Is certainly not because they feel Jews of Israel to be their " own side ".

The pathological obsession with Jews ,Zionists,Israelis.. Or whatever other code word of the day is used or not used , has far deeper roots and causes than this simplistic essay posted above .

you seem to make a sweeping statement there, without any explanation

Jewish nor Muslim so passionate and obsessive about this topic ?

It's a shared pathological obsession of the right and left .

It's been a problem for far longer than just the last 45 years.

Coming from you? Ha

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=14184

You and Shira have each made a statement about me, with supposedly incontrovertible evidence…….It is impossible for you both to be right so your supposed evidence is worthless, but that does not concern you, does it?.


Azurnoir, of course, has not accused you of fantasizing, being prejudiced or anything else…He simply asked you twice to elaborate on your “pathologically obsession” claim……That, you have refused to do.

why are you so reluctant, is that these statements are actually meaningless or you actually do not know what you meant?

(also..."Jews" and "Israelis" are not synonymous terms and Judaism is NOT inseparable from Zionism.)

Why do you insist on equating any opinion you disagree with on the I/P issue with hatred?

which frankly seems be the result of unceasing hatreds on both sides. It continues to destabilize the region and the world.

While intense, the latest round of Sunni-Shi'ia civil and religious strife in Syria is recent with relative peace in that country since the Ba'ath Party last put down the Sunni uprising in 1982 with 60-80,000 killed on both sides. In that round of fighting, like the present, the Saudis backed the Sunni insurgency which featured terrorist bombings by the rebels and massacres by the regime.

I think it's ridiculous to try to compare the civil war in Syria with Israel and its violent conflicts. I dare say, if rebel IDF units allied with Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda were fighting to overthrow the government of Israel, the carnage would be at least as appalling as we're seeing in Syria. Imagine an Israeli civil war along secular Reform and Orthodox lines, with several bordering countries sending in arms and terrorists, coordinated by the United States to change the regime, and you have roughly the situation in Syria, today.

The casualties on all sides of the Syrians conflict are approximately 17,000 to date, which are far fewer than the 1976-82 civil war. If we must compare them, that can be viewed in the context of the combat casualties for the wars between Israel and neighboring states from the War of Independence through the 1973 Yom Kippur War (data below does not include civilian casualties, and casualties for the more recent Israeli incursions into Lebanon and Gaza):

I think it's a reaction to Israel being the Jewish state . And a very successful state at that.

I think its revulsion against Old Testament behavior of an "eye-for-an-eye" that has continued into the 21st Century, and threatens to ignite wider wars. That's not hostility against any specific religion, but instead a reaction to continuing violence and what appears to be expansive and aggression behavior by a people who would greatly benefit if they were able to put it behind themselves. That goes for Israel and its neighbors, but most western liberals assume that their ethics are more commonly shared by the Israelis. So, the resentment is against a perceived massive ethical lapse, not any economic or political success.

When I see some websites on Israel / Jew topics often it's impossible to tell at 1st glance if I'm on a far right or far left website .

. . that you can name of Israel committing actual aggression. I mean even one clear cut, no doubts case. Like for example, Israel stating that it's purpose is to attack a state or a people that is not threatening them in order to destroy it or take their land. And then following through on that threat. Something that no-one can question because of actual evidence.

requisitioning land that has (Palestinian) villages on it for military use is not aggression in your mind?

. . according to the Geneva Conventions. Aggression is starting a war, a Cassus Belli, an armed attack on someone not attacking you and not preparing to attack you. Look it up. None of those you listed qualify.

but perhaps you should the victims of these these actions were or not they are aggression

. . of those uplifting discussions with the pro-Palestinian left.

there is nothing 'uplifting' for those who do not support things such I listed about a so called discussion with those that would seem to excuse them or even actually support them

It'd be just the same as someone popping up and claiming that suicide bombers blowing themselves and civilians up wasn't aggression according to the Geneva Conventions. Decent people know its aggression and are opposed to that sort of thing...

Listen, I don't give a fuck if the Geneva Conventions doesn't list something specifically. Attacks on civilians and their property is something that no left-winger would condone or support. Some people get so wrapped up in their desire to pretend that Israel is blameless 110% of the time that they lose sight of the obvious fact that real human beings are being hurt in this conflict.

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2012, 11:29 AM - Edit history (2)

. . since your reading comprehension skills are not very active today. Levymeg commented that he/she thought that people on the left hated Israel so much because of Israel's eye-for-an-eye policy toward the Palestinians. Also because of "a reaction to continuing violence and what appears to be expansive and aggression behavior by a people who would greatly benefit if they were able to put it behind themselves. "

I asked him/her to list any actual acts of aggression by Israel - the kind that the world normally recognizes as just causes for engaging in war - like the war the Arabs have been waging against Israel since the day it was born. As you can see no-one has been able to offer any actual examples of that. Instead they have offered suggestions of "aggressive behaviors" that are not considered by the world community as just causes for war - deplorable as they may be. And of course, there's the usual low brow suggestion by you that I must not be a "decent person" if I can't accept those non answers to my question as valid.

It's the usual muddled thinking that lacks any attempt to define what you/they are talking about as well as no attempt to even understand the words in the question I asked. That's cool. Par for the course. This is a complicated conflict that has many dimensions of right and wrong to consider. My comments usually focus on the larger questions of the actions and motivations on each side that cause the wars that cause the suffering of innocents. Try to apply some adult thinking skills. It will make discussion of these more abstract sub-topics far more interesting and it will help each of us understand where the other is coming from.

I very much am interested in the plight of innocent civilians in war. The difference between us is that I prefer to actually discuss the cause of their suffering. While the pro-Palestinian side here seem to carefully avoid the question of why there is a war that causes innocent civilians to suffer. (It's not so hard to see why.)

(Although I will have to admit that Keyecy did give it a good try (although he failed miserably) in that exchange with Shaaktiman.)

There's nothing 'low brow' at all after reading what you've been peddling at DU in making a comment about decency. And you'll find people will give you more respect if you refrain from getting abusive eg 'adult thinking skills'? Are you for real?

If you want people to discuss what you say in a way that makes out that yr not zealoted and one-sided, it would be a good idea not to pepper yr posts with ridiculous attempts to portray Israel as being blameless and insulting people who disagree with you.

When you say you like to discuss the cause of the suffering of innocent civilians, all that means is you like to play the blame game, which is what you've been doing. Israel's blameless and the Palestinians are the ones to blame.

And as for any questions about 'war' yr throwing around, I'm not all that interested in playing yr games where the only correct answer is that Israel is not at fault in any way. I'm thinking if yr looking for answers you want, an AIPAC convention may be a more satisfying option for you...

Also, I think what you said in yr post about the Geneva Conventions was total bullshit. They don't carry some list of what's an act of aggression and what's not...

Could not agree with you more.

Frankly, when I was going to protests against the Iraq Invasion, the Int'l ANSWER people and other folks trying to make the protests about Israel looked as ridiculous, and as outnumbered and out of touch, as the people trying to make the protests about Mumia.

There was significant pushback from the larger "left", because (as DU indicates) the "left" is by no means monolithic on the topic of Israel.

and if 'Int'l ANSWER' was protesting Israel at anti-Iraq war demonstration then they were ridiculous, pity you seem to think they represent all of those who are against Israels continued occupation of the West Bank but BTW if you look around these parts you'll find that the Left is often denigrated here

Would distance themselves from some of the anti- Israel views expressed by a few DU members, President Obama would distance himself in a New York minute from some opinions posted here.

All elected and nominated Democrats probably would distance themselves from such radical views too. IMO

And for this I am proud of my party . (Democratic Party)

''Obama reaffirms US/Israel relations

President Barack Obama signed the U.S./Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act saying the legislation underscores America’s unshakable relationship with Israel, upstaging his political rival Mitt Romney who will head to the country Saturday''

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/mitchell-reports/48356360/#48356360

Of course, RW types were always accusing leftwingers who criticised the Bush regime of being 'anti-America', and there's no difference between them and you and others who accuse people who criticise Israel for its treatment of the Palestinian people as being 'anti-Israel'. There's more to life than unthinkingly supporting everything Israel does as some in this group do. It's about wanting a fair and just resolution to the conflict where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace, and not just being so one-sided that only one group of people matter...

And policy of the Democratic Party of the USA ,and their supporters.

Yr the one doing that.

“Our commitment to the security of Israel is rock solid. And as I've said to the Prime Minister in every single one of our meetings, the United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security. This is a bond that is based not only on our mutual security interests and economic interests, but is also based on common values and the incredible people-to-people contacts that we have between our two countries.”

President Barack Obama
March 5, 2012


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/27/fact-sheet-advancing-israels-security-and-supporting-peace

I agree 100%

Remember this? 'Most Democratic Party supporters and elected reps, Would be embarrassed by the anti- Israel views expressed by a lot of DU members,'

Sorry, but you said that. Obama didn't. You do understand the difference between what *you* say and what the President says, right?

"I have made it a top priority for my administration to deepen cooperation with Israel across a whole spectrum of security issues," the president said before signing the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act in the Oval Office. The bill signing took place before the start of the sabbath local time in Israel

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/obama-supports-israel-ahead-of-romney-visit-646537/#ixzz21tTJOfON

Yr not being very successful in trying to change the subject away from what YOU said in this thread about DUers who are critical of Israel being 'anti-Israel'. What bit of it aren't you grasping? No-one's debating what Obama has to say about Israel. What I'm objecting to is what you've said in this thread about DUers...

Altho there are many more to be found.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=14184

What you said in this thread: ''Most Democratic Party supporters and elected reps, Would be embarrassed by the anti- Israel views expressed by a lot of DU members,'


The language you used in claiming that many at DU are 'anti-Israel' is very similar to that used by the RW when they trot out the 'anti-America'. You really do need to learn that people can criticise Israel and not be 'anti-Israel', and the way you try to smear DUers in general is getting very tiresome and boring...

Just an observation that the views of a lot of DU members who post in this forum are out of sync with that of the Democratic Party and The President,that is all.

Different views , not everyone supports the policies of The Democratic Party of The USA.

And you really need to stop attacking DUers the way you do. Most of them are in the big forums showing their support for him and not one-trick ponies who obsess over Israel like some do here...

I don't really care what you think either , but if you don't care , why do you keep on questioning me ?

And if you feel that posting in this group amounts to being a "one trick pony " you should refrain from posting here.

You seem very angry .

Put down the mirror, step away, and take some deep breaths. And then remind yrself that it's you who travels round threads in this group accusing people of being nasty and alerting on other peoples posts. I just don't find you have what it takes to get me angry.

So, just to remind you about what was being discussed. Smearing most DUers the way you did in this thread is lame and dishonest, and if you have such a low opinion of DU, why bother with us?


Also, you yet again couldn't get what I said right. You really need to try reading things several times before responding. I didn't say that posting in this group amounts to being a one trick pony, so how about you go back and address what I actually did say? Even better, you could do the right thing and apologise for yr ugly and nasty smear aimed at many DUers...

Nope.

Most DU members support The Democratic Party and our President and those policies,as I do.

The tiny Minority who may have taken offense to my smear do not fit into that Category vis a vie the Democrats policies toward Israel.

No smear.

Sorry you took offense tho , but that is life posting and debating on internet forums .

DUers aren't that stupid, but thanks for acknowledging at last that what you said about DUers was a broadbrush and ugly smear...

For the record, here's what you said before yr recent edit:

'Most Democratic Party supporters and elected reps,


Would be embarrassed by the anti- Israel views expressed by a lot of DU members'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=15067

Just quoting Obama when it's convenient for you isn't such a reponse.

I'd said what I thought about the smear on most Duers, and I guess the Obama c&p was the internet equivalent of sticking ones fingers in ones ears and going 'LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!'. Which is fine if that's the way they want to roll...

The passive-aggressive thing of just posting the Obama quotes is the kind of tactics that always drive me up the wall.
There's never a good reason to just try to STOP a discussion.

What you said: 'Most Democratic Party supporters and elected reps, Would be embarrassed by the anti- Israel views expressed by a lot of DU members'

And what you changed it to much later in yr final edit: 'Most Democratic Party supporters and elected reps, Would be embarrassed by the anti- Israel views expressed by a few DU members'

Also, this whole 'anti-Israel' line that you and others peddle. I pointed out, quite correctly, that it's very similar to the RW types who used to call anyone who criticised the Bush administration anti-American. Criticisism of Israel's policies and actions towards the Palestinian people isn't 'anti-Israel'. No state should be exempt from criticism, yet it appears very much like there are people who treat any criticism of Israel as being anti-Israel...

You denied you said something after you'd gone back and edited it out. That's deceptive and very dishonest...

n/t.

That's pretty stupid. How about I start reposting extremist anti-Muslim bigotry from one pro-Israeli poster and pretending that's common for all of them? Wouldn't take long for the whining to start, I imagine...

Try read my post again ,

It says "few DU members" and not "everyone " ( your post )

QED indeed .

Point proven .

That's pretty damn dishonest in anyone's book...

What you said in the original post was 'Most Democratic Party supporters and elected reps,


Would be embarrassed by the anti- Israel views expressed by a lot of DU members,'

Not at all sure why you think showing one person's post is an example of anything but one person's opinion on something.

Last edited Wed Aug 1, 2012, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

And you know it .

Anyway this is my last post to you on this thread.

(I showed this exchange to my teacher and she felt the only point you had made was that I had edited my post, LOL. So she recommended ending the exchange here and not respond again .)


Bye Bye

because last October you indicated that you were not an American, perhaps you just admire from afar?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=369814#370191

But I always had an American Passport.

because your post about not really caring about American jobs because your not American was 10 months ago, and according to this US government site it takes from about 11 months to 4+years to complete the process

http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-citizenship-process.html

so my hats off to you

But I am an American citizen and live part of the year in the greatest Jewish city of the world - Miami .

But that's not where I call home .

So thanks for the interest in my personal life and I hope it made things clearer for you

I have 3 passports btw.

Clearly they are left of Center, but Leftists? I don't think so. I don't think Democrats are the "obsessed" people that the article is attempting to excuse. The obsessed anti-Israel Left is a different group altogether.

I did.

I think anyone who was involved then, knows exactly what i'm talking about.

"pity you seem" to not be responding to something I've actually said, instead "seem" to be arguing against a statement i never made.

Odd, that.

your comment would seem to indicate that you summed up the the "antiIsrael" left in a protest against the Iraq war or is that simply the sum and total of your experience with the "anti-Israel" left?

The "left" in the US is not monolithic on the topic of Israel. Not even close. There is a simple, straightforward, declarative sentence for ya.

So, I notice you didn't answer my question: did you get to many of the Iraq war protests, you know, 2003-2004 or so?

however what I have noticed in the I/P group is a splitting of terms where the 'Left" wing is involved there are Leftists (usually antiIsrael or antiIsraeli occupation of the West Bank but that difference is rarely drawn)

Progressives ( usually drawn as being either useful idiots or naive)

and Liberals ( those support Gay and women's rights never mind the other 2 groups do as well but also support whatever the Israeli government seems to want at the moment )

upstairs all 3 groups are usually considered to be on the same side here it is different

but I must ask why are challenging me about whether or not I attended protests against the Iraq war? is there some purpose to that?

if I did not I attend I must have supported the war or do not know how those antiIsrael leftists tried to place blame?

or if I did there is a guilt by association factor?

because yes I did attend in Minneapolis and yes I did note a relatively small contingent of those you mentioned but they could be easily discounted as the Bush admin was at the helm and very much to blame Israel had little to do with it

I'm curious about whether or not you were at any of the Iraq protests because they provided a useful but by-no-means-comprehensive slice of what was the American "left" at the time. And there was certainly a contingent, in San Francisco I remember it being fairly vocal and pronounced yet small, that like I said, clearly wished to make the protests about something other than what the majority was there for; be that Israel, or Mumia, or something else.

And as I said, there was significant pushback from the larger "left" community (here on DU as well, if I remember) over these attempts and tactics.

I use this as an example not to categorize any particular sentiment, but rather as an illustration of how, again, thought on the left is not monolithic on the topic of Israel, along with other topics.

to be honest for my part where the Iraq war was concerned Israel was not on the (my) radar it was all about Bush, the neo-cons, and PNAC

to be far more cynicism and resignation on all sides than there used to be.

I knew several members of the Israeli left during the 1990s, who were very optimistic about a lasting resolution being achieved. I think the left in Israel is pretty demoralized, these days.

certainly the second intifada had much to do with undoing of the Israeli left, also increased international pressure on Israel which caused a 'circling of wagons' type of reaction in Israel just to name a two there probably are others though

torpedoing of the process in 2000 with right of return demands was the real turning point.

Not long after that came 9-11, which if nothing else changed the subject for quite a while.

in fact IMO it still does affect the subject to this day, at least in the public opinion arena

now about Arafat, what I have read is that Clinton told him that if the talks failed no one would be blamed and then when they did end in failure Clinton placed the blame squarely on Arafat, as to RoR and I've said this before what I read here is that some seem to believe every Palestinian refugee will pick up and stampede Israel I've even seen it that the UN would force them to go to Israel rather a Palestinian state regardless of their wishes now first I think such statements to be poppycock or paranoia, for most Palestinians Israel is a hostile foreign country and IMO the current treatment that Africans in Israel are receiving, attacks protests against them even arson is a preview of what would happen if Palestinians moved en-mass to Israel, RoR seems to me to be more of a parity thing Jews got it and moved to Israel sometimes replacing what had been Palestinian villages with their own so why not allow Palestinians the same right also there is UN resolution 194 which required Israel to allow all the refugees to return not just the ones they wanted

Whether or not massive return is realistic, it could have been hashed out in the negotiations. You had the parameters of a final deal that were most of the way worked out, that all sides knew it was going to look like. Throwing in RoR at the last munute looked to many (including myself) as Arafat covering his ass with the extremists on his side who didn't want ANY deal, when there finally seemed to be some "danger" of it actually happening.

It is a classic case of what could have been, to my mind. Sad.

especially as a member of the latter group, no problem with the existence of Israel, but against the occupation of the West Bank

from an israeli its very clear the differences because for most of the israeli left/middle left that wants out of the west bank you will find a long and realistic discussions about not about the concept but about the possible consequences both social/political and militarily.

You will find discussions about long term as well as short term results of such actions...you will find discussions of conflicting values, past beliefs vs historical realities....

now bring that same discussion over to a "non israeli leftist" i.e. from the west, and you will find none of that....practically zero, hence the confusion. It wouldn't be the first time that small steps are used to achieve a larger goal. (see muslim brotherhood for the classic case study).

When the antiisrael occupation left can clearly discuss the reality of such a move, the multitude of possible consequences and possible solutions and their possible failures, the multitude of opinions and political plays involve then perhaps there might be a divide to discuss, but when that doesn't happen, the divide you mention is very muddled.

more so....israelis/palestenians have to be deal with real consequences, so even if there are those on the left that are clear about that divide, with out realistic solutions, practically there is no difference if the result is the same. (the road to hell is paved with good intentions-fits nicely here)

israel is a great combination that provides enough "red meat" for everybody on the left in various doses.

Israel can be, depending upon ones world view:
a colonialistic country
a bibical theocratic country
a capitalistic country
a modern jewish, racist theocratic country
a apartheid country
______

but most important of all it is a "white country" a western democratic country, a country that has the similar values of the other western countries, with the exception that it is young. So whereas the US long ago stopped killing the indians, Australia stopped kidnapping the local babies, israel is still in the middle of being established accepted (note the calls for its elimination....) and its a chance for the "progressive left" to make amends..."to do it right."


A little addition as to where the left has gone 'wrong."
part of that philosophy (and guilt) demands that the Palestinians be declared the victims, (as opposed to being active participants that gambled and lost)

the concept that once your defined as the "victim" you are then helpless. This "left/progressive concept flows through almost every argument within the conflict, and this definition has strong implications, for instance:

as victims they are powerless, they cannot affect change, are guilty of nothing, have no responsibilities and are totally a the mercy of the stronger western country
___

the reality is far different, the Palestinians have had major influence on the middle east by their decisions and by the leaders, hence they are not helpless victims, but in fact active participants. The list of their actions and the subsequent events are long indeed, but, accepting that, and using a single standard, means they lose their victimhood and all that goes with it. If you accept that viewpoint, the left would no longer be so interested in the conflict as its becomes no longer a simple black and white issue but one full of "grays." and conflicting values and its subsequent judgements.

that by destroying Israel, Apartheid would end the world as we know it. It would be the beginning of the Second Coming.

I have some "friends" who are deep into that belief and are terrified of what is ahead. In the last few months, they have gotten deeper and deeper into it.

I spend so much time shaking my head in disbelief, I'm afraid it will fall off.

As for fears/beliefs of old, I never could figure those out. I've always held the thought that the various tribes have fought for years and will continue to fight in the future.

Western "Peace Activist" and Nobel Laureate Maired Maguire with Hamas' Ismael Haniyeh accepting a gift with a map of Palestine replacing all Israel:

Don't Israelis have human rights?

The reason for the Leftist obsession with Israel is absolutely not becuase the Left thinks of the Jews as their own. Most Leftist Jews are alienated from Jewishness, and the non-Jewish Left doesn't owe anything to Jewish thought. The Left is obsessed with Israel because Israel is so many things that the Left doesn't like. It's generally pro-American, it's generally capitalist, it is much more religious than the left would like, and it's Jewish. Also, it's a case of the Western Israelis versus the non-Western Arabs. Israel is strong vs. the Arabs, and any good Leftist knows that weakness equals goodness and virtue, while the powerful are evil. The Left's obsession with Israel is about the peculiarities and idiosyncracies of the Left, not about Israel.

and one I haven't seen before, I think it is partly because Israel is one of our own ...

What's going on in the Congo is much worse than Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, but Abu Ghraib or Gitmo is much more personal, because we did it, are doing it. If we don't set a good example, who will?

But antisemitism is real, and many leftists don't know or care much about the middle east, so it's easy to pick at too, and obsession is hardly a uniquely leftist trait, there is as much or more obsession with Israel on the right as on the left.