've seen far too many posts refer to "the Jews" on DU when referring to Israel, as though Jews outside of Israel are of questionable loyalty to their country of citizenship. This is also a classic anti-Semitic ploy.

Perhaps some non-Jews here just aren't attuned to the history of anti-Semitism and out of ignorance flip some triggers that are very recognizeable to others. A little education and sensitivity might go a long way to reducing the tension here.

[Lithos]

184. Locking

This has turned into an I/P discussion and would be locked if moved to I/P.

Lithos
Moderator Democratic Underground