Anti-Semitism's increasingly thin and hard-to-see line

[Bonobo]

Criticism of Israel need not be anti-semitism. Let's get that out there at the beginning.

No one should be criticized as an anti-semite merely for criticizing Israel, but...

It is a hard line to read in many cases and just because someone criticizing Israel does not mean they are anti-semitic, neither does it mean that they are not.

So let me post a few of my own "warning" signs or "tells" for how I -as an individual Jew- attempt to read the lines. But first let me say that it is necessary for us to read those lines and to be vigilant for reasons that this week's Holocaust anniversary makes abundantly clear.

1. If you choose to throw the "Israel/Nazi" thing out there, I have particular disgust for you. It is so offensive and so clearly a matter of emotional baiting that I hardly think it needs to be even said. Someone who chooses to throw the Nazi epithet at a Jew or about Jews is, to me, motivated by something deeper than a mere criticism of Israel's policies. It is beyond ugly. It is straying deeply, IMO, into true hate speech. Remember, I am not talking about a cold analysis of policies discussed rationally. I am talking about incitement in the most intentional manner -and for what purpose? To offend. THAT is why it is unforgivable and deserves to be called hate speech.

2. "Those Zionists!". In my experience of nearly 5 decades of living as a Jew, I have yet to see someone who tosses the title "Zionist!" around as anything other than, if not an anti-semite, than certainly someone with no sympathy for the fact that Jews have been run out of nearly every country in the world merely for being Jewish. Criticizing a country's policies is not the same as saying that the country has no right to exist. Criticism is fine. Anti-Zionsim is not (to me anyway). Anyway, this is my list of warning signs, so you do not have to agree. I should also point out that denying the right to Israel to exist in a world of perhaps 50 or so Muslim nations is -to say the least- problematic.

3. Talking about Jewish power and influence. If you hear people talking about Jews in Hollywood, Jews controlling media, Jews controlling money, they are almost certainly anti-semites. Sorry, that line is rather clear to me. You may not agree. The fact is that Jews were also once very strong in the world of sports, the world of tailoring as well. Jews have received a disproportionate amount of Nobel prizes as well. Many Asians as well, but if we were to hear someone complaining about how Asians control the world, it would be quite clear we were dealing with a racist.

4. If you blame Jews for anti-Semitism, I think you are probably harboring some real anti-semitic tendencies.

5. Finally, if you start an OP inoculating yourself against charges of anti-semitism, I will consider strongly the chance you may be one. As I said at the top, one need not be an anti-semite to criticize Israel, but I guarantee that every anti-semite is a critic of Israel. So do the math (or the Venn Diagram).

Anti-Semitism IS on the rise in Europe and probably the US too. It is not the first time. It is cyclic. Jews know this. We KNOW based on a study of history that we will always be victims of anti-semitism. This is undeniable. Please do not try to stifle our vigilance and our voices by this insidious form of censorship that goes something like "Oh, I guess certain PEOPLE here will call me anti-semitic if I so much as blah blah blah..." --To those people, I say: "All right, I will not assume you are an anti-semite, but do not try to take away my voice in calling out anti-semitism where it does exist" because you can sure as hell bet that there are tens of thousands of gleeful anti-semites hiding BEHIND criticism of Israel.

Rant over.

[zappaman]

1. Number 2 is a dead giveaway.

[still_one]

3. Zionism boils down to believing that Israel has a right to exist. So yes, those who do not believe

Israel has a right to exist are most likely antisemitic

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Zionism boils down to believing Israel has a right to discriminate against non-Jews.

In fairness, the distinction is not as hard as in some cases, because if Israel stops discriminating against non-Jews then in the long run they may well vote not to call it Israel any more.

But if so, that's their decision. Every state should be a state for all its people, including those who were forcibly ethnically cleansed or driven off by threat of force in the Nakba, or even those who left a war zone voluntarily and were forbidden back into their own homes.

No state has an absolute right to exist (c.f. the recent referendum on dissolving the UK); like every other state, Israel has a right to continue to exist conditional on the will of those who should have the right to vote there.

[Bonobo]

29. Donald, you know that there are many Arab Israelis, don't you?

I'm just checking cause it seems like maybe you don't.

[Adrahil]

58. There are, for now.

Demographically, Israel will have to decide fairly soon if it is a democratic nation, or a Jewish nation. In the future, it cannot be both.

And let's not forget that the "right" of Israel to exist as a nation, cannot justify (in my mind, anyway) forcibly seizing the homes and lands of the people who lived their.

Of course, we can't really undo that now, but we can't forget that the genesis of the state of Israel was founded in injustice.

[JDPriestly]

264. Actually,

Religion in Israel is a central feature of the country and plays a major role in shaping Israeli culture and lifestyle, and religion has played a central role in Israel's history. Israel is also the only country in the world where a majority of citizens are Jewish. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, the population in 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 20.6% Arab, and 4.1% minority groups.[1] The religious affiliation of the Israeli population[vague] as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% not classified by religion, and a small Baha'i community.[2][3]

Israel has no entrenched constitution, but freedom of religion is anchored in law. While the Basic Laws of Israel that serve in place of a constitution define the country as a "Jewish state," these Basic Laws, coupled with Knesset statutes, decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel, and various elements of the common law current in Israel, also protect free practice of religion in the country.[4][5] Legal accommodation of the non-Jewish communities follows the pattern and practice of the Ottoman and British administrations with some important modifications. Israeli law officially recognizes five religions, all belonging to the Abrahamic family of religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Druzeism and the Bahá'í Faith. Furthermore, the law formally recognizes ten separate sects of Christianity: the Roman, Armenian, Maronite, Greek, Syriac, and Chaldean Catholic Churches; the Eastern Orthodox Greek Orthodox Church; the Oriental Orthodox Syriac Orthodox Church; the Armenian Apostolic Church; and Anglicanism.[6] Members of unrecognized religions are free to practice their religion.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_in_Israel

There have been Israeli Arab members of the Knesset ever since the first Knesset elections in 1949. The following is a list of the 69 past and present members. Some Israeli Druze dispute the label "Arab" and consider Druze to be a separate ethnic group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset

[Adrahil]

270. So what happens when....

Jews are no longer a majority in Israel? Demographically, that seems to be the way it is headed, eventually. At that point, Israel will have to decide if it is a democracy or not. To maintain an identity as a Jewish state, it will have to foresake democracy. It may take a century, but it will happen.

That's assuming that whole region just doesn't come apart at the seams before then.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. And yet I know Muslims who are Israeli citizens, while there are Muslim countires that do not

permit the practice of other religions at all, and which very aggressively discriminate against them as well as against LGBT people. If your principle here is about a state being for all of its people, that principle should be applied to all states, and criticisms of such things as abusing minorities should be spoken loudly about all states which do such things, not some, all.
When you criticize one group for doing what others do to a greater extent without your criticism, that speaks to your own bias, not to principles.

[PotatoChip]

145. And yet, there were Jewish and Christian Palestinians not only pre-1948, but also now.

So apparently, the predominately Sunni Palestinians are not among those religiously intolerant Muslim people of which you speak.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. There are currently 12 Arabs serving in the Israeli Knesset; 57 altogether.

Meanwhile, the PA often conducts purges under the claim that those being tried and executed are in service to the Jews.

[shira]

166. No, Zionism is affirmative action for Jews who are indigenous....

...to Israel, who wish either to return to their historical and cultural homeland or support others who want to do so.

You'll find no Zionists here who believe Israel has a right to discriminate against non-Jews. That's complete crap.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

67. Actually, "Zionism" has come to mean the right-wing police state to many people.

[Bonobo]

96. "Come to mean"?

What kind of bullshit, make it up as you go along statement is that?

The word "Zionism" has no place anymore IMO. Israel exists. To discuss its "right" to exist is to play into the hands of murderers and anti-semites who want to kill off Jews.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

102. That's a fine example of right wing fake outrage nonsense designed to shut down discussion...

It's old too. It's a tactic that's been used now for 50 years.

There will be no peace until people stop the hair on fire reaction that anyone who speaks out about the right-wing Israeli government's aggression is advocating the slaughter of all Jews.

[Bonobo]

103. What tactic? The tactic of saying "No, Spitfire, you don't get to re-define words."

You made a lame-ass attempt to say that Zionism now (in Spitfire Prime 256B Universe, I guess) means some blargh argh about rightwing police tactics.

Defined that way, who here would possibly disagree with "I am anti-Zionist"?

The err, problem is, dear Spitfire, that you don't get to redefine words as you see fit.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

104. Just passing on the info. I didn't say you should like it.

[Bonobo]

106. That was "info"?

OK, here's some info for you:

Oh, sorry. This contains actual info. You may not want to sully yourself.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/defining-zionism-the-belief-that-israel-belongs-to-the-entire-jewish-people.premium-1.525064

The right likes to use it as a type of whipped cream to improve the taste of dubious dishes, while the left treats it with fear, as if it were a mine liable to explode in its hands − which is why it always feels the need to neutralize it with some strange adjective, as in “sane Zionism” or “humane Zionism.” In the dispute between the “national camp” and the “peace camp,” Zionism is used as an offensive weapon that is batted from one side to the other.

Abroad, critics of Israel use Zionism as a kind of poisonous potion to exacerbate every accusation against the state. Many critics believe that the solution to Israel’s future lies in the de-Zionization of its identity. Among Israel’s sworn enemies, “Zionist” is a demonic epithet, a term of denunciation that replaces the word “Israeli” or “Jew.” Hamas members speak of the captured Zionist soldier, and Hezbollah and Iran speak of the criminal Zionist entity, not about Israel.

So it’s about time that we try to define the word “Zionist” realistically. First of all, we must remember that from a historical perspective, the concept emerged only at the end of the 19th century. It’s meaningless to try and describe Yehuda Halevi as a Zionist, or any other Jew who immigrated to the Holy Land in centuries past. In the same fashion, we can’t use the terms “socialism” or “socialist” for periods before the middle of the 19th century, and describe Robespierre, for example, as the “socialist” of the French Revolution, which occurred at the end of the 18th century. These concepts only have significance from the time when they emerged in a specific historical context, and tossing them around freely as labels for anything we choose is a clearly anachronistic act.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

107. The pomposity is totally out of place....

All I did was relay that the word "Zionism" has come to have a negative meaning due to the authoritarian police state run by the right wing in Israel. (By "Israel" I include the occupied territories.)

Just like "The United States" had a bad reputation globally when Dubya thought "Yee HAW!!!" was a good foreign policy.

[Bonobo]

109. The misuse of the word Zionism is precisely what I am talking about.

Zionism is an anachronistic label. It was all about the right for Jews to have a homeland in the historic land of Canaan. That homeland was created. It exists.

So talk of Zionism is pointless in a way.

When I said that those who spit out the word "Zionist" are often anti-semites, it is from that perspective. That, "Zionist" is conveniently used as a stand-in for "Jew!" It just is. And it is misused.

So the whole I am a Zionist/I am an anti-Zionist thing is rather meaningless.

My point, and the point of the OP is to call out certain "tells" for who is an anti-semite and I hold firm to my belief that those who call others "Zionists" really want to say "Dirty Jew!" but they know they can't. So they use what tools they have to skirt around it.

That is my belief, that is my life experience. I am a Jew and have lived it.

So in a sense I agree that "Zionist" has come to have a bad ring to it, but it is through misuse that is the intentional result of anti-semitic feelings that already existed and resulted in that misuse.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

113. "Zionist" has been used as a pejorative but not necessarily against all Jewish people....

Just the assholes who run over people with bulldozers.

[Bonobo]

114. Untrue. Zionist is used generally to refer to any Jew

But this discussion is meaningless. Am I a Zionist if I believe that Israel should not be dismantled? If so, then I too am the object of the kind of "You damned Zionist!" invective.

Because.... there are plenty of Jew-haters who know all they can do is say "Zionist".. and they do.

If you don't get it, read that last sentence a few times. Jew-haters DO use the word as a pejorative and they aren't just referring to people in bulldozers.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

143. You need to focus on separating yourself from the right wing then....

They've been the face of Zionists for far too long.

[Adrahil]

179. I'm not sure it is.. Take a read here:

I think this article articulates many of the modern issues with "Zionism" pretty clearly.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.605719

The more aggressive settlers in the occupied territories view their activities as "Zionist." They believe the seizure of these lands is justified by Zionism.

So if Zionism has come to have a bad ring to it, I'd say it's in large part to these kinds of issues.... and the Israeli government's complicity (and indeed, leadership) in it, and for its half-hearted measure to halt even what it itself declares to be illegal settlements.

[Comrade Grumpy]

139. "The word 'Zionism' has no place anymore." Somebody needs to tell these guys:

http://zoa.org/

The Zionist Organization of America.

[treestar]

200. On some level one could oppose Israel's right to exist

Without being anti-semitic. There are two different issues there.

If Israel could not maintain itself without US and other help, it would not exist and ultimately, the only way a country gets to exist is if it can defend itself on its own. It's not a matter of rights. Or the other way round: How many times has it been argued we took the US from the Native Americans. But the US still exists, though it has no "right" to.

[YoungDemCA]

253. The British settlers who founded this nation acted far, far worse than anything Israel's done

Their treatment of the native/indigenous populations of this continent essentially amounted to genocide, in practice-to say nothing of the uniquely evil "peculiar institution" of chattel slavery.

Yet no one seriously questions America's right to exist.

[treestar]

272. True. I think it's a matter of might makes right.

In modern times, the rest of the world doesn't tolerate it or watches in panic or sends help. Looking at what is going on in the Ukraine, the Russians don't come right out and invade like they would have in the bad old days.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Very good! I'll add...

"I can't be an anti-Semite, because I have a Jewish (insert alleged family member)."

I see/hear this so often as to almost be comical. I am always amazed how many people can easily spot "some of my best friends are..." and find it a preamble to someone who is going to say something bigoted, except when it comes to Jews. Newsflash: even Jews can be anti-Semitic! Which leads to the next issue.

"Palestinians/Arabs" are Semites."

Some are. However, it doesn't have anything to do with what anti-Semitism is. Quite plainly, anti-Semitism is hostility or prejudice against JEWS, not Semites. The people who use this "cop-out" are either ignorant or are deflecting their own bigotry by trying to redefine the word to suit their own needs, usually bigoted in nature.

The other issue is non-Jews telling Jews what is and isn't anti-Semitism and dismissing our concerns. Providing a "Jewish" exception is just that, an exception. Not all Jews think or feel the same way, but to tell someone who is Jewish, while you are not, is disrespectful. Sure, Jews make mistakes or can be sensitive to anti-Semitism, and yes, there are those who make false allegations, but to say a Jewish person is "playing the anti-Semitism card" is something best left to the rightwing.

[Bonobo]

4. Big affirmative to the "Palestinians/Arabs" are Semites." one!

And your last paragraph is so, so true. Thanks.

[Behind the Aegis]

108. That one just got it's own thread.

Seems you struck a nerve...shocker.

The upside is we can see those who really do understand the concept of anti-Semitism and how it is used, even by liberals/progressives.

[Bonobo]

110. The thing that annoys me is the use of "Zionist".

If people want to talk about land-grabbing or mistreatment of citizens, etc. there are appropriate words. But using Zionism is wrong. Israel exists so to call me a Zionist, for example, is meaningless. Similarly, an Anti-Zionist directly implies that they are advocating the destruction of the state of Israel. I see no other way to interpret it. Someone here even came out and said it.

[Behind the Aegis]

111. It is the Jewish version of the word "thug."

While thug has a specific meaning, when used in discussions about African-Americans it can take on a more nefarious meaning. It doesn't mean the word is "wrong" or shouldn't be used, but it has evolved to have certain connotations. This is the same with "Zionism." Though, we slightly disagree, because I see Zionism to include the continued existence of the nation of Israel, which is why when I see "anti-Zionist", it raises my hackles. However, we are in complete agreement that "Zionist" is often a dog-whistle, code word for "Jooooos!" I often note how many really tip their hands when they talk about "Zionists" and when a non-Jew "pro-Israel" person is invoked, they are called a "CHRISTIAN (or other)" Zionist.

I was referring to the "Arabs are Semites" though so they are victims of anti-Semitism. Someone actually started a thread on it.

[Bonobo]

112. I think we are in complete agreement.

And yes, I saw that rather idiotic thread sinking down.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. No, the opinions of non-Jews on what antisemitism is cannot be dismissed.

It's absolutely fine for non-Jews to challenge, say, Manfred Gerstenfeld when he claims that something is antisemitic.

If antisemitism comes to mean "anything a Jew says is antisemitism" then it stops being possible to say that antisemitism is always wrong, and the word becomes useless.

Yes, it's true that "you are wrong" is a disrespectful thing to say to someone. That doesn't mean it's false.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. I didn't say they should be dismissed.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. Between you and Bonobo

Its very clear to me where intersection occurs.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. I love your hugs!

It always puts a smile on my face!



When others start to realize the commonalities, the majorities (except the allies), whatever they maybe, will start to quake in their boots!

[Fawke Em]

181. While you are technically correct...

I still take umbrage with the creation of that word because it's simply wrong to think that Jews are the only Semites. And my position has nothing to do with bigotry. It has to do with using a word, Semite, that encompasses the historical backgrounds of many groups of people who aren't Jewish, to only mean anti-Jewish. I just think when the word was coined, it didn't take that into consideration and I'm not quibbling on the point that it only meant anti-Jewish when it was coined because that's true.

If the language or action is anti-Jewish, just call it that. Makes more sense, anyway, and it's more impactful, if you ask me.

[Aerows]

194. Agree with you

The other issue is non-Jews telling Jews what is and isn't anti-Semitism and dismissing our concerns.

It's the same as telling LGBT what homophobia is and what we should or should not be offended by, or telling black people what they should or should not view as racism.

You don't get to define bigotry if you aren't negatively affected by bigotry.

[still_one]

5. Holocaust deniers I believe would also be considered antisemitic

[Behind the Aegis]

6. I agree. But, not all Holocaust deniers (or those that minimize it) are cut from the same cloth.

You'd be surprised at some of the more recent (some a little older) attacks on the veracity (or cause) of the Holcoaust. The most popular, by far, is the anti-Semitism reason, including the Jews/Zionists are responsible. However, I have also seen 'denials' come in the form of Antiziganism (prejudice against the Roma), and homophobia (claiming the gays controlled the Nazi party). It is a form of "the victim was responsible for their victimization."

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Yeah, oddly enough, I think some of that shit falls under the umbrella of people who think

NO "official story" is real, that if it is accepted as wide historical fact it must be part of The Conspiracy™, which might involve Jews but might involve Teh Illumilizard space people from Tau Ceti. OR IS THERE EVEN A DIFFERENCE

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. "The fact is that Jews were also once very strong in the world of sports, the world of tailoring .."

We still have Ralph Lauren ne Ralph Lifshitz (love that), Donna Karan, and Calvin Klein. I just wanted to add some levity.


And in sports we still have Jordan Farmar...


My mom was Jewish, my dad wasn't. i consider myself a, an, an American and am not readily identifiable as Jewish whatever that means to people so I get to be undercover and hear a lot of anti-semitic statements. It's late now so I won't recount them all...

Some anti-semitism is just pathetic. I was recently riding the Orange Line from Woodland Hills to North Hollywood and the woman is on her so cell phone and tells the person on the other end as we drive through Studio City that she's in "Jewtown now". I now joke with my gf who is from the Philippines whenever we ride the Orange Line through Studio City that we're going through "Jewtown".

The canard that upsets me the most is the tribalism card; that we all get together and meet over a breakfast of lox and bagels to discuss how we are going to rule the world.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. You should be a gay Jew.

We come together for a lovely brunch to discuss our plans to take over the world. If you'd like, I can see if I can get you a day (spa) pass.

"Some anti-semitism is just pathetic."

YUP!

If one other person rises from the depths of madnessand claims there are shape shifting Jews destroying peace or whatever the hell the fool said, then maybe we can talk about antisemitism.
Meanwhile, do you want to spend your whole life picking at scabs?

Apparently, even discussing anti-Semitism is "picking scabs."

Amazing that a director would demand rightfully for folks in the Hollywood controlled Jewish lobby (it's true) except ones' work on nature of the project presented instead of whose hands got greased. Yes, downright amazing indeed.

Hidden.

There are so many examples.

Let me add (said to a Jewish poster):

I am really tired of you playing the "Jewish" card as being oppressed. When you stop Bibi from allowing illegal settlements then I'll listen to your diatribe.

[JDPriestly]

8. K&R.

"I should also point out that denying the right to Israel to exist in a world of perhaps 50 or so Muslim nations is -to say the least- problematic."

Excellent.

The Holocaust was worse than any similar event in history that I have heard of. Young Americans just do not seem to grasp the horror of it.

That is why they are so susceptible to the anti-Jewish sentiment that hides as anti-Israel conceit. You do not have to agree with every policy or every action of Netanyahu or of Israel. But the necessity for all of humanity of the existence of a Jewish state, the affirmation of the right to freedom of religion and culture for all people that is Israel has to be recognized.

The answer in Israel and Palestine is co-existence and living in peace with each other, not as we saw with the Holocaust, the obliteration of the home and haven for the Jewish people that was created in Israel.

I lived in Europe for years. Anti-Jewish sentiment hovers beneath the surface in the countries I lived in. Most people there are not anti-Jewish. But the many, many centuries of persecution and exclusion of Jewish people has not been erased and probably will not be erased for generations yet to come. Even in England, I met people including one of my bosses who were virulently anti-Jewish. My boss who was anti-Jewish was strangely emotional, kind of crazy, about it. Scary stuff. I sat on a train from Vienna to a small town in which I lived in Austria across from the most extremely anti-Jewish person I have ever met an ex-NAZI and proud of it. I was shaking from fear when I got off the train.

I am not Jewish. But as an American, there were situations in which I could feel the terror that Jewish people would feel if the anti-semitic sentiment that still abounds in the world were not carefully controlled. I believe in freedom of expression and of religion. I recognize that sometimes one person's freedom of expression can destroy another person's freedom altogether. It iis not necessary to suppress expression. It is necessary to speak out in favor of freedom for all including Jewish people.

[McCamy Taylor]

19. That's illogical. How about a nation for Wiccans? They are persecuted.

By this reasoning, some Christian country needs to give up their land to the Wiccans. And we need to give back at least one US state to the Natives since we tried so hard to suppress their religion, denying them their Constitutional protections. Shall we make it New York? All the property reverts to the Lenape and Iroquois?

Actually, I like the idea of giving New York back. So, yeah, I'm good with Israel. Are you good with giving up New York? Oh, and I want a big chunk of North Georgia to make up for the Trail of Tears.

[Bonobo]

21. Oranges are orange.

If it's green, it's not an orange! It's illogical!

Oh, and my cat's breath smells like cat food.

[bahrbearian]

55. Right On

[JDPriestly]

78. Actually, the Puritans thought they were starting a country for Puritans.

Please read the history of the Jewish people. They have been persecuted for so long, longer than the Native Americans, longer than the American slaves. It's incredible.

To mention the Wiccans as persecuted compared to the persecution of Jewish people is something I just can hardly respond to. It indicates a questionable knowledge of Jewish history. (Not that I am an expert.)

I cannot think of a persecution as horrible as the Holocaust. Armenians were persecuted and killed. They suffered terribly. There have been many events of persecution including the persecution of the Irish by Britain believe it or not.

No people has suffered persecution like the Jewish people. Systematic, century-long persecution. That's why I support Israel.

I think that reparations should be made to the Palestinian people who lost property etc. and the account should be settled with Israel remaining a state. The people in the Middle East can learn to get along.

Remember, Christians are persecuted in some parts of the Middle East and have been persecuted for example in Egypt. I don't know what the situation is there.

If Jews could live anywhere with the security that they would not be persecuted then they probably would.

Please read the history of the Jewish people. They really are different and really have suffered more persecution than any other that I know of.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. First one must admit there are Liberals and Conservatives over there too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Would you say it's a form of ideological conceit to suggest all the anti-semites are on the right?

[Bonobo]

15. There are at least as many on our side. nt

[leftynyc]

27. Unfortunately, you'd be wrong

anti-semites knows no politics. Just as many on the left as on the right.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. I say some on the Left are criticizing policy of the Right and being accused of being anti-semitic..

The same way we heard the Right here claim criticism of policy under Bush was anti-American.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. There always seems to be lots of sugar for THAT porridge.

[Electric Monk]

16. Do you consider Woody Allen, Jon Stewart, and Sarah Silverman to be Jewish or not?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. As a matrilineal Jew but practicing Christian that's my favorite question.

I would never deny my Jewish heritage.


Judaism is complex. It has features of a religion, a race, and an ethnic group but it is not strictly any of them.

Was Barry Goldwater Jewish? Caspar Weinberger? Jay Sekulow?

[FLPanhandle]

68. As, I an official "matrilineal jew" but atheist

I deny the entire concept of being a Jew or any of it's heritage.

I am not Jewish. That is a religion. There is no such race.

To each his own though. You embrace it, I reject it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. I'm not a geneticist but there's reams of research that suggests Jews share common genetic markers.

I'm not a geneticist but I am aware there's reams of research that suggests Jews share common genetic markers.

[FLPanhandle]

70. I've seen the reports

They are marginal at best.

More like someone who went looking for something, anything, that could be used to classify jews as a "race".

It isn't so, thus, I am not a Jew. I'm an atheist.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. You can practice whatever religion you want. I'm a practicing Christian.

That doesn't obviate the fact that Jews share common genetic markers that they don't share with other groups:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?_r=1&

That provides a synopsis of one piece of research but there's reams of it...There's a rough consensus among scientists that Jews
share common genetic markers.


That's also why diseases like Tay-Sachs Disease is more common among Ashkenazi Jews than other groups.

But as I said from a sociological point of view Judaism has elements of a race, a religion, and an ethnic group. but is not exclusively any of them.

[FLPanhandle]

72. I've seen and read them all

We've discussed them with scientists at my wife's university too.

It's a weak link at best, and the same relationships can be applied to many groups.

But if it makes you feel better, then believe it...that's why it was published.

[Bonobo]

85. "Discussed them with scientists"

Okay, that's good enough for me. I give up. You're right.

The genetic commonalities of Jewish people mean nothing.

Oh, by the way, you did accidentally say one thing that is correct.

There is no such thing as "race" for anyone, including Jews.

No one said that Jews are a race. That would be idiotic. I think the only one that thinks that Jews think they are a "race" are people that conduct lots of conversations with hard-core anti-semites. Hmmm, ok?

[Bonobo]

81. That's insane talk. Of course Jews are closely related.

Call yourself whatever you want, but you really are incredibly ignorant on the subject of Judaism, genetics and you are confusing them with a kind of very personal anger.

[DavidDvorkin]

86. Quite right.

[shira]

165. Do u believe Jews are a people with a common history and culture?

Forget the religious aspect entirely. Think of an ethnicity.

Do you feel you are a part of that ethnic group - or do you want no part of it at all?

[Bonobo]

18. I most certainly do. nt

[shaayecanaan]

20. Israel has compared pretty much every Arab leader to Hitler

Nasser was compared to Hitler. Arafat. Ahmadinejad. If Israelis and/or Jews do not want gratuitous comparisons to Nazis made then they should probably undertake to not do the same themselves.

Zionism is essentially Jewish irredentism. It proposed that palestine be replaced with israel, either in whole or in part. it was obvious that it was going to be opposed by palestinians. if israel had instead been founded in uganda or paraguay it would have attraxted the opposition of local populations there. that would not have made them antisemites. it would have made them self interested.

sayIng that antizionism is antisemitism is no different from saying that zionism is racism. it is a smear tactic.

i for one, am opposed to the formation of a kurdish state on pragmatic grounds. it would be nice if all beleagured people got their own state but sometimes it just doesnt pan out that way.

it honestly sounds like you havent thought this through.

[Bonobo]

22. I will ask you what I always ask.

If you are "anti-zionist", then where do you think the Jews should go? What is the purpose of your "anti-zionism"?

Do you want Israel to disappear and is that a goal you are working for?

It honestly doesn't sound like YOU have thought this through.

[shaayecanaan]

31. i am against manifest destiny

but now that the white Americans have stolen all the red man's land, i guess we have to live with it. in the same vein, israel is a done deal, but accepting reality is not the same as lending one's support to the venture.

if id have had my way germany would have had to make way for a jewish state. at least then the palestinians would not be doing penance for the sins of the nazis.

[shira]

167. What you're really saying is that Israel is/was no homeland for Jews....

....anymore than Uganda or part of Germany would have been.

That's utterly ridiculous and a complete denial of history.

Also, your constant Israel = Nazi comparisons (besides being utterly offensive emotional baiting) show you're really not cool with Israel's existence. Who could possibly support the continued existence of a Nazi or even Apartheid state - as you've argued?

You haven't really thought it out, have you?

[shaayecanaan]

206. Yet another desperate haymaker from you...

The Palestinians bore the brunt of a problem that the Nazis created. How is that comparing Israel to the Nazis?

[shira]

284. Nazis? Zionism started before the 20th century 40 years prior to the Nazis...

Jews were moving to what the LoN and UN called their Jewish homeland well before WW2.

Let's just say you've brought up Hitler and the Nazis many times in the I/P forum in order to smear Israel with such "parallels". It's a vile, hateful comparison. To see how ugly this is, some asshat could "criticize" Blacks by comparing them to people who used to lynch them not too long ago. It's disgusting.

[Adrahil]

60. We can't undo Israel....

But we cannot forget that it attempting to redress injustice, it was founded in injustice. The Romani also have a history of purges and hatred. Should we seize someone else's home and lands and give them their own homeland?

Having said that, some anti-Zionism IS thinly veiled anti-Semitism. I have been on juries here for exactly that kind of thing. Some of it is so clumsy that it's almost comical.

[shaayecanaan]

74. good post

Some antizionism is racism, as is some Zionism.

[oberliner]

140. It was absolutely not "founded in injustice"

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Again, I think your conclusions are based on inaccurate information regarding the founding of Israel (specifically with respect to seizing someone else's home).

Had the Partition Plan been implemented, there would have been an independent Palestinian state for the first time in history, alongside an independent Israel.

[Adrahil]

144. I disagree.

While the partition plan probably should have been agreed to, given where things were at the time, the combination of the Zionism among some Jews and anti-Semitism among many countries (which closed their borders to Jews), led to an increasing immigration of Jews in the region. The region was not unoccupied when those immigrants arrived.

But whether YOU agree or not is sort of moot. Many millions of people DO perceive an injustice. And so long as that is discounted, and NEW injustices perpetrated (such as the settlements), the government of the modern state of Israel has an issue on its hands which is poisonous to its long term survival (and that's putting aside the thorny issue of demographics which which will ultimately decide just what Israel is to become... a non-Jewish democracy, or an apartheid state).

[oberliner]

146. Thanks for the response

It is certainly true that the Holocaust and it's many implications did lead to large numbers of Jews attempting to escape to safety in Palestine. However, such immigration was greatly limited by the British colonial power at the time, much to their great shame in my opinion.

That being said, the early Zionists purchased land legally and lived lives that generally did not even bring them into much contact with the pre-Palestinian Arab inhabitants of the land. The idea of Zionism (for some, at least) was rooted in a belief that the immigration of Jews to the region could, at least in theory, be a benefit to all concerned - not the least of all, those already living there who were, I would again point out, not living in an independent state but rather in a colonially administered protectorate.

Sadly, a conflux of various degrees of horrors across Europe and elsewhere took what could have been something very positive and turned it into a war that is essentially still being fought today.

I recognize that people prefer to view things in a black-and-white way (i.e. Palestinians were happily living in their own country when Jews from abroad came over to kick them out of their land and steal all their property) but I do not feel that this is an accurate perception of what actually took place. (Nor is the "land without a people" view accurate either). Both mythologies ought to be excised in my views.

In any case, while it is true that millions of people perceive an injustice, I would argue that such a view is fomented by political leaders (and others) who are nurturing this feeling for reasons of their own (such as diverting attention away from their own corruption). I think it is very convenient to have this scapegoat to direct the anger of millions of disaffected people whose daily lives are not particularly impacted by Israeli/Palestinian issues one way or another.

Certainly, the settlements are opposed by me and other like-minded progressives. The two-state solution is really the only equitable one and folks ought to work towards making that a reality in spite of the bleak picture we see today.

[Bonobo]

158. Oberliner, you are providing an education for those who choose to avail themselves of it.

Your position is quite fair and understanding of the history exemplary and I, for one, am learning a lot.

Thank you.

[oberliner]

159. Much appreciated

Though it's possible someone will come around and knock everything I'm saying. The thing that I've found is that these arguments go around in circles. People are very entrenched in their own way of viewing things. The I/P forum has basically dwindled away to almost nothing, partly, I think, because a lot of folks were realizing the futility of it all.

If you want to get into any of these topics more deeply, feel free to send me a PM and I'd be happy to discuss.

[Adrahil]

173. I'm sorry... I think you view this with rose-colored glasses.

That fact is that people WERE displaced and still are today. The Zionists were not, of course, monolithic in their attitudes and did not all favor what eventually happened. In the end, the creation of the state of Israel was the result of bumbling, and a kind of colonialism (in my opinion) that continues to have disastrous consequences to this day. But it's not an isolated phenomenon, of course. The European colonial powers badly bumbled the management of colonial possessions following the end of WWI all over the Middle East and Africa, and the Israel/Palestine bumble is just one of the more obvious ones. I do think the founding of Israel represents a very troubling history.

But I think that's all kind of beside the point now. As I said, we cannot "undo" Israel. Whatever its origins, it is here, and has a right to exist now (and, of course, the right to defend itself). But you cannot ignore the deep-seated feelings of injustice, and the very real injustices perpetrated by the Israeli government today. Even IF the founding of Israel were "just," you cannot deny that it's policies for several decades have nothing to assuage the deep-seated feelings of injustice felt by displaced peoples.

Those, like me, who strongly oppose the policies of Israel should not be painted as anti-Semetic without some further reason qualification. I oppose Israeli POLICIES, not Israeli people, and far less, JEWISH people wherever they may live.

Also, I know many Jews who resent that idea that as Jews they owe political allegiance to a foreign government.

And I'm glad to hear you oppose the Israeli settlement policy. I personally see it as an extension of the more aggressive forms of Zionism.... that is, there are those Israelis who think all the occupied territories should be seized for Israel and the Arabs ejected, or otherwise subjugated... that whole Manifest Destiny thing....

[oberliner]

210. Fair enough

It does seem to me, though, that the issue has been used and manipulated by various forces for their benefit. That is to say, that there are some folks who have found it to be helpful for them to foment the anger and injustice around this issue (on both sides).

Hopefully, reasonable people can finally help bring about two states living side by side at peace with one another.

[Adrahil]

269. I can drink to that! Have a great day! n/t

[sendero]

276. A pretty good ..

... summation of my feelings on the subject. Well said.

[shaayecanaan]

208. Yes, the colonists only wanted to rescue the poor ignorant natives...

if only those hayseed dirt-farmer Arabs were more welcoming of the affluence and cultural sophistication that Zionism could bring them.

The problem is that this is blatantly false:-

"land without a people"

whereas this, you have to admit, is at least substantially true:-

Palestinians were happily living in their own country when Jews from abroad came over to kick them out of their land and steal all their property

Admittedly, they probably weren't so ambitious as to think that they could steal all of their property, but they realised that for Israel to be viable, they needed to steal at least some.

[oberliner]

209. That is definitely not true

The colonists wanted to escape oppression in Europe and build a new society where Jewish people can have self-determination in a land that many feel spiritually connected to.

I did make a point of noting that "land without a people" was false; however, I hope you would acknowledge that in the case of both the First Aliyah and the Second Aliyah, land was purchased legally in Palestine - and said land was primarily uninhabited swampland.

I would have hoped that you would have had the honesty to admit that the notion of "Palestinians were happily living in their own country when Jews from abroad came over to kick them out of their land and steal all their property" is completely false, but I guess that was too much to expect.

If nothing else, you must, I would think, acknowledge that Palestinians did not have their own independent country and were living under colonial rule prior to the beginning of the Zionist movement.

There was absolutely no reason why the Zionist movement and nascent Palestinian nationalist movement of the same time period could not have easily coexisted to the betterment of both peoples.

[shaayecanaan]

213. Quite a few people live in British colonies to this day...

and quite happily. Gibraltar, for example, is a lovely place. A significant number of Jews there too, I suppose they must not share your views regarding the merits of being a British outpost.

Certainly the British were foreigners, but unlike the Jews they did not want to steal the Palestinians' land. That was a critical difference. The Palestinians were a mostly peasant fellahin society. They feared above all the loss of their land.

I did make a point of noting that "land without a people" was false; however, I hope you would acknowledge that in the case of both the First Aliyah and the Second Aliyah, land was purchased legally in Palestine - and said land was primarily uninhabited swampland.

That land amounts to, at most, 6% of the land of present-day Israel. Most of it was disaggregated, in far-flung locations incapable of forming a contiguous state. If anything, the experience made Jews realise that it would be impossibly to establish a contiguous state by only purchasing land from willing sellers, as in any location there would always be people unwilling to sell. Even democratic governments require mechanisms such as eminent domain in order to resolve the problem of people who do not want to relinquish their land for a fair price. Obviously the Jews could not rely on eminent domain. They would need to take land from the Arabs if they were to establish a state. This was unavoidable.

I would have thought that you could at least see the injustice inherent in the founding of Israel. The native Americans have a far greater moral entitlement to the United States than the Jews ever did to Israel. Their spiritual connection to the land is profound, whereas yours is practically nil. Yet if I turned up on your doorstep tomorrow with a rifle in hand declaring the announcement of a native American state and asking that you depart for Canada, I doubt that you would see much justice in such a venture.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

288. As good as point as any to drop in.

It seems as both sides have competing narratives and never the two shall meet; one side believes that Israel is built largely on stolen land and the other side believes that some Jews went back to their ancestral home that was unjustly taken away. Does it really matter at this point who has the truth on their side and even if we can agree what the truth is?

Most of us are on land that belonged to someone else. That's history's cruel joke.


It would be nice if both sides could see the other side and reach some kind of modus vivendi.

[shira]

168. When you keep insisting that Israel was founded on injustice....

....what signal do you think you're giving to Israel's most hostile enemies?

Well before the Holocaust and after Turkey's defeat in WW1, the League of Nations unanimously agreed to a Jewish homeland in that area. At the same time, they split the Ottoman empire up into Arab states that exist to this day. If you want to argue ALL the states in that region were founded on injustice, you'd at least have a consistent argument.

The thing is that the League of Nations (and later United Nations) unanimously believed Israel was the Jews' historic and cultural homeland - not only based on the bible. This was something everyone knew and didn't even dream of denying.

IMO, those who say the Jews aren't a people indigenous to that land are not only deniers but are spewing antisemitic talking points, given the Jews themselves are and have been a people. Jews see themselves as a people. Same as any ethnic group sees themselves as a people. The whole point in denying that is to deny them their indigenous and equal rights to their homeland.

[Adrahil]

174. I think I'm being honest about what I think.

I think America was founded on injustice too. We seized land from the natives and enslaved millions of Africans.

That doesn't mean I think America should be destroyed, or that I support America's Jihadi enemies.

Intellectual honesty is important to me, and glossing over the more uncomfortable parts of history is wrong, IMO.

The League of Nations decision was based on nonsense, of course. Israel (or Palestine) hadn't been a Jewish majority land for over 1000 years by the time Israel was founded. The LoN position was based largely on the fact it's members didn't want Jews immigrating to THEIR countries.

Having said that, Jews have had a long and ugly history, especially in Europe, being the victims of pogroms, massacres, villification, racism, and good ole fashioned thievery. And still today, they are the victims of all manner of sterotypes and prejudice. Whatever I think of the ORIGINS of Israel, I am glad there is a Jewish homeland, for however long it may last. Israel, as a democratic Jewish state is doomed by demographics. It cannot remain both a democracy AND Jewish for much longer. I do fear for the people of that land when that happens.

But having said all that, if you feel the need to call me an anti-Semite, knock yourself out. I know in my heart how wrong you are.

[shira]

175. Good post. I don't believe you're an anti-semite at all...

...especially after reading this last post of yours.

Have a great day!

[Adrahil]

178. You have a great one too! n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. "Nasser was compared to Hitler. Arafat. Ahmadinejad."

Maybe it had something to do with their calling for the extermination of the Jews.

Godwin's Law meets its terminus when someone actually has Hitler-like ambitions.

[shaayecanaan]

73. There are 25000 Jews in iran

Ahmadinejad, during his long tenure as Iranian president, did not exterminate a single one. If he was Hitler, as you say, he was something of an underachiever.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. That does nothing to diminish his bellicosity towards Israel.

[shaayecanaan]

77. but it leaves your Hitler comparison dead in the water nt

[YoungDemCA]

87. Four quotes from Ahmadinejad

1. “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet. If you have burned the Jews, why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel? Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?”

2. "Of course, some governments and their people always hated the Jews because of the ugly conduct of some of them. They wanted to drive the Jews out of Europe. But anti-Semitism was planned mainly by some European governments and politicians, and by the Zionist network. They made hundreds of films, wrote hundreds of books, spread rumors, and conducted psychological warfare, in order to drive them away, to the land of Palestine. Four or five years after World War II, they suddenly claimed that during that war, the Holocaust affair had taken place. In other words, according to their claims, several million Jews were burned in the crematoria. They created two slogans. The first was about the injustice suffered by the Jewish people. By means of lies, very twisted propaganda, and psychological warfare, they created the notion that the Jews suffered injustice, and, secondly, that they needed a land and an independent state. They acted so effectively that some of the world’s politicians and intellectuals were also deceived and influenced.”


3."The world powers established this filthy bacteria, the Zionist regime, which is lashing out at the nations in the region like a wild beast."

4."I believe that with the complete formation of the global Zionist network, they have seized control of the fate of the European governments, and of the US government. To the independent countries in the world, I would like to say: You should know that the influence of the Zionist network on your culture, your politics, and your economy is tantamount to a violation of your independence. They cling like ticks. The moment they gain influence, they never stop.”

http://skepticaesoterica.com/the-insane-quotes-of-mahmoud-ahmadinejad/

[shaayecanaan]

214. None of which justify a comparison to Hitler

Hitler did more than engage in rhetoric. Unless someone actually engages in killings, I don't think that comparisons to the Nazi holocaust ought to be made.

[oberliner]

279. Completely agree

Enough with these ridiculous comparisons.

[JI7]

99. i believe the Jewish population in Iran is under 10 thousand now

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Nasser and Arafat never called for the extermination of Jews

[PCIntern]

137. Yeah...

right.

[Violet_Crumble]

160. They didn't...

I left Ahmanutjob out of it because he's made ugly anti-Semitic statements. But those other two have never called for the extermination of Jews...

[PCIntern]

187. You of course were privy to their most private conversations

I'm certain...

[shaayecanaan]

220. Behold, the average standard of debate here on DU nt

[Mosby]

240. nasser's exterminationist rhetoric

We are awaiting aggression by Israel and any supporters of Israel. We will make it a decisive battle and get rid of Israel once and for all… This is the dream of every Arab.”
- Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt
(Washington Post, July 27, 1959)

“If the refugees return to Israel – Israel will cease to exist.”
- Gamal Abdel Nasser
(Zuercher Woche, West Germany, September 1, 1961; quoted in Harris O. Schoenberg, A Mandate for Terror: The United Nations and the PLO [Shapolsky Books, 1989], p. 239)

Our path to Palestine will not be covered with a red carpet or with yellow sand. Our path to Palestine will be covered with blood… In order that we may liberate Palestine, the Arab nation must unite, the Arab armies must unite, and a unified plan of action must be established.”
- Gamal Abdel Nasser
(Pre-election speech, 1965; quoted in Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History [Yale University Press, 2007], p. 162)

We knew that by closing the Gulf of Aqaba it might mean war with Israel. [If war comes] it will be total and the objective will be to destroy Israel.”
- Gamal Abdel Nasser
(Washington Post, May 27, 1967)


We must fight our way to victory on a sea of blood and a horizon of fire.”
- Gamal Abdel Nasser
(Wall Street Journal, November 14, 1969)

[shaayecanaan]

258. So the Israeli politicians that talk about

getting rid of the Palestinian Authority are also spouting "exterminationist rhetoric"?

[Violet_Crumble]

268. My guess Mosby sets the bar far, far higher when it comes to Israeli politicians...

As for those cherry picked quotes, I was curious as to why Mosby didn't post a link. So I went looking and found it. He even posted them in the same order as on that site.

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/quotes.html

Paulbog hates the Left, hates Noam Chomsky so much it hurts, and when he runs out of Chomsky hating steam, he hates on the Left some more. If I looked there a bit longer, I'm sure I'd find some hating on Arabs going on as well.

Anyway, one thing I learnt a while back was that when it comes to quotes, approach with extreme scepticism when the supposed source of the short sentence or so is from a book written by someone else who refers to the quote and you realise it's going to take wading through about 40 or so obscure books or articles all referring to a quote but never supplying the primary source before you decide that joining Paulbog in some irrational hate might be a better option

[Mosby]

283. "cherry picked quotes"

Are any of them inaccurate?

If you think I'm misrepresenting Nasser feel free to defend the piece of shit.

[Violet_Crumble]

299. Yes, they're cherry picked, plus none of those are calling for the extermination of Jews...

The source you got them from is really stinky, there's no dates or primary sources quoted so there's no context provided, and as I said people need to approach unsourced quotes to do with I/P with caution. I remember seeing quotes from Israeli leaders that looked suspicious and out of context and I suspect the same goes for those ones given where you got them from. Call me perceptive, but I get the feeling you really, really don't like Nasser, or as you call him 'the piece of shit'. Do you reserve that vitriol for Arab leaders or do you go around calling Netanyahu a piece of shit as well?

btw, that one quote about if the Palestinian refugees return that'd destroy Israel. How do you come to the conclusion that's exterminationalist language? It's just that I've seen a lot of Israeli politicians and writers of op eds in the Israeli media say the same thing...

[oberliner]

294. They are all on Wikiquote as well

That may have been the source used.

In any case, do you have a good book about Nasser that you can recommend?

[Violet_Crumble]

301. I took a lot at Wikiquote and they're different quotes in different order with different formatting.

The only book I could recommend is one that only has some stuff on Nasser, and that's Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall, which you might have already read. I haven't read any books on him specifically though. When it comes to books about larger than life political figures in the I/P conflict, I wish Sharon had written memoirs or something and given some insight into his last years before the stroke...

[shira]

285. Which Israeli politicians talk about doing something that would result....

....in a sea of Palestinians blood?

Or something that would result in the area covered in Palestinian blood - like Nasser did?

[Violet_Crumble]

267. When I get in lazy moods I'm using that 'debate' tactic from now on!

There's so many fun ways to use it. Even though everyone knows that Bush was a nasty fucker, even he had his limits, but that doesn't matter with this debate tactic. I'd wait until someone somewhere on the big, wide internet posts some claim that Bush called for the extermination of women, LGBT, Muslims, Jews, cute puppies, African Americans and anyone on the Left. Then when someone correctly points out even though he's a wanker he never called for their extermination, I'll pounce on them with my gotcha moment and bellow sarcastically: "You of course were privy to his most private conversations I'm certain... ' Then I'll go HA! to myself because I just won the thread with that iron clad logic!

Parts of this thread are making me remember why I lost interest in posting in the I/P forum

[LeftishBrit]

63. I agree that there is plenty of Godwinizing, sabre-rattling, bigotry, etc. on all sides...

doesn't mean it's progressive, however. Just because Netanyahu, Lieberman, and some other Israeli leaders are anti-Arab bigots, does not justify other people being anti-Semitic.

The majority of people who express anti-Semitism are not local to the region, or motivated by direct self-interest: they are people far away from Israel using Jews as scapegoats. It's got worse since the economic crisis, as it usually does. The Jooos own the banks, all the money, etc.

And no, the Jews are not the only scapegoats used in this way: there are the Muslims, the 'immigrants', the Roma, etc. None of it is justified.

[JustAnotherGen]

23. This gets a rec from me

And I'm here to support you.

[Bonobo]

25. Thank you, it's brave to say that.

[JustAnotherGen]

34. Kind of

Ask BTA. I'm a generation removed as my mother has paternal lineage. Yet . . . I spent a few Seders with those Paternal great grand parents. I'm pretty sure that had a very strong influence in my becoming a UU eleven years ago. It's a "feeling" about the people I come from that cannot and could not be denied. I exist in this old as a black woman - but I have a strong empathy for your world experience.

[leftynyc]

28. Great, and very brave OP

I stand with you and behind every single word.

[Bonobo]

30. My deepest thanks. nt

[shaayecanaan]

75. yes, incredibly brave

We all know that supporting Israel is an incredibly brave and risky move in american politics. You hardly ever see american politicians willing to take such a brave step.

Instead they take the easy road of proclaiming their support for the Palestinians. What a bunch of cowards, eh?

[YoungDemCA]

89. I didn't know there were so many American politicians on DU

Learn something new every day, I guess.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. I agree with 3, 4 and 5...

1. I suspect there's a lot of people who use the Nazi comparison because it's the default setting for 'Something that's the worst thing I can think of!'. Some people tend to compare anything they don't like to Nazis, and it's just clumsiness. If it keeps on happening after it gets explained to them why it's insensitive, then that's when I'd be putting my money on it being anti-Semitism.

2. Not all Zionists are Jewish, and not all Jews are Zionists. Plus the original idea of Zionism was a sound one, but what sounds great in theory doesn't always end up so fantastic in practice (think communism). Zionism's morphed into various forms with one of the worst ones being some sort of rocket fuelled mixture of ultranationalism and religion, as displayed by the extremist settlers in the West Bank.

Just a correction, there's no more than a small handful of Muslim states. They're the ones that identify themselves as being a Muslim state and use religion as the basis of their criminal codes. The rest would be countries where the majority of people living there are Muslim (think Indonesia as an example).




I've got another one to add that like some of the others can be seen clearly in recent bigotry aimed at other minority groups. That's where someone says something like 'No-one supports anti-Semitism!' or 'There's no such thing as anti-Semitism!'.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. There are 11 nations that use Islamic law out of 49 Muslim majority nations

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Brunei, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan and Mauritania all employ Islamic laws. In each of them, it is a crime to be gay, so you will find many LGBT people know this list of countries. To not know them could be deadly.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. I heard ugandas not a safe place

Assuming that there's an interest in expanding that list to any country with anti-gay laws That's a must add one

[JI7]

116. yes, christians are responsible for anti gay attacks/laws there

just as muslim states in the ones bnw named. in both they use religion to justify it.

[Violet_Crumble]

117. I almost forgot India.

It's a crime to be gay in India as well. They better add that one to their list as well

[JI7]

118. yes, india too, hindu fanatics push anti gay, anti women and other bigoted laws

although india does have gay pride and i don't believe anyone has actually been prosecuted for being gay .

i would compare the situation there more to US states which have anti gay laws .

[Violet_Crumble]

119. They only reintroduced the anti-gay law last year. Give them time...

Are there US states where homosexuality is illegal? Because it's illegal in India.

[JI7]

120. there are some states with laws on the books which make some things illegal

but the problem is more in discrimination against gays being allowed. right now it's mostly in the courts. even in cases of victory the anti gay groups will try to challenge it.

in india it's not illegal to be gay itself but sex acts between same sex people is illegal.

but this needs to change also. they need to not only decriminalize but enact legal protections.

but this is why they are able to have gay pride and gays on the media.

the ones who suffer the most are usually poor and other powerless people .

[Violet_Crumble]

121. I thought same sex relationships were legal in every US state...

They're not legal in India. The wording of the law is pretty revolting as well. It calls same-sex relationships an unnatural offense and imposes a 10 year prison sentence. LGBT activists in India are rightly worried that the reintroduction of this law will lead to them being harassed by the police, well, more than they've already been. India's actually bucking the trend of decriminalisation going on in other countries, so hopefully they'll come to their senses...

Bluenorthwest was talking about a list of countries where same sex relationships are illegal a few posts ago. I found a list that covers all countries where same sex relationships are illegal (as of August 2013) and having had a look through them, I've only been to one (Papua New Guinea), and I'd have no desire to ever go to any of them based on their laws

http://www.buzzfeed.com/saeedjones/76-countries-where-anti-gay-laws-are-as-bad-as-or-worse-than#.ry4VEjV8y

[JI7]

122. laws are not always enforced

That's why they are able to have things like gay pride and gays in media. But of course those most likely to be affected will be poor and powerless.

I think the us has some states which still say interracial relationships are illegal.

India's anti gay laws are horrible and often pushed by right wing hindus. Right now some officials in one state want to try to "cure" gays.

I like seeing international pressure to stop not just laws on the books but things like street harrassment and bullying . Boycotting and even protests outside the embassies is a good idea. Let them know how horrible they are .

[Bluenorthwest]

198. Indeed it is not safe. But I was not making a list of anti gay nations but was offering detail to

your 'tiny handful' terminology, 10 countries that will execute gay people this should not be diminished. I have written extensively about Uganda here, and placed the blame squarely where it belongs, with the Catholic and Anglican majorities and their leaders who bait them, along with the Evangelical minority there. It is almost entirely Christian, almost all Catholic/Anglican.

Look, this routine of trying to mitigate one faith by pointing at the other bigoted piece of shit faith is not really apt for discussions with me. My complaints about anti gay bigots are not about their brand of bigotry, but about their actions. To me, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Christians are also bigots? You think that is news to any LGBT person in the world? Really? Ever heard of Fred Phelps? Pat Robertson? Cardinal Dolan? Jerry Fallwell, the Republican Party? Gay people do not think 'oh, well at least these are Christians persecuting us'. Give me a fucking break.
There is no stronger critic of the Christian bigots than me on this website. So 'what about Uganda'? Search my username and 'Uganda' and find out what I have to say about it.

Christian bigots suck just as badly as Muslim bigots, who suck as badly as Hindu bigots, who suck as badly as Jewish bigots, who suck as badly as those who are bigots for pure sport. Bigots suck. Executing gay people is wrong, whipping us with lashes, also wrong. Not wrong because of who is doing it, but wrong not matter who is doing it.
Don't you agree? If not, what do you disagree with?

[Violet_Crumble]

265. Actually, I was correct in saying 'no more than a small handful'...

Bonobo said in his OP there were 50 Muslim countries and I correctly pointed out that there were far less than that. Bonobo's OP was about anti-Semitism, my reply to his OP was about anti-Semitism, but yrs was on some sort of different frequency that wasn't about anti-Semitism, and where you talked about a list: 'In each of them, it is a crime to be gay, so you will find many LGBT people know this list of countries. To not know them could be deadly.'

I suggested that anyone carrying around a rather limited list like that one could find themselves in trouble when travelling. Maybe I'm just weird like this, but I couldn't give a fuck what the majority religion is in that much more accurate and extensive list I posted a link to. They're all horrible countries for having those laws.

As for opposition to bigotry, everyone should be speaking out against bigotry against ALL minority groups that have had hate aimed at them. And when it comes to bigots, as an atheist I don't care what religion they are, or even if they are religious. What matters is the individual bigot themselves (not the entire ethnicity, race, nationality or religion they are) and speaking out against them and what they're saying.

[imthevicar]

33. #2's a dead givaway!? That's a streatch.

So let me get this straight, Because I'm anti Zionists Means I'm anti Semitic!? As my Mother used to say, " You may point 1 finger at me but 3 point back to yourself!" Calling Anti-Zionists, Anti Semitic is like calling a man who is against the military solution always proposed by our warmongering Congressional pols, as being anti-American. I wont buy it nor will I let such claptrap go unanswered!

Counter Rant over.

[PCIntern]

37. so go ahead and answer it...

we're all awaiting your prose with baited breath.

[joshcryer]

35. Easy rec.

It's unfortunate how history appears to be repeating itself with regards to Jewish people. I don't understand it. I really don't.

[ColesCountyDem]

36. Wonderful post!

Well said!

[cpwm17]

39. Frequently people condemn Zionism

since that is the philosophy they are criticizing. What would be bad is criticizing "Jews", since that would be bigotry, meaning all Jews are collectively guilty for the sins of Zionism.

Zionism, as practiced from its inception, and as envisioned by its founder, is a philosophy that promotes the interests of Jews at the expense of the natives. That's bad, and it should always be condemned. Plus it is always a bad idea to give a religious groups their own country. That's a form of theocracy. It can't turn out well - note the endless aggressive wars by Israel and the extreme oppression of the natives.

The right-wing war mongers hide behind accusations of anti-Semitism by calling critics of Zionism "anti-Semites."

[Mosby]

244. the jews are the natives

They have lived in Israel and the Levant for thousands of years. Israel is the ancestral homeland of the jews and Zionism is their national liberation movement.

[redgreenandblue]

281. That attitude you are displaying is exactly the reason why opposing Zionism is not anti-Semitic.

"They have lived in Israel and the Levant for thousands of years. Israel is the ancestral homeland of the jews and Zionism is their national liberation movement. "

That statement is utter nonsense on so many levels.

[Mosby]

282. what attitude?

I stated basic facts, Jews have lived continuously in Israel, Judea, Samaria and the surrounding areas for thousands of years. I'm not even including biblical history.

[PCIntern]

40. AFAIC, anti-Semitism is like pornography:

I know it when I see it.

[shira]

169. +1. n/t

[redgreenandblue]

41. Define "Zionists" and "right to exist".

If by "right to exist" you mean "right to exist as a democratic, multi-ethnic society" then clearly I am for it. If you mean "right to exist as a Jewish state" then I ask you to explain how this is not intrinsically discriminatory against native Arabs.

It appears to me that people are frequently vague on the question.

Same for "Zionism": No two people seem to agree on what it means. Tell me what you think it means and I'll tell you my opinion about it.

If it means "Jewish nationalism" I object to it as I object to all forms of nationalism.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. Do you apply those standards to all nations? I can think of a fairly long list of nations that are

not at all democratic, that do discriminate against all but the official religion and even forbid practice of other religions, nations that punish LGBT people brutally while exploiting foreign workers in slave like conditions and keeping women as less than equal in hundreds of ways.
How are those nations not intrinsically discriminating against many groups of people? Do any of those countries ever get your criticism for doing to a larger degree the things you fume over Israel doing?
There are 11 Islamic States, there are many more countries that have Muslim majorities, but 11 are Islamic States. Do they have a 'right' to exist as religious states that discriminate against others? To be far from democratic?

[redgreenandblue]

56. Well, for what its worth:

I welcome democratic reform in any place which is currently not democratic. I consider any form of government which is not "for the people by the people" to ultimately be illegitimate. I recognize, however, that in many instances where such non-ideal conditions exist nothing can be done about it for the time being. I certainly do disagree with the concept of waging war under the pretext of "bringing democracy".

So essentially yes: I do apply those standards to all nations.

The ultimate question for you, in the end, is whether you wish to see Israel as one entry on that list of nations that you are referring to.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Then why is your crticism given to just one country, when others do all of the things you complain

about to a far greater degree? That makes no sense at all. If 'democracy for all the people' is your principle, why is it not applied to all nations?
I am American, so the entire idea of a religious State is not my idea of something good. But I can't put Israel on the list of anti gay nations, nor those that do not allow the practice of other faiths, nor those who deny citizenship to those of other faiths.
Israel has problems and policies I abhor. I'm always willing to talk specifics and to compare and contrast any nation with another. Which is what I was doing when I asked you why you leave out the Monarchies and theocracies while claiming to be all about democracy and equal treatment for all, which is absent in such nations.

[SidDithers]

42. We see it at DU when our tin-foilers promote the opinions...

of anti-Semitic writers like Paul Craig Roberts, Wayne Madsen, Gordon Duff and Kevin Barrett.

Sid

[tammywammy]

45. +1 n/t

[YoungDemCA]

83. +2

nt

[MohRokTah]

43. My only problem with Israel is the Netanyahu government. eom

[LeftishBrit]

48. Mine too!

But there are a number of countries, with which I have equivalent problems.

Netanyahu is a RW idiot.

[LeftishBrit]

46. The things that I most often see as antisemitic are:

Related to (3): blaming Jews for the actions of other countries. This ranges from paranoid conspiracy theories - 'Mossad did 9-11!' - to slightly more subtle: 'Israel is responsible for ALL conflicts in the Middle East' or 'Israel/ Zionists got America and Britain into the Iraq war'.

And suspecting Jews of furtive, secretive control and influence. No Jew has been President of the United States, and only one (who'd converted to Christianity) has been PM of the UK; but anti-Semites will argue that 'well, they pull the strings'.

Suspecting all or most Jews of dual loyalty (sometimes even 'dual citizenship') and of being more loyal to Israel than their own country.

Refusing to vote for someone for office just because they're Jewish. A poll just showed that half of UKIP supporters would not vote to elect any Jew as PM (I suppose that means that they haven't even entered the 1870s, let alone the 21st century). I have NO doubt that some right-wing hostility to Ed Miliband is linked at least subtly to his being ethnically Jewish.


I certainly do not think that anti-Zionism is always anti-Semitism: there are many people, especially on the left, who dislike all forms of nationalism. However, if you think that Jews are the only people on the planet who shouldn't have a state, that is anti-Semitic.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. 3 -- 2 -- 1 --

[shaayecanaan]

295. I wonder if UKIP voters hate Ed Miliband as much as the Israel-firsters do...

because he's not a popular man with the Old Guard of the pro-Israel community:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-funding-crisis-jewish-donors-drop-toxic-ed-miliband-9849299.html

I'm a huge fan of the man myself, and was chuffed when he was elected leader of the Labour party. If anyone can lead the party back to its heart and soul, he can.

[Adrahil]

57. I certainly have been accused of being an anti-Semite...

For opposing Israel's policies. But not here. Those "criticisms" were thinly veiled attempts at trying to silence criticism of Israel.

But the do run into a problem with with equating Jews with Israel, IMO. Israel is a foreign state, with it's own interests. They do not, IMO align well with our own interests, and for FAR too long, their interests have become a burden on the USA, driven largely by the evangelical Christian movement, not so much by American Jews.

[Jesus Malverde]

59. Lulz...DU REC

[Egnever]

66. Israel does not = Jew

If you cant stand to hear criticism of Israel I suggest the problem is with you. I am so sick of israel hiding behind the jewish religion I could puke.

[tritsofme]

79. So presumably you didn't bother reading the OP?

Displays of anti-Semitism make me puke, but we all have our quirks I suppose...

[YoungDemCA]

82. "Israel does not=Jew"

Said every anti-Semite since the modern state of Israel was founded.

[Adrahil]

90. Wait.... so if I criticize Israel I'm an anti-Semite?

I assume you don't mean that. Can you clarify? Because I am a strong critic of the government of Israel, but I most assuredly not anti-Semetic.

[Damansarajaya]

93. Good luck to you, my friend. You're gonna get flamed. nt

[shira]

170. Criticism is fine. Demonization, defamation, lies, incitement & utter disregard....

....for the sensitivities of Jewish supporters of Israel is antisemitic.

[Egnever]

100. Eyeroll

Half my family is Jewish if I am an anti-semite I suck at it.

Again Israel does not = Jew

In my opinion Israels government in hiding behind the Jewish religion gives Jewish people a bad rep. One that is totally undeserved.

[Chathamization]

94. Don't you know? People that love Paul Krugman, Jon Stewart, Glenn Greenwald and Alan Grayson really

hate Jews if they think non-discriminatory democracies are better than ethno-religious states, or are against the idea of taking territory but not granting the people in said territory citizenship because they're of the wrong ethno-religous group (and not letting them be citizens of their own country, because you want to control the land they live on).

Don't people wonder why, if so many people are secretly antisemitic, so many threads about prominent Jews are devoid of any antisemitism and usually met with overwhelming support?

Though it is interesting that several of the common attacks on Greenwald - including that he only says what he says because he's trying to make money, that he's dishonest and untrustworthy, and calling into question his loyalty to the US - echo some of the worst antisemitic caricatures. But for some reason I've never heard anyone called out on it (neither have I heard people called out for comparing Putin/Russia to Hitler/Nazi Germany).

[YoungDemCA]

251. I didn't realize that Israel was such an oppressive awful regime

I'm sure the Palestinians are welcomed with open arms in places like Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran...and I'd much rather live in those other examples of non-discriminatory democracies. They put Israel to shame!

[Chathamization]

291. Yes, the Israeli regime is oppressive and awful. So are the Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, Iranian, etc.

(not sure Syria, Libya, or Iraq are cohesive enough to be considered ruled by a single regime)

This may come as a shock to you, but more than one country can treat the Palestinians awfully. I will say, though, that you don't get accused of hating Arabs when you talk about how awful the Saudi royals or the Egyptian generals are, and there isn't a huge group of people on this site that usually comes out to defend those regimes.

[YoungDemCA]

296. Ah, so you're of the "Israel is just as bad-if not worse-as its Arab neighbors" view

In terms of its government.

Got ya.

[Chathamization]

303. Eh...perhaps try responding to what I wrote instead of the made up things in your head?

Your first post:

I'm sure the Palestinians are welcomed with open arms in places like Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran...

Eh, never said that. Then your second post:

Ah, so you're of the "Israel is just as bad-if not worse-as its Arab neighbors" view

Well, never said that either. So you're two for two now, congrats.

But hey, feel free to respond to this with "Ah, so you think Israel is solely responsible for climate change!" or some other such non-sequitur. Though it's probably not going to convey much beyond a lack of reading comprehension.

[YoungDemCA]

88. Anti-Zionism is-by definition-the belief that Israel has no right to exist

So yes, that does immediately arouse suspicion from me, too, whenever someone claims they are an "anti-Zionist."

K&R.

[Damansarajaya]

92. No, it's not. Anti-Zionism is the belief that

one people doesn't have the right to take the land of another people by force.

If the Arabs drove the Israelis into the sea, what would you call it?

Why is different for the Israelis to do it to the Palestinians?

[oberliner]

105. The Palestinians were driven into the sea?

Do you understand how ridiculous that claim is?

[Violet_Crumble]

115. They said: 'If the Arabs drove the Israelis into the sea, what would you call it?'

How does that question become a claim?

[oberliner]

133. "Why is different for the Israelis to do it to the Palestinians?"

That's the next line - which is where the claim is implied.

[Damansarajaya]

147. You've never heard of Palestine refugee camps?

Or maybe they should be called ghettos?

The number of "displaced" Palestinians is now in the neighborhood of 5 million--most of those live outside of their ancestral homeland, but many thousands are still in camps.

?w=588&h=409

[oberliner]

162. Indeed

Seems weird that countries like Jordan are forcing over two million to live in refugee camps rather than simply integrating them as full citizens in Jordanian society.

That's what happened with lots of folks who no longer live in their ancestral homeland due to everything that went down all over the world over the years.

[Caretha]

176. I'm confused

perhaps you can explain to me why Israel does not integrate the Palestinians as full citizens, instead of expecting Jordan or other countries to integrate the Palestinians refugees?

Is there not enough land for the Jewish & Palestinian populations to live together or in 2 states - one Palestine, one Israel?

What would be the actual population of the supposed state of Palestine be if all the refugees were allowed to come back, and what would the land mass be for that said state? I also would like to reverse that and ask, what's the population of all the Jews in Israel and how much land mass should they be granted if they chose a 2 state solution vs a united Jewish/Palestinian state, all with equal rights?

[oberliner]

289. Israel does integrate the Palestinians as full citizens

There are nearly 2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel.

I certainly hope that in the very near future, there will also be established a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza that can live side by side at peace with Israel.

That is what I think we should all be working towards.

With regard to your question, do you mean the refugees or do you mean the refugees and their ancestors for three to four generations? If you just mean the actual refugees, then the number would be pretty small. If you include all the descendants, then it's a different story.

[Caretha]

292. Yes

that number should include all the descendents...for what is good for the goose is good for the gander you know....any and all Jews may relocate to Israel with full citizenship.

So what are your calculations on how the land should be divided?

One more question....you said "There are nearly 2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel". Do they have equal rights...are they allowed to vote, own property etc?

[oberliner]

293. Yes

Palestinian citizens are allowed to vote, have equal rights, serve in the parliament, etc.

In my opinion, land should be divided along the lines of what is outlined in the Geneva Accord.

Check it out and let me know what you think:

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/english

[Damansarajaya]

286. Nice. Blame Jordan for Israel kicking people out of their own country. nt

[oberliner]

290. Many people came to America because they were kicked out of their home countries

The US didn't force them to live in refugee camps for the next three generations.

Similarly, today, people flee countries to places in, for example, Europe. Those European countries generally do what they can to integrate them into society rather than keeping them in camps.

Does that not seem reasonable?

[Violet_Crumble]

161. Yeah, I guess you can read it like that...

It's safe to say that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have driven each other into the sea and the impression I get is that the vast majority of both populations just want the other side to leave them alone...

[oberliner]

163. Agreed

Hey - any chance of your returning to the I/P forum? It seems to be sputtering.

[Violet_Crumble]

164. Hey there, Oberliner...

I still read a few threads in the I/P forum every now and again, but don't have anything to say that someone hasn't already said or I said myself back in 2003 or so in the days when the I/P forum was really busy and tumultuous. Anyway, you and I agree far more up here in GD than we used to down in the I/P forum, which tended to have a more polarising, repetitive and antagonistic atmosphere to it

[Damansarajaya]

91. anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism

If it is, then a lot of Jews themselves are anti-Semitic. Take Noam Chomsky for starters.

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Brothers-Dramatic-Palestinian-Christian/dp/0800793218

As a child, Elias Chacour lived in a small Palestinian village in Galilee. The townspeople were proud of their ancient Christian heritage and lived at peace with their Jewish neighbors. But early in 1947, their idyllic lifestyle was swept away as tens of thousands of Palestinians were killed and nearly one million forced into refugee camps. An exile in his native land, Elias began a years-long struggle with his love for the Jewish people and the world's misunderstanding of his own people, the Palestinians. How was he to respond? He found his answer in the simple, haunting words of the Man of Galilee: "Blessed are the peacemakers." In Blood Brothers, Chacour blends his riveting life story with historical research to reveal a little-known side of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the birth of modern Israel.

[Bonobo]

95. Yup, and if you can point me to where I said it was, I'll buy you a bottle of wine.

What I said was that people that shout about "Zionism this and Zionism that!" tend to be anti-semites.

Tend to. Not 100%.

But anyway, Zionism was the movement that believed the Jews deserve a homeland. They now have one.

So what is your "Anti-Zionism" if not the belief that Israel should not exist? And if you are actively practicing anti-zionism, what goals is it that you are trying to accomplish?

If Palestinian equality is your goal-and it is a good one - there is no reason to call yourself "Anti-Zionist".

[Damansarajaya]

97. Wow. "I'm not saying you're an anti-Semite, but you're an anti-Semite."

You admit that anti-Zionists aren't necessarily anti-Semitic, but then you follow up with "what is your 'Anti-Zionism' if not the belief that Israel should not exist?"

Well, gee, how about Israel should exist but without stealing other people's land and killing the people that resist? How about that?

[Bonobo]

98. That's fine. But that does not fit under the category of Zionism or Anti-Zionism.

The idea that a country should treat people well, not steal land, etc. is true for all countries and does not require the use of a special term that is dedicated only to its use for Israel.

So, no wine for you.

[shira]

171. So what is your goal as an anti-zionist?

There are plenty of Zionists who want the Palestinians happy, prosperous, and equal in all ways to Jews in Israel.

As an anti-Zionist, you must not believe that's enough.

So what's your goal?

[Bonobo]

216. That's what I would like to know.

If it is not to see that Israel disappear, why even call yourself an anti-zionist?

Why not be brave (and honest) and come out and say that she wishes Israel would cease to exist?

[Damansarajaya]

287. My goal?

Give back the land the Israelis stole. At least pay for it. Stop stealing houses in East Jerusalem. Stop building on Palestinian lands in the West Bank. Give Palestinians the right to build on their land and stop knocking down their houses that are built "illegally" because Israelis won't let Arabs build.

Cf. Rachel Corrie http://electronicintifada.net/content/photostory-israeli-bulldozer-driver-murders-american-peace-activist/4449

[MrBig]

101. GREAT post

Thank you for posting this.

[redgreenandblue]

123. Zionism, by now, is inseparable from the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

A homeland for Jews .... on territory already inhabited by a native population.
Israel's right to exist .... on territory already inhabited by a native population.

If you show me a definition of Zionism that does not imply that whoever is already there has to go then
that might be something I support. Sure enough, Israel has an Arab population, but my understanding
is that this is considered an unfortunate accident by some. Many were certainly driven away.

[oberliner]

124. Weirdly no one questions America's right to exist on territory already inhabited

by a native population.

I guess the US did such a thorough job of getting rid of the natives that it became a moot point.

With respect to Israel, on the other hand, there was a proposal for Palestine to be divided into a Jewish and Arab state - note that there had been no independent state in Palestine up until this point. Had all parties agreed - it seems like it could have been much more equitable than what the US did with respect to its native population, or countless others in similar situations.

It is not an "unfortunate accident" that Israel has an Arab population, incidentally.

[Threedifferentones]

126. But what about in the early 1800s?

You don't think there were any Natives questioning America's right to exist a few decades after the founding of our country? Instead we killed them, which actually is what Israel is doing too. So, ya, Israel is just as evil as how our ancestors treated the natives. Except this is still going on today, so shouldn't we do something to stop it?

[oberliner]

129. That's not what Israel is doing

There is absolutely no comparison.

There are over 1.5 million Israeli Arabs, aka Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are full Israeli citizens.

In addition, there are millions of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza with a degree of autonomy that they had not enjoyed in the time before Israel's creation.

Hopefully soon there will be an independent Palestinian state on those lands, which is what we should all be working towards.

[BillZBubb]

127. It is laughable how people always bring up this PHONY comparison.

Many Americans do not like what was done to the native populations here. It was wrong then and knowing that we strongly oppose what Israel is doing TODAY.

Israel's apologists comparing US treatment of native populations in the 18th and 19th centuries to the Israeli policies now is disingenuous at best. It is a foolish propaganda point taken straight from Frank Luntz.

[oberliner]

130. There is no comparison

If you study the history of the founding of the state of Israel and the founding of the United States you will see that the comparison is indeed laughable.

[cpwm17]

128. I guess in your mind that is a legitimate argument for Israel

but it is obvious propaganda.

[oberliner]

131. No it isn't

The legitimate argument for Israel is that it exists. The same as the legitimate argument for the United States and Canada.

If you want to argue in favor of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza to be created as well then you have my full support for that.

[cpwm17]

135. You're turning logic on its head.

The issue is the Palestinians' right to exist, and their right to live in peace, which Israel denies - and the Palestinians were there first.

Israel demands the right to do whatever they please to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have to just take it. Israel doesn't have the right to do any of that, and if you believe it does, you are on the wrong site.

[oberliner]

138. Just to clarify a few points

I do agree with you that Palestinians have the right to live in peace. I don't see how the existence of two states living side by side at peace with one another is problematic. I would think this would be supported universally. Granted, the current Israeli government is hostile to this goal, but so are some leaders on the Palestinian side (Hamas, in particular).

And your comment about being "on the wrong site" is really really preposterous. I mean the vast vast majority of Democrats, including President Obama have a view much more similar to mine than yours on this topic.

My views are completely in line with President Obama and I agree with pretty much everything he has had to say about the situation.

[Pooka Fey]

142. +1

I've noticed that.

[Threedifferentones]

125. Oh please.

1. Okay, you got me. The actions of Israel are less evil than the Holocaust. They are only about as evil as Bush and Cheney. So...fuck them, right? I mean why is it totally unacceptable for Bush to treat the Middle East like shit, but it's cool for Israel?

2.

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Israel was founded when the British decided to give control of Palestinian land to self proclaimed Zionists. So, according to Bonobo, history books are anti-Semitic because they point out that the people who founded Israel were Jews and Christians who believed their religions had much more worth than Islam.

Colonialism was and is evil. It is the violent theft of land, and the violent oppression of local populations. It is totally un democratic. So, Israel was created with an evil policy, and in order to exist today Israel must ensure that many millions of people are not citizens with the right to vote. How about you explain to me why I should assume this is just?

I mean I accept that everyone needs a home, but why didn't we give the Jews some German land? How do the crimes of Nazis justify stealing from Muslims?

Your other points are whatever. The fact of the matter is that Israel was created by violence against the will of the people who already lived there. Again, that's as evil as the rest of colonialism, including Buchos invasion of Iraq, so if you support that then I dunno what you are doing on DU.

[oberliner]

132. The founders of Israel were secular

In fact, most religious Jews were (and many still are) opposed to Zionism.

The people who were living in Palestine (many of whom were not Muslims, incidentally) had already been victims of colonialism prior to the creation of Israel.

The Partition Plan would have mean an independent Arab state in Palestine for the first time in its history.

[YoungDemCA]

252. Don't confuse the anti-"Zionist" narrative with historical facts!

It's inconvenient to the narrative around here.

[MrMickeysMom]

134. I believe I can answer one question you put forth...

… on a post that's certain to get you flamed in (3… 2… 1…)…

But, before THAT, I just want to note my belief that it is Jerusalem that has been seen as the epicenter of the 3 major Abrahamic religions, so that might explain why the Jews were not given German land on behalf of the state of Israel.

I have no love for these religions, nor any others, as they all seem to develop amnesia when it comes to the message of the religion I was raised on ("Blessed are the peacemakers", or "The meek shall inherit the earth&quot

Meanwhile, I get the point of your post. Colonialism is not the way to treat others living and co-habitating the portion of earth your want as your own state. I also do not get the United States supporting the State of Israel with $3 Bilion (that we know) each year, or shooting fish in a barrel by killing Palestinians who you think do not belong there.

I have failed. Because, I tried to leave this thread alone, and now I broke the rule of doing that because I recognize the injustices of what humans do, and our seemingly never-ending state of never getting around to our own evolution.

Never forget what happened to 6 million Jews before the end of WWII. However, never forget the lesson that was to have been learned SINCE then.

[oberliner]

141. What would be your policy towards Israel if you were POTUS?

Just curious to know what your vision would be.

[MrMickeysMom]

149. My "vision"?

I'm not sure if I'm going to satisfy a definition of what could do as POTUS, or the collective of those who would have been in charge to have worked out reparation post WWII efforts on behalf of 6 million Jews. But since we're going in that direction… what I WOULD do, were I to have had this "vision", certainly the power to do something is the following -

Take each leader of those represented by that disaster, lock them in a room without any food or water until they come out with a fair workable plan for how those people should be left to live.

[Threedifferentones]

183. I would apologize to the world for America's role in creating Israel.

Although it was mostly Britain and Zionists behind Israel at the time, American aid has always been there and has been essential for Israel's existence. You can call them secular if you want, but when they literally called themselves the Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency for Palestine (per Wiki) I have a hard time believing it. To further the point, how many Israeli leaders have been secular? How on Earth is Netanyahu a secular leader?

I would admit that Americans on average are OBVIOUSLY prejudiced against Muslims, and admit that this undoubtedly affected our willingness to support the theft of land that belonged to Muslims.

I would tell Israel to start apologizing too, and to start working towards a Palestinian state. I would not try to abolish Israel at this point, that ship has long since sailed.

But, if Israel would not apologize or not allow a Palestine, then the Arabs will kill them the way the Israelis have been killing Arabs, because I would not send them one cent of aid. So, probably they would follow my advice.

Yes, I recognize this is a pipe dream. Again, most Americans are still prejudiced against Muslims (American Sniper, hello) so my policies could not hope to win an election.

[Damansarajaya]

148. +1 nt

[oberliner]

150. "why didn't we give the Jews some German land?"

This is one of the more ignorant questions I have seen in a long time.

[Bonobo]

156. Yep. Ignorant and utterly insensitive in equal measures. nt

[Threedifferentones]

186. So, North America belongs to the Natives indefnitely.

Everyone has an indefinite right to their ancestral home. To follow that logic, everyone with white or black skin must abandon North America. But, since DU is a board focused on American politics, I have a feeling you live here. Since you're talking so much about Israel, I have a feeling you are not a native. By your own logic you have no right to be here, so leave.

Oh, wait, no, you're just a giant fucking hypocrite that supports Israel bombing people who are not only defenseless but HAVE AN OBVIOUS RIGHT TO BE ANGRY. THEIR LAND WAS STOLEN. That's terrible, as I said, just like all colonialism.

You see, I am in fact very sensitive, which is why I get so upset when I see how the world is run by bullies. These days Israel and America do the bullying, and you support that, so fuck you.

[Threedifferentones]

184. Huh?

Israel was founded right after the Holocaust. The Holocaust is frequently brought up when I ask people to justify Israel's colonial creation. Since the Germans perpetrated the crime, why should they not give up their land to make amends? What else would be more fair?

Why, giving them Muslim land to make up for German crimes! Duh!

That logic is so obvious I never thought I would have to spell it out.

Of course not being able to follow logic does not make you ignorant, ignorance is simply not having the information. The fact that you could not follow that line of thought makes you either very biased (probable) or very stupid (possible).

[oberliner]

188. The Zionist movement predates the Holocaust by 40 years

The movement stemmed from Jews facing centuries of prejudice, discrimination, massacres, and expulsion from countries across Europe and the world. Jews found it increasingly difficult to feel safe and/or welcome in their home countries.

Here is a quote that helps elucidate that feeling:

"Since the Jew is nowhere at home, nowhere regarded as a native, he remains an alien everywhere. That he himself and his ancestors as well are born in the country does not alter this fact in the least... to the living the Jew is a corpse, to the native a foreigner, to the homesteader a vagrant, to the proprietary a beggar, to the poor an exploiter and a millionaire, to the patriot a man without a country, for all a hated rival"

This was published in the 1880's and helped inspire Herzl to his writings in the years following and get some real energy behind the movement to create a Jewish state. Philanthropists purchased land for settlement in Palestine with the First Aliyah being comprised of Jews facing pogroms particularly in Russia.

There were already several thousand Jews living in Palestine at the time (mostly in Jerusalem) and about 500,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs as well. As anti-semitism increased across Europe in the early part of the 20th century, the numbers of Jews immigrating increased and some of the structures of statehood began to be erected.

The pogroms of 1905 in Russia, in particular, led to an increase in immigration. The land that was purchased was generally swamps that they attempted to convert into arable, fertile land. These were essentially a series of socialist communes that grew across Palestine, populated by primarily Russian Jews escaping the oppression there.

[Threedifferentones]

190. And then after the Holocaust they got so much sympathy that the UK and the US made it happen.

Or, are you really alleging it was just a coincidence that Israel was founded directly after WW2?

[oberliner]

191. Not even remotely close to reality

At this point I would just suggest you read a book on the subject if you are interested in learning about this.

Even just a Wikipedia entry might be helpful.

[YoungDemCA]

250. +1000. It's remarkable that people don't know that thousands of Jews *already* lived in Palestine

...for decades before the creation of the modern state of Israel.

But "they" stole "their" land.

[treestar]

201. The Germans deserved it, unlike the Palestinians

Since this is all theoretical, I submit that it would be difficult for Germans to get any sympathy as the Palestinians do. When they complained, they could be reminded of the Holocaust, that is to say if they didn't like being off their land and in refugee camps they could be reminded they supported and fought for a government that killed people, which is worse.

[Bonobo]

202. You missed the point by a lightyear. nt

[treestar]

205. Your point was only that you thought it was ignorant even to ask the question

Which is never really all that ignorant. Raising issues and asking questions is not ignorant. You could educate rather than just calling the person ignorant. (Someone further down the thread does). We are all ignorant of something. You'd probably complain if someone with superior knowledge on another issue treated you that way.

I think I have a good point there. And it's theoretical, as it's not going to happen/didn't happen, so how is it emotionally that hard to handle that you have to lash out?

[Bonobo]

211. When I say you missed the point, what I mean is

that you replied that the Germany's deserved to be punished by having their land taken and given to Jews.

What you failed to recognize is that Jews could not possibly have felt safe in any way living in Europe at that time. Even after the Holocaust, there were pogroms going on. It is like expecting a woman who was raped and had her house burned down to be asked to share an apartment with her rapist.

And then you say: "But the rapist deserved it!"

[shaayecanaan]

219. But the Arabs have to share an apartment with their rapist regardless? nt

[Bonobo]

222. Jews raped the Arabs?

Please explain. This should be great.

[shaayecanaan]

224. Its your analogy nt

[Bonobo]

227. Yes, it was referring to what the Germans did to the Jews.

Anyway, this OP is about Anti-Semitism and if I were as anti-muslim as you seem to think I am, I probably would have pointed out that one of the chief causes for the recent rise of anti-Semitism in Europe is due to the large influx of Muslims. Did you not notice that I didn't ever bring that up?

Or perhaps you will tell me that it is untrue. Maybe that is a topic best handled elsewhere.

[shaayecanaan]

229. Are you contending that what the Jews did to the Arabs was a consensual fuck?

Or maybe a bit of a rough ride with some heavy petting, but something shy of what you would consider rape?

[Bonobo]

232. Nope, I would say this:

The two once shared an apartment.

One moved out briefly but when he returned, the first one tried to pretend that he had never signed the lease and tried to throw him out.

The second guy fought back and moved in, offering to divide the apartment. #1 refused. Now they live in a violent place with lots of fighting but #2 has the law and some heavy guns on his side. #1 has a lot of friends too though.

Oh, I should add that #1 can come into #2's part of the apartment too but the reverse is not true.

Having said that, #2 has been forced to be a bit of a dick, even erecting a wall across the apartment to keep #1 out of the bathroom. Etc, etc.

Nope, no rape or heavy petting.

[shaayecanaan]

248. Moved out briefly?

even supposing that Jews are the literal descendants of Moses (which is a bit of a stretch), you are contending that a 2000 year old absence is "brief"?

[Bonobo]

259. Jews never actually left the apartment if we are going to be more accurate. nt

[treestar]

275. By that standard, a lot of peoples would be entitled to a lot of land

I recall being disgusted about the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, because they were killing each other over land disputes from like the 1300s.

Yeah, there's a point where you realize that humans of former ages were considerably more violent and desperate than we are with what we have today. Move on and find a place for everybody. Who cares about one's ancestors from 636 BCE? It's hard for the average American to wrap their minds around caring about that.

My ancestors come from a part of Europe less than 200 years ago - do I have a right to that country? Hard to imagine being desperate enough to want to claim it. But that's why we're lucky to be Americans.

[treestar]

274. How did a large influx of Muslims cause more anti-Semitism?

You mean the influx of Muslims are anti-Semitic so they add to the previous European population of anti-Semitics? Or does it make the existing Europeans more likely to be anti-Semitic for some reason?

Arab anti-semitism would be of different cloth, since it is based on existence of Israel. Does it become a real problem in Europe when the Muslims are a minority themselves? Plus why would any Jewish people remain in Europe - is it OK there now? Or getting worse due to the influx of Arabs?

If it was necessary to get away from Germany and Europe and Arabs too, where? The US has a lot of Arabs too. Though it does seem to handle immigrants from both groups of a violent conflict pretty well.

[treestar]

273. It seems unsafe in Israel too

I'd be panicked to live there, surrounded by enemies and terrorists. And what would happen if someday a US population existed that elected officials who refused to send any money or aid? The US devotion to Israel is almost mysterious. The right wingers are most honest when they admit it is because it is an ally or base in the ME. If the world manages to find energy sources other than oil and the ME is not longer cared about, for example, the US and the West don't need this base.

Plus they wouldn't be sharing the land. The Germans would be pushed out of some of theirs. The rest of the world would be very willing to support the idea and the Germans wouldn't dare object the way the Palestinians do. No Germans would be allowed to do anything negative - the entire world was enraged at Germany at that point. Nobody was enraged at the Palestinians to start with.

The UN should have intervened a lot longer, too, not just declared Israel to exist and let the Palestinians deal with it. It would have happened a lot more peacefully if they had worked there a lot longer to make sure everyone there was able to stay put and get along. Maybe the world has learned a lesson and next time it decides to simple create a nation by declaration, will do more to stabilize the area rather than just let them sort themselves out over periods of longer than 60 years.

[shira]

172. Jews are indigenous to Israel. It's their historical/cultural homeland....

It's absurd to argue they have no right to Israel anymore than they'd have a right to a piece of Germany.

[leveymg]

180. So is the Upper Plains to the Sioux nation. Does all of ND, SD, MT, IA and MI belong to them?

Most people wouldn't draw that conclusion. The difference is the policy of the United States as expressed through Harry Truman's decision to cast the deciding vote in the United Nations recognizing the State of Israel in 1948. The other is the hundreds of nuclear weapons stockpiled by Israel, itself, since 1967.

For both reasons, Israel isn't going away. But, to question the expansion of Israel beyond the 1948 borders is no more anti-semitic than it is anti-Lakota to say that the long historical residence of Native Americans does not, in itself, give the Five Tribes title to seize all the real estate across five U.S. States and the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Provinces in Canada.

Indigenous people become displaced people all over the world. Only a few have been fortunate enough to return.

[shira]

182. No one decent would dare call the Sioux "colonists" or "thieves" squatting....

....on someone else's land they have no business being on.

This happens to the Jews re: Israel all the time. And it's nothing but hate.

[Threedifferentones]

189. What? You don't seem to understand.

The point of the other poster is that even though the Sioux once lived on large parts of our nation they now have basically nothing. No one is going to give them their home back, we do not respect their right to it.

Yet, somehow we do respect the Jewish right to claim Jerusalem after having lost it centuries ago. That is obvious hypocrisy.

The fact of the matter is that Americans like Judaism better than Islam, and that is why Israel has been able to enlist our aid so much when it comes to killing Muslims. America provided most of the the funding and the tech that has enabled Israel to fight literally all of its neighbors at the same time, and so it should not be surprising to anyone that many Muslims hate America too.

We enabled the theft of their land. Either that's all there is to it, or people really do have an indefinite right to their ancestral homes. In that case we need to give North America back to the natives, because this is their ancestral home and not ours.

Get it? You cannot avoid being a hypocrite here. By your standards that justify Israel we should not own America. So, either Israel gets to exist justly and the USA does not, or Israel was unjust. Logically, those are your two choices, but of course none of the people who support Israel in this thread have addressed this line of thought even though it has been brought up repeatedly.

Your post here btw makes no sense. The Sioux don't occupy the land they once did, so why would someone call them squatters? ONCE AGAIN, the USA exists on the land that was theirs for thousands of years, so WE are the squatters ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LOGIC!

Are you really that dense, or does an emotional bias in favor of Israel blind you to the truth?

[Threedifferentones]

185. So we need to abandon North America.

If people have an indefinite right to their ancestral homes then no one with white or black skin has a right to line in the Americas.

The Muslims won the crusades, Jerusalem is holy for them as well and they had been living their for CENTURIES. After Britain won WW1 they "colonized" (stole) a lot of Muslim land. After they decided they like Jews more than Muslims, they gave Jerusalem back to the Jews. And Muslims have no right to be upset about that...because?

Again, if you believe the Jews obviously have a right to Israel then to follow your own logic you should never live in the USA unless you are of Native origin. So, clearly you are a hypocrite, and hypocrites can fuck off IMO. I don't mean to get so angry, but Israe just literally murdered over 1000 Arabs and reduced a city to rubble, and you support that, so fuck you.

[shira]

196. It's disturbing u can't find any antisemitism within points #1-5 in the OP. n/t

[oberliner]

136. Good post

Responses here are interesting to say the least.

Here are my thoughts on your points:

1. Agreed. When the Nazi Germany comparison rears its head, this is a dead giveaway that we are dealing with something more than "criticism of Israeli government policies". I would add that it is similarly ridiculous for Israeli leaders and others to throw around the same comparison with respect to the leaders of Iran or whomever.

2. This is a tricky one. I do think there are folks who just substitute the word "Zionist" for "Jew" to inculcate them from charges of anti-semitism. The whole "hey, we are just talking about Zionists, not Jews" is a neat trick. This becomes especially clear when you see references to "Zionist control of Hollywood, Wall Street, the White House" and such. That's the more obvious giveaway.

There are, however, people who don't fall into this category and are genuinely critical of the movement. However, in my opinion (people will of course disagree), they don't really understand what Zionism is. I would love for those who are critics to read some first-hand accounts of some of the earliest Zionists (not just cherry-picked quotes). In any case, there is certainly a lot to criticize about the movement and about Israeli government policies in general.

3. This seems to be not all that controversial. I think almost everyone agrees with you here.

4. Right, yes of course. I would add, though, if you say Israel government policies are causing anti-semitism or that the attack on the Jewish market in Paris was some kind of blowback for Israeli treatment of Palestinians you are similarly misguided.

5. This is very typical here. "I'm sure I will get called an anti-semite for saying this, but..." Or "Of course if you say this, you are called an anti-semite.." That's a trick to be able to get away with saying whatever anti-semitic stuff you want and then come back with "See, I told you they would accuse me of this!". It's a good tactic, I suppose, but hopefully most can see through it.

I also think there is overlap with the USS Liberty people and anti-semitism to some degree. Especially if coupled with some of the other items listed above. Also, the people who list quotes from the Talmud showing how bad Judaism is or some such. And the ever popular out of context and questionably sourced list of quotes from Israeli leaders to show how evil they are.

[Agnosticsherbet]

151. Postwar Refugee Crisis and the Establishment of the State of Israel

An interesting source for those discussing the issues around the creation of Israel, and those who wonder whey Jewish refugees were not given land in Germany or Easter Europe.

Postwar Refugee Crisis and the Establishment of the State of Israel
Most Jewish survivors, who had survived concentration camps or had been in hiding, were unable or unwilling to return to eastern Europe because of postwar antisemitism and the destruction of their communities during the Holocaust. Many of those who did return feared for their lives. In Poland, for example, locals initiated several violent pogroms. The worst was the one in Kielce in 1946 in which 42 Jews, all survivors of the Holocaust, were killed. These pogroms led to a significant second movement of Jewish refugees from Poland to the west.

Even after the Holocaust, antisemitism in Europe was so great that refugees could not go home.

United States Policy Toward Jewish Refugees, 1941–1952
Although thousands of Jews had been admitted into the United States under the combined German-Austrian quota from 1938–1941, the US did not pursue an organized and specific rescue policy for Jewish victims of Nazi Germany until early 1944.

While some American activists sincerely intended to assist refugees, serious obstacles to any relaxation of US immigration quotas included public opposition to immigration during a time of economic depression, xenophobia, and antisemitic feelings in both the general public and among some key government officials. Once the United States entered World War II, the State Department practiced stricter immigration policies out of fear that refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany.

Antisemitism continued to be a huge problem in the years after the war, and creating Israel in the British Mandate was a solution that countries who did not want Jews living in the borders could support..

[Behind the Aegis]

152. Shhh...don't harsh their buzz with facts.

Seems more than a few have a difficult time recognizing anti-Semitism was not only a major reason for the Holocaust, but the reason for the creation of Israel, because, in spite of the mind-numbing genocide, the world still hated the Jooos! Still do!

[Agnosticsherbet]

154. Peole who don't pesky facts.

Will not bother reading them, and if they did, would not bother believing them.

[Bonobo]

155. B, but why didn't the Jooos just stay in Europe where their FROM?

People say "Where is your family from", right? If you're Jewish, you know they were chased around the world and are from nowhere if not from the Middle East. People who deny that Israel was the land of the Jews of racist fucking idiots.

My own family came from Hungary (or Galicia or Slovakia, whatever you choose to call it) and Russia, but before that we think they were chased out of Spain. And how did they get to Spain and how many fucking countries stole their money and chased them out and killed and raped them before they got to Eastern Europe?

[JustAnotherGen]

302. +100

[Bonobo]

153. Is it so hard to figure out why maybe Jews wouldn't have been particularly comfortable in Europe?

Fuck the only country that didn't gleefully hand over their Jews to the Nazis was Denmark.

[Agnosticsherbet]

157. After the war there were Pogroms in Poland.

In Russia, the mass arrests of intellectual Jews and the suppression of Jewish culture was state policy.
The US did not want Jews, neither did other Eastern or Western European states.

One of the problems faced today is the difficulty of looking at the history between the end of WWII and 1950 without coloring from our own experiences today.

[treestar]

203. But it was though Arabs would not be?

Especially if their land was taken from them.

I actually think the US should have been the land of refuge. Nobody is safer in Israel that they are here. In fact we are supposed to send them money because they are "surrounded by enemies who want to drive them into the sea." Doesn't sound like a safe haven either.

[Agnosticsherbet]

207. Actually their land was not taken from them, but part of the British Mandate after the collapse of

the Ottoman empire. The British mandate was a legal document for the British Administration of lands that once belonged to the Ottoman empire.

636 BCE Palestine was conquered by the Islamic Empire.
661 CE was made part of the uncontested Caliphate of the Islamic World after being crowned in Jerusalem.
691 the Dome of the Rock was built.
750 The Umayyad were replaced by the Abbasids
878 Palestine was ruled from Egypt by semi-autonomous rulers
969 The Fatimids conquered the region in 969.
1073 Palestine was captured by the Great Seljuq Empire,
1098 Palestine was recaptured by the Fatimids
1099 Crusaders Conquered Palestine
1187 Saladin Conquered Palestine and it was controlled the Ayyubids.
1248 The Mamaluk Sultanate in Egypt controlled the region
1260 The Mongol Empire reached Palestine and the fought the Mamalukes for it until 1486,
1516 The Ottoman Turks conquered the region.
1923, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate in Palestine was created by the league of nations.
1924 French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon formed by the League of Nations after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire
1928 Transjordan formed from lands held by the British mandate in Palestine.
November 22, 1943 Lebanon became independent form French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon
May 14, 1948 Israel founded in the former British Mandate.

As you can see by the brief timeline, the land was not taken any more than Transjordan, or Syria, or Lebanon were taken. Those were new states created from the old Ottoman Empire.

And the US would not accept the Jewish refugees. Only those with very close relatives living in the United States were allowed to immigrate. No nation in the world wanted a few million Jewish refugees, so the UN took part of the British Mandate, that managed those lands after the collapse of the Ottoman Turks, and created Israel. Either the UN or the League of Nations created nations states out of those old lands and, incidentally, drew those borders that ignore the ethnic and tribal makeup of the region.

[Bonobo]

212. I love to see the education going on in this thread.

This would also be a good time to remind that the Arabs rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan sparking this whole conflagration because they thought that if they banded together, they could just wipe the whole state of Israel out with overwhelming military might. They did their damned best too.

Even Abbas admitted rejecting the Partition Plan was an error.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-arab-world-was-wrong-to-reject-1947-partition-plan-1.392560

[shaayecanaan]

217. Your "education" sounds like extreme Kahanist right-wing talking points...

I realise that in the back of your mind, you are wondering whether I am an anti-semite. But you have to realise, that in the back of my mind, I wonder whether you are a virulent anti-Arab racist.

This, for example, is just so much errant nonsense:-

This would also be a good time to remind that the Arabs rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan sparking this whole conflagration because they thought that if they banded together, they could just wipe the whole state of Israel out with overwhelming military might. They did their damned best too.

No, they didn't. Egypt sent about 10% of its army, fearing unrest at home. Syria didn't do much more. Iraq sent a few soldiers who went home after two weeks.

The primary Arab fighting force was the Arab Legion, a nominally Jordanian unit which was however commanded by British officers, chief amongst them Lieutenant-General John Glubb. His 5000 Jordanian troops were the only professionally led force in the conflict, and were successful in every encounter with Jewish forces that they encountered.

The Arab Legion could have pressed its advantage more, but didnt for several reasons. The British officers did not want to see Israel destroyed and did not encroach on land that was reserved for the Jewish state under the partition plan. The British also wanted the failure of the nationalist armies to be evident - they wanted the Egyptians to fail in the south and the Syrians to fail in the north. Glubb also wanted to preserve his precious Legion so as to ensure the stability of the Jordanian monarchy and its continuation as a pro-British stronghold in the middle-East.

No nation has ever willingly suffered the loss of half of its territory. It is ludicrous to have expected this of the Palestinians.

[Bonobo]

221. You disagree with Abbas then that not signing the UN's Partition Plan was a mistake?

As for the military makeup of the Arab side, I concede that they did not in likelihood exert their full efforts to oust Israel, however their intentions to wipe Israel off the map were quite clear both through the declaration of a Jihad in 1948 and through subsequent large scale mobilization by at least 6 Arab nations.

The fact is that it was the Arab League that vigorously worked to reject the Partition Plan were the ones that attacked Israel and destroyed any hope of a peaceful co-existence.

"No nation has ever willingly suffered the loss of half of its territory. It is ludicrous to have expected this of the Palestinians."

What territory are you referring to? Are you referring to the area of land that was administered by Britain following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire? By what stretch of logic do you conclude that that "belonged" to the Palestinians?

[shaayecanaan]

223. Some more education for you

By what stretch of logic do you conclude that that "belonged" to the Palestinians?

Because it was their country. They were citizens of it. They were issued passports to that effect. They looked like this:-



Yes, it was a British colony. But no less than Canada, Australia, St Lucia and a host of other places that were still part of the British empire at the time. The Australians and Canadians nevertheless regarded Australia and Canada as theirs. And the Palestinians regarded Palestine as theirs. Because it was.

[Bonobo]

226. So another words Britain had the power to create a country is what you are saying, right?

[shaayecanaan]

228. They created a whole bunch of them

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Zimbabwe. Need I go on?

[Bonobo]

230. And yet apparently you feel they had no right to create Israel. Weird. nt

[shaayecanaan]

231. The British created Israel? nt

[Bonobo]

233. Are you denying Britain's role in the creation of Israel? Weird.

You just finished admitting that the term "Palestine" was an invention of Britain. That was correct. Now you are going to pretend that Britain played no part in the creation of Israel?

[shaayecanaan]

238. The term Palestine was an invention of Britain?

I wonder how it got into this Ottoman era map?

[Bonobo]

241. I never said the name was invented. Did you just think that would be a good way debate strategy?

I'm old enough to have seen the strawman toss done by far more competent debaters. LOL.

[shaayecanaan]

246. You never said that the name was invented?

from your post immediately above:-

You just finished admitting that the term "Palestine" was an invention of Britain.

I think most reasonable people would interpret the above sentence as saying that you were, in fact, contending that the term "Palestine" was an invention of Britain.

You're a lightweight, matey. Remember that next time you take someone on who knows what they're talking about.

[Bonobo]

247. They invented its status as a nation. They didn't invent the name, of course.

I never meant to suggest anything but that the name was recycled from ancient times.

That's not how language works, matey.

[Agnosticsherbet]

236. Actually, the UN created these countries not the British or the French

who administered these areas after the Ottoman's collapse.

[shaayecanaan]

239. The UN created Lebanon?

I must admit, as a Lebanese boy myself I am keenly interested on how this magical process happened, especially coming from such an expert of Lebanese history such as yourself. Do tell.

[Bonobo]

242. LOL, maybe you think Lebanon arose from the aether? Perhaps an exploding star? nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

234. The land was former Ottoman territory, a Turkish possession from 1516.

Turkey was not involved in the 1948 war over their former possession.

After the Ottoman empire collapsed, its former possessions were administered by the British and the French legally authorized by the League of Nations. Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan were created from that area.

So you must feel that they, too, are interlopers who stole the land from its rightful owners?

[Agnosticsherbet]

235. The Egyptians fought from May 13 to June 10, 1948.

The Egyptian Regular Army and the Muslim Brotherhood's Frist Battalion were involved in heavy fighting in seven battles: Battles of Kfar Darom
Battle of Nirim
Battle of Yad Mordechai
First Battle of Negba
Operation Pleshet lit. Phillistia
Battle of Nitzanim
Battle of Hill 69


Egyptian Artillery, Air Force, Armored, and infantry units were involved
The Muslim Brotherhood's First Battalion under Husni al-Musawi, Lieutenant Colonel Ahmad al-Aziz.
the First Battalion of the Egyptian Regular army fought there. (Certainly the Egyptpian Regular Army was considered a professional fighting force and commanded by Egyptians.)
Other commanders were Ahmed Ali al-Mwawi and Muhammad Naguib

Some other notable Arab units.
In the battle of Jerusalem the Army of the Holy War led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni and Hasan Salama fielded between 5000 and 10000 men during the war. The Arab Liberation Army had 6000 men.
Other leaders were Fawzi al-Qawuqji and bd al-Qadir al-Husayni †

I have not even looked up the unit strengths of the other nations involved. It is clear that your statement about the British is not entirely accurate.

[shaayecanaan]

257. You need to keep reading

if you had read a bit further

Some other notable Arab units.
In the battle of Jerusalem the Army of the Holy War led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni and Hasan Salama fielded between 5000 and 10000 men during the war. The Arab Liberation Army had 6000 men.

you would have realised that the first "army" was a group of irregular militiamen mainly made up of local Palestinian farmers. The second was a group of foreign volunteers from various countries. These militias were generally of very poor quality, and did not count for very much in the fighting.

None of what you posted contradicts my assertions in the slightest. The Arab Legion was the only professionally led force. While numerically less, its quality meant that it was by far the most significant force fighting on the side of the Arabs.

The officers of the Egyptian army before 1952 tended to be well-connected members of the elite. Certainly most if not all Egyptian units fighting in 1948 would not have had the benefit of career officers.

[shaayecanaan]

218. Yes, it was taken from them

I, for instance, am from Lebanon. My family has lived through the Lebanese republic, before that the French, then the Ottomans, then the Arabs and the Crusaders before that.

Despite all of those changes in government, theft of land is still theft of land. My family was fortunate in that we were on the French side of the Palestine-Lebanon border. But for that thin red line, the Zionists would have considered my family's land up for grabs as much as the Palestinians.

Jews live in old stone houses in West Jerusalem today that were plain and simply stolen from Arabs. Anyone who seeks to deny this basic historical fact is a liar.

[treestar]

271. 636 BCE

The people living there in 1948 are not responsible for all that. What a fancy, twisted way to attempt to claim it was not their home at the time.

The US may not have accepted the refugees but they should have.

And how is it a safe haven to be surrounded by enemies and thus need money from another nation? Someday the US might have a population that elects officials who refuse to cooperate.

[Agnosticsherbet]

280. The Anti-semitic US Did not Accept them. Neither did Anti-semitic Europe.

That is History.

And those dates are a list of who actually controlled the land from the time of the Muslim Conquest. That is the history of the people who lived there. You should notice that right up through the end Ottoman Empire, the entire region belonged to which ever conqueror could hold it. After the Ottoman's fell apart following WWI, the League of Nations created the British and French Mandate to administer the area.

The League of Nations, and its successor the UN, then went about setting up governments and drawing borders, in an often ham fisted way.

It is a fancy twisted argument that tries to deny history before 1948 and use "should have" as any kind of statement when discussing historical facts.

The Germans in WWII should have treated Jews, Gays, Gypsies, anyone with birth defects and many others with fairness and compassion.

The Americans should have returned to Britain and not stolen everything West of the Atlantic Coast. (Probably one of the greatest thefts of land form its original people in the history of theft.)

The British should have paid fair wages on plantations instead of establishing the slave trade so they could have a cheap form of labor and make greater profits from plantations.

I could go on, but those statements mean nothing. History is what happened not what should have happened.

[libodem]

177. Thank you for opening a dialogue about this

I have a very difficult internal struggle with how I feel about the treatment of the Palestinians. One film clip showed some soldiers deliberately breaking the bones of Palestinians, once they were captured and on the ground. Not letting women through check points when they are in labor, forcing them to deliver dead babies in the car. It hurts me. I watched the clips here on DU.

I struggle with the right for protection against aggressive offensives to gain fresh territory to build new homes. It makes my head explode. I'm more radical than a couple of my well respected male friends. It makes me very proud that my friends are squarely on the side of Israel and defend the Jews. Those are the friends I want. That is who I am. That's why it tears me up to see the families of Palestinian fighters punished. Or collective punishment doled out on innocent children. It's a terrible struggle for me. I am a champion of the underdog.

[shaayecanaan]

225. this is the video referred to

for those interested

[Bonobo]

237. The ability of Jews to show their conscience without embarrassment is their strength.

It is a shame such self-reflection for misdeeds is so rare.

[shaayecanaan]

243. So in other words, when Jews kick the shit out of Arabs, they're still great

because they reflect somberly on it afterwards, unlike Arabs who probably have no conscience at all and are no better than animals. So in fact all this video proves is how humane Israelis are.

I heartily recommend you apply for chief media officer at the Ferguson police department. You seem well equipped for the job.

[Bonobo]

245. Your personal attack and strawman style of debating has really become tiresome.

I think I am done with you unless you can lay off that nonsense.

I said none of that.

[shaayecanaan]

249. While we're discussing strawmen...

presumably you admit that I did not say this:-

You just finished admitting that the term "Palestine" was an invention of Britain.

Right?

[Bonobo]

256. Yup, what I meant to say was the country was invented/created.

Same as Lebanon.

[leftynyc]

266. I was wondering how long

you were going to put up with that bullshit of someone shoving words into your mouth. You remained polite and informative and the other poster is flailing around having to put up strawmen in order to not admit the obvious. I've stopped engaging such behavior because the very second you fight back, they whine and hit the alert button. I commend you for the patience you have shown and again for starting this thread.

[cpwm17]

277. What a bizarre and racist thing to write

and a strange rationalization for a disturbing video.

[Orsino]

192. Israel ought to be used to comparisons to Nazi Germany by now.

There are parallels that it--and many other nations, including our own--ought to examine and reexamine. Ultranationalism everywhere leads to abuses of human rights.

[Douglas Carpenter]

193. here is one Auschwitz Survivor's perspective

[libodem]

199. So touching

I love this man.

[ismnotwasm]

195. An excellent OP Bonobo

Number three is the one I hear most from 'regular' people, it's actually quite horrifying

[Bonobo]

204. Thank you.

I wasn't really trying to bring Israel into this, but it is so hard to remove it from the discussion.

I was trying to show what it looks like from the perspective of a secular Jew like myself.

[ismnotwasm]

215. I know

[War Horse]

197. Reccing this one

For trying to bring some perspective. Just b/c I agree with most, if not all, of what you're saying

1 I wholeheartedly agree with. To go down that road isn't exactly constructive, to put it mildly. Not all people intend it to be as harsh as you put it, though. But I must admit that I have actually, physically, slapped some folks for expressing just what you're getting at.
As for 2, not all people know the history of Zionism, and as such there may be some knee-jerk responses. But you'll probably agree that Zionism means different things to different people. Hence the need for dialogue.
3 is a dead giveaway. No ifs and buts about it.

And yes, anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. AND in the US. The main difference, as I see it, is that mainstream European politicians are behind (feeble, some might righteously say), attempts to combat it, whereas in the U.S., John Birch sentiments seem to be on the rise among the wannabe political elite.

[YoungDemCA]

254. Great thread. Kicking and reccing!

Thanks Bonobo, for an informative OP and an enlightening thread.

[merrily]

255. Name calling and broad brush usually are signs of bigotry, for good or ill.

(Some of my gender might debate this, but I think a comment like "Women are so much nicer than men" is a broad brush that may well be intended to compliment women, but is still broad brush stereotyping and I don't like it.)

Another signs of bigotry is making up any stuff about any group that you cannot possibly prove, at least not without resorting to some disreputable source.

None of what I have cited so far is specific to anti-Semitism, but does include it.

Holocaust denial, however, is a huge sign of anti-Semitism. Arguably, also a sign of homophobia and ugliness toward other groups (Poles, physically and mentally challenged people), but anti-Semitism sure stands out.

[Behind the Aegis]

260. ""Women are so much nicer than men""

This is an example of a "positive" stereotype, but it is a stereotype, nonetheless. It is similar to "Gays are good-looking/neat (as in tidy)/have an eye for color (as in design)." "Blacks are good at sports/dancers/(men) have large penises." "If women ruled, things would be better (anyone want Sarah Palin in charge of the US??!?!)." Too many think the aforementioned aren't really bad, but are compliments. But, like you said, they are broad-brushing and if a person in said minority doesn't conform to those "positive" stereotypes, it indicates something is "wrong" with them or they aren't a "good" minority.

One of the signs of bigotry is making up things which are unprovable, but also by using facts in a disingenuous way. Most stereotypes may have some basis in fact, it is that the fact is stretched or manipulated in such a way as to distort, thus creating a new and false view of the group.

[merrily]

261. Yes, and humans need to be seen as individuals, not as generics or prototypes.

Because if you think one or more good experiences with some women tells you something about all women, you are likely to think one or more bad experiences with some women tells you something about all women, too. All women are not nicer than all men, any more than all women are weaker than all men or "bitchier" (whatever that means) than all men.

Best thing I ever learned (for me) about stereotyping, positive or negative: "Cow 1 is not cow 2."

That may have been especially powerful for me because I've lived in cities all my life, and differences between and among cows don't tend to leap out to me.

[Behind the Aegis]

262. I had to giggle at your example about the cows.

You are quite correct. Some have difficulty understanding the difference between generalizations and stereotypes. Generalizations can be used for good or for bad. Also, there is that nasty word "normal." It is often misused to mean "average." My example is the human body temperature, which is supposed to be 98.6° but mine is 96.4° to 96.8°. So if mine is 98.6°, then I am running a slight fever. Some run colder, like me, some run hotter, but 98.6° is not "normal", but rather "average." I am going to be "that guy" and talk about my fur-babies...

I have four Chihuahuas. Many people think chis are all yappy, ankle-bitters, who are anti-social and afraid of just about everything. Voodoo (Little Man BooBoo), my male, is social up to a point. He can shake when children get too close to him, and he barks when strangers come in the house, but he will warm up to people and loves his daddies. Laveau (Big Girl), is very anti-social. She has enough friends and neither desires no requires the attention of others. She only barks when daddies come home or she needs to go outside to potty. Marigny (Pretty, Pretty Princess), Laveau's half sister, can tremble quite a bit, whines, but is one of the most loving dogs in the world. She has never met a stranger! She is an attention junkie. When her best friend died, our cat, Tony, she mourned his loss for a month. Zatanna, (Da Baby) does not like strangers at all! She is very vocal; she is the most "stereotypical" of the chis, but still has a big personality. So out of four, we have ONE dog which would fall into almost all of the stereotypes of Chihuahuas.

When it comes to Jews, I have been called a "kike", a "Heeb", and a "Christ-killer." At this site, I have been called an agent of Mossad, a Kahanist, a ZioNazi, and accused of being more loyal to Israel (several times, and even had a handful of posters tell me to "move to Israel&quot . I have had people "amaze" at my generosity after discovering I am Jewish (Jews are supposed to be cheap). I have been told I don't really know what anti-Semitism is, almost always by someone who isn't Jewish. I have been accused of "Jewing people" (cheating them in some way). The list goes on and on.

One of the issues that Bonobo didn't touch on, nor did I in my early response to him, is how often Jews are told what we should and should worry about, and how we exaggerate anti-Semitism (playing the anti-Semitism card...which was actually used recently against a Jewish poster). Topics about anti-Semitism (or other Jewish topics) often devolve into rants about Israel, even when Israel isn't even mentioned. That too is a form of anti-Semitism.

[merrily]

263. The statement comes from this book

http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-Fifth-Edition/dp/0156482401

written by a Japanese American Republican.

Just shows that you can find a kernel of good info almost anywhere, if you're lucky. Then again, I read the book before I knew he was a Republican and cow 1 is not cow 2 is about all I remember from it. It did hit me between the eyes, though, as the perfect illustration.

Whatever resistance I have to stereotyping, I owe to my father, who incessantly stereotyped EVERYone. It was so pervasive and so extreme that all I could do, even subconsciously as a little kid, was conclude none of it was valid and I should judge people, if at all, only by how they behaved toward me (the last bit would be the kid speaking. My criteria would not be limited to me now.)

[NaturalHigh]

278. Lets see...

1. Yes
2. Yes.
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes

I think you covered it pretty well. After I read anything resembling 1, 3, or 4, I can pretty much dismiss anything else a poster might have to say.

&quot T)here are tens of thousands of gleeful anti-semites hiding BEHIND criticism of Israel." Undoubtedly, and it's foolish for anyone to claim otherwise.

[YoungDemCA]

297. As has been pointed out before but bears repeating: there are citizens of Israel who are Muslims

They make up 16% of the population, and are therefor Israel's largest religious minority.

As Israel's total population is about 8.1 million, that means that there are well over 1 million Muslim citizens of Israel.

Now, ask yourself: What percentage of the population in the West Bank or Gaza Strip is Jewish? How about Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Iraq? Iran? Jordan?

Since the answer to that question ranges from "a very small percentage" to the Jewish population in those other Middle Eastern countries being essentially non-existent, ask yourself the next question: Was it always that way? (The answer is no, by the way) What has changed?

[redgreenandblue]

298. My beef is with Israel, not Jews. If you choose to equate the two, that is your problem. I don't.

I hold two citizenships and am of at least three ethnicities and hold the opinion that individuals have rights, groups or "cultures" do not, in so far as they are not the sum of the individual rights. If you have to go more than three, or maybe five, generations back in order to justify territorial claims then I will strongly consider the possibility that your claims are nonsense.

I have no use for "ancestral homelands" of any kind. I find the obsession with them, and with lineages and also a more general kind of sentimentality concerning ancient mythology (real or fictional) to be solidly the territory of the far-right, and I want no part in it, especially when it leads to people being forced to leave the place they inhabit. (BTW, as far as I understand, from a scientific perspective the question whether all Jews originated in what is now Israel is by no means settled.)

That said, I'd happily marry a Jewish person or see all of my children (if I had any) marry Jewish people. So there.

[Bonobo]

300. Sounds like you read for about 5 seconds and then decided to put in your .0001 cents. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

304. So much truth here