Post removed

[MadDAsHell]

1. Yep. What's ridiculous is we knowingly elect a proud anti-Semite, then are shocked...

when she says anti-Semitic things.

[guillaumeb]

2. Is any criticism of the actions of the Israeli Government automatically evidence of anti-semitism?

Define apartheid.

[Mosby]

8. the WB is not part of Israel

And the security arrangements were signed off on by Arafat the the Israeli government.

The apartheid charge is just a filthy, Antisemitic smear job.

[guillaumeb]

26. I asked 2 questions.

One was answered.

[Recursion]

77. So it's a different state, then? (nt)

[MosheFeingold]

25. Sure

"Apartheid (South African English: /əˈpɑːrteɪd/; Afrikaans: [aˈpartɦəit], segregation; lit. "separateness" ) was a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa from 1948 until the early 1990s.[note 1] Apartheid was characterised by an authoritarian political culture based on baasskap (or white supremacy), which encouraged state repression of Black African, Coloured, and Asian South Africans for the benefit of the nation's minority white population."

Many antisemitic people stupidly accuse Israel of being racist and having an "apartheid" system in place against the Arabs.

Some of the less intelligent ones claim the Israelis are "white" (European invaders, according to this story) and the people under the rule of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority are brown.

First, the people in the PA are under the control of the PA. They're not under Israeli law, at all, except to the extent they seek to invade Israel or lob missiles at elementary schools.

But, second, there is no "brown vs. white" going on. I'll start with this picture of Ahed Tamimi, noted Palestinian activist. (She's the ginger in the picture.)

&f=1

The brown people are Israelis. You see, most Jewish people in Israel are Sephardic Jewish people. The olive skinned people are Ashkenazi. The Ashkenazi's closest genetic relatives are -- the Sephardic, followed by the Palestinians.

In a nutshell, you can't tell an Israeli from an Arab by looking. Both come in all colors, including ginger Arabs.

So there is nothing racist going on.

Third, I will note, unlike South Africa, Arabs in Israel (who make up ~20% of the population) have all the same legal rights as everyone else. They can be any religion they want. They can have no religion. They get free healthcare and education. They can be gay. They can be straight. They can be whatever.

This is, in contrast, to the PA, where being gay is the death penalty. Or converting. Or whatever.

In fact, Arab Israelis are the richest, most educated, population of Arabs anywhere in the world. Israeli Arabs, overall, love Israel. They often VOLUNTEER for the IDF. (Muslims Arabs are not subject to the draft like everyone else, but probably 1/2 volunteer, anyway.) Indeed, the Christian Arabs are, hands down, the richest and most educated populace in Israel.

Whatever your definition of "apartheid is,, making the supposedly discriminated-against group the richest demographic in your country and treating them same as everyone else is pretty piss-poor apartheid.

Now, I suppose one could claim that Israel has no right to put up a border wall along the border with the PA, despite weekly terror attacks dropping to almost nil after the wall was installed, and call THAT apartheid.

Well, that's not apartheid. That's a strong border.

But if you do go for that novel approach, make sure you criticize the Egyptians for putting up TWO walls to keep their fellow Muslims out -- because of terrorism. In fact, the Egyptians just pumped poison gas into tunnels to kill idiots smuggling explosives this weekend, it's so bad. Because of the tunnels, the Egyptians are currently constructing a giant moat along their border, as well. (seriously - a moat so big it will be a navigable waterway).

[guillaumeb]

29. Apartheid is an Afrikaans word.

And apartness as a concept refers to an approach that, in South Africa, resulted in separate towns for separate peoples.

In the US, apartheid takes the form of segregated communities.

But nothing in the concept prevents this "apartness" from being applied for non-racial differences.

Agreed?

And many of the border walls are actually walls dividing territory that is not part of the State of Israel. So if many of these "border walls" divide Palestine, and the restricted access "border highways" as well, they are not actually border walls as we generally understand them.

[MosheFeingold]

31. So it's the wall you are calling "apartheid"?

So, I guess you support a one-state solution for Israel?

Or are you just complaining that the wall is in the wrong place?

[guillaumeb]

34. I am speaking of the concept,

and the wall might just be seen as a visible manifestation of that concept. It is a physical barrier, something that reinforces physical and social apartness.

Agreed?

As to a solution to along standing problem, that is another matter. I am not the solver. But in my view, any solution might have to come from an outside Agency, and be acceptable to both sides.

But all of this is straying from the original post.

[MosheFeingold]

40. Unless the goal is the one state solution

I don't see how a border wall could be called "apartheid".

Especially given how there are plenty of Arabs living happily (and equally, if not better, than Jewish Israelis) on the Israeli side of the border.

Unless the definition is that all national borders are apartheid, specifically including Egypt's rather more fortified border along the PA.

[guillaumeb]

41. The Egyptian border wall is an actual wall between 2 countries.

The many walls and restricted access roads in Palestine are not walls and roads between countries, they are walls dividing Palestine, and walls controlled by the Israeli Government.

And these walls and roads literally divide different communities. These are not national borders.

[MosheFeingold]

46. OK, so we are back to the one state solution.

That's what you're saying, correct?

[guillaumeb]

51. What I previously said:

As to a solution to along standing problem, that is another matter. I am not the solver. But in my view, any solution might have to come from an outside Agency, and be acceptable to both sides.

What is needed is the political will from all parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution, and an outside Agency to mediate. My view is that the UN is one possible Agency.

[MosheFeingold]

53. No, you said its a wall not on a national border

Which means it's either in the wrong place or you think there should be one country.

Don't go mealy on me. Say what you mean.

[guillaumeb]

56. The walls are built on territory that Israel controls.

And the inner walls that are partitioning Palestine are not national borders. Nor are the limited access roads national borders.

Agreed?

[MosheFeingold]

58. Not sure what you mean

You seem to be playing word games.

I think you are claiming there is one country called "Palestine" and Israel has no right to exist.

If that's your opinion, spit it out.

[guillaumeb]

60. I said nothing of the sort. If anyone is playing word games.....

And given how you are attempting to misframe what I have actually said, there is no use in continuing.

[MosheFeingold]

63. Fair enough

Say it again, using smaller words. I'm old.

The issue with the border wall can be: (1) it's in the wrong place or (2) there should be no wall because Judea and Samaria should be part of one county with the rest of Israel.

I think you are saying No. 2, but you're not clear.

[guillaumeb]

65. 2 states.

Mutually acceptable borders.

Outside Agency as mediator.

Your own position?

[MosheFeingold]

66. Sounds great

I'd probably add the Palestinians need to amend their constitution to remove the clause that says all Jewish people must be removed from the entire area (including Tel Aviv, etc) or killed.

Seems a bit hard line, doesn't it?

BTW: this two state solution has been on the table since the Balfour Declaration, but a certain group of Muslim Arabs considered it (and consider it) an offense to allah, so refuse to agree to it.

The only thing that has changed is the government in Israel has given up trying to move forward. If legitimate (non-Iranian backed) leadership came into power in the PA, they might be able to make a deal.

[guillaumeb]

70. Compromise takes 2 sides.

And there is no will, in my view, on either side.

[shanny]

3. If you like broad brushes

as opposed to nuance, you probably agree with this.

[underpants]

4. 🍿

Let’s see how long THIS lasts

[Mosby]

17. why would the hosts lock it?

Just yesterday someone started an OP which said "criticism of Israel is not antisemitic". That was basically the entire content. The hosts didn't lock that or any of the posts about recent events concerning Omar.

[bitterross]

5. If I believe Settlements in Violation of UN Resolutions are Wrong?

Does that make me an anti-Semite?

[marylandblue]

9. No.

[Cold War Spook]

18. No

[MosheFeingold]

27. Depends on why you hold that opinion

If you have knowledge of the actual facts and hold that opinion, then, yes, you would be antisemitic.

If you believe the misinformation so many people have been fed by a really effective (and sadly antisemitic) propaganda effort, then no, you're just misinformed.

[Cold War Spook]

52. Are you saying that these settlements are not being placed on Palestinian land?

No, they are and the Jews that are building them use force to keep them. They are illegal under international law.

[MosheFeingold]

57. The question belies a false assumption

It's not like there was some country of "Palestine" that Jewish people invaded.

There was the Ottoman Empire. It feel apart. It contained Jewish people and Arab people (and Druze and a lot of other people no one talks about). The Arabs kept killing Jewish people, so the allied powers (generally French and English) decided that to draw up two counties to keep the peace.

Depending on the land in question, it either was owned by absentee owners (or the Sultan) and was (in general) purchased by Jewish people or already owned by Jewish private citizens. It's (generally) well within the borders of the original two state solution.

Or are you talking about East Jerusalem, which became Juden-Frei in 1928 after the Arabs killed or expelled the Jewish residents?

Now, there are exceptions to this (in both directions), due to various wars, but that's the generality of it.

Long way of saying, which settlement? Each is a different, fact dependent, question.

[bitterross]

102. I've never heard the Balfour Declaration explained quite that way before.

Never, have I heard it explained so sweetly and as such a benign thing. I would also point out that there was no Israel at the time, just as there was not a country of Palestine.

I believe it was Lord Balfour himself who said:

"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder important then the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land."

This statement, to me, rather parallels the same way the Europeans thought of the Native Americans in North America when they proclaimed basically the same idea of "Manifest Destiny" over the needs and desires of the people who inhabited the land they wanted. I'm quite certain they said it was all God's will too.

The British disparaged the Palestinians as peasants and nomads. The Europeans disparaged the Native Americans as uncivilized savages.

To say that neither of those were racist views is simply not admitting the truth before one's eyes.

To submit that displacing current inhabitants of a land in arbitrary favor of another set of people isn't really a great idea.

[Cold War Spook]

107. The ones built on Occupied Territory

since the 1967 war. They are illegal according to the Fourth Geneva Convention. You seemed to know a lot. Why didn't you know which settlements. Why didn't you know about the Forth Geneva Convention? Why didn't you know about the UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465?

[Mosby]

109. There are plenty of legal experts who say different

Geneva 4 article 49 doesn't apply to the wb. There was no forced transfer, there was no invasion of a sovereign state, and Jews had already been living in those areas for millennia.

[Cold War Spook]

120. Amona for one.

Even the High Court of Israel has ruled that it is an illegal settlement. I am not saying all are legal or all are illegal, but even Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated that some of the settlements are illegal. There is more to this than the West Bank, but you only tell part of the story. The next post of yours should be about all the areas that have settlements. Can't pick and chose.

[MosheFeingold]

122. Different issues

Depending on what settlement you are talking about, yes, some settlements are "illegal" under Israeli law -- but not because land was not part of Israel proper.

The nit-and-gritty issues are much narrower -- for example, the PA makes it illegal for any resident to sell any real estate (anywhere located) to a Jewish person. It could be a condo in Miami. So, there's the issue of does this law apply? If so, should such a bigoted law be honored? If so, when?

And then there are simple title issues -- a lot of this land has screwed up legal title, being formerly-valueless scrub land, so no one cared enough to file proper deeds. A lot of the land is owned by rich families in Turkey who haven't been there for 1000 years. So their are issues of simple "who has the right to sell it" private title concerns.

And then there is a third bucket of "Israel makes it illegal to build residential homes in this zip code" because you're subject to artillery shelling and we get IDF kids killed (e.g., Gush Katif) type issues.

Anyway, be aware of which kind of "illegal" you are talking about.

[Cold War Spook]

125. East Jerusalem.

What countries that are part of the UN and the UN agree that East Jerusalem is part of Israel.

[Adrahil]

123. This sounds a whole lot like....

... if you disagree with my premises, you are an Antisemite. I take issue with that.

[bitterross]

86. Enlighten me about facts

What is it that the UN and so many others are missing when they say the expansion of settlement is wrong and against international law?

What are the facts?

[MosheFeingold]

88. Which settlement

Pick one you claim is illegal. All the issues are different.

[bitterross]

95. I didn't say they're illegal. The UN and others say they are.

I'm merely seeking information.

My understanding is that all presence in the occupied territories is inappropriate. That it most likely violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.

According to:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/middleeast/settlements-explainer/index.html

Recent announcements by the Israeli government of the expansion of West Bank settlements, made in the period since Donald Trump became US President, have put settlements back in the spotlight. The announcements come just weeks after the UN Security Council Resolution declared that settlements had "no legal validity."


What are settlements?
Settlements are Israeli cities, towns and villages in the West Bank and the Golan Heights. (We will deal with East Jerusalem a bit later.) They tend to be gated communities with armed guards at the entrances. Why are they settlements and not simply Israeli residential areas? Because Israel is widely considered to be an occupying force in the territories. It is land that Palestinians, along with the international community, view as territory for a future Palestinian state.

[MosheFeingold]

96. See my post below

It adddrsses these issues.

To my knowledge, neither Israel nor Jordan were signatories to the fourth Geneva convention, this it wouldn’t apply to this dispute.

Regardless, Jordan (the other claimant) gave up its claim as set forth above. So even if it applied (which I don’t believe it does), it wouldn’t make a difference.

[bitterross]

100. Actually, Israel and Jordan both are parties to the 4th Geneva Convention.

In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts.

That pretty much declares UN members should feel bound by the Geneva Conventions.

[MosheFeingold]

113. Um, maybe

That was 1993. Jordan invaded (again) in 1967.

Regardless, the reasoning regarding legal ownership stands, and Jordan ceded its claim to Israel.

[bitterross]

114. You're not addressing the larger settlements issue

You're playing around with this in a disingenuous manner.

First, by claiming they are not bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention and then by citing only the Jordanian ceding of land. There are still other settlements that have been built and are expanding on land that there is no legal claim for. That was inhabited by people already. That the land that Israel claims has expanded far beyond the original boundaries of 1948 when Britain gave them the land.

All to the detriment of the Palestinians.

[MosheFeingold]

116. No, I addressed the issue squarely

I just talked about the legality of one particular settlement issue because each presents very different facts and circumstances (and legal issues).

This particular discussion was the issue with Judea and (part of) Samaria. The claimant to Judea and Samaria was the nation of Jordan against the nation of Israel.

I think maybe you don't understand that Jordan was the "other" state that was created out of the area, albeit largely for Arabs.

In other words, there already is a newish "Palestinian" state for Arabs -- it's called Jordan.

Now why the Arabs in Jordan don't like the Arabs in Judea is yet another matter; refer to the current situation in Syria for edification on that dispute and why Egypt built a much more fortified wall that Israel along its border (soon with giant moat).

+++++++

Regarding this statement: "That the land that Israel claims has expanded far beyond the original boundaries of 1948 when Britain gave them the land."

As already discussed (post 93), that's just factually wrong, at least when talking about Judea and Samaria (aka "the West Bank " ) . The entirety of both banks of the Jordan were recognized by the UN as part of Israel in 1948. Jordan invaded in 1949, took the land, then lost it back in 1967. Jordan has subsequently abandoned its claim to the land (as it should have, as Jordan acquired the land illegally under the UN Charter.) The land is, under international law, Israel, statements of various committees chaired by North Korea and the like, notwithstanding.

++++++++

Is there the legality of another particular settlement you'd like to address?

[bitterross]

119. How About East Jerusalem and the West Bank?

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm

The Security Council reaffirmed this afternoon that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.

The West Bank was not part of land ceded by Jordan. It was annexed in the 80s.

I'm afraid people do not agree with your assertion that Judea and Sameria were legally acquired by Israel.

[MosheFeingold]

121. With the US abstaining

You mean.

The facts are the facts. The 1948 border in Judea is what it is. Even the that committee acknowledged it.

This committee chose to disregard the facts and the law for political reasons it deemed of superior merit, which is an entirely different basis. Specifically, creating settlements made a two state solution much harder to obtain, and thus harmed goals stated in other documents. The committee is a political (not legal) body, so it has the right to make such political judgements.

And whether maintaining the strict legal position as the correct approach is an open matter, I don't disagree.

My point is narrower: the "stole Palestinian land" line is just nonsense. It was Israeli land taken by Jordan and reacquired by Israel.

Now, whether that Israeli land should be granted to Arabs in Judea, is an entirely different question, and one on which reasonable minds can differ.

The framing of the political question in a lie of "Israel stole lands" -- is done to de-legitimize Israel.

[MosheFeingold]

93. I'll even given an example to help

Using the the most recently contentious -- Judea and Samaria, commonly called the "West Bank" (as in, the west bank of the River Jordan) in the West.

Going back again to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire that accelerated after WWI, and the division of the stateless land into two states -- now Jordan (largely Arab) and Israel (largely Jewish).

At the time of initial division of this stateless land, the land on both sides of the river Jordan were to be part of the Jewish National Home by the 1920 San Remo Conference, including Judea and Samaria. This was confirmed by the League of Nations (predecessor to the United Nations) in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate to Britain, and affirmed by article 80 of the United Nations charter in 1945. When Israel’s leaders declared sovereignty in all territory relinquished by England on May 15, 1948 (including the land west of the Jordan river) it was recognized as the State of Israel by the General Assembly and Security Council by May1949.

Well, the Arab homeland (again, Jordan, interestingly staffed with former Nazi officers) didn't like that much, so Jordan invaded (along with four other Arab states) and conquered Judea in 1949, annexed it in 1950.

Jordan's actions were illegal under Article 2 of the UN charter, which forbids the acquisition of territory through war, so no one recognized Jordan's occupation, except England (who was pissed off at the new Israel for a rather nasty war).

In 1967, Jordan again initiated war against Israel (along with two other Arab states) but Jordan was pushed out of the territory (back to Jordan’s recognized boundaries on the east bank of the Jordan river) by Israel. This re-acquisition of the territory by Israel was legal because article 51 of the U.N. charter permits a nation to defend itself from attack.

Given the fact that Israel had legal title to the territory that was recognized by the international community and Israel’s final control of Judea was a result of self-defense rather than aggression, while Jordan’s control of the territory was never recognized as legitimate by the international community, common sense shows that Israel merely won back territory that legitimately belonged to it in the first place.

Regardless, Jordan (the only potential claimant) relinquished all claims to Judea and Samaria in 1988 and recognized the territory as part of Israel in a peace treaty signed in 1994.

So, no, settlements in Judea and Samaria are not illegal occupation of Jordanian land.

The various proclamations by certain committees of the UN have no binding effect under international law. It's just like Senate resolutions from whomever condemning things. Lots of sound and fury, but they don't actually mean anything.

[guillaumeb]

62. No.

[Bok_Tukalo]

6. The dogged campaign to marginalize criticism of Israel continues

<OPE>

[KG]

22. !

[Celerity]

106. +2

[Mosby]

108. Your takeaway is lazy thinking.

[BannonsLiver]

7. What if you're sick of the entire issue?

[marylandblue]

13. I gave up a long time ago.

It's rare to find an unbiased discussion of Israel-Palestine. Everybody seems to have an agenda. The real challenges of finding a solution that doesn't end in genocide are ignored.

[Cold War Spook]

21. I can not see a reasonable solution.

The Palestinians will not agree to any solution that does not contain their right to have their capital in Jerusalem. The Israelis will not agree to any solution that allows the Palestinians to have their capital in Jerusalem. I does not matter if you believe they should or should not.

[MosheFeingold]

43. Well, kind of

The PA's administrative capital has always been in Ramallah -- seat of government, legislature, the works.

The desire to make East Jerusalem that capital is relatively new, but workable, in that Jerusalem is a big sprawling place and could certainly serve as two capitals.

Bit of trivia to show how complex this is: East Jerusalem became "Arab East Jerusalem" in 1928. At the time, it was heavily Jewish, but Arabs, supported by the Jordanians, conducted a pogrom, killing or expelling all the Jewish residents, including many families that had ancestral homes and compounds since antiquity.

For some reason, I guess by right-of-conquest, that's now considered OK to make the area Juden-frei.

This kind of thing got going with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (under whose rule this area was). After WWI, it collapsed in earnest, so this backwater really became ungoverned. The Allied powers (specifically the French and English) tried to draw a line (badly) and create two states, but both due to bad map making and traditional Muslim beliefs in the area regarding non-Muslims (especially Jews), it was not acceptable for the Jewish people to have their own state, so it didn't really work.

It became even more complex as Nazi Germany allied with the various Arab factions, both the simply cause the French and English trouble, but also their Jewish hatred -- and the need for Arab oil to fight a war.

[ret5hd]

10. pfffft...you can do better.

[Mosby]

117. OK, how about this one?

If you loved the new Wonder Women, right up until you found out she is Israeli, then you're probably an Antisemite.

[zipplewrath]

11. These I get

If David fucking Duke likes your tweets and retweets them then you're probably an Antisemite.

If Glenn fucking Greenwald agrees with you about Israeli control of American politicians then you're probably an Antisemite.

If you constantly complain about not being able to talk shit about Israel, even though there is an obsessive focus about the country in the media, you're probably an Antisemite.

If you think that the UN Human Rights Council is correct in only focusing on Israel, then you're probably an Antisemite.

If your go to website about Israel is zerohedge, counterpunch or Veterans news, then you're probably an Antisemite.

And if you come to DU just to talk about those awful Israelis, then you're probably an Antisemite.

The first 4 just qualify as uniformed or stupid.

[yardwork]

12. This discussion belongs in the I/P forum.

[7wo7rees]

87. +1000 recs - there was a time when it was the RULE

This discussion would not be in GD - it bekings in I/P

Many DU'ers have been lost to this

[Bettie]

126. It really does

why is it here?

[LiberalFighter]

14. It seems like any criticism of Israel or their government is considered antisemite.

As long as Bibi or anyone associated with him is in control I say screw their leaders. Especially with the way they treated Obama.

As far as I know we didn't have this problem before Bibi.

[Blue_true]

82. I agree. It is not the country or it's people. It is the policies being pushed in their names.

And about groups here in the USA doing everything that they can to stifle criticism.

[jberryhill]

15. Saying that AIPAC makes political donations to influence policy on Israel...

...is as ridiculous as the claim that the NRA makes donations to candidates in order to obtain favorable policy on guns.

Just silly.

[still_one]

32. That is what lobbying groups do. PHARMA, the Saudi lobby, or the over 11000 registered lobbying

groups in the U.S.

[jberryhill]

33. No, that is not what AIPAC does

Suggesting that AIPAC seeks to influence politics in the US is not allowed.

[still_one]

36. Right, PHRMA and the Saudi lobby do not seek to influence politics..... BS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-saudis-washington-influence-machine-how-the-kingdom-gained-power-through-fierce-lobbying-and-charm-offensives/2018/10/21/8a0a3320-d3c3-11e8-a275-81c671a50422_story.html?utm_term=.20beb38598d5

https://www.voanews.com/a/report-says-saudi-hired-lobbyists-give-millions-to-influence-us-congress/4635576.html


yeah, sure thing Jerry

[jberryhill]

38. Who is "Jerry"?

[still_one]

42. Stupid auto correct on my phone. Sorry jberry, thanks

[tblue37]

39. Check your sarcasm meter. It is malfunctioning. nt

[guillaumeb]

35. Clearly.

It is all a matter of free speech.

And clearly no one is against free speech.

As long as one has the entrance fee, shall we say, to the event.

[Recursion]

78. It is technically true that neither AIPAC nor the NRA make donations

That's a rather threadbare fig leaf, though

[ADX]

16. Since this question was asked but not answered earlier, I'll ask it again...

..."Is any criticism of the actions of the Israeli Government automatically evidence of anti-semitism?"

Standing by for your answer...

[Mosby]

19. of course you can criticize israel

But maybe you're not aware of the obsessive focus the world media has on Israel. It's completely out of proportion, until just recently, the middle east media were stating every day that Israel was the root of all the problems in the ME, with the failure of the arab spring and decent into dictatorships I the Levant and around the world anyone can now see clearly how silly that was.

[Bok_Tukalo]

23. The usual answer is "No, but ..."

And that "but" is a litany of whataboutism and demands for so-called balance.

It is remarkable that the same people who excoriate those who refuse to recognize Israel as a nation are the first to blanche when you treat it like one.

[hopeforchange2008]

44. +1

[KG]

20. I lulz'd

[Crunchy Frog]

55. Me too.

It's pretty much the only reasonable reaction.

[Johnny2X2X]

24. I call bullshit on a couple of those

Most are valid, but I think it's a valid point to discuss Israel as practicing a form of Apartheid. Do all who live in Palestine and Israel enjoy the same rights? Rights to citizenship, water, travel? If not, to what extent and why? Asking if this rises to apartheid is not antisemitic.

And the UN Human Rights counsel doesn't focus only on Israel, that's a loaded and dishonest point.

I have zero problem with the Jewish faith, or at least no more of a problem than I have with any other religion. Criticizing the Israeli Government's policies can have zero to do with criticizing Judaism. Wouldn't matter if the Israeli government was Christian, Atheist, or Islamic, some of their policies deserve criticism.

[still_one]

28. and if the only lobbying group you have a problem with is AIPAC, but conveniently ignore the Saudi

Lobby, along with other lobbies, there is also a problem

but then again, some of those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee, helped pave the way for the SC and the WH we have today, which opened the door to groups like Citizens United

[jberryhill]

37. Since you are familiar with these various national lobbies

Can you tell me the percentage of a typical congressional campaign funded by the Saudi Lobby (along with the name of that organization, so I can look up their FEC filings)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee

According to Dine, in the 1980s and 1990s, contributions from AIPAC members often constituted "roughly 10 to 15% of a typical congressional campaign budget".

[still_one]

97. Ahhh, the poor innocent Saudis who don't use their money for political purposes...................

"Saudi interests reported spending more than $100 million in the ten years after September 11 alone, according to one analysis of FARA filings.

Saudi Arabia’s substantial spending on lobbying and public relations may pail in comparison, however, when held up to the $100 million Saudi Arabia directly transferred to the U.S. government on Oct. 16 — the same day Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in the Saudi capital to discuss Khashoggi’s disappearance. Intended for American efforts to stabilize parts of Syria, securing the funding was seen by many as a win for President Trump, despite the questionable timing.

Enticing the Trump administration

Saudi Arabia’s shift in strategy to woo the Trump administration has been evident in their foreign agent’s FARA disclosures.

One of Saudi Arabia’s highest-paid firms since Trump took office is Sonoran Policy Group, a lobbying firm founded by Trump campaign advisor Robert Stryk. A $5.4 million payment by the Saudi Ministry of the Interior paid up front for “broad advisory services” — under a contract that was reportedly terminated shortly after it was signed, resulting in the Trump ally-heavy firm essentially being paid over $5 million to “do nothing” — made up the bulk of its $6 million in reported 2017 receipts from foreign interests seeking to influence the United States.

Other notable Trump allies who have worked for Sonoran Policy Group since the start of 2017 include the Trump campaign’s national field director, a Trump campaign state chief of staff and the former deputy to ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Another firm that has continued to represent Saudi interests, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, touted its team’s “significant relationships” with the incoming Trump administration. Unlike some other firms, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck has not sought to sever its ties with the Kingdom, standing to lose $125,000-per-month under its most recent contract on file with DOJ and made available through the Foreign Lobby Watch tool.

Saudi Arabia’s agents have also wielded influence in the Trump administration through less traditional channels.

The Government of Saudi Arabia reported paying the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. nearly $270,000 as part of Qorvis MSLGroup’s lobbying campaign, as first reported by the Daily Caller and confirmed in a FARA disclosure made available through the Foreign Lobby Watch tool.

The room revenue at Trump International Hotel in Manhattan rose 13 percent in the first three months of 2018 after a two-year decline due to a “last minute visit” by the Saudi Crown Prince.

The Trump Organization claimed it would donate foreign government profits to U.S. Treasury Department under an ethics agreement but has kept the details of the agreement hidden from the public.

"A 2018 report to Trump Hotel Chicago investors on foreign and U.S. customers broken down by country — obtained by the Washington Post — showed a 169 percent increase in Saudi Arabia-based patrons since 2016. The Trump Organization declined to say whether the Saudi government fronted the bill for those rooms.

One Trump appointee is even an active Saudi foreign agent, continuing to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars for representing the interests of Saudi Arabia while simultaneously serving on the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. Richard Hohlt registered as a foreign agent of the Saudi Arabian government weeks before the 2016 presidential election — and just months before President Trump appointed him the commission — under a contract paying him $430,000 for “advice on legislative and public affairs strategies.”

Hohlt is exempt from President Trump’s executive order imposing a lifetime ban on executive branch appointees engaging in foreign lobbying or other work that would require registration under FARA since it does not apply to part-time appointees, who are free to concurrently hold U.S. government appointments while working to promote the interests of a foreign government under current ethics laws.

But Saudi Arabia’s attempts to influence American public opinion and U.S. government policy did not start with the Trump administration by any means, as the country has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to advance its interests in the U.S. over several decades."

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/saudi-foreign-agents-donations-top-1point6-mill/

https://www.opensecrets.org/fara/results?foreign-principal=&location=&order=asc&page=1&query=saudi®istrant=&sort=stamped

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/19/this-is-what-saudi-arabias-influence-network-washington-looks-like/?utm_term=.eb144c7f5d25

[jberryhill]

99. Who characterized the Saudis as either "poor" or "innocent"?

I get the impression you are addressing someone who is not here.

So, what percentage of the average Congressional campaign? That's not the same thing as lobbying expenditures, so you are comparing apples and oranges here.

[still_one]

105. I expected such a response. None of it was for political campaigns, right, you go with that

The comment I made about the Saudis was a sarcastic remark about them not YOU, and the typo of your ID in the previous response was an autocorrect mistake, but I can always count on a snide remark from you

Have a nice day

[tritsofme]

30. Thank you! Agreed on all counts!

[lame54]

45. Not Foxworthy's best material

[Mosby]

49. I'll be here all day

If you have never heard of Pink Floyd but love Roger Waters views on Israel, yeah, you're probably an Antisemite.

Some du ones:

If you insist on calling Israeli Jews Israelites, you're probably Antisemitic.

If you parse the word "anti-semitism" to mean something other that Jew hatred, you're probably an Antisemite.

[912gdm]

50. Dude.....

regarding the first one...
😂

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. You know what else probably makes you an anti-Semite?

Being incapable of distinguishing between the state of Israel as a political entity and the Jewish people. Just saying. (Ironic, isn't it?)

[Chemisse]

81. My thoughts exactly.

Most of us can criticize the actions of a nation's leadership without denigrating the people who live there.

Let's hope the entire world which is disgusted with the US right now is not also anti-American people!

[demosincebirth]

48. I don't like many things the U.S. does. Does that make me

Anti- American?

[backscatter712]

59. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Let's try again.

If you're criticizing the nation-state of Israel, its government, and its policies, that is NOT antisemitic.

That includes its policies of seizing land from Palestinians, using extreme amounts of military force against them, stirring up their right-wing shitheads into forming "settlements" on stolen land", putting them on an economic "diet" resulting in the deaths of children, and yes, committing acts of apartheid and genocide.

If you're broadbrushing people because of them belonging to the Jewish ethnic group or religion, THAT is antisemitic.

Did I explain it using small enough words and simple enough sentences, or should I simplify it further?

[Mosby]

68. most of what you wrote isn't accurate.

You have exactly captured where some supporters of Palestinians go completely off the rails.

There is no Palestine.

There is no Palestinian land.

There is no illegal occupation.

The United Nations Security Council have spelled out the guidelines for a successful resolution of the conflict, and it's explained in UNSCR 242 and 338.

The Palestinians have rejected peace in 1938, 1947, 1967, 2000, 2001 and 2008.

When does it end? the Palestinians don't even have a democratically elected government anymore.

[backscatter712]

69. Explain that to the Palestinians who lived there and were forced off at gunpoint.

[Mosby]

72. israelis will say the same thing about the mizrahi

Close to 700,000 Jews were expelled from arab countries for no reason other than antisemitism.

Their assets and business's were stolen.

They have never been compensated.

[shanny]

83. Do two wrongs make a right?

[Kurt V.]

90. +1

[Mosby]

98. the arabs started a war and lost

What part of that don't you get?

[DanTex]

73. "There is no illegal occupation". LOL.

[Mosby]

75. oslo accords - interim agreement

Look it up and learn something.

Eta -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_II_Accord

[shanny]

84. Well said. Thank you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. I liked Israel better when it was governed by the center left , just like my own country.

I feel the same way about Israel as I do my own country. I like the nation, just not its current leadership.

[Adrahil]

124. Seconded. NT

[Behind the Aegis]

64. Quite obvious many don't get it.

They'd rather 'splainin it to us as if we don't know what it is or they find it to be a joke.

While much of the criticism against Israel is not anti-Semitic, it can be overly bigoted in that it is anti-Israel for the sake of being anti-Israel, but that is something different, there are times the criticism is anti-Semitic, especially when it employs millennia old stereotypes that have been used against Jews. If Israel is the "stand in" for "The Jew", then it is in fact anti-Semitic.

Not all criticism of Hillary Clinton is sexist, but it does exist; why would anyone pretend it doesn't?! Insert Obama for racism, Barny Frank for homophobia, and the list goes on and on. Some may jump the gun, or look for something when it isn't there, but declare it does, but just as many claim it isn't there when it is giving us a Seig Heil salute!

[912gdm]

67. damn right.

very well said

[OnDoutside]

71. This does zero for winning friends and influencing people. It's so

reminiscent of the Ulster says No, intransigent rubbish that Paisley used to crack on with. Such a waste of time.

[DanTex]

74. I guess that makes Jimmy Carter an antisemite, as well as Amnesty International, and pretty much

every other reputable human rights advocacy group on the planet.

Yes, Israel is practicing apartheid in the occupied territories, obviously. Yes, Israel was a European colonial creation, obviously. As far as how racist that colonial creation was, it's pretty much the same level of racism as every other colonial creation.

Criticizing Israel by invoking Elders of Zion type conspiracies is obviously antisemitic. Criticizing Israel for any of the many human rights abuses committed by its government is obviously not antisemitic.

[guillaumeb]

76. Well said. eom

[treestar]

80. +1

[Mosby]

103. this is what President Carter said:

I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew.

https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/carters-rhetoric-of-apartheid/

[DanTex]

112. LOL. And what did he say about the illegally occupied territories?

[happybird]

104. +1

[treestar]

79. A lot of those are not quite fair

If you don't agree with me, you're probably an Anti-semite is what some of those amount to.

Jimmy Carter made an allusion to "apartheid" is one of his book titles. I don't think he is an anti-semite.

There is some frustration apparently, that over the years, the Palestinians have come in for some sympathy, too. The settlements and the outrages that happen to them show they have a side too.

[pansypoo53219]

85. i am firmly anti-netanfuckyou & settlements. pro 2 states.

[Crunchy Frog]

89. "Hasbara: Why does the world fail to understand us?"

https://972mag.com/hasbara-why-does-the-world-fail-to-understand-us/27551/

[jpak]

91. But if you invite Benjiman NitwitYahoo to speak in Congress to insult Obama

You are not a racist.

Nope

[912gdm]

92. I am really curious.

What other country/state from antiquity to modern history has been attacked by infantry and air warfare, won, and gained territory to then be asked to cede that land? and so on and so forth to the point of sickness?


the '48 lines were established by the UN. Everyone was unhappy. They were attacked by a multi-arab coalition and they held and gained land. Again..and again.

Im not Jewish, no ties to Israel, and not really happy about a religious state, but these people have been attacked countless times and have gained ground. They won that land by blood, just like every nation state today has it's borders that were determined by idiotic ancestrial warfare.

The Jew's have been banished, demonized, overtaxed, and made as scapegoats for centuries. Passion plays to being gassed. I can see why they would feel safe in numbers, able to defend themselves. Like they have many times over since '48.

[Kurt V.]

94. as with all prejudice, antisemitism is simple. you don't like jews bc they're jews.

the rest of geopolitical stuff is bullshit. I'm an existentialists. every. single. person. is important to me.

[BeyondGeography]

118. Well that's utterly human and humane

[rampartc]

101. we will just have to disagree on this one

i choose not to choose sides in this, and do not think we should be providing arms or money to either side.

[Trumpocalypse]

110. So any criticism of Israel's policies

makes someone an anti-Semite. At first I thought your post was a joke, but it is just the usual BS used to shut down any legitimate criticism of Israel.

[Mosby]

115. you should read this whole piece

Indeed, in a real way, Omar’s conservative critics and progressive defenders stand in a symbiotic relationship: They are united in their desire to silence the message most Jews want to send. The right insists on condemning the Democratic Party and any progressive conversation about Israel as institutionally anti-Semitic, never mind that most Jews are committed Democrats and often share the progressive critique of Israel’s rightward drift that Republicans are so eager to tar. Many of Omar’s progressive defenders, for their part, are happy to simply dismiss all talk of left-wing anti-Semitism as conservative agitprop; they are content to rely on the usual assortment of fringe voices who – so long as Israel is on the docket – will offer to kasher even the clearest instances of anti-Semitic discourse.

It makes for a crushing feeling of powerlessness. The nation is having a conversation about Jews virtually impervious to the input of Jews themselves.

This, above all else, is what makes so many Jews want to scream in frustration. The right loudly proclaims it’s standing up to anti-Semitism – but Jews know their 24/7 Omar coverage does us no favors, and that in any event, conservative solidarity with Jews runs out precisely at the point it requires challenging the sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering that gets Jews shot.

The left self-righteously insists that it is saving its ammunition for combating the “real anti-Semitism” – but Jews have long seen that for too much of the left, cases of “real anti-Semitism” beyond the most obvious murderous varieties seem almost as elusive as O.J.’s “real killer.” Both sides are silencing Jews in the guise of allyship. Both sides need to step back and knock it off.

We need to break this pattern at its root. That means taking Jewish testimony seriously and resisting the impulse to dismiss efforts to combat anti-Semitism – including anti-Semitism related to Israel – as hasbara. And it equally means calling out those who purport to be allies in the fight against anti-Semitism, but in reality use anti-Semitism for political purposes while further marginalizing the Jewish community the moment we’re inconvenient to the ideological narrative.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12235761

[whistler162]

111. You forgot "If you feel the need to post a "handy guide"!"

[Pachamama]

127. +100000

Thank you