the Palestine come to the table nothing is solved. I am tired of wars over their issues. Both sides are wrong. I do think Israel has it's rights and should be left alone so the people can live their lives. However, the other side needs territories to expand. Something needs to be done. I don't know what but until both sides talk the whole world can't live in peace. As an american first I want to see a solution because I'm sick and tired of seeing blood shed. Enough already. Its time for both sides to put their big boy pants on and find a solution. Am sure even both sides if you ask their people want a solution.

The juggernaut in the USA is the right wing, pro-Israel lobby. No one who is critical of Israel has any power here. No member of Congress or administration official dares to be publicly critical of Israel's effort to dispossess Palestinian Arabs or even to acknowledge it's reality.

The OP's piece is just another example of how criticizing Israel is not tolerated.

Maybe you didn't read the article carefully enough.

quash any objective discussion about Israel's policies. Notice that if you criticize any Israel policy then that is "anti-semitism". As if Israel is a religion.

It's about intense loathing that is unique only to Israel.

How'd you miss that?

Why do you persist in equating dissent with hatred?

I can't actually recall you ever admitting that ANY criticism of Israeli policy is ever legitimate or honorable, unless you are speaking of criticism from the RIGHT of the Israeli government.

...bullshit war crimes accusations, obsessive UN focus, BDS only against Israel, etc.?

Why can't you and yours criticize Israel without all the OTT hyperbole? Why can't you denounce all that vitriol?

And neither I personally NOR much of any critiques of Israel security policies haven't made those comparisons, so don't make it sound like I myself have something to prove to you.

And there have been plenty of comparisons between U.S. foreign policy and Naziism...it's not as though Israel was the only country anywhere to get that one(btw, the first people to make that comparison re:Israel-an unfair and noxious comparison-were some Israelis.)

If you criticize Israel you are automatically antisemetic. They need to realize that they were once underdog, now they have power an try to be bullies. How long can this go on?

It's about all the intense loathing that is unique only to Israel.

It's even in the headline, so how'd you miss it?

...is legitimate in your opinion?

You have a knack for putting words in people's mouths. I'm pretty much fed up with your leadership and that No Blacks allowed housing reminds me of America in in the 50s when my dad an uncles grew up in Alabama . Are you okay with that? You say there is no apartheid but what do you call that.? Unofficial separation of ' good races' and ' bad races'? I am willing to disagree with the American government when they screw up. You never do seem to disagree with Israel. Even if you (secretly) hate something they do you make excuses and vigorously blame the left.
Your professed state is led by an arrogant douche, when you vote in a leader next time, you should try to skip the rabid right wingers and o for a moderate.

...means you're against Jewish nationalism and against Israel's existence.

If you didn't know that, then don't claim to be making only antizionist arguments.

And again, there's no such thing as no blacks allowed housing in Israel. That's complete bullshit.

I read this here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113444982
I never claimed to be making only anti Zionist arguments.
I am against the stealing of land and the treatment of Palestinians.
I don't believe any country or state has a RIGHT to exist.

Were you unaware of what anti-zionism was about? Are you an anti-zionist?

And yes, if you read that article then you'd realize the headline is incendiary bullshit.

In essence, Israel is very much a zeitgeist issue, where your attitudes towards it tend to reveal more about you and your worldview than they do anything about the reality of Israel. And the contemporary left’s attitudes to Israel reveal a lot about where it stands on the modern world itself. Israel is treated as a symbol of all the things that Western leftists and others once held dear, from self-possession to progressive intent, but which we now hold in trendy, postmodern disdain. This is where I think we can see that there is a very thin line, I’m afraid to say, between today’s fashionable anti-Zionism and old-style anti-Semitism....

...and are against Israel's existence. That's what being an anti-zionist is about. Couple that with an intense, hostile loathing of Israel (no other nation is despised this way) and you tell me what it is, if not antisemitism?

Look at the hatred that North Korea gets...or that Serbia got under Slobodan Milosevicre...or the hatred that George W. Bush whipped up against Iraq after 9/11(even though he himself always KNEW that Iraq had nothing to do with that horrible day and that a war would do nothing but cause massive death among the Iraqi civilian population ...or that Russia is currently getting because of its insane new laws against gays. The truth is, there are PLENTY of countries that are the subject of international hatred on a far deeper level than Israel gets in the world today. And even most anti-zionists don't hate the majority population of Israel)they simply want a situation in which everybody lives as an equal under the laws there and that doesn't privilege any one culture or religion over any other(they are naive in thinking this is possible now, or even that it may ever be possible, but you can't equate their mixture of naivite' and frustration over what strikes them as a hopeless situation with hatred).

Israel is NOT the great victim state of the planet. It is simply one country whose government(NOT whose people)has inspired a lot of enmity for what that government has done to another people. That's all this is about...not "intense loathing".

...and certainly doesn't push the UNGA to pass >60% of its resolutions vs. N.Korea.

It's the UN seeing what the Palestinians are being put through that makes that happen.

There would probably be fewer General Assembly resolutions if the US didn't have a policy of vetoing virtually any in the Security Council. The US should let a good number of those pass, because a lot(not all, but a lot)of them actually do have merit. It serves no purpose to have the US sending the message there that it won't tolerate anything critical of Israeli security policies get approved by the Security Council.

Over 60% of its resolutions are Israel specific, proving that the Israel bashing Left isn't about universal human rights, which the UN is supposed to be about, swearing to support all the oppressed and poor of the world (which it isn't doing when it's focusing so much energy on Israel). Thought you cared about the poor, oppressed people throughout the world like your buddy Chavez....

The US is 100% correct to call the UN out for its single-minded, obsessive bashing and discrimination of the Jewish state.

Israel as a nation is not being intellectually persecuted. Criticism of the Israeli government is NOT "loathing of Israel" or loathing of Israelis, any more than criticism of the U.S. government equates to loathing of the American people.

To the point that Israel is the cause of all the problems in the world, has no right to exist, Zionism is racism, the IDF are jack-booted Nazis...

No other nation is bashed like that.

Why do you think it's justified vs. Israel, of all nations?

Why do you and some other defenders of all things Netanyahu does pretend that Israel is somehow uniquely persecuted? It's absurd, and undermines the rest of your arguments, regardless of whatever merit they may have.

60% of UN General Assembly Resolutions are focused on Israel, not America.

There is no BDS campaign vs. America.

Why?

Why such an intense vitriolic loathing of Israel that doesn't apply to any other country?

shown for this year until I came across one on the second page of 20, and that was a statement by an Israeli official. Look yourself: Google "Israel's policies compared to Nazis."

As for UN resolutions, the most recent General Assembly Resolution naming Israel and Palestine was in 1991. The most recent Security Council mention was Resolution 1860 (9 January 2009) called for the full cessation of war between Israel and Hamas. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel_and_Palestine

As for boycotts and divestiture of American made goods and companies, that has been going on in half the world during a 45 year period after 1945. More recently, boycotts have been declared (and some widely observed) against a host of countries and companies for a range of reasons from animal rights to fair trade. See, http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/boycottslist.aspx

As you can see, Israel is hardly unique in these aspects, as well.

(No, it's not a fair comparison, though the anger that causes people to make it is often justified).

What you are really upset about is that the Israeli government isn't given special deference and special immunity from criticism and international debate, deference you believe that government to be entitled to due to the past history of European antisemitism. Well, there is a long and horrific problem with antisemitism, but trying to battle that particular form of bigotry and oppression by giving the state that purports to exist in the name of that hatred's victims carte blanche to do whatever it wants to do to a people who had nothing to do with that heritage of victimhood(while antisemitism has existed in many places, the forms of it that led to the creation, the justified creation, of the Zionist movement, were all based in Europe, and Palestinians and other Arabs were not complicit in the dispersal, the persecutions of the Caesars, the Inquisition-a brutal event in which Muslims of Arab descent were also persecuted, btw-the creation of the ghettos, the spreading of the blood libel, and the Holocaust. Those crimes were European crimes and ONLY Europeans should ever have had to suffer for them. This is why there is such an outcry against the Occupation and the creation of the settlements...both are examples of the practice of punishing one people, one nation, for the actions of another people and other nations.)

No nation anywhere should ever be hated AS a nation. But it is never valid to equate criticism of the government of any nation, anywhere, with "intense loathing" of the nation. Everyone gets it that the government and the people are not synonymous.

I don't know about this. I tend to view any nation that steals land from people they treat as second class citizens as criminal.

...like Israel for simply being a criminal "nation that steals land from people they treat as second class citizens".

Why only Israel?

That Israel should be better than that.

People all over the world justly denounce China for its theft of land from Tibet and its mistreatment of Tibetans. And they justly denounce the United States, Canada, and Australia for doing the same to indigenous peoples there.

The comments about what the Israeli government has done and continues to do to Palestinians are no different than the comments about the above.

What you really want is for Netanyahu and Co. to be given special dispensation to do whatever they see fit to do to Palestinians because of what other countries did to Jews(and what those other countries did, and in some cases still do, is shameful-but Palestinians weren't responsible for most of it).

If the Israeli government had simply said "we've made our point...understand/" and just given the West Bank to the Palestinians in1967(with a promise that there would be consequences if the Palestinians themselves ever launched attacks on Israel). had the arrogant and unjustifiable West Bank settler program not been started in 1973, there would be far less animosity towards the Israeli government and Zionism in the world today. They didn't need to keep that area for what is now fifty-six years and counting. And there would be no Hamas, since Hamas only gained support because the Occupation DIDN'T end for decades.

It isn't about hatred of a nation, OR of a people or of a religion(as you want to imply that it is). It's about legitimate anger at horrible choices made by bad leaders.

There was never going to be the possibility of peace with direct negotiations with the leaders the Palestinian people themselves chose. There was never going to be peace without the Palestinians getting their OWN state(confederation with Jordan was not going to be accepted by the Palestinian people and the Jordanians themselves don't WANT such a confederation). And something was going to have to be done to acknowledge that, even though the creation of Israel was justified and the state's continued existence is still justified, the Palestinian people were the victims of massive injustice and dispossession in 1948 and deserve compensation, acknowledgment and apologies for what was done to them.

While some of the problem has been bad choices and bullheadedness among Palestinian leaders at times, at least half of the problems have been that virtually NO Israeli government(other than Rabin's last government, and he got killed for it)was willing to accept any of the propositions in that last paragraph. It was that refusal to face reality that critics of Israeli policies are criticizing, not the state's existence(in most cases)and for damn sure not the religious/ethnic character of the state and the majority population of those living within it.

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

All the Israel bashing Leftists who support FreeGaza, who say they are anti-apartheid, who do flotillas, flytillas, and monster trucktillas....where the fugg are they on China? Why aren't they demanding ANY united nations actions vs China?

You cannot possibly with a straight face say that the Israel bashing Left is just as busy and just as vocal and loud bashing China (which is FAR worse) as they are Israel. Hell, they're SILENT when it comes to the killing and apartheid conditions being conducted vs Palestinians when Israel cannot be blamed. How the HELL is that possible, from supposedly PRO-Palestinian Leftists?

Try giving me some real answers for once...

This person believes that Israel is above scrutiny and is not equal to its neighbors and supporters. I know that most "leftists" are supportive of Israel, but not of their lack of willingness to negotiate in good faith

It's about all the intense, hostile hatred aimed uniquely at Israel.

Did you not read the article?

doesn't mean, prove, or settle anything. The assertion of a particular hatred doesn't prove the hatred.

The Israeli government gets intense criticism for some policies, but so do many other countries around the world. Its not as though everybody is just peachy keen with what all other states do.

All that OP was was one person's opinion, and I say that as a person who did read it.

His claim that people who criticize the Israeli government for what it does to Palestinians "hate modernity" is staggeringly insane. Modernity, secularism, social liberalism and all the other things the writer claims that people who have criticized things like the Occupation, the siege of Gaza and the illegal settlements have nothing to do with anyone's feeling about the I/P issue. Palestinians aren't against the occupation because they don't think their lives under it aren't oppressive enough, for God's sakes.

"the left has stopped believing in modernity and progress, and it sees Israel as the embodiment of those things. Its vitriolic hatred for Israel is really an expression of disdain and disgust for what we might call the Western project,"

Huh?? Yeah, and we're all addicted to unicorn horn. Disliking the govt is not the same as hating Israelis. And some of us who are uncomfortable with Israel's actions are open critics of our own govt. Don't bother playing the victim card for a govt that has abused people. That is what we really hate. I really dislike sacred cows who can't be criticized when they just run over people. It's a form of fascism.

...only to the Jewish State and no other country and it goes way beyond legit criticism.

Why is that, in your view?

And almost none of it is based on antisemitism(as you just tried to imply).

The Israeli government gets the same level of discussion and debate the U.S., the UK, Canada, Australia and other "western democratic" countries.
The OP simply asserts that virtually ANY critical comments about what Israeli policies do to Palestinians is driven by "intense loathing". The fact that he stated it doesn't equate to proving it.

What really happened is that, prior to 1967, the Israeli government was given special deference, for various historical reasons. The Six Day War changed that, because holding onto the lands taken in that war and putting the people who lived on those lands under what now looks like permanent military occupation was justly seen as an act of wrongdoing. Israel didn't HAVE to have troops in the West Bank on a permanent basis in order to be free...and it is likely that more terrorism was cause by those troops staying(something I don't blame the troops for, since their leaders made the decisions)than could ever have been prevented.

You've done this over and over and over again, shira...all-but-equated criticism of the Israeli government with not only hatred of Israel but hatred of Jews. Are you EVER going to stop repeating that particular canard?

Antisemitism is real(although these days it's simply on an equal level of hatred with homophobia and all forms of racism). The way to wipe out antisemitism is to wipe out all forms of hatred AND to work to wipe poverty and exploitation...because it's always social misery that feeds prejudice-NOT to give a state that claims to exist in the name of one group of victims the right to turn another people, a people who weren't responsible for their suffering, into victims themselves. You don't punish ONE people for another people's crimes.

...especially when BDS calls for the end of Israel? Whitewashing Palestinian incitement and hatred vs. Jews is legit? When >60% of UNGA resolutions target Israel while ignoring the world's worst, that's legit....given Israel is the only nation on the planet ineligible to sit on the UNSC or UNHRC?

Really?

Most of the Left isn't part of BDS(and the BDS types I've met weren't haters...naive on some things, but not haters).

Where have you seen the Israel bashing Left stand up for Israel and demand its inclusion in the Security Council or Human Rights Commission?

That's a joke, BTW.

Why haven't they balked about the excessive obsession the UN has against Israel, to the detriment of millions around the globe who aren't Palestinians and therefore aren't important enough for the UN?

====

Lastly, if most of the Israel bashing Left isn't part of BDS, then why do you defend BDS? If most of the Left isn't part of it, then it's mostly Rightwing.

All it would do would be to work against any peace proposal that didn't amount to the Palestinians giving up on self-determination and/or veto any resolutions passed againsts its actions(even when at least some of those resolutions were clearly justified).

And I don't defend BDS...it's just that I don't accept that it's an evil organization. It isn't capable of doing Israel or Israelis any harm.

What you really want is for everyone to declare that non-Zionism is tantamount to antisemitism. And it really isn't that simple.

Otherwise, you agree with UN policy to discriminate against Israel, and only Israel. The Jewish state isn't eligible to be on the UNHRC either.

They could be admitted AFTER a Palestinian state was created. Wouldn't that be good enough?

All they'd do on the UNSC now would be to just keep saying "no" to any proposal for peace.

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 08:27 AM - Edit history (2)

...and keep them shut out of the UNSC and UNHRC?

You can't even admit there's a problem with the UN vs Israel.

You support UN racism and discrimination vs. the Jewish state and you wish to portray yourself as moderate?

Especially from some non-regulars here.

So it's bound to attract some stragglers from the Overworld (come, strangers, tell us more of this 'sun!')

Or so his bio says.

Everything else he's ever said on the topic of anything, however, points in a completely different direction.

I confess to being completely unfamiliar with this person.

the other extreme and is a hard-right libertarian nowadays.

The article isn't about leftwing criticism of Israel, but intense loathing of a nation that is only unique to Israel. IOW anti-jew Israel bashing.

I wish we could have a sensible, reasonable conversation about this topic, but I fear that is not possible here.

I think there are others.

See #22 for an honest reply to the op.

O'Neill is ranting about how the left is brainless, how the left irrationally hates Israel, how the left is awful, just awful about everything, blah blah blah. There is literally no perspective in what you posted that I couldn't find from Neil Boortz.

Just because he parrots the same bullshit you hold as delivered truth, does not actually mean it is worth any more time responding to it, than it was the other thousand times you dragged this pathetic argument out of the closet to beat a while longer.

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2013, 06:18 PM - Edit history (2)

...by pretending his article was against all left-wing criticism of Israel. You evaded the entire argument.

So what's your take on intense loathing and toxic hatred of Israel coming from some Progressives, that is unique only to the Jewish State?

Can we agree that when that shit comes from the deranged Right, there's something really, really wrong with it?

He rails and rants against "the left." He argues that there is no reason to criticize Israel, arguing that to do so is "brainless," "mindless," "irrational," knee-jerk," etc. And it's not even just on this issue, the dude apparently makes his living talking about how fucking awful the left is. And it's not "some leftists" or even that sad old canard, "extreme leftists" it's just "leftists." Read more of his blog. Read his work for Living Marxism or Spiked Online. Read either of his books. The dude's just a British model of the standard American right-Libertarian.

My take is that people who make this claim are dumbfucks. But you already knew that, since I've answered this shit several times already. But, since we have some strays wandering in from the lighted places, here it is again. I recommend you bookmark this post Shira, because all you'll get from me next time you ask it is a reminder of what i think of people who pose the question.

The problem is this; Zionist goons and dipshits (I repeat myself!) have this notion whereby they get to proclaim that israel is a flawless, perfect example of western democracy, a libertine, progressive wonderland where all is right with the world, everyone is treated fairly, etc. Bit when someone criticizes, these same goons and dipshits start talking about how Israel should be compared to the standards set by Syria or Iraq. That's no different than the equally dipshitty (and equally fascist) Americans who insist, whenever poverty is brought up, that the US be compared to the standards of Malawi or Bangladesh.

If we are to consider Israel as a first-world, progressively-oriented western democracy, then it should be held to the standards set there.
- Finland does not bomb the Sámi into fleshy bits every time an election rolls by
- The UK hasn't made land-grabs in Ireland in over a century
- The US doesn't slap crosses on its drones to bomb civilians while claiming to speak for all christians
- Canada does not allow landlords to deny rent on basis of race
- Japan does not relocate Ainu from Hokkaido to make way for more ethnic Japanese.
- France has not annexed northern Italy
- The Netherlands does not forbid same-sex marriage, much less interfaith marriage.
- Germany does not send refugees and asylum-seekers to prison camps, nor do its politicians shout the need to preserve Germany's "German Character" from the "cancer" of these people while crowds of Berliners torch their homes and shops.
- Denmark is not constantly shrieking for war with other nations - and demanding some other nation fight it for them.
- Belgium does not let Holocaust survivors die in poverty
- New Zealand does not hold land in trust only for white people - who can come from anywhere in the world to claim it.
- Austria does not arrest and interrogate five year-old children, nor does it let people who murder them off with "time served."

The "unique" attention given to Israel is a result of the fact that Israel is unique in being a first-world western democracy whose behavior would not be out of place in some breakaway former Soviet Republic, or some struggling African nation. It's also not that unique - you think the US is criticized less than Israel? You're a fucking loon if so.

Why should the bar be lowered for Israel? Why should Israel be the only nation on earth that is judged by lower standards than the one it claims? if that's what you want, well, we can just acknowledge that Israel is not in any way, shape or form a "first-world, progressively-oriented western democracy," and then we can judge it by the standards of Belarus, Kuwait, or Sri Lanka. Sadly your desire to lower Israel's bar to Syria's standard is totally out of reach, since, you know, Israel still has government and houses and a lack of cannibal terrorists, and stuff like that.

TL/DR version; your whining about Israel receiving "unique loathing" is actually a bullshit plea for Israel to be awarded a free pass for behavior that would not be tolerated from any other nation that it claims as its peer.

You want, desperately want to hold that criticism of Israel could only stem from hatred of Jews. That way you'd never have to address the issues and could instead just try to silence people who disagree with you by screaming at them. It's not an original tactic, even - if I had a dime for every time I've been derided as a "baby killer" or a "god-hating pervert" by nutjobs trying to shut me up, I'd have what Slim Pickens might call "a shitload of dimes!" it's easier than acknowledging and addressing the issues at hand. Easier to imagine that Israel is just the hapless victim of millions upon millions of crypto-islamonazi leftists (or whatever we're called, I guess) than to think, "hey, maybe Israel does fucked-up shit that it needs to be criticized and held accountable over, and maybe that shit's been stacking up for sixty years!"

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2013, 09:23 PM - Edit history (1)

...and killed hundreds of thousands over the past few decades alone. France started its own war in Mali recently and is killing civilians there. The Brits and Americans hold over a dozen territories (colonies) overseas. Germany is deporting EU citizens. Canada's ongoing apartheid vs its natives. If Israel were as racist as America, Canada, or Australia to its indigenous natives and aborigines (most of whom have perished & whose remnants are now tiny minorities in their own lands) there wouldn't be a Palestinian conflict today, as there'd hardly be anyone left to fight the Israelis.

But you think Israel's worse than that. Only Israel deserves the Nazi comparisons and has no right to exist?

As I said, if you think Israel gets more flak than the United States, you're a loon.

And I'd like to take this post of yours as a statement that you don't support these other nations in these actions... so I'm compelled to ask, why do you support it from Israel?
Why is France blowing up Malian civilians bad, but Israel blowing up Lebanese civilians is perfectly fine?
Why is the deportation of EU residents from Germany a bad thing, but Israel purging Bedouin from the Naqab fucking awesome?
Why is the ethnic cleansing and apartheid applied against Indians in the US and Canada abhorrent, but the ethnic cleansing and apartheid treatment of Arabs by Israel the absolute core of your support for that state?
Why is the US having colony territories awful, but Israel having them is okay?
Why is Australia relocating refugees to camps in Papua New Guinea entirely against the wishes of that nation bad, but Israel's persecution of refugees absolutely essential?

See Shira, you're prancing around wailing about a supposed double standard being held against Israel. That it is especially and unfairly mistreated. That's the crux of your claim here, right? Thing is, even a casual observer can see that your problem is actually that Israel isn't receiving special, unique treatment. Your problem is that it doesn't get a free pass. You expect Israel to be praised by high standards, but judged by abysmally low standards. Here you are throwing rocks at these other nations (rightly so!) on things that you unflinchingly defend Israel for doing. The only double standard is your own, I'm afraid.

I do? That's news to me. I think your mistake here is that you're taking the fact we're posting in a subforum dedicated to the issues of Israel / Palestine, and extrapolating that into a notion that I - or whoever else - think and talk about nothing else in the world. Sorry Shira, when I'm in I/P that's what I'm going to talk about. Unless I'm making fun of you for that "Flotilla to Tibet" silliness.

Hell, even if all you've ever read from me is from the I/P subforum (and given you post nowhere else, that might be the case!) I've made it plainly clear that even in that context I hold the US to a great deal of the responsibility for the situation - granted this is owing to the reality that Israel is a US client state, but, whatever. I have also repeatedly pointed out that the entire conflict is rooted in the idiocy of great Britain - apparently they thought the partition of India went so well that they ought to give it another go!


I've never been particularly concerned with anyone being compared to the Nazis, so long as the context makes sense. The Nazis were not space aliens. They were not a one-time, unique event that has never and will never be repeated. If someone wants to compare another state or group to these fucks, then my only request is that it's done so in away that makes sense, rather than as an effort to silence someone. Israel is no exception, so again, your bitching is about me not giving Israel a free pass


Well, point of fact I hold that no nation has a right to exist. I've expressed this frequently. States can generally expect territorial integrity while they exist, but this is clearly not inalienable. As someone who defends the appropriation of territory in the West Bank and the annexation of Golan, to say nothing of the initial territorial appropriation behind the state, I'm sure you understand this concept quite well.

Israel is not special - again, that's what you're asking for, special favors for Israel. Israel will exist until it doesn't, just like the vast majority of nations that line the pages of history.

That's why you started out with a conditional "If/Then" statement and ended by comparing Israel to the worst of the worst failed, backward shit holes throughout the world...

QUESTION:

Do you still consider Israel to be worse than 1st world progressive western democracies that have committed genocide & ethnic cleansing against its natives/aborigenes & who are conducting foreign wars in which whole nations have been destroyed? I ask because I don't see you comparing these 1st world nations to the worst of the worst 3rd world failed rogue regimes.

You started out with an if/then conditional statement, so obviously you don't believe Israel is decent enough to be recognized yet among 1st world progressive nations. Israel remains an inferior, lower form of a nation, and that explains the unique Nazi comparisons, UN obsession, and boycotts, right? So should Israel conduct foreign wars on lands thousands of miles away and then slaughter millions in order to join fellow 1st world progressive democracies, in order not to be confused with some breakaway former Soviet Republic or some struggling African nation?

Why do you consider Israel to be worse than progressive first world nations that have conducted mass genocide and destructive foreign wars thousands of miles away from their own homeland?

The "if, then" proposed is this:

If you want to praise Israel as an example of a premier, first-world, western democracy, a paragon of progressiveness, a shining city on a hill... then you must accept that it will be judged by that standard.

Instead you want to praise it as this paragon among nations, but then demand critics compare it to Syria or Chad or something. That just doesn't fly. It doesn't work like that. Can you imagine Japan demanding that its critics measure it by the standards of North Korea? The US held to the standards of El Salvador? Shall France squall, "But what about Moldavia!"?

Yes, Israel is worse than all the 1st world progressive western democracies who are not conducting ethnic cleansing. Is that really the question you want to go with? 'Cause it's a really stupid one.

There you go again, apparently wanting Israel of 2013 to be judged by the standards of the United States circa 1879. Which is weird, because here you're saying it was bad when the US did it back then, but you give it nothing but a vigorous defense when it's done by Israel today. A two-for-one deal on double standards, who could pass up such a sale?



Oh, Lebanon and Gaza were like that when you found 'em? No, no, there's no excuse for what the US and its allies have done to Iraq and Afghanistan. And if you took a moment to actually read what leftists think - instead of what right-wing nutjobs tell you leftists think - you'd find that no quarter is given for those nations on this subject.

You have two posts outside of I/P in the last three months, according to your profile. You need to get out more. There's a whole community of leftists literally at your fingertips. Go forth and walk among them, ask what they think of the US, what they think of the Iraq war. You're in this all Israel, always Israel fugue state, and don't seem to realize just how small discussion of that subject really is compared to, well, anything and everything the US has done, ever. Fuck me, I think threads about Edward Snowden might outweigh every post ever made on all three iterations of the I/P group



Wait. Aren't you the one asking for Israel to be compared to Syria? Isn't that your bitch, that we're not all cooing over Israel because it's not as bad as Afghanistan or something? 'Cause I'm saying that Israel should be judged by the standards it claims.



Ahh, there's your confusion. You have it in your head that I think Israel is such a nation. What I said is that it acts like one. I have no problem grouping Israel with first-world, western democracies. This is why I come at it like I do, because when held up to to other nations on that scale, it compares very poorly. None of them are perfect, of course, but by comparison, Israel's just not clearing the bars.

Now if we do what you want to do, and just lower the bar for Israel, then we have to lower bars all over the place. Can't have a first-world western democracy getting judged by the standard of halfassed troubled states like Belarus or Morocco while keeping it in the same tier as other first-world western democracies, you know? You want Israel judged like a halfassed state, then you have to allow that it is a halfassed state. Can't have it both ways.



Again, have conducted is a different thing from is conducting. It's not a stamp of forgiveness, but it is an acknowledgment that Indians are no longer facing cannon fusillades.

What you seem to be doing, is making an attempt to justify Israel's wrongdoing via the wrongdoing of others. "Two wrongs make a right," essentially. What makes this ethically bankrupt effort worse is that you're relying on past transgressions to justify current ones. And further, these aren't even transgressions that are being given a pass!

You're still relying on special pleading here,. This time instead of begging for Israel to be held to a looser standard than any other advanced nation, you're asking that it be given a pass because other nations have done wrong. Even if those nations were being given a pass for their transgressions (and as I've mentioned frequently, they're not) this logic is still morally void - It's the logic of a racist who says "well they get to say 'ni**er!" - yeah, maybe they do, but why the fuck would you want to, also?

This is why I come at it like I do, because when held up to to other nations on that scale, it compares very poorly. None of them are perfect, of course, but by comparison, Israel's just not clearing the bars.

in any comparison to first world countries.. a proper comparison would be to one that has been repeatedly attacked by its neighbors with the intention of destroying it. You would have to find one that has had it busses blown up in the streets repeatedly.....attacks on its civilians while in other countries...etc Then a comparison to other first world countries might work.

Give that such a comparison is impossible...the next best thing is look around and see what other first world countries due when they feel their "under attack:"

The US after a single attack went out and killed a few 100,000 people, two countries and keeps on killing people more than 10 years later all over the world

these first world countries attack others even when they're not threatened
Europe decided to destroy Lybia for economic reasons and kills thousands
France invades Mali even though they were not threatened
the UK invades the Faklands and sinks a WWII battleship that didnt have chance against a modern submarine
Russia....well they have a "free for all" when they feel threatened, actually carpet bombing cities

all of these "first world countries" destroyed far more/killed more than israel has even though their countries were not threatened.

and when they were under attack and felt their way of life was threatened? We have the US nuking japan, the UK fire bombing Dresden, to name just a few...and the quick capitulation of Sweden and Norway, nice first world countries that helped the Nazis
______________

Israel, given its situation and its neighbors and the uncertainty and instability of its neighbors, not to mention they're actual actions (and not just words)...israel has been far more restrained than other first world countries when they felt threatened or actually attacked.

that would be your comparison.

...democracies. But it's not. It's held to a much higher and impossible standard.

When I bring up rogue regimes like Syria, it's to highlight the hypocrisy of Israel's bashers who pretend most of this is about human rights, when it's demonstrably not. It's not to lower the bar for Israel. If you're part of the "Left" that says it's for Universal Human Rights, then I think I have good reason to expect to see you howl and scream at Syria every bit as much (actually way more) than you would Israel. I don't see this howling or screaming at all. I see nothing, which makes me believe this isn't about human rights. If it were about human rights, all those backwards 3rd world regimes would be your main focus. So I'm not at all convinced that those who are the most hostile towards Israel while turning a blind eye elsewhere have the best intentions. I don't see a difference between them and the extreme rightwing tyrants running the worst of the worst 3rd world rogue regimes.

I brought up what other western democracies were doing (wars, ethnic cleansing, racism) for a couple reasons. First, Israel is nowhere near as bad and second, Israel is treated as though it's far worse despite not being anywhere near as bad. My question still stands - why aren't you comparing these 1st world nations to 3rd world failed nations like you do Israel? They're worse, so why Israel? Israel never committed wholesale genocides against the indigenous people like 1st world progressive democracies. They're not destroying countries while killing 100's of thousands. All this while Israel has been under constant attacks by enemies dedicated to her destruction since even before its inception. If anything, Israel grades out higher than most progressive western democracies.

So, then... Canada is keeping a quarter of its first nations population captive on Vancouver Island, which it uses as a bombing range every time an election rolls by? Toronto also claims Montreal is the real Canadian capital, and is undergoing a process of driving out francophones to make way for English-speakers in that city? For that matter, is the rest of Quebec under military occupation, and subject to having chunks of territory claimed by anglophones, with both white Quebecois and the Native Americans of that territory facing terrorist attacks from white English-speakers in order to drive them away? Does Canada call itself the "White Homeland," and do its leaders lead race riots against nonwhite communities (termed 'cancers' and 'infiltrators') in order to maintain canada's "white character"? Does it invites whites from all over the world to come to Canada, offering them heavily subsidized land in Quebec and Vancouver Island, with no mind for the people who live there already? How many times as Canada bombed the shit out of Iceland? Has it annexed Alaska or Maine? When some Japanese activists tried to bring goods to Vancouver Island, did Canada gun them down and then proclaim the dead bodies to be terrorists because there was cutlery on the ship? Does Canada maintain that the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans that made way for the white anglophone majority not only necessary and and sacrosanct, but also completely the natives' fault, because they hated white people and so had to be killed and driven off for good and progressive reasons?

You can't just say "everyone's worse than Israel!" and expect people to believe it just because you make the assertion. Especially when it's you saying it, since you're already well-known as someone who will defend Israel no matter what, on any subject, at any cost even to your own ethical integrity and intellectual credibility.



And if you're as opposed to terrorism and oppressive regimes as you say you are, I would expect you to spend way more time screaming and howling about the Tamil Tigers and the Myanmar Junta than you do about kids chucking rocks in the West Bank.

But then I quickly cease my dumbfuckery and notice we're talking in a discussion group labeled "Israel / Palestine" where - I would guess - subjects like Tibet and Basque separatism are mostly "off-topic," barring the occasional tangent about flotillas to landlocked plateaus.

Your expectation is actually for there to be utter silence about Israel, unless it's praise. Really, that's what you're saying, "How dare you criticize Israel, SYRIA SYRIA SYRIA!" Closely related to "How dare you talk about Gaza, don't you know how bad it is in SYRIA SYRIA SYRIA right now?!" It's a silencing tactic. And given your own adamant defense of Israel's decision to tell Syrian refugees to go get fucked and die in the desert, I can't imagine you're actually that concerned about them.



You seem terribly confused. I don't compare Israel to third-world failed states. That's what you are asking for. Basically you want Israel to be praised for having an IQ of 165, but you also want Israel graded by the standards of a special ed class.

Last edited Sun Jul 28, 2013, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Israel compares favorably to those countries, right? Is that why you chose Canada instead? The first nations there have never waged war with genocidal intent against Canadians but they've been on the receiving end of evil. Canada has yet to come to grips with this genocide, as they're still in denial. Check this article out from just last week:

Experiments on aboriginal people 'monstrous,' Paul Martin says
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/experiments-aboriginal-people-monstrous-paul-martin-says-223036736.html

Our northern Canadian neighbors have also participated in waging foreign wars overseas that have destroyed & massacred others. Their troops are still in Afghanistan.

So how is Israel worse? I don't get it.

==================

Again, the reason to bring up Syria and Israel's neighbors (I know you hate doing it) is because they're actually part of the I/P conflict, they're sworn enemies of Israel, and they have a lot to do with the fate of Palestinians. I can tell that the Israel bashing Left (and Right) couldn't care less about Palestinians judging by their indifference to what goes on in the mideast outside of Israel. Palestinians are not only being killed outside Israel, but they suffer under apartheid conditions too. Not a peep from the Israel bashing Left (or Right) that pretends to be so concerned about these people whose cause they've adopted as their own. The Israel bashing Left doesn't loathe Israel out of some concern for Palestinians or human rights, so what is it exactly? What separates them from the vile Israel bashing Right?

The Left has spoken out loudly about what Canada, Australia(and, worst offender of all, The U.S.)have done to indigenous people for DECADES now. Did you honestly think the Left hadn't done that?

Many, if not most Left events in North America and Australia include posters attacking what Israel has done to Palestinians AND attacking what the North American countries and Australia have done to indigenous people. There simply haven't been any situations in modern history where Israel was criticized for the West Bank/Gaza situation but the North American countries and the Antipodean countries were given a pass about THEIR crimes.

No bullshit accusations of organ harvesting, genocide, etc.

He simply stated that most Left criticism of Israel is based on what you call "intense loathing". If you are going to assert something like that, you actually have to PROVE it.

In reality, many, many countries get the same degree of criticism that Israel does from the Left(they sometimes get it from the Right, or from secular types critiquing openly religious states, or from religious types attacking states that don't persecute gays to their satisfaction).

Almost no Left criticism of Israel is driven by hatred of the group Israel purports to represent. What you personally have insinuated over and over again(and what you believe the author is insinuating here)is that Left criticism of Israel is driven by hatred of Jews. This is not only wrong but historically insulting, since the first people who spoke out against things like the Tsar's pogroms or the intentions of Hitler were people OF the Left.

Clearly, given your posts over the years, your intent in posting this screed, this totally unsupported argument, is to bash critics of Israel as antisemites. A few of them are and are to be denounced(some supporters of Israel are antisemites, too and support it because they want everyone in their countries to move to Israel so that their OWN countries will be judenrein-Balfour was one of those people, for example.

But the overwhelming majority is from people of truly good will, universalist opponents of ALL forms of bigotry, who simply see what the Israeli government has done to Palestinians as a form of bigotry in itself. Some of them talk tough about what the Palestinians are being put through because they believe that the hardline policies the Israeli government has enforced are bad for Israel itself and ultimately endanger Israeli security far more than reducing tensions with the Palestinians would, that lessening the honorous qualities of the Occupation would, that accepting that peace requires direct negotiations with the leaders that Palestinians themselves have ended up with would.

...all we need to do is recognize what anti-zionist arguments are. They argue for the end of Israel, by any means (BDS). They believe only Jewish nationalism is racist (anti-zionism = racism). They equate only the Jewish nation (and no other) to the Nazis (which is a hideous accusation). They accuse the Jews or Zionists of controlling the media, foreign governments, etc. They never criticize the Palestinians for their incitement and hatred against Jews, or terror attacks on innocents, but only howl and scream whenever Israel is forced to react. They even support Hamas (like George Galloway, FreeGaza).

Such arguments by these people are not made in good faith.

The Israel bashing Left could separate itself from all that filth, denounce it, and not make excuses for it....and still manage to legitimately criticize Israel. Is that too much to ask?

You don't actually agree with what the guy wrote there, do you?

It seems to have opened the door to some weird responses, not related to the OP even particularly.

As to the piece itself, I disagree with most of it but agree with a few points.

As I said up-thread, I wish we could have a serious conversation about these topics (Namely, what, if any, relationship is there between the perception of Israel in the world community and the fact that it is associated with Jewishness).

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2013, 07:44 PM - Edit history (2)

Little, if any, that was based on hatred of Jews would come from the Left at all-where it does, the overwhelming majority of the Left his reliable about denouncing it and driving those who claim be "Left" but who simply hate Jews into the intellectual and political oblivion such hate-based lunatics richly deserve.

There would be some from Jewish critics of Israel on the Left that is based on those particular critics seeing Israeli government actions as a betrayal of their values as Jews AND as leftists(identities those people usually see as being closely intertwined).

Most of it, from what I can see, is based on this sense that the leaders of this state, claiming to represent a people who have been the historic victims of oppression, have often used that legacy of suffering(mainly experienced in Europe, which is where the Zionist movement was created, for the record)inflicted largely by one people(Europeans, both West and East)and abetted in recent history by what Winston Churchill would call "the English-speaking peoples&quot Canada, the U.S., and Australia, who largely refused to take in Jews-and others-fleeing Hitler even when those nations KNEW those people would be slaughtered if they were turned away, and even though those countries between them could easily have absorbed all those refugees and given the ablebodied among them military training to join the fight against Naziism that those countries knew was going to have to happen-something that all three of those countries still owe a massive public apology for)to demand that those countries do and say nothing when the leaders of that new state inflicted massive injustices and dispossession on ANOTHER people-the Arabs of Palestine-who had nothing whatsoever to do with the miseries that the European Jewish communities had suffered throughout European history.

It's largely a reaction against the leveraging of one history of suffering as justification to inflict suffering on a people who weren't to blame for most of that history. Palestinians weren't saints, but they weren't the Gestapo or the Inquisition either-and they weren't in league with the European tormenters of the Jews.

The other source of the criticism of Israeli government actions(and again, it's about the actions of the government in question, not any negative feelings about the communities that government claims to represent)was the fact that, especially AFTER the Six Day War, Israeli actions were often tied in with the objective of spreading American influence and power throughout the Middle East. The issue there was the perception that Israeli leaders were the handmaidens of U.S. imperialism(this was also a source of a significant part of the Left criticism of the post-Nasser governments of Egypt, of Jordan's rulers, and of the royals in Saudi Arabia).

The Left has been united in opposing antisemitism, as it fights against all forms of hatred. But the Left(or the Lefts, since in fact there are several of them, to say the least)has chosen, less and less, to accept the argument that opposition to antisemitism requires unquestioning support of the Israeli government's security policies.

How's THAT for a serious response?

Definitely a lot to think about.

I do feel, however, that you do a bit of "straw man" arguing here.

For example: "the argument that opposition to antisemitism requires unquestioning support of the Israeli government's security policies" does not actually exist. I have never once heard anyone make such an argument. This sort of misrepresentation is part of the problem.

Can you not appreciate that?

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2013, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

That the only way a person can ONLY prove her or himself NOT to be "anti-Israel" or an antisemite is to keep their critiques of Israeli security policies within severe constraints, within, in fact, greater constraints than their critiques and comments about any OTHER government, and that the Israeli government should be given special deference when it is critiqued-and should be assumed to have the right, for example, to end all discussion of anything it does simply by claiming "necessity"-even though "necessity" has been the claim every tyrannical regime in history has used to justify the worst things it did, including Hitler's(which isn't to equate Israel with Nazi Germany, but simply to point out how slippery the term "necessity" and even the term "self-defense" can be and how much creation of misery such terms can be used to defend).

My view is, it should be just as easy for progressives to criticize Israeli policies such as the Occupation and the West Bank settlement project, without having to prove that they do NOT have villainous intent or bigoted motivations. as it is for the same people to speak out against what the U.S. did in Iraq, Central America and Vietnam, as easy to oppose the mistreatment of Palestinians as it is to oppose the past and continuing mistreatment of indigenous peoples by North American and Antipodean settler states. And that, if you've made it clear that you are an enemy of antisemitism, you shouldn't have to keep proving that you aren't an antisemite.

Most of the time, when the Israeli political leadership invokes antisemitism(such as when Netanyahu made his infamous and demagogic "it is now 1938" comment)it is trying to demonize most, if not all dissent about its actions. What good does it ever really do, in any situation, for dissent to be squelched and dissenters vilified? How does coercing silence over the actions of any state, anywhere, lead to any sort of positive outcome, to any triumph of the greater good or any form of moral, humanistic values?

I would say there a few basic things that I have noticed that I think are beyond the pale and that suggest that Israel's Jewishness is part of the issue.

1. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany - This happens relatively frequently.

2. Derogatorily talking about "Chosen People" with respect to Israel - See above.

3. Saying "The Zionists" control The White House/Hollywood - That word control.

4. Comments like "They of all people should know better..." - Suggesting that because Jews were victims of mass murder in the Holocaust, Israel should be a certain way.

I'll start with those four.

And in regard to another point you made, where you wrote that it should be "...as easy to oppose the mistreatment of Palestinians as it is to oppose the past and continuing mistreatment of indigenous peoples by North American and Antipodean settler states." I think it gets noticed that Israelis are boycotted by people who don't boycott, say Americans, or British who are, as you point out responsible for much greater crimes on a much great scale. To say nothing of the other countries in the region. That is a bit striking at times. Refusing to buy Israel-made products or literally walking out of a debate when it is discovered that the debater is part-Israeli. These sorts of behaviors just have a ring of something else to them at times.

I again appreciate your willingness to have this discussion in a reasonable way.

You can read the entire blog post and never come away with any actual information. Instead you have the author telling you...

1) There is never any reason ever, under any circumstance, to have the slightest problem with anything Israel ever does, has done, or might do in the future.

2) Thus, anyone who is critical of Israel is imply "unthinking," "knee-jerking," "irrational," etc. Basically anyone giving anything other than high hosannahs to Israel about anything and everything is apparently a mindless dumbfuck. And of course, "the left," as a whole is characterized using this method.

2) ...says the guy who mentions the Palestinians twice - once to claim that the left doesn't care about them, and again simply to come after a British MP who mentioned them.

Doing a little research on Brendan O'Neill, it's unsurprising, though. This guy's a real piece of work. Basically he's one of those nutso Libertarians who maintains they are liberal and other liberals are just too dumb to "get it," sort of like Christopher Hitchens, Penn Jillette, or Jesse Ventura. You know the "Science is fake, taxes are evil, environmentalism is dumb, racism is dead, Muslims are evil, I'm still a liberal because I'm atheist!" sorts. He was editor of Living Marxism (Which ironically was never Marxist and is now quite dead), and now for Spiked Online (warning, you will feel dumber,) and has written two books - "Can I Recycle My Granny and 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas," a satire against the environmentalism movement, and "From Bosnia to Beslan," which argues that Al Qaeda is the result of intervention in Bosnia (by the way, according to O'Neill, the Serbs were protecting Bosnian Muslims, not hurting them! Also, there was no genocide in Rwanda, according to him.)

So... yeah, that's Shira's nutjob-of-the-moment. I'll bet she saw the word "Marxism" on the guy's blog headline and thought "Aha! a liberal preaching what I like!" Sadly, it's just not so.

but I agree that there is a dismaying amount of bias against it. There are things to criticize, but the criticisms often made are completely out of proportion with reality, and seldom applied with such vigor to neighboring countries.

It seems like every evening national newscast has one story on Israel. And it seems this as been going on for decades.

I'm just tired of it...

etc. Apartehied anyone?

As to being racist WRT ads about no black housing, that's patently false as no proof of such exists.

A few irrelevant ultra-left crazies with no following say some outrageous things and you demonize everybody on the Left for it.

Who are they?

FreeGaza?
BDS?
ISM?
PSC?
Mondoweiss?
Electronic Intifada?

If so, these organizations have many Leftist supporters here at DU.

https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/marketing-no-blacks-apartment-buildings-in-tel-aviv/

It's not that the Left (meaning in the US that part of the political spectrum left of center) is anti-modern. the reason that the Left has become rabidly anti-Israel is that the Left has become more and more influenced and dominated by the old radical left, which was and is profoundly anti-western. It's also profoundly antisemitic. That part of the Left that used to be the Kennedy Moynihan wing of the Democratic party isn't hateful of Israel, but that part doesn't exist much anymore. And in Europe the Left has moved more to the left than back in the 60's. The problem is that radical ideas are taking over the mainstream.

Radical ideas are taking over the mainstream and it's very scary

started building on land that was not theirs, originally.

The state has a right to exist(and let's face it, that existence isn't seriously in question nor will it be any time soon, if ever)but not to special deference and unquestioning support.

Don't you just love lazy logic.

who oppose the West Bank occupation and the siege of Gaza(a siege that doesn't limit itself, as it should, to keeping weapons out, but still restrictions construction and even food supplies, none of which can be weaponized).

There is nothing original in this article...it is simply a reiteration of the old "ANY criticism of or disagreement with what the Israeli government does in the name of 'security', unless it is disagreement from the viewpoint of wanting harsher and more repressive actions, is 'hatred of Israel'. NONE of it can ever be considered simply legitimate discussion on an issue of general concern" canard.

No real reason to start a thread on this, especially since the premise of the OP is a lie.

Start admitting BDS is bullshit, especially given that it's only focused on 1 nation and its goal is the actual end of Israel.

Let me know you have a problem with the UNGA passing more than 60% of its resolutions vs. Israel, given that the UN doesn't allow Israel privileges that all other countries have (sitting on the UNSC and UNHRC).

When you come out against all that shit and keep your criticism legit, then you'll have made your case.....for yourself at least.

Fuck'em, they have never, ever, negotiated in good faith.

Or the one with Jordan?

Were those not negotiated in good faith?

Is view it through a first peoples lens. What rights do Lakota have on their land? What rights do Israelis? Its one question. This lets you throw out all the historical/religious baggage - the victims of the holocaust, many with European roots, the people behind the Bible - and see it in simpler less emotional terms. Then you take the good with the bad: Israel pours science out, for the good of the world, while their neighbours seem to hold religion in higher esteem than science in many cases. But then you have rights abuses, like with Rachel Corrie. The same lens can be used to view Arabs or Persians.

With that lens, you can stand back and look objectively. Am I irrationally siding with Arabs because Israel seems more western? Because they are "us"? Am I irrationally siding with Israel for the same reason? And you see that's all silly. They're all local people to the middle east, doing their own thing.

But that objective view, while its a necessary first step, doesn't necessarily exonerate Israel. If they choose right wing policies, than they distance themselves from the US left. If Lebanon has a more vital social services program, even if it takes a religious face, then Lebanon will resonate more on the heart strings of the American left. Its how it is. The danger Israel faces can be seen in statements like this:

The left, having lost faith in modernity, has turned Israel into a kind of punchbag against which it can express its own anti-modern, anti-progress, shallowly anti-Western feelings.

American progressives aren't anti-progress. Israel just needs to be careful it doesn't develop a radically different idea of what "progress" constitutes than most Americans.

PEace

Certainly they are more progressive than the US in that regard for the most part.

Israel is so tied to foreign policy that we don't hear much about their internal structure, and I'd like to know more. But we do hear about innovation more nowdays, in which they seem to have a lot going on. I love this guy:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/27/israeli-inventor-builds-cardboard-bikes.html

And what an insightful comment it was!

Your reply didn't really provide anything informative. Sorry that wasn't clear.

The left does not hate the Israelis, Brendan. Nor do they see Israel as the "embodiment"..."of modernity and progress" . It's that they understand the Zionists all too well.

http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.org/history/origin.html

What prompted the US and Great Britain to carve out a "homeland" for Jews in the middle of a sea of Arabs probably has more to do with politics than goodwill, but it's still a horrible idea.

If we took the money we spent supporting Israel and just bought the Baja Peninsula, we'd probably come out ahead (unless, of course, our motivations are solely to have a friendly country in the Middle East that's armed to the teeth). Move Israel there. No, it's not their "holy land"...but with three distinct religions claiming that postage stamp of real estate as holy ground, two of them mortal enemies, it makes more sense.

...and they'd be surrounded by fish and Mexicans, neither of which seem to have the generally negative response to the Jewish community that the Arab community does.

...that Jews have had for thousands of years. The bond to the land isn't just religious.

There are always a wide array of priorities when it comes to locating entire communities. Common sense should be one of those priorities. 7.8 million Jews living in an armed enclave surrounded by hundreds of millions of Arabs is not a sustainable model.

If historic and cultural ties to the land trump everything else, perhaps we should start at home and give most of the country back to the Native Americans who were here before us.

The settlements on what is now and will always be Palestinian territory aren't necessary for that at all(especially since the intent of those settlements seems clearly to be preparing the way for annexation).

What matters is peace.


The end of the war is a need.

Continued West Bank settlements and complete RoR for all those descended from the dispossessed of the Nakba are wants, not needs.
They can be expressed, but neither can be worth keeping the violence going.

It wouldn't harm Zionism as a movement at all to pull the settlements back

It wouldn't harm the Palestinian cause to accept that full physical RoR for everyone descended from the original Palestinian refugees is not a realistic option(I believe they accept that privately, btw).

An Israeli government could frame it this way"We do not renounce the roots of the Jewish peoples in 'Judea and Samaria' but, in the name of peace, we will not keep the war going and keep our children growing up to be soldiers in the name of physically asserting those roots in the present day. We will enter into negotiations for the resettlement of any Jewish people who lived in Judea and Samaria prior to 1948, and at least some of the next generation of those people...perhaps this can be arranged in exchange for our acceptance of RoR for the Palestinian elders of 1948 who were forced out of what is now Israel, with right of return for subsuquent generations of both communities to be recognized through not only compensation, but acknowledgment of the wrong and apologies for it on both sides".

That would be a moderate, reasonable way to deal with both of those issues.

That's more extreme than the PA, which has agreed to minimal land swaps.

You're more Palestinian than the Palestinians.

Did you actually read the suggestion I made in the last post?

only our current Gov is neither moderate or reasonable .

Negotiations stand or fall with the 1967 borders issue

more @ http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/events/1374332815

...The lure of Palestinianism has proven to be positivity irresistible to left-leaning humanists and literary scholars who burrow into Western thought to uncover the dark underpinnings of imperialism, militarism, colonialism, oppression, racism, and, as a result of one of the MLA’s notorious past presidents, Edward Said, the theory of “Orientalism,” a mode of thought which claimed to reveal the inherent racism and imperialism imbedded in Western scholarship and politics. The fascination with Third-world victimism, identity politics, and multiculturalism, coupled with harsh critiques of both the U.S. and its proxy in the Middle East, Israel, have all led academics like those in the ASA and the MLA—whose fields are, in a normal world, unrelated to these issues—to involve themselves aggressively in answering calls for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions solely against the Jewish state.

....The charges of racism and oppression also enable the left-leaning members of the MLA to excuse the moral transgressions of the victim, and, as an extension of that thinking, to single out Israel and America for particular and harsh scrutiny owing to their perceived “institutionalized” racism and greater relative power. The self-righteousness the left feels in pointing out Zionism’s essential defect of being a racist ideology insulates it from having to also reflect on the social and cultural pathologies of Arab states, since, as Harvard’s Ruth Wisse has pointed out in If I Am Not For Myself: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews, liberals can excuse their own betrayal of Israel by holding it fully responsible for the very hatreds it inspires. “In the case of the Arab war against the Jewish state,” Wisse wrote, “obscuring Arab intentions requires identifying Jews as the cause of the conflict. The notion of Jewish responsibility for Arab rejectionism is almost irresistibly attractive to liberals, because the truth otherwise seems so bleak.”

The rectitude of the MLA academics pushing for condemnations of Israel manifests itself as what Boston University professor Richard Landes has termed “moral narcissism,” the tendency of members of the well-meaning, intellectual elite to align with causes and ideological positions which are based, not on the actual viability or justice of a cause, but on how the moral narcissist feels about him- or herself by committing to a particular cause or movement. “ A moral narcissist,” observed legal commentator Jay B. Gaskill, “lives in a self-approval bubble shared by other moral narcissists who collectively have agreed that their cocoon of mutually agreed moral gestures and self congratulations [sic] will constitute a perfect and sufficient engagement with an imperfect world.” Like other members of the academic left, who believe their worldview is correct because it seeks to create a world in which social equanimity will be realized by the downtrodden, members of the MLA, similar to their like-minded brethren in the ASA, are content to support such intellectually dishonest campaigns as academic boycott because it enables them to denounce Israel as an imperialistic, racist, militaristic oppressor. “Moral narcissists,” said Gaskill, “have adopted a camouflage strategy to escape the moral disapproval of others [and] . . . they accomplish this camouflage by cloaking their narcissism in the trappings of ‘social justice positioning.’” The moral narcissist’s reasoning may defective, ahistorical, counter-intuitive, or just wrong, but he still feels good about himself. But in this worldview there can be only one enemy of justice, and Israel is that enemy.

...Of course, the MLA’s Radical Caucus is silent on all of these obstacles to education and the free exchange of ideas, both in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and the wider world of Israel’s neighbors. It is easy to demonize Israel, and certainly it requires no bravery in academia, where moral narcissists console each other in an echo chamber of good intentions, willing to sacrifice academic integrity, true scholarship, and vigorous, honest debate in the process



Read more: Moral narcissism and the MLA’s obsession with Israel | Richard Cravatts | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/moral-narcissism-and-the-mlas-obsession-with-israel/#ixzz2xMvI6E9F
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Having said this, Brendan O'Neill is hardly an authority on what is progressive.

This is his latest article in the Torygraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100264650/oh-no-fred-phelps-is-dead-how-will-the-worlds-liberals-get-their-kicks-now/

'Liberal moral poseurs' - charming!

And a worse, earlier one:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100209863/the-middle-class-loves-the-welfare-state-but-the-poor-hate-it-because-they-see-the-devastating-impact-it-has/


As far as I am concerned, anyone who attacks the basic principle of the welfare state is NOT HUMAN; it is a POISONOUS SNAKE
- especially if it lives in a country that already has one (I can give some leeway to people who have never experienced it and therefore can't imagine it; but if they wish to abolish existing welfare provision, then they are MONSTERS! And fundamentally, of course, also against the best things about Israel, which does have a good social safety net.)

Sometimes I think you are actually trying to encourage the attitude that one can't be both left-wing and pro-Israel! If you want left-wingers to sympathize with Israel, do not quote all the right-wing arguments against 'the left' in this context.

'the left has stopped believing in modernity and progress' - Nonsense! It is the Right that is against progress. Of course, left-wing/progressive people are not necessarily always left-wing on everything.

I would agree on one thing here: Treating any country, including Israel, as a bogeynation, is unprogressive and bigoted.

Unless an article is intentionally dishonest or misleading, I don't see the problem posting any author here at I/P.

If you're interested in bashing horrible rightwing sources, there's Maan News which is posted here regularly. In fact, there are no less than a half-dozen Maan articles on the frontpage here at I/P. They make Arutz-Sheva look liberal in comparison.

The difference b/w O'Neill (and I couldn't care less about his politics) and Maan is that the latter, besides being an antisemitic and extreme Rightwing publication, is deliberately misleading in its propaganda. O'Neill is not; not on Israel at least. So I don't see the problem quoting him here.

Just telling it like it is against Israel bashers on both the far left and far right. They're racists to the core. The leftwing Israel bashers are racist nationalists who support fascists. That's not to say that all leftists are Israel bashing, fascist supporting, racist nationalists. Just the ones who bash Israel and loathe Jews.