A grotesque choice

A grotesque choice: Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a resurgence of anti-semitism.

"I reply to every reader's letter accusing me of anti-semitism because the issue seems so important. They make the cardinal error of identifying the Jewish people with the Israeli government, wilfully confusing anti-semitism and anti-Zionism. Often, they seem to demand that the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard, that allows the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu a special quota of excesses, in compensation for past sufferings.

For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from European democracies.

Charges of anti-semitism are not infrequently levelled against the growing number of Jews who express dismay about the behaviour of the Israeli government; they are "self-hating Jews", who betray their own kin. Yet surely it is those who make such cruel allegations who bring shame upon themselves." (more)



http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1166637,00.html


"I don't understand this comparison between us and South Africa. What is similar here and there is that both they and we must prevent others from taking us over. Anyone who says that the blacks are oppressed in South Africa is a liar. The blacks there want to gain control of the White minority just like the Arabs here want to gain control over us. And we, too, like the White minority in South Africa, must act to prevent them from taking us over. I was in a gold mine there and I saw what excellent conditions the black workers have. So there is separate elevators for Whites and Blacks, so what? That's the way they like it."
- Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli army during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon

"Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a resurgence of anti-semitism."

It would appear Jews trying to prevent themselves from being murdered is seen by some as a reason to hate Jews.

Equating Israel, a rogue state that is unpopular in every country but the US, with world Jewry is one reason anti-Semitism rises as anti-Israel sentiment rises. We need to stop equating the two and stop equating Palestinians with all Arabs.

and a haven for Jews.

If not, why should you be equated with it? What do you have to do with its policies?

I am equated with it's survival.


"Never Again"

That is what is fueling the rise in anti-Semitism since Likud took power.

What has happened in recent years to spark a rise in anti-Semitism?

is of little value to this conversation. You have alluded to being the expert not I. I just don't agree with your opinion. I hardly expect you to agree with mine and see it as just a waste of my time and yours to discuss it with you.

n/t

"Jew hating is an incurable disease. Under certain democratic conditions it may not flourish well. Under other conditions the germ may even appear to die, but it never does die even in the most ideal climate." - Leon Uris

Why don't you turn to the anti-Semites and ask them why they feel the need to scapegoat Jews. If you ask them long enough, you will see that under every claim about current problems, there is the ancient hatred with no foundation in fact. I have to say that Palestinian Arabs found themselves the perfect enemy. If they had been up against any other population, they would have been beaten into submission by now by other Arabs.

It is jumping to conclusions, and taking the apparent over the factual. Spanish voters ousted the conservative leader in favor of the socialist. That is an isolationist view which for some is surrender to terror.

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

your comment alone makes me reflect that you have very little understanding of the meaning of "never again".

An explanation would take a lifetime and even then I don't believe you would understand it or even want to understand the meaning.

Care to respond to post #9?

There are many stateless oppressed groups. Why shouldn't the Kurds, Roman, Sikhs, et al. get states of their own too? If we truly seek to prevent genocide, why only give one oppresed group a state?

The Romany too if they wish to actually settle in one (I haven't read anything lately of their aspirations). The Sikhs have a right to live in peace. I'm not sure further splintering of the Indian subcontinent will get them there; it certainly hasn't helped relations between Muslims and Hindus.
I know the Kurds would be grateful for your support. What are you doing to help them?

When feasible we should create states for stateless oppressed groups. It is possible in the cases of the Kurds and Sikhs, if the world community got behind the idea, because they already are a majority in certain areas.

Of course you do, because that would mean Turkey would be engaged in a civil war and war in Northern Iraq.

Keep the Muslims fighting each other instead of banding together to fight Israel's repression of the Palestinians.

I actually believe the Kurds should have a state. I would prefer that happen without violence, but that's not up to me. Your smear against me that I'm advocating this to keep Muslims fighting each other is without foundation. Care to back up your accusation?

on peace. It was founded on violence and terror.

And I didn't smear you. I wrote:

"Keep the Muslims fighting each other instead of banding together to fight Israel's repression of the Palestinians."

I wasn't implying YOU want this. I was implying Israel wants this.

Israel might want her enemies otherwise occupied with each other; that doesn't make a Kurdish state a bad idea.
Glad to see you acknowledge that new countries are rarely born in a peaceful and loving atmosphere. The violence and terror during Israels creation was from both sides, with the Arab side providing the terror.

Umm, perhaps you should read up on the histories of Ben Gurion and Irgun and the Stern gang and Menachem Begin and Rabin and Maier and Shamir and Barak.

The Israeli terrorists/freedom fighters bombed the King David Hotel, downed a Libyan civilian airline killing 109 people, ethnically cleansed some 70,000 Palestinians from Lydda and Ramleh (with the massacre of several hundreds to get the others moving), ignited a civil war in Lebanon, ethnic cleansed some 5,000 from the villages of Emwas, Beit Nuba and Yalou and the dynamited and bulldozed their homes, perpetrated the Deir Yassin massacre, assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Minister Resident for the Middle East, on 6 November 1944; slayed Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN's special Mediator on Palestine, on 17 September 1948, assassinated the Palestinian leader Kamal Edwan, together with his wife and seven year old daughter, and killed Abu Youssif al-Najar, the poet Kamal Nassar and their families.

As for Sharon:

He presided over the massacres of some 2-3,000 civilians at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Beirut. Founded Unit 101 (a notorious death squad within the Israeli Defense Force). For many years, commanded cross-border Unit 101 raids, for example, the 1953 massacre at Qibia (Kibya) where civilians were blown up inside their houses (and shot dead if they tried to flee).

and that has always been the case, many Jews are (and always have been) actively against the secular-Zionist push for a "Jewish state"

Yet it seems that only pro-Israeli are allowed to speak for ALL secular, religious or ethnically Jewish people. Who gave pro-Israeli folks the right to speak for everyone else?

About pro-Israeli folks? That's a pretty broad statement, would you like to share the source for that assertion.

I would ask you who you consider "many Jews in your first statement also but I doubt a source or an answer is forthcoming for that one either but I'm willing to listen.



BTW - I am awaiting your clearing up the "discrepancies" regarding Rachel.

I rarely see other jewish people use the "I'm Jewish" line - for example do you know ANYTHING about me or my family???

BTW - I replied to that request by noting that I can not speak for ISM as Im not a member and that I have no idea which inconsistencies you're talking about! Perhaps it'd be a good idea to check for a response before insinuating that I havn't given one

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you were able to speak to IDF members??

And by the way, given you ask me to take your posts absolutely literally - I never said it was a rule

1. Did you realize that I had responded to a question from another poster asking me if I was an Israeli? That would explain my response.

2. I didn't ask you to speak for the ISM at all. You were the one who claimed to speak with ISM members who were there (Israel). Additionally, when I "insinuated" that you hadn't given a response, at that time you hadn't so it was not an insinuation it was a fact.

3. My niece is in the IDF and while I was visiting my family in Israel, she had about 15 high school classmates to her home for a party. All members of the IDF, 17 and 18 year olds also all serving in the IDF. I spoke with them of their experiences since their enlistment. All of them, myself included know what they can speak of and what they cannot speak of. I would never put them in the position of doing something wrong. None of them were even in that particular area so there was no reason to speak of Corrie. Read any of my posts and you will never find one insinuation that I did or make any claim that I did. That was a conclusion you jumped to.

4. That was a snide remark to your assertion.

As for clearing up "inconsistencies". If you ACTUALLY spoke to people who were present at the Corrie incident, I will be glad to supply you with the inconsistencies. Seeing as I believe none of them come from your part of the world, I sincerely doubt your claim.
If I am wrong, I would think you would be anxious to clear them up.

You can doubt whatever you like - I seriously doubt yours, mainly because the contention has slightly shifted over the course of this conversation. The original conversation was about people who were WITNESS' to the incident you countered with your claim about having spoken to IDF personel, the fact that you didn't specify until repeatedly questioned on it that the personnel you spoke to were NOT there (making the whole thing pointless, speaking to people who weren't there is about as much of an argument as me speaking to the person sitting next to me now??)was disengenous to say the least.

Also as for the timing: - You insinuated I hadn't answered at 01:50 PM on March 15 - whereas I HAD answered at 10:59 AM March 15. To my knowledge AM still comes before PM. Fact.

However my "part of the world" at the current time is Australia, I am however a UK citizen and spend patr of each year there - and the people I know are not limited to one small grouping. Nice try but no cigar


Edit: spelling

you can't or won't or are unable to clear up any inconsistencies.

You can twist my words any way you wish, but you can't make it what you wish them to be.

Thank you for proving my point.

Like I stated I havn't got a clue what you're talking about? I have not read/heard every single pronouncement made by members of the ISM and never claimed I had???

What twisting of your words?? I didn't twist anything I said you were disengenuous. Just to make it simple for you

I SAID - "I've spoken to ISM people who WERE there"

YOU SAID - "I've spoken to IDF people" while technically you didn't claim they were there (and I never stated that you did) it is disingenuous to respond with, essentially "me too" when what you mean is "me too...sort of" especially when you didn't clarify this until some time after the original post.

Speaking with people who were not there is and always was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (and you were COMPLETELY WRONG about when I had responded to you)

BTW - thanks for pointing out your own confusion

Cousin of Terror Attack Victim takes her Own Life
(IsraelNN.com) More tragedy has struck the Marciano family of Ashdod today.
Last night, a cousin of terror victim Mazal Marciano disappeared from her home. The 19-year-old IDF soldier did not return home and her parents decided to call police. At about 04:40 this morning, her lifeless body was found near the family home. The soldier, a first cousin of Mazal, took her own life. In the suicide note, she wrote "if I had been killed in the terror attack , it would be easier to mourn for me"..

http://www.datelineisrael.com/

The "real" death toll from a terrorist bombing is always understated.
Shirli was a beautiful girl with a great big smile. Go believe whatever you want and have a good life.

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

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

what is that supposed to mean "the "real" death toll...what about the "real" toll for Palestinians who, while not killed themselves, have lost the family breadwinner, or who loose access to the livelihoods...or is it that you think that no Palestinians have suicided out of despair?????

Dont suppose I'll get an apology for this assertion..."Additionally, when I "insinuated" that you hadn't given a response, at that time you hadn't so it was not an insinuation it was a fact." given that it clearly and demonstrably WASNT A FACT

but then I wouldn't expect one and thanks I have a nice life - but it's good you can engage in constructive debate

Edited - to add correct quote

Its happening right now to the Palestinians. Except its taking longer, and they have to pay for their own burial.

Now I get to hear:
<shrilly>

Anti-semite!
Anti-semite!
Anti-semite!

</shrilly>

In case you were wondering, yes I am of Jewish descent. My ancestors emigrated from Germany in the 1890s.

What other nation in the world has so many Jews being killed? If you ask me it is far safer for Jews to live in America or Britain or anywhere else for that matter.

I shudder to think what life would be like for the Jewish people WITHOUT Israel.

nor is it entirely Jewish.

Equating Israeli occupation of the Palestinians with "Jews defending themselves" is the equivalent of equating the US occupation of Iraq with "Christians defending themselves".

n/t

She(Israel)is the Jewish state


and a haven for Jews.

There is a huge difference between it being a Jewish state and THE Jewish state. Darranar appears to be correct. Herschel was equating Israel with world Jewry by calling it THE state for Jews.

OK, give it up; where are you hiding it?

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

If people realized that, worldwide anti-Semitism would decline substantially.

which makes the way such statements are repeated by the Israeli government and some elements of the "pro-Israel" media even more disgusting.

The European Christians had to defend themselves from the native Americans when they arrived here.

the answer to this dilemma. I don't think it is so much a feeling that the Holocaust gives Jews a free pass for brutality (although certainly it tends to heighten the paranoia). When Israel was formed, the Arab nations said it had no right to exist and vowed to "push it into the sea." Now that Israel seems to have the upper hand against the Palestinians (and a willingness to use it, often brutally) they are losing the propaganda war.

Anti-Zionism is confused with Anti-Semitism because many Jews feel Israel could not exist if it did not act as it did, for these Jews, Zionism has come to define their Jewish identity. Do these critics of Israel not see that if Israel did not act as it did, the Arab countries surrounding her would drive the Jews out? In many Arab nations, Islam is the official religion and there is no freedom to worship in other ways. Other nations may allow freedom of religion, but are so predominantly Christian or Hindu that it is an "unofficial state religion" Do they not think Jews have the right to the same? In this indirect logic, Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism.
:think:

Why is it wrong for Israel to brutalize Palestinians, but not wrong for other Arab nations to brutalize their own dissidents?
:shrug:

I have heard the situation when Israel was first given a parcel of land, supposedly driving Palestinians out. There is dispute about whether these Palestinians chose to leave or were forced out. People ask "Well how would you feel if the US government said Native Americans should have a home of their own, so you must leave yours because we're giving them your state." I would ask, "Well how would you feel if one (or more) of the Native American tribes suddenly said, 'you stole this land from us, America has no right to exist' and then they started blowing up our shopping malls and pizza parlors?"

It certainly isn't in the one foreign country where it counts.

You make an excellent point about Palestinian terrorism. Perphaps the US would be willing to arm them with F-16's and tanks like it does with Israel so the Palestinians wouldn't use suicide attacks.

"Perhaps the US would be willing to arm them with F-16's and tanks like it does with Israel so the Palestinians wouldn't use suicide attacks."

That may, in fact, be the best solution.
We'll have to see what Iran does once they have full nuclear
capability. Iran would be a far better peace broker than the US.

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

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

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

"Iran would be a far better peace broker than the US."

Iran actively supports terror against Israel and is so dangerous that Israel and U.S. both have to consider launching pre-emptive attacks to keep Iran from getting nukes.

Some peace broker.

"Iran actively supports terror against Israel and is so dangerous that Israel and U.S. both have to consider launching pre-emptive attacks to keep Iran from getting nukes."

The contorted logic is something to behold...

With nukes, who knows what they would do.

with *massively* superior military strength, numbers and technology would 'pre-emptively' attack another country on the basis of what *might happen* - all in the supposed cause of peace (yet against every international law ever written) is fucking hilarious.

To boot - you been paying attention to what is going in in Iraq?
Launched under similar pretense, that ain't going so swell...

Also, how does Iran threaten the United States?

Iran is an active enemy of both the U.S. and Israel. They are trying to get a weapon that could threaten millions of lives. THAT is a threat that must be prevented.

Iraq and Iran are completely different. Even the UN admits Iran is trying to get nukes.

Maybe they are trying to obtain nukes (like Israel, like India, like Pakistan, like North Korea) for defense to stop others from invading them.

Look what happened to Saddam's WMD-less Iraq...If Saddam actually had nukes, Bush couldn't have invaded them.

If Iran had nukes, Israel couldn't lauch a "pre-emptive strike."

they could give one to the terror groups they fund and support and there goes Tel Aviv or Washington or London or New York. In any event, there goes the world.

By the same token, Israel could be deemed a dangerous
"rogue state" too. How many wars has Israel started? How many has Iran started?

With nukes, who knows what they would do.

MAD--Mutual Assured Destruction will prevent Iraq from launching nukes against Israel. Israel plans to take the whole Middle East will them when they go down.

Israel really only needs to worry about a terrorist group obtaining one nuke. You don't worry about the guy with 5000 nukes. You worry about the guy with one nuke.

They fund and support terror and could easily let a terror group do their dirty work for them.

There's nothing hilarious or stupid about it. Maybe if they'd compared Iran to a state that wasn't a rogue state that thought it was above international law and attack other states at will, I'd be pointing out how silly it was, but the idea of the US being considered a peace-broker of any kind is what's absolutely hilarious. It's much more dangerous to world peace that Iran or Israel are...

Violet...

The US actively supports Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. The US can't be a legitimate peace broker because it is biased against one side, incidentally of course, the side that generally doesn't have white skin. Remember what happened when Dean said he would be an honest broker in the ME?

Iran is actively on the side of terrorists. It could be worse. If they intervened, the war would consume the whole Mideast.

Yes, a perfect answer. This would enable the Palestinians to concentrate on the many Israeli military targets in Palestine. Tanks would allow them to blow up armored bulldozers moving in for home demolition, as well as thwart Israeli armored incursions into Palestinian towns. Stingers and SAMS would discourage IDF terror air raids. Think of the benefits to our arms industry!Israeli citizens could relax and let their military take the casualties.

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

A grotesque choice: Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a resurgence of anti-semitism.

Indeed, that phrasing presents the reader with a false dilemma. The proposition is absurd on its face.

Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is no excuse for anti-Semitism. It should be noted that not all Israelis support it and certainly, world wide, neither do all Jews.

Injustices against the Palestinian people by certain Israelis is a reason to condemn certain Israelis as unjust. To carry it further than that is itself an injustice.

" Attempts to equate anti-Zionism, or even criticism of Israeli policy, with anti-semitism reflect a pitiful intellectual sloth, an abandonment of reasoned attempts to justify Israeli actions in favour of moral blackmail."

This reminds me of displaying the exploded bus at the Hague as some kind of wordless rebuttal to the concepts of property and national boundaries. When did the people of the book become the people of the dramatic gesture ? And is this a postive development ?

"the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard"

The standard of judgment is not "special" the situation is not that of Europe or the US. Neither is the Holocaust the reason, but rather the variable that cannot be changed. It is not "a card", but a history that European non-Jews have watched from their side of the story, and cannot fully appreciate, in their defensive stance, the necessary revival of the Jewish homeland. Mr. Hastings included. Not one ounce of appreciation for Jewish culture and the struggle against Islamic extremists who wish to eliminate it.

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

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

why you believe a stiff fine is an adequate substitute for a stiff prison sentence for a child murderer?

If a Palestinian adult beat to death a 10 year old Israeli boy, would you sanction a stiff fine and sentence of only six months of community service?

Of course you wouldn't. I see both sides as people.

go in peace.

If not, please explain to me why not.

The guy who destroyed the Weimar democracy didn't see the Jews (and Gypsies, and Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals, and mentally retarded) as people, and you know what happened then.

Never forget.

Then start here:

http://ksumail.kennesaw.edu/~bstevens/JewishOther.htm

Good analysis.


"The Israeli government's behaviour to the Palestinians breeds a despair that finds its only outlet in terrorism. No one can ever criticise the Jewish diaspora for asserting Israel's right to exist. But the most important service the world's Jews can render to Israel today is to persuade its people that the only plausible result of their government's behaviour is a terrible loneliness in the world"

As a person who lives in the Southern US, I know racism and hatred when I hear it, smell it and see it. Southerners have a more recent exposure to hate and hate crimes than do those who live in other parts of the US. And when it comes to the behaviour of certains Israeli's and/or Zionists. I know what I smell. It stinks.

Yes, I have heard with my own ears American Zionist/Jews say that all Arabs are sub-human. (this from a man with a history working in propoganda for the us military) Like it's okay for them to use hate-speech because they are Jewish. Hate-speech is hate-speech no matter who is using the words!

My suggestion is that American Jews who are not of the Zionist mind-set start using the same propoganda tools that the pro-zionists use. Make their loving and fair-minded message heard. Become one of the candles of light in the darkness. Do not sit by silently and allow the haters to dominate the conversation. That is how to combat the anti-semitism, Make the world aware that you are part of a loving and democratic tradition. And seperate yourselves from the haters. O8)
Blessed are the Peacemakers.