Because They Are Jews

[drdon326]

I read a good deal of news, much of it on the Internet, and see little discussion of the depredations of Syria, or Zimbabwe. I read nothing of India's 1 billion dollar fence, shutting off most of the desperately poor Muslims in Bangladesh. I know that there are 188 nations in the United Nations. Among them are North Korea, a slave state, and an assortment of despots and tyrants. The only state among the 188 that may not serve on the security council is Israel.

The Holocaust, which should have signaled the end of hatred of the Jews, acts for many as a shield. "I certainly don't feel the way the Nazis do, or wish what Hitler did" is supposed to be enough to prove that the speaker is not anti-Semitic. But there is a long road between fellowship and genocide.

It is hard to credit all this to geopolitics. How can Israel be the one state that bears the brunt of such rage? Why is the vandalism in France, the community center burning in Argentina, the defacement of synagogues throughout Europe, all tied to the policy of this one small nation? Despite the raping of Tibet, the systematic destruction of the culture, there is no trade block with China, no violent protests throughout Europe, no Tibetan terrorism. Is there more to understand here--perhaps an underlying hatred apart from politics?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/147/story_14730_1.html
...............................................................

[wtmusic]

1. How 'bout if we let Israel on the UNSC

and they pull down those fences? Deal?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[bemildred]

3. Speculation and straw men.

Have a nice day.

[Lithos]

5. Tu quoque

While it is true there is a quite a bit of hypocrisy and even outright bigotry in the world where some countries choose to see what is going on in Israel while being blind to what is going on elsewhere. However, this does NOT excuse the injusticies which are going on.

The analogy is pretty close to a burglar who has been apprehended in the act while his partner managed to get away because he was family to one of the cops. While the burglar may claim it is still unfair that his partner got away and should also be set free because of it, the fact remains that they wouldn't have been caught if they had been doing something wrong in the first place and that to let them go would still be wrong.

L-

[drdon326]

9. I'm surprised you decided.....

to give your opinion so explicitly.

However your analogy is wrong.

The better analogy is the cop who injures a bystander
while attempting to stop a serial,rampaging killer.

Sorry, I have a real problem finding moral equivalency
between the terrorists who commit wanton,mindless brutal
atrocities and the IDF who under the most unusual circumstances,
have bravely defended their country against this terrorism.

Have their been cops who have crossed the line??....what war
hasn't had that....and they've been charged and convicted.
Has any terrorist ever been arrested by pa??....dont strain your
memory.

[Lithos]

10. My opinion

Since you asked.

First, I agree with the writer that for some people Anti-Semitism is driving their actions. They are only using as an excuse the situation in Israel to justify their actions. This is a heinous crime which can never be condoned.

Second, I strongly disagree with the writer's inference that all criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitism. Under the guise of defending the need for an Israeli state, the writer also tries to associate ANY criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

It is grossly naive to think that whatever Israel does is perfect in either its policies or it's actions. Because it is not perfect and because it is lead by imperfect humans there are going to be faults and that these faults can be criticized.

As for myself, I find the original Zionist dream of a socialistic state for which a glimmer briefly existed in 1948, as being an ideal which Israel has turned away from. Men like Martin Buber no longer exist. Israel today is not the Israel which served as a haven from people rebounding from the Holocaust. Today it seems to consist of many groups of self-interested, ethno-centric and self-absorbed people ranging from the militant and intolerant ultra-Orthodox (euphemistically called "Schwartzers" by Israelis) to the ultra-Nationalists lead by the National Union Party to the "What's in it for me" Likuders with their twin idols of Sharon and Netanyahu. This is the Israel I criticize.

Lest you think me overly critical, I also think to that the Palestinians are currently being lead by self-interested, ethno-centric and self-absorbed people ranging too from the militant and intolerant ultra-Orthodox/ultra-Nationalist Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood/Hezbollah, to the "What's in it for me" Tunisian mafia with Arafat as their idol.

Again, for the writer to infer a blanket claim of anti-Semitism is absurd.

As for specific issues with the writing, here are a few points addressing a key section of the article.

Whenever I hear of such a blasting critique of Israel, I am always tempted to ask the person a few questions. I used to ask: can you imagine what the United States would do if Khomeini took over Texas? Would you counsel restraint? Is there any country who, faced with an implacable enemy on its borders, has responded with the country club gentility asked of Israel?

But I would actually like to ask some more pointed questions of my typical counterpart in this discussion, if only to begin a serious dialogue, not a litany of accusation.

1. First, and most obvious: Why Israel?

I read a good deal of news, much of it on the Internet, and see little discussion of the depredations of Syria, or Zimbabwe. I read nothing of India's 1 billion dollar fence, shutting off most of the desperately poor Muslims in Bangladesh. I know that there are 188 nations in the United Nations. Among them are North Korea, a slave state, and an assortment of despots and tyrants. The only state among the 188 that may not serve on the security council is Israel.

This is a classic case of disinformation and tu quoque.

- His statement assumes that the OT are part of Israel in a way which Texas is a recognized part of the United States. The OT has never been recognized internationally as part of Israel. There are many agreements which to which Israel has been a signatory affirming their status as not part of Israel.

- The depredations of Syria and Zimbabwe are indeed discussed internationally. The same with N. Korea which has served as a lightning rod for much of the NE Asia Rim. However, even if they weren't this does not serve as an indulgence for Israeli (or Palestinian) actions. The same standard applies to all. This is pure tu quoque..

- The fence in India is currently being build inside of the recognized Indian border and not inside of Bangladesh. Its function is very similar to the fence along the US-Mexican border to limit illegal immigration into India from Bangladesh. The fence that Israel is building is not inside of Israeli territory, but being located inside of OT territory not internationally recognized as part of Israel. The issue with the fence is not that Israel is building it, but where Israel is building it. For the writer to claim there is no difference is misleading.

However, let's say that India's fence was moraly equivalent to Israel's fence, it still does NOT make Israel's fence any less wrong.

- And as a minor aside, I am quite aware of Israel's problems with joining first the Asia and later the WEOG regional groups inside the UN and that Israel is currently barred by agreement with the WEOG to not run for the Security Council. However, they are not the only member country with such a prohibition. Currently Estonia does not belong to any regional membership and is also incapable of serving on the Security Council.

The issues with joining either group also had very little to do with Anti-Semitism. First, membership to a group must be accepted by a unanimity of the members. One member can veto a country's application. Given that the Asia group has many member states who are officially still at war with Israel, it is easy to understand why Israel is not a part of this group.

The reason why it took so long to join WEOG had to do with fears by the member states that acceptance of Israel would prompt a rash of applications from members seeking to leave the much less regarded and influential East European regional group.

[Forkboy]

11. Thank you for a most excellent post

You have summed up my feelings and expressed them far,far better than I ever could.

[drdon326]

12. WOW.....(my jaw just hit the floor)

I chose to assume you actually read the article and I'm not sure
where you made your assumptions.

"Second, I strongly disagree with the writer's inference that all criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitism. Under the guise of defending the need for an Israeli state, the writer also tries to associate ANY criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism."

He never "inferred" that....what he did say rather explicitly is when
there are seemingly endless worldwide illegal/immoral acts that
barely never are rebuked by the UN or any other group such as the ICJ but Israel is held as a pariah nation, then one has to ask their motivation....and rightfully so. Turning a blind eye to these worldwide atrocities and not even paying lip-service to them,but
becoming apoplectic over a barrier to stop your people from being blown into a couple of hundred pieces speaks volumes as to the motivation of the outrage.

"The depredations of Syria and Zimbabwe are indeed discussed internationally. The same with N. Korea which has served as a lightning rod for much of the NE Asia Rim. However, even if they weren't this does not serve as an indulgence for Israeli (or Palestinian) actions. The same standard applies to all. This is pure tu quoque.."

Hmmm.....except we don't live in a vacuum,do we??...and if you believe the acts of Syria and Zimbabwe get the same denunciations and outrage from the international community as Israel , we're reading different things.


From the article:

"It is hard to credit all this to geopolitics. How can Israel be the one state that bears the brunt of such rage? Why is the vandalism in France, the community center burning in Argentina, the defacement of synagogues throughout Europe, all tied to the policy of this one small nation? Despite the raping of Tibet, the systematic destruction of the culture, there is no trade block with China, no violent protests throughout Europe, no Tibetan terrorism.

Is there more to understand here--perhaps an underlying hatred apart from politics?"

Now...

"As for myself, I find the original Zionist dream of a socialistic state for which a glimmer briefly existed in 1948, as being an ideal which Israel has turned away from. Men like Martin Buber no longer exist. Israel today is not the Israel which served as a haven from people rebounding from the Holocaust. Today it seems to consist of many groups of self-interested, ethno-centric and self-absorbed people ranging from the militant and intolerant ultra-Orthodox to the ultra-Nationalists lead by the National Union Party to the "What's in it for me" Likuders with their twin idols of Sharon and Netanyahu. This is the Israel I criticize."

Think about what you are saying....you appear to like the state of israel more when it started as a socialist country but since evolving
during its short 56 year history away from the socialism that you supported, suddenly *NOW* "consists of many groups of "self-interested, ethno-centric and self-absorbed people ranging from the militant and intolerant ultra-Orthodox". I reject that notion vehemently. And the evolution of Israel parallels the multiple wars
brought on it by its neighbors. You liked Israel when started but as time went on you found reasons not to like Israel now because it defended itself and lost its "socialist" roots.

"But there is a long road between fellowship and genocide."

You're not alone but some self-introspection might be warranted.




And lastly...and I'll be brief...

"The issues with joining either group{WEOG} also had very little to do with Anti-Semitism. First, membership to a group must be accepted by a unanimity of the members. One member can veto a country's application. Given that the Asia group has many member states who are officially still at war with Israel, it is easy to understand why Israel is not a part of this group."

anti-semitism???..nooooo....perish the thought....

And Country clubs didn't ban African-Americans because they were black...no,no,no...they just wanted to maintain the "character" of the club.


I wonder what Karl Marx is thinking now.

[Jack Rabbit]

14. It's a tu quoque fallacy

You are right in asking why the world expresses its frustration with Israeli injustice in the occupied terrorities and gives scant attention to other calamities, such as (to furnish my favorite example nowadays) Darfur.

However, that doesn't make it right for Israel to displace Palestinians in Palestinian territory in order to make room for Jewish settlements and segregated access roads. If we paid more attention to Darfur, would that suddenly make Israel's settlement program unjust? No, Israel's settlement program is unjust whether we pay sufficient attention to Darfur or not or even whether there is a hamanitarian castastrophe in Darfur or not. The two have nothing to do with each other. Putting it the other way, if the Israelis and Palestinians were living in peace and harmony, there would still be a humanitarian castastrophe in Darfur and we may not be paying much more attention to it than we are now.

That is the classic test of a red herring, and since the author of the article is attempting to point to other calamities in order to justify Israel's injustices, it is member of that subspecies of red herring, the tu quoque. And so is this:

He never "inferred" that....what he did say rather explicitly is when there are seemingly endless worldwide illegal/immoral acts that barely never are rebuked by the UN or any other group such as the ICJ but Israel is held as a pariah nation, then one has to ask their motivation....and rightfully so. Turning a blind eye to these worldwide atrocities and not even paying lip-service to them,but becoming apoplectic over a barrier to stop your people from being blown into a couple of hundred pieces speaks volumes as to the motivation of the outrage.

[Fight_n_back]

15. Argueing different points

The argument isn't that most of the world has no reason to criticize Israel and is therefore anti semitic. The argument has been that Israel has much to be criticized for but the shrillness of the world's anti semitism makes it nearly impossible to find a reasonable solution.

The fact that Arab states ignore the far worse acts of their own member nations and continue to focus on Israel does not lead to peace.

The fact that many people in the American and European left use the same phraseology as historical anti semitism does not add to the debate over a solution.

The disagreements in this forum have little to do with the actual policies in question. There are very few members of DU that support the occupation. The only real questions for me are:

1) How do we build a progressive community if a large part of that community doesn't like Jews ("over represented", "control US foreign policy", "control the media". etc)

2) Will ending the occupation end terrorism?

The answer to number one seems to be: We are used to it and will do what we need to do just like African Americans put up with the left's hypocrisy

The answer to number two seems obvious: Terror attacks against Israel predate the occupation and will continue after it ends. A reasonable debate should be started on how the international community should deal with Palestinain attacks against Israel after the occupation ends.

The simple fact that Jews are not even allowed to say what they find offensive continues to be offensive. Only right wing whackos say that blacks use racism as a charge to stifle debate. What American blacks do is say that they feel a position on an issue indicates racism. They are usually correct.

Stating something like "Zionism equals racism" when there is a group of nations that don't allow Jews to live in them is certainly a jaundiced view.


In short, it would be nicer if people here gave a tinker's damn about the sensitivities of Jews that were a part of DU. There are real issues to deal with and spending countless hours arguing that there is no such thing as anti semitism is pointless and not just a little bit mean.

Saying that the US has an obvious hatred of Arabs and Arab nations does not absolve the Saudi's or Al Queda. It means that we need to be careful with what we allow the US to do when dealing with the issue of terrorism.

The same needs to be remembered about the world's obviuos anti semitism. Israel needs to change its policies but the rest of the world also needs to get a grip as well.

They are seperate issues.

[drdon326]

16. Couldn't agree more....uhhhh.....except...

"A reasonable debate should be started on how the international community should deal with Palestinain attacks against Israel after the occupation ends."

Sadly, to hamas and IJ,as well as others, when they use
the word "occupation", they are refering to what you and I
call "israel".

[Lithos]

17. Yes, different points

First, I have significant problems with the author's essay. The writer assumes all response is dicated purely along issues of Anti-Semitism. The problem with this is that the writer did not develop any sort of anti-thesis to prove this is the case. The closest he comes to it is claiming an inability to find stories showing UN outrage against states other than Israel. This is weak and easily disproven.

Granted, there is most certainly a fair amount of Anti-Semitism in the world, it predates the foundation of Israel and is independent of Israel's existance. While there are indeed people who will use criticism of Israel as an excuse to justify their brand of Anti-Semitism, even so, Israel is just a convenience, not the cause. Overcoming this will take time and education and is truly an issue separate from that of the goings on in Israel.

It was Einstein who said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” The author however, does fall into this trap by reducing of any reaction against Israel to the simpler case of "Because They Are Jews". Why? such a statement also cleanly removes any rationale for supporting the injustices of the Palestinians from the equation.

I will never support blanket statements such as this and others for which an example is "Zionism Is Racism". These topics are too complicated to be reduced in this manner.

Saying that the US has an obvious hatred of Arabs and Arab nations does not absolve the Saudi's or Al Queda. It means that we need to be careful with what we allow the US to do when dealing with the issue of terrorism.

The same needs to be remembered about the world's obviuos anti semitism. Israel needs to change its policies but the rest of the world also needs to get a grip as well

I agree. They are two different and independent issues which will take two different and independent courses of action to solve. To link them only exacerbates the problem and creates unnecessary obstacles to solving each.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Well said

!!

[Gimel]

6. Bangladesh

This is an interesting case in point, however, because Bangladesh because a recognized nation in 1971. Like many new African nations, it fought for it's identity and used violence to achieve it. It's population has swelled to one of the highest densities in the world due to immigration from Burma.

violent attacks on India were part of the revolution that preceded the nations establishment. This was in 1971, more than 2 decades after Israel's declaration of statehood. Yet some people are arguing that the time for violent revolutions is past. Look around you people. The world exists of far more than the US, Australia, England and Israel with it's Palestinian break-off nation.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Palestinian break-off nation?

What does that mean?

The West Bank and Gaza are not a break-off nation from Israel. They simply are not part of the modern state of Israel and never have been.

BTW, perhaps this isn't relevant, but the birth of Bangladesh was assured when India went to war against Pakistan in order to allow Bangladesh to pursue her own destiny. What was India's dog in that fight? Apart from historical animosity toward Pakistan, she just couldn't handle the refugee crisis that Pakistani brutality in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was causing.

[Gimel]

8. OK

My phrasing, for want of a better word. Let it be "partitioned by the UN (not accepted) but upon demand of the whole pie, were rendered to statelessness. "

Anyway, the State of Israel's establishment was the bone of contention on some quarters that I was now addressing.