it's about the same size, same climate, and I'm sure no one would mind as there's hardly anyone living there, and there's lots of room for those people in Nevada and Arizona, east of the Colorado River, of course... <sarcasm>...

Israel is about 200 square miles larger than New Jersey, the 5th smallest state in the US.

I really don't expect any less especially when some people can't even manage the simple definition of the word, anti-Semitism, compare Israel to Nazi Germany, or make veiled remarks America is already Israeli occupied because of the large number of Jews here. So given more serious, and usually hate-filled, remarks in regards to Israel, not knowing the size of Israel is really small potatoes.

What is just as "funny" is how an anti-Semitic remark morphs into a thread bashing Israel.

Can you clarify?

that it refers to the Native Americans in the American West having already been displaced by people from elsewhere.

It could have an uglier meaning; I hope not.

But I will certainly give the poster the opportunity to clarify.

Every since Corbyn has become the leader of Labour antisemites have flocked to the party.

Labour has long had a very discrete anti-Semitism problem, almost exclusively in its activist ranks rather than in its MP's or leadership, and its usually disguised as passionate pro-Palestinian feeling, however some of that is very clearly in 'Dogwhistle' territory.

Labours problem is not really anti-Semitism per se, its that the current leadership have opened the doors to the cranks, obsessives, loons and CT'ers because broadly they will support the leadership - the anti-Semites have slipped in among them, and the sad truth is that the Leadership have either turned a blind eye, or given a nod and a wink, to those with those veiws. if they are too outspoken, or blunt, they get thrown out, but its certainly true that there is a far greater tolerance of views and words that are now called passionate support for the Palestinians than there was for what would have been called anti-Semitism under any Labour Leader since, well the foundation of the party.

it is illustrative that the Leadership attracts these people like flies to shit - thats not to say that Corbyn is an anti-Semite, i don't think he is, rather that his outrage meter gets switched off when he's with people who may share some views/objectives with him. he will, for example, happly share a platform with Hamas people and won't criticise Hamas for its killings, torture, corruption etc.. but he won't share a speaking platform with David Cameron over the EU referendum when they both support and campaign for 'remain'.

personally i think its a bit pathetic, that he's spent so long in the political wilderness that the only people who would speak to him - rather like Galloway - are those with unsavoury views who need a gullable/desperate British politician to give them publicity and a smear of legitimacy, and he's simply unable to move out of that bubble.

a previous Labour politician, Mo Mowlam, who was a secretary of state for Northern Ireland during the interminable peace process of the 1990-2000's, was judged by the civil service and the rest of the cabinet to have been overcome by 'the whiff of cordite' when dealing with Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA - Corbyn is similar, just with Che Gevara t-shirts and Palestinian scarves...

Thus it was Churchill that opposed India Independence, but it was Labour that agreed to it. It was Labour that pulled out of the Near East in the 1950s. It was Labour that supported Israel during the Israeli-Arab wars of 1947 to 1973.

The problem has been since the 1970s Israel has lost the image of being the underdog in the Middle East to the Palestinians. And with that lost of image, Labour has switch sides to what Labour sees as the underdog today. i.e. the Palestinians. You may DISLIKE that switch, but Israel has refused to to address that problem for it wants the West Bank to be Jewish.

My sister gave me a book once Christmas, "Battles of the Bible" written by two Israel generals. One of the points they make out in that book is the flat lands near the Mediterranean Coast is easily taken over by foreign armies, while the mountainous region of Jerusalem and the West Bank has many different ridges for troops to use to hide their positions and defeat an invading enemy. It was the West Bank that the Ancient Jews used as their base to establish Ancient Israel. It was the West Bank that King Saul and Later King David used as they base for their larger kingdom. When the Maccabees successfully revolted against their Greek overloads, it was the West Bank that they fought and retreated to when defeated and attacked from when they could. It was the West Bank that even the Templar knights of the Crusades tried to hold onto during the Crusades. These same Generals even made the comment that when Napoleon had conquered Egypt and was marching up the Coast Road through modern day Israel, when one of his Generals mentioned taking Jerusalem, he said NO, for the road to that city was a death trap.

When reading that book, I quickly saw the main problem with the West Bank, Israel (and that includes its Army High Command) see the West Bank as a place Israel could retreat to if faced with overwhelming force. Israel sees the West Bank as the place it can RETREAT to if attacked by forces it can not defeat. The problem with that plan is the West Bank was exclusively Palestinian prior to 1967, and is still made up of more Palestinians then Israelis. Israel does NOT want to be seen doing force removal of all of the Palestinians, for that is one thing that will turn the American people off from supporting Israel, so Israel has done all they can do to "Encourage" the Palestinians to leave (and Israel is using many of the same techniques the Nazis used on the Jews in Germany in the 1930s to encourage immigration).

Israel wants the West Bank to be Jewish, they would like to have the Gaza Strip, but it is NOT essential to the Israel concept of itself (Thus Israel gave up the settlements in the Gaza Strip, but has refused to even slow down the pace of such settlements on the West Bank). Israel knows that as long as it is the most powerful country in the mid east, it can exist as a coastal country, but back in the collective mind of the ruling elite of Israel is a desire to have a fall back position, a place to retreat to if attacked by overwhelming odds. The historical fall back position has been the West Bank, and it is for this reason Israel wants the Palestinians out of the West Bank, Israel wants the West Bank to be a Jewish stronghold, the place to retreat to when facing overwhelming odds.

Labour sees this as the reality on the ground in regard to the West Bank, but oppose such ethnic cleansing, thus the opposition to Israel is NOT Ant-Jewish, but pro Semitic Palestinian.

Side note: the Death Camps only existed from 1942 till 1945, and you had mobile killing forces killing Jews from 1939 onward. My comment above relates to the period BEFORE WWII, i.e before 1939. Hitler was the #1 smuggler of Jews into Palestine in the 1930s, while stripping Jews in Germany of their Citizenship, they right to hold certain professions, they right to even marry a non-Jew (among other rights including the right to return to Germany, the country where they were born in). Israel has adopted these very same rules for the West Bank, Palestinians are forbidden to build new homes, their lands are taken away from them, Jews in Israel can not marry an West Bank Palestinian, and if a Palestinians leaves, it is almost impossible for them to return. Education is underfunded etc. Hitler only turned to the Death Camps after he was at war with the World and what the rest of the World cared about what he was doing with the Jews became unimportant to him. Prior to that, Hitler was very concerned about world opinion, thus Jews were treated badly (and even killed) in Nazi Germany of the 1930s, but wholesale murder of Jews only took place after Hitler was at war with the World and no longer cared about World Opinion. Israel is NOT in the same position as Hitler during WWII, but is a similar position to Hitler of the 1930s. This actually make me scared for the Palestinians, for if Israel ever gets to a position it no longer cares what the rest of the world thinks of Israel, I can see Israel during Genocide on the Palestinians in the West Bank. Please note I do NOT foresee that happening at the present time or even in the Future, but under the wrong set of "Facts", Israel will do to the Palestinians in the West Bank what Hitler did to the Jews during WWII.

It's always a pleasure to read your historical perspectives. I guess Israel could be considered anti-Semitic when it comes to Palestinians, and as you point out, not too unlike the way Hitler treated Jews in the 1930's. I wonder sometimes if it is a case of the abused child becoming the abuser as an adult.

You think Israeli is treating the Palestinians the way Hitler treated the Jews in the 1930s?

I cannot believe what I am reading here.

He is comparing the way Hitler treated Jews in the 1930's to the way Israel treats Palestinians, who are also Semites.

And that is saying a lot.

Israel wants the West Bank. I cite a book that made the same point, but never came out and said it. The Position reflects the GEOGRAPHY of Israel and the West Bank and what that means from a military point of view. Without the West Bank, Israel has no place to retreat to and hide against a superior force. With the West Bank it has a place to do just that. Thus the Ancient Philistines disappeared from History for they base was in the Gaza Strip, but that strip is easy to take and hold for it is very flat. The same with the Ancient Phoenicians, once conquered by Alexander the Great, they disappear from History.

The Ancient Jews survived well into Christian Times by falling back on the West Bank in times of Crisis, that included when Persia took Egypt, when Assyria took Egypt, When Egypt marched on the Hittites and then the Assyrians. That included Napoleon's war on Turkey after he took Egypt. None of them wanted to take Jerusalem or the West Bank unless forced to do so. The Babylonians did so, more to protect their flank if and when Egypt would attack them. Rome did so, but left the Jews alone till the Jewish war of 120 AD (and even afterward, Jews remained in the West Bank).

I am just pointing out something you do NOT want to hear, that Israel wants the West Bank to be Jewish and have a good rationale for wanting the West Bank to be Jewish. The problem is that means getting rid of the Palestinians in the West Bank. Given the support Israel needs from the US, forceful removal of the whole population is not presently possible, but if that support is no longer needed AND Israel enters a time period where it no longer cares what the world thinks it is doing, that is the same position Hitler found himself in regards to the Jews in Europe in 1942.

As do many countries allied with their cause. In fact, most of the countries in the region do not even recognize Israel's existence. It is incredibly common in the region to find maps that eliminate Israeli completely and have it replaced by Palestine. The problem is getting rid of the Jews in Israel. As you know, countries in the region have tried to eliminate Israel since it's founding. Given Israel's military strength and US support, this is not presently possible. If there was a time when Israel no longer had this support nor military advantage, and countries hostile to Israel's existence developed nuclear weapons and secured the means to achieve their goals, they could find themselves in the same position Hitler found himself in regards to the Jews in Europe in 1942.

The weaker side in a conflict can be horrible people as well.

The term has lost all meaning because of knee-jerk Israel apologists using it to silence their critics.

Presumably, she wasn't talking about the Palestinian citizens of Israel, was she?

I am not even sure that Shah is personally anti-Semitic. But her comment was extremely ignorant - and ironically extremely colonialist (someone needs to tell her that the UK haven't been in charge of Israel since 1948 or of America since 1776!) - and of course any policy based on it would be highly anti-Semitic in its effect.

... unless, of course, you're critical of it's very existence.

First, the Palestinians are Arabs who are a Semitic race, thus the largest attack on the Semitic People is the attack by Israel on the Palestinians. Thus Israel is the largest Anti-Semitic people in the world today for Israel has killed more Semites then any other group:

From 2000 till 2014 you had 6,890 Palestinians killed vs 1081 Isreali deaths:

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000639

The following sites gives the numbers 1,217 Israelis deaths vs 9,271 Palestinians deaths:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/deaths.html

Thus part of Labour's party's problem is they tend to support who they think are the VICTIMS, and right now that is the Palestinians NOT the Israelis. You may dislike that support, but it is clearly NOT anti-Semitic, it is Anti-Israel, but that is NOT the same as being Anti-Jewish. You may want to confuse Anti-Israel/Anti-Zionism with being being Anti-Jewish but that is NOT how the Labour party is seeing the problem, nor anyone else on the left who support the Palestinians.

Is she talking about the Palestinian citizens of Israel too or just the Jewish ones?

Notice I put the term "Semitic Race" in quotes, for it is more an invention of Nationalism of the 1800 of people who wanted to show why Europeans were superior to everyone else on this planet.

As to your statement "Is she talking about the Palestinian citizens of Israel too or just the Jewish ones?" I suspect only the Jewish ones.

So since we agree that she is most likely talking only about the Jewish citizens of Israel, that is where one could describe such a sentiment as being anti-semitic (or anti-Jewish, if you'd prefer that term), since she is essentially calling for the removal of millions of Jews from their homes and forcibly relocating them to a foreign country as a means of bringing peace to the region.

languages that include both Hebrew and Arabic.

'Anti-Semitic' is therefore not a very good term for those who specifically dislike Jews; but it's the commonest term that we have for it. Originally mainly used by anti-Semites to refer to a dislike of all ethnic Jews. Someone who is 'anti-Jewish' as a form of religious bigotry may still accept a Jew who converts to Christianity or other prevailing religion; 'anti-Semitism' was used to refer to dislike of all people of Jewish origin.

But however much one may quibble about the terminology, it is undoubtedly true that some people have a specific dislike for Jews.

It has nothing to do with Semitic people.

By the way, what is the ratio of UK deaths to Iraqi deaths? It was a Labour Party PM who led the charge for the Iraq War.

Even Wikipedia acknowledge that fact, while saying from the 1880s it meant only being Anti-Jewish. Some Scholars say it should only be used as a term for being Anti-Jewish for that is how the majority of people have used the term, but the original use clearly included Arabs. The term was invented in reaction to the claims of "Aryan Superiority" over the "Semitic People" and that claim clearly included the Arabs. Most people using the term are referring to people of the "Semitic" race in Europe and that is mostly Jewish as opposed to Arab but in the fight over racial superiority of the 1800s the fight always included the Arabs among the Semitic people and thus the term included the Arabs.

The term means prejudice against Jews. If you'd prefer the term anti-Jewish, then you can mentally substitute that in your head when someone uses the term anti-semite.

but no ACTUAL comments from the people the author is taking about that are Anti-Jewish UNLESS you take a comment that they support Hamas as being Anti-Jewish. That is the only "Fact" that is stated in the piece as anything other then an opinion of what others were MEANING when they spoke.

I looked up the Term "Zio" and "Klan" and yes some KKK sites are using the term "Zio" but it is clearly a short version of the term Zionist, Zionist is a term invented by Jews themselves who wanted to return to Israel, thus how is that Zionists (and Zio) anti-Semitic? Yes the KKK sites used the term "Zio" but also the term "The" and even the word "a". The KKK uses the term "Zio-globalists" but that is typical of the KKK, the Jews, in their eyes are up to no good.

Anyway we are discuss LABOUR not the KKK. The use of the word "Zio", like the words "the" and "a" are WORDS that are NOT considered insulting on their face. Thus someone shorting Zionists to "Zio" is not anti-Semitic unless it is Anti-Semitic to oppose Israel or to support Hamas.

Furthermore the Telegraph is NOT the most reliable Paper in Britain, it is more like the New York Post, scandals to sell papers more the actual news.

And you missed the point. These people publicly support violence against Israeli civilians.

If you prefer The Guardian here you go

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/antisemitism-left-racism-israel

There is a huge anti-Semitic problem on the left. In particular at academic institutions.

At Oberlin

"A recent Oberlin alumna, Isabel Storch Sherrell, wrote in a Facebook post of the students she’d heard dismissing the Holocaust as mere “white on white crime.” As reported by David Bernstein in The Washington Post, she wrote of Jewish students, “Our struggle does not intersect with other forms of racism.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/an-anti-semitism-of-the-left.html?_r=0


Joy Karega, a rhetoric and composition professor at Oberlin College, was revealed to have posted wildly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel content, often in the form of conspiracy theories, on her personal Facebook page. According to Karega, the Mossad, Israel’s national intelligence agency, was the true mastermind of last year’s Charlie Hebdo massacre; ISIS is the product of a CIA-Mossad collaboration; the IDF shot down that Malaysian airliner over Ukraine; and Jews were behind the attacks on 9/11. Karega also posted this meme of Jacob Rothschild, a clear satirization of various anti-Semitic tropes, such as claiming that Jews secretly control the world (or, in this case, at least “your news, the media, your oil, and your government”). (Her beliefs appear to extend beyond anti-Semitism, too.)

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/198216/in-academe-shouldnt-blatant-and-repeated-anti-semitism-be-a-fireable-offense?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=b9e2e95f0b-Monday_March_7_20163_7_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-b9e2e95f0b-206638286

Corbyn the leader of the labour party sympathizes with terrorists and is friends with radical Islamists.

He has called Hamas and Hezbollah agents of “long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region,”

and once invited to Parliament a Palestinian Islamist, Raed Salah, who has suggested Jews were absent from the World Trade Center on 9/11. Corbyn called him an “honored cities"

It says something about the state of the UK Labour that they chose as their leader someone who praises a man who blamed Jews for 9/11

And right now that is the Palestinians. You accuse Corbyn of supporting Terrorism for he supports Hamas and Hezbollah in their fight with Israel. Hamas is the properly elected rulers of Gaza, something you dislike, but it also means Hamas, like Israel, is something everyone in the area has to work with. If you want peace in the Middle East both Hamas and Hezbollah must be included or do you advocate genocide of both groups? You either deal with them or wipe them and their supporters out. I oppose genocide but others have supported it is the past. It is a defendable position to take but if you take it, understand who you will be standing with in the minds of most of the world (I reject Genocide and it appears even does Israel). Israel, on the surface refuses to deal with either Hamas and Hezbollah, but have dealt with both in the past and will again in the Future. Just like both Hamas and Hezbollah have dealt with Israel in the past.

Hamas has called for the killing of all Jews. They expect the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as true.


There is no genocide in Gaza.

A genocide occurs when one side shoots and the other doesn't have the means to shoot back.

Hamas shot 5,000 rockets at Israel they have every right to shoot back. The people of Gaza chose a terrorist organization to lead them.


Corbyn stood with someone who blamed the Jews for 9/11. That is anti-semticsm

David Cameron has engaged in arms deals with Saudi Arabia - horrible human rights abusers and certainly infested with anti-Semitism as well as misogyny, etc. - and was influential in getting them a place on the UN Human Rights Council. Members of his Party have often praised authoritarian, human-rights-abusing China and even suggested that we emulate their industrial policies.

Blair was very cosy with Gaddafi, as well as various other nasty individuals including Bush.

Thatcher supported Pinochet and the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Etc.

The Labour Party is in its usual state following any election defeat of being in chaos, and fighting each other instead of the Tories; and Corbyn is IMO a weak leader who cannot control his party (but I'm not sure who would do better right now); but they do not 'support terrorism' - that is based on Tory propaganda.

At least the Labour Party is trying to do something about it, unlike some of the other parties.

You should try UKIP; in one poll, 50 per cent of their members said that they would never vote for a Jew.

Bradford political parties in general seem to have a problem with anti-Semitism or at least extreme anti-Zionism. Naz Shah's predecessor was George Galloway, an independent, and very controversial on this (and other) topics. In the next constituency, former LibDem MP David Ward had a consistent pattern of making remarks about 'Zionist' influences on Britain while he was an MP.

You've got quite a few people like John Mann who are passionately pro-Israel and on the other hand you've got Jeremy Corbyn who is of the exact opposite view.

He's just put his foot in it over this issue in a big way.

likely about why your twitter feed is exploding:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141430901

It could be moved to Texas, then with luck, Texas would secede.

Although since this came from the UK, I think the UK ought to take them.

Another alternative, didn't the original plan call for taking over part of Uganda? I don't suppose the Ugandans would be too happy about that, though.

although the dallas cowboys logo would only need a little tweaking....

Next time she'll only express her true feelings on a purely analog level to like-minded friends.

I'm not much of a Jewish scholar, but even I know Jerusalem has something to do with why Israel is where it is.

...not. If I suggest solving the Middle East's problems by moving the whole region to the moon it doesn't mean I actually want everyone to die in the cold vacuum of space, now does it?

They carved a new Israel called Sitka out of Alaska and the Jewish people ended up feuding with the native people and somehow it all progressed into an apocalyptic death-cult with the cooperation of a nitwit evangelical US President that I think was supposed to be inspired by Rick Santorum and Ralph Reed but reminds me more of Ted Cruz.

It was a murder mystery. I wish I remembered the name of it. I want to reread it because it was oddly awesome.

It was an interesting concept.

Ref :http://forward.com/culture/books/339119/qa-michael-chabon-talks-occupation-injustice-and-literature-after-visit-to/#ixzz46wZDPIcJ

Do you have an advance copy or something?

Frankly the notion of moving Israel to the US seems so obviously humorous (due to the inherent impossibility) that I think it's absurd to be treating it as any kind of serious matter. I mean, if this strikes you as a serious proposal or the comment about saving money on bank charges strikes you as a serious response, then there may be something terribly wrong with your sense of humor and you should avoid comedic establishments, clowns, and self-identified funny people:



Myself, I once offered the state of Israel to the highest bidder on a prank eBay auction as a tongue-in-cheek way to suggest that all the millenia-long disputes over who really owns the land in Israel/Palestine could be rendered moot by finding an external buyer willing to pony up for the whole thing. This does not mean that I literally wanted to see the Jews and Palestinians sold into slavery, and I'm pretty sure that Naz Shah in the UK did not actually think everyone in Israel should be forcibly relocated to North America either.

This was a gently humorous suggestion in line with a long tradition of political satire, rather than a mean-spirited attack on any group of people or way of life, and I think a little ridicule is far preferable to (and more effective than) firing rockets or setting off bombs or angry chanting at protests, all of which political communications are designed to intimidate at best and injure or kill at worst. Imposing political punishment over lighthearted Facebook comments in response to lighthearted memes is not the sign of a free or mentally healthy society.

perhaps you can explain the comedic content of the Madagascar Plan to the rest of us.

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

There was no comedic content because that was a serious proposal considered by an incumbent government with a history of anti-semitic violence, not a Facebook meme posted by some nobody that humorously proposed setting up a 51st state shaped exactly like Israel in the muddle of the US.

You see just because some evil people seriously proposed doing something vaguely similar within living memory does not mean that the idea of relocating an entire country is now off-limits for any sort of humorous discussion for ever more. There is no moral equivalence between the two proposals and I refuse to take seriously anyone who suggests that there is.

This might also explain why every Israeli friend I've had under the age of 40 knows a bunch of Holocaust jokes, although I don't plan to repeat any of them here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_%282005_film%29

Where is the humor in the graphic? Could you point it out to me?

What I see in the graphic is a common racist Palestinian/arab fantasy narrative, where the middle east is cleansed of Jews and Palestinians replace Israel with Palestine and peace breaks out in the world, it literally says that you know.

That's not funny, it's just racist.

...I guarantee the thread would take on an entirely different feel; well, maybe not entirely as I am sure the Nazi references would still be here and the redefining of anti-Semitism, but I sincerely doubt many, if any, would find "the humor" in the pronouncement.

winner take all of the "holy" desert in the middle of fucking nowhere - Then be done with it...


Any foreign fighters like skinheads in Germany or Fundies looking for the end of times in Alabama are encouraged to join. (free flights). Shit, we can even let the Bundy fuckers out of prison to go. Everyone brings their own weapons...

Then once is all said and done...it is over- no more-


Easy peasy- All the fundies in the World can have their final field day then the rest of the planet that actually has common sense can live in relative peace

Britain’s opposition Labour Party on Thursday suspended a veteran and senior member, Ken Livingstone, after he claimed that Adolf Hitler was initially a supporter of Zionism “before he went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews,” and charged that for decades in the UK there has been a “well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticizes Israel policy as anti-Semitic.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-spiraling-anti-semitism-row-labour-suspends-livingstone-for-saying-hitler-backed-zionism/

A British pro-Palestinian charity supported by UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn reportedly funded a festival in the Gaza Strip this week that included a play in which Palestinian children simulated violent acts against Israelis.



http://www.timesofisrael.com/report-corbyn-backed-charity-funded-gaza-event-featuring-kids-play-on-killing-israelis/

-snip-

I therefore present a just a small sample of other antisemitic Labour MPs:

Rushanara Ali, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. Watch her spewing blood libels and hatred against Israel for daring to defend herself from Hamas rockets. Moreover, this MP actually resigned her position as Shadow Education Minister in order to protest the decision to attack ISIS in Iraq.

Rupa Huq MP for Ealing Central is not just an obsessive Israel hater but was also obsessively concerned that Party leader Ed Milliband was a Jew. Here she is with yet another blood libel against Israel. She also defended Naz Shah's antisemitism.

Shabana Mahmoud, Labour MP for Birmingham who actually took part in a violent protest to shut down Sainsburys for daring to stock Israel produce

Yasmin Qureshi labour MP for Bolton SE who compared Israel to the Nazis

Imran Hussain, Labour MP for Bradford East who blatantly lied to deligitimize Israel in Parliament (leading to David Cameron to make his own ignorant anti-Israel response)

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/nothing-special-about-naz-zhah-plenty.html