Criticism of Israel's policies does not equal antisemetism. Discuss.

[CanuckAmok]

[Waya]

Been saying that for years.................

[K8-EEE]

1. Like Criticizing BushCo Doesn't Make You UN-AMERICAN

Enough with all that shit.

[mzteris]

4. Or un-Methodist,

or un-male
or un-caucasian
or un-texan
or un-human being.....

[ContraBass Black]

2. What is there to discuss about it?

[BayCityProgressive]

6. I am pro-Israel

and I agree. One can certainly discuss all matters of Israel and not be anti-semetic. It is when you make blanket statements about Israeli's, Jews, or focus on Israel and not other nations in similar situations where we run into the controversy. There are many things Israel does that I do not agree with, same with the US.

[rodeodance]

3. I totally agree with the IP (really nothing to discuss).

[CanuckAmok]

11. You wouldn't think so, woud you...

But apparently for some DUers, it does.

What I found interesting was listening to Newt Gingrich the other day on NPR; It occurred to me that people like Gingrich and the PNAC and the Bush Administration are rallying in support of a people they wouldn't want as members in their own country clubs.

[asthmaticeog]

51. Part of that has to do with their fucked notions

about Middle East realpolik (And we all know PNAC's kink by now, so no reason to elaborate here) and part of it has to do with US politics, namely the eschatology of the extremist Christians who form an important part of the Republican Party's coalition. They can do this because they know they'll never have to golf with the people to whose defense (a term I use loosely, here) they're rushing in such a cynical manner.

edit:spelling

[Behind the Aegis]

5. While true,...

...people should take care in who they use as sources to criticize Israel. Right-wing bigots should not be acceptable as a source at DU, no matter if they parrot your position. The well has not run dry of Israel critics on the left.

[CanuckAmok]

12. Suppressing RW points because they are RW as opposed to valid...

...or at least worthy of discussion is counter-productive.

Bring on any position from any side, and we can discuss/debunk/accept is as valid; that's the point of a political forum.

Reactionary censorship and cries of "BIGOT" don't help anybody.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. So would David Duke be acceptable at DU?

What about Falwell? There is NO shortage of Israeli critics on the left, so why 'troll' on the right? If anything, those of us who are pro-Israeli are having a tougher time, because pro-Israeli is harder to find on the left, but there is a BOON on the right. Perhaps we should start using them as sources? I don't think so!

[Waya]

17. Wouldn't we then be making the same mistake as this administration.......

.and its supporters? We only talk and listen to and accept the sources we like?

[CanuckAmok]

20. (once again) Noam Chomsky nails it:

"Freedom of Speech is an absolute. You're either in favour of all speech, or your not. I mean, Stalin was in favour of freedom of speech for the ideas he believe in, right? Adolph Hitler, too. You're either in support of everyone's freedom of speech or your not in favour of freedom of speech."

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Then, you should take it up with DU admin!

[Marie26]

38. *eyes rolling*

And here comes the Nazi reference. Look, people have posted junk here from hate groups, & wacko sites like World Net Daily to support their position. Those sources wouldn't be acceptable on any other issue, so why should they suddenly be OK on this issue? There's PLENTY of criticism of Israel from many legitimate liberal outlets; there's no need to go to the Stormfront forums to find it.

[Just Me]

91. I don't believe Chomsky ever supported speech intended to incite,....

,...hatred against fellow human beings. To the contrary, I do believe Chomsky pointed out how that form of propaganda is utilized to control people and profit off that mass manipulation.

Perhaps, you misread Chomsky's take on the manipulation of language in order to control the masses.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. But using RW sources as your primary argument...

...does that not lead to questioning your motivations for supporting those points?

[Waya]

28. I don't think so......

.....my agreeing or disagreeing with someone isn't based on their political orientation. I can agree with Pat Buchanan, for instance, on the issue of Israel and Lebanon and disagree with what he says (and I frequently do) on other issues......doesn't make me inclined to adopt the RW political view as a whole.....

[CanuckAmok]

29. So why do you assume someone quoting (your perceived) RW author's

statement means that person has adopted a wholesale RW view? Are you the only DUer capable of diverse opinions on complex issues?

[Behind the Aegis]

34. I didn't say that either.

But posting a RW bigot and lauding his points, does call into question why the poster chose that person. Does the poster have the same reasons for agreeing with the points made. Not all bigots where sheets and Nazi uniforms, some are much more clever!

[CanuckAmok]

39. Yes, bigotry wears all kinds of badges. Agreed.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. It is all in the motivation.

I have seen a "broken clock is right twice a day," and whereas that may be true, it doesn't mean that this site should promote bigots having a say.

[CanuckAmok]

18. What are you afraid of?

Suppression of discourse is exactly what puts Nazis, fanatics and other kooks in positions of power. Addressing and diffusing theie points is what negates their influence.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. This is the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND!

I don't come here to read right-wing filth, ESPECIALLY when it is being used as the posters primary source!

[sinogirl]

35. I find it offensive to label people anti-semitic..

Just because they aren't blindly pro-Israeli.. even if they share "some" views with Duke and Falwell... It's best to present an argument and prove they are wrong. It isn't difficult putting down bigots.

I'm pro-Israeli, but I'm not going to be stopped criticizing Israel as much as I please. And note: it's impossible to cross-over and become Anti-Semitic.

Currently I find more arguments against Israel than for Israel... Unrelenting support as they indiscriminately kill innocent civilians without any regard whatsoever to the children is totally beyond me... :cry:

[Behind the Aegis]

49. And I find it offensive that people blindly accept anti-Semitism!

No one has said someone that isn't "blindly pro-Israeli" is anti-Semitic. That is the ne "meme" here. Claim that you are being called an anti-Semite when NO ONE has leveled such an accusation against you!

So, knock yourself out in your criticism of Israel, but be aware that some who maintain the same stances as you are, in fact, hardcore Jew-hating bigots! It is the same for those of us who are pro-Israeli. There are hardcore Islamaphobes that share our positions, for different reasons, and I don't use them because bigotry has no place in rational discussion.

[jonnyblitz]

54. and some that maintain the same stances as you are running this

country and hosting talk shows on FOX NEWS. let's be fair if you are gonna pull that stunt.

[Behind the Aegis]

56. this is true...

...but you won't see me using them as a source.

[sinogirl]

78. So having the same opinion is fine...

Just don't use the same source or quote them....


I find my objection to what Israel is currently doing justified. It's just absolutely horrendous and it must stop. There is no shame to share that opinion with Arabs ... it's a justified position and I'll continue to stand for a peaceful settlement.


It's been a long while since I last saw a true drive toward peace by Israel. War and violence will only begets violence. I'm sick and tired of this never ending cycle of violence.

[Behind the Aegis]

79. Opinions

Of course it is OK to have the same opinion as RW bigot. However, I don't think it is advisable or wise to use them as the model. I am pro-Israeli, I don't use Hagee or his ilk as a source, though we share the same opinion because he is a wacko and others are anti-Arab bigots. Why should I use the opinion of a bigot to support my opinion when there are non-bigots who share the same ideals and opinions as I do?

As for a drive toward to peace, the responsibility doesn't lie solely with them, yet, some seem to forget that!

[barb162]

94. versus yours on Scifi channel ?

[barb162]

89. I'm wondering why there aren't more threads against Hez

which indiscriminately kills children. But your points are well-taken. Peace

[The Magistrate]

26. Unfortunately For Your Point, Sir

Citation of bigoted material and links to bigoted sites and commentary by bigots is expressly forbidden by the rules of Demoratic Underground. Citation of partisan conservative sites that are not viewed as bigoted is allowed only in "proper context", and agreement that the rightist cited is quite correct and ought to be echoed is a pretty dubious context.

The fact is that a portion of the criticism of Israel is rooted in Anti-Semitic views, and a great deal of material available on the internet criticizing Israel is put up and maintained by open Anti-Semites. Persons debating the matter here are simply going to have do without buttressing their points by references to such sites and commentators.

Persons whose comments on this matter seem to echo the views commonly expressed by bigots, whether bigots detesting Arabs and Moslems or bigots detesting Jews, are going to be alerted on and are going to be examined by moderators to decide whether, and what, action must be taken to enforce the rules of Democratic Underground against bigoted expression.

[sinogirl]

42. Wow.. did you just come up with that out of the blue

"action must be taken to enforce the rules of Democratic Underground against bigoted expression"

You couldn't have said it better... It seemed right but could never put it to words...


Question: If my views converge with that of a bigot (unintentionally) .... Am I viewed as a bigot and shut out of the forum. Is the issue here mainly the reference and not the opinion?

[The Magistrate]

55. When We Recieve An Alert, Ma'am

We discuss the comment in the Moderator forum. We presume that the member is owed the benefit of doubt, and do not pretend to be mind-readers. A comment may be deleted because of its content without anyone supposing the member who made it is anything but a good person who meant well. We are also aware that many people do not closely examine sites they link to and may not be aware of their nature, particularly when, as is the case with many bigoted extreme right sites, they contain some materials very critical of the present administration, though that criticim, on examination, proves to be based on beliefs it is not far enough to the right, or some other ground very different from those a progressive would oppose it on. Accounts are shut off only after repeated offenses over time, and after much discussion leading to a unamimous consensus it is necessary. The only exception is the case of obvious trolls and disruptors, such as someone who's first post is something on the lines of "You libruls all suck" or the like: they are banned on sight.

[sinogirl]

64. Admirable....

Can I be your fan ;) I liked this Lithos guy as well...... You two are something when it come to the rule.

So is a freeper and troll?


But how do you judge members that are confused... like me? I feel very confused. It's hard being both Pro-Israel and anti-blanket-bombing...

[The Magistrate]

66. We Do It Carefully, Ma'am, Of Course

"In the Hall of Justice, the only Justice is in the halls."

[sinogirl]

68. The Hall of Justice....

Who are those in these Halls answerable to?

Does the Majority vote rule ... or do you have Dictators as well? Just curious... (r u a dictator? Is a majority decision good enough for you?)

I think I need to read the forum rules...... Just saw a post being locked because it was "flame bait" ....!? So many new terms. I'd hate to have my posts deleted or locked.

Is it ok if I'm naughty once in a while?? ;) Can you turn a blind eye?

[The Magistrate]

71. Here Is A Link To The Forum Rules, Ma'am

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

It is certainly a good idea to read them....

[sinogirl]

73. I'm shocked .. you locked my post

You'll need to explain this "flame bait" .... Is determining the opinion of DU members wrong? that was after all a vote by our representatives.


Are you judging my intention Or the possible course of the thread?

All I wanted was a Yea and Nay ..... surely even you could see that it was "one" member turning a voting thread into an unnecessary and unwanted debate..


You'd know best I guess....

[cali]

62. And real bigotry

doesn't help either, and it's been expressed on DU over the past week. just as we don't want to see false accusations, we shouldn't ignore the real thing.

[CanuckAmok]

52. Luckily there's no shortage of Israel blanket-apologists in the US...

...because that assures me that when the time comes for the Sioux, Algonquin, Navajo, Huron, etc to reclaim Manhattan, Detroit, Tucson, Boise, Seattle, etc there will be very little bloodshed as we Euros simply hand-over the keys.

But of course that's different!

[Behind the Aegis]

63. .

:eyes:

[CanuckAmok]

72. Touche.

[Behind the Aegis]

74. Sometimes, incredibly stupid posts don't require anything other than...

...:eyes:

[CanuckAmok]

77. ...want to examine the DU rules again?

It's a valid argument. Tell me how it's different.

You're not going to. Why? Because you can't.

So you'll resort to (very) thinly-veiled namecalling, skirting the DU rules you wave so highly when it suits you.

[Behind the Aegis]

80. It's not a "valid argument" because it is not an argument at all.

So, there is nothing to refute. If you think you have presented an argument, restate it. If you are talking about using RW sources here...I have already struck that down, as have others, including a reining moderator.

I did resort to anything. I said the post was stupid, I didn't call you or imply you were stupid. If I had called you stupid, then it would be a violation and the post would rightly be deleted. So, I did stick to the rules which I hold others and myself to, as expected here.

[CanuckAmok]

83. Whatever. Enjoy your visit.

:eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

84. Touche!

almost 2 years and counting...

[mzteris]

7. then why do people keep implying that

whenever one indicates disagreement with the policies of the Israeli government?

[BayCityProgressive]

9. because some of the people

who criticize Israel deny it's right to exist, use blanket statements like all jews, all israeli's, zionists ect., some never condemn the violence on the arab side but always do on the Israeli, and some take things out of context or do not criticize other nations for doing what Israel does...

[Spazito]

15. Do you believe the vast majority of DUers who have criticized

Israel's actions are in support of denying Israel's right to exist? Do you believe that DUers' criticism of Israel's actions in recent days are because they support Hezbollah?

[BayCityProgressive]

81. I said some

I do not believe all or a majority, but the number is growing here. Either that or they are a VERY vocal minority.

[Spazito]

86. Thank you for responding....

I see a small minority, a very small minority, on both sides of the issue that I might consider as going to far but, by far, from what I have read, most are trying to both understand and educate others about their perspectives.

[treestar]

24. So why does that mean that other people are automatically doing

that? It doesn't. What you said does not support shutting down the debate.

It's collective judgment. Isreal does too much of that.

[CanuckAmok]

37. What I find loathsome:

For the record, I'm not anti-Israel. In fact, I was married to a liberal Jew, which should suggest, at least, that I'm not anti-semetic.

What I find loathsome is when Israel apologists who cannot intellectually defend Israel's aggression (and I'm referring to any examples of this aggression in the last 50 years, not specifically the latest melee), stand up and accuse their conversational opponent by citing the Holocaust.

Of course it's an emotional issue, and of course a vast majority of Jews living today lost a family member in the Holocaust (I've read that ALL have, although I don't know that to be true), but using the Holocaust to justify present-day Israel's behaviour is akin to Bush and Rumsfeld screaming "911! 911!" every time his policies on Iraq fall under criticism.

911 isn't a get out of jail free card, and neither should be the Holocaust.

[MaraJade]

57. Then the Israelis should simply sit with folded hands and do nothing

while missiles come over the border and blow up their cities?

Is that the answer--for them to take no defensive action at all and simply sit and watch their nation be taken over?

[CanuckAmok]

59. Yes. Yes, that is the answer.

Because there's no middle-ground when you're dealing with terrorists. No negotiation. No compromise.

Oh, wait, I can't say that on DU, because I'm quoting George W Bush.

[k_jerome]

69. i think you will find that many comments...

are not criticism, but statements of bigotry. such as control of the govt by "zionists" or evil "zionists". there is a difference between criticism and bigotry.

[mzteris]

75. I've made some comments

definitely NOT "bigoted" -, etc - and was jumped on. I've read other "criticisms of the I-govt" and seen where they were accused.

I think people definitely need to separate out the race/religion thing from the behaviour thing.

What I is doing is WRONG. What H & H is doing is WRONG.

They're both wrong.

They're both going to be DEAD wrong.

The UN should go into hot spots and PUT A STOP to the violence. Anyone who does anything is captured/shot/punished.

EVERYONE STOP! No bombing (on either side.) No shooting (on either side.) NO kidnapping/capturing - (on either side.) ALL children currently being held captive/hostage/imprisoned - should be released immediately (on either side.)

Is that unbiased enough?

[smacky44]

95. If one says "contol of the government by evangelicals" is that bigotry?

I'm a fairly new poster so I am asking for clarification.

[Spazito]

8. Agreed! I would add though...

Criticism of Hezbollah does not equal anti-Arab sentiments either.

[BayCityProgressive]

10. Agreed.

[cali]

14. Absolutely. People should be able to criticize israel as harshly

as they want, but the corollary to that is that some people veer into antisemitism in their criticisms, or use the subject as a pretext to express antisemitism. And yes there's been a significant amount of it right here in happy valley. I'd be glad to provide some of the more egregious examples I've seen over the past week if anyone so desires.

[Meshuga]

47. I second that...

...and pretty much most of your posts here in DU, Cali. People should be able to criticize israel harshly and the harsh criticism of Israel actions is definitely not antisemitism. You are not pro-Israel, you are not Jewish, you criticize Israel, question her actions, etc. Yet you are able to recognize and condemn the bigoted posts here in DU and how some people veer into antisemitism in their criticisms.

You have something that many people lack: the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. That's how you are able to recognize this problem and it also demonstrates the fair person that you are.

I'm glad there are people like you here in DU being the voice of reason!

Thank you!

[cali]

61. Thank you for the kind words.

The truth is I would never have imagined that I'd see the kind of bigotry here that I've seen in the past week. Sad.

[AnnieBW]

16. Pro-Israel, Pro-Democratic Lebanon,

but anti-Hizbollah. While I do not support Hizbollah's terrorism in any way, I think that Israel's aggression is like opening eggs with a sledgehammer. Unfortunately, those "eggs" are the Lebanese civilians.

Israel has a right to its defense. However, they've been planning this offensive for MONTHS. Probably ever since Sharon went into la-la land. Or maybe before? This isn't a defensive strike, it's offense. Or offensive, if you will. In all senses of the word.

[SammyBlue]

19. Depends on how its worded.

Alot of criticisms of Israel I have seen and heard from people I agree with sound alot like the same shit Hal Turner and his ilk say in their criticism, only with less blunt language.

on edit: If I post comparison, I will be violating rules of DU by posting hate speech.

[treestar]

21. Right. And it also does not equate to a claim that "Israel has no

right to defend itself."

The main reason I have trouble with Israel is the style of argument its supporters use. The Arabs or whoever opposes them for whatever reason does not have to say a word, and I do not support them, but the supporters of Israel, on their own, and all by themselves convince me that what Israel does is mostly wrong.

They never support Israel without resorting to emotionalized tactics: so israel has no right to defend itself, poor Isreal is surrounded by enemies (right there proves it may not have been such a bright idea); you don't value Isreali children's lives, I'll just call me relatives over there and tell them that (as if there is no such thing as a Lebanese American, etc.) you don't know what you're talking about, you're ignorant (who could follow the ins and outs of 40 years of crap) Palestine was never a nation (so what) it goes on and on. The accusation of anti-semitism is made very quickly and the other day the term "zionist" was right here on DU questioned as being meant as a negative, so that they back you into where you have to call them "supporters of Israel" and type that out, and some day referring to that will be deemed "anti-semitic."

The attempt to shut down argument is so obvious that they have to be in the wrong and know it. They could just debate the point if they had any hope of being in the right. And I've seen this not just on DU but other places.

[The Magistrate]

32. The Phenomenon You Describe, Ma'am

Is hardly peculiar to one side of this debate.

A great many of the comments made in opposition to Israeli actions use exactly the same tactics, almost word for word as you have described, but with Arabs or Moslems substituted for Israel: the "surrounded by enemies" line is about the only one absent, and the hostility of "superpowers" is generally substituted. Claims that Arabs are denied the right to defend themselves, that no one cares about Arab children, that Israel is not really a nation or has no right to be one, that bigotry and rightist allegiance are the only true sources of support for Israel, are quite routine.

[HardRocker05]

36. The allegedly pro-israel argument you describe is *exactly* the type used

by the anti-israelists, in that it is almost entirely emotion based. The whole point seems to be to whip people into a frenzy of murderous anger with pictures of dead children, destroyed homes, etc. Not that these things aren't very bad and are the reasons why violence should be avoided, but i notice than when pictures of dead arab children are being plastered around the internet and on arab TV, there are never any pictures of dead israeli children to go with them. It's all just about inflaming blind rage against "the enemy." It's wrong on either side.

[MaraJade]

58. I am assuming that you mean that

the "Nation of Israel" itself was a "bad idea?" Is that what you mean?

[HardRocker05]

27. True, but where's the criticism of islamic resistance movement's policies?

That's my biggest beef with the israel-bashers. I'll agree with a lot of stuff that's said about israel, but the silence on the crimes of the other side speaks volumes. And if these people are not aware of the true nature of anti-israel opposition, they need to do some serious research before they say any more. IMO, where the anti-semitism card becomes a lot more legitimate is when you hear people ripping israel six ways to sunday, and then not a word is said about the other side, or apologies and excuses are even made for them; something is going on there, other than a rational, even-handed analysis of the issues. It may not be "anti-semitism" in the traditional sense, but it's something.

[barb162]

50. well said

[barb162]

30. Sometimes it does

but I mentioned on another thread that those wailing about the 200 Lebanese dead aren't wailing about the 300,000 dead in Darfur caused by Islamic militants. I wonder about this selectivity. DO deaths only seem to matter if Israel does it? And why so many hundreds of threads on Israel and next to none on Darfur. SO just by sheer number of threads I would have to ask these posters who are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO anti- war and SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO anti- killing, well, what about the 300,000 dead needlessly in Darfur. Why aren't you posting on that? I have posted threads on Darfur and they mostly have gotten zero responses. The very selectivity of concern only about certain killings leads me to conclude a lot of what is going on is anti-semitism.

[still_one]

40. I find that also perplexing

The world did not have much of an outcry in Rawandi or the killing fields of Cambodia either

Its double standard, but I also believe it is an atempt to roll the clock back, and justify that Israel has no right to exist. Until the middle east, AND the world recognize that Israel is NOT going anywhere, there will never be peace

[barb162]

85. Also anti-semitism is so deeply imbedded in so many psyches

that the same people who shout so loudly about hatred of ALL killing, ALL war, etc., apparently have no self-awareness that they're shouting it because of anti-semitism because they sure aren't shouting about Darfur on DU. The other group who does have self-awareness of their anti-semitism can use their anti-war stances as a disguise or cover for their anti-semitism. Neither group apparently posts on the war, genocide, etc., in Darfur on DU or else this place would be loaded with Darfur threads. DU clearly isn't loaded with Darfur threads. I think the last time I posted a thread on Darfur I had to kick it myself. I do think there are some people, a third group, who really are totally against all war and all killing, but not nearly as many who are professing same here. If there were, again, then where are all those Darfur threads condemning those militants killing hundreds of thousands of people. WHy aren't the same people who are starting threads against Israel not starting thread against the Darfur militants. The proof is in the pudding and actions sure speak louder than words.

[laura888]

44. U.S. is not funding the war in Darfur.

What I find most upsetting is that I am funding, through tax dollars that go toward weapons for Israel, violence against people I have no beef with.

[CanuckAmok]

53. keep in mind....

If Israel was behaving the same way with a "white" culture, we wouldn't stand for it.

[barb162]

87. That's a fair comment, I think ,but I am really not sure what you

mean by it. Israelis and Lebanese are basically "white" and semitic backgrounds as far as I am concerned.
What country should allow paramilitary types to be shooting rockets in to any other county, especially when those militants have stated they want that country out of there, gone, adios. Since Lebanon allowed it or couldn't stop it, then someone has to go in there and stop it.

[CanuckAmok]

90. Well, for starters....

When was the last time you saw any arm of the mainstream media printing/airing a story about all the similarities between our culture and Arab culture? Not to sound too cynical, but the Arab world is being made to be the Eastasia to our Oceania.

But I'm totally with you on having "someone go in there and stop it". That's what the UN is for, and if Bush wasn't pushing "Israel vs Evil Doers, Israel vs Evil Doers, Israel vs Evil Doers" so much, the UN would have more autonomy and a better chance of getting in there and mediating.

Few people realise this, but there's already a UN force located IN Israel, but they cannot interfere in any border conflicts Israel has with any of the adjoining states (if I remember correctly, it's currently British and Bangladeshi UN troops, but I can't recall for sure and I don't feel like looking it up). If their (the UN's) mandate was rewritten to recognise Hezbollah as a based aggressive force, instead of a stateless terror organisation, the UN could be in there by the end of today. It's because of rhetoric that basically challenges the legitimacy of (democratically elected, lest we forget) Hamas, that Hamas hasn't been able to reign-in Hezbollah with international assistance.

I don't think anyone who's having his neighbourhood shelled or bombed cares who's munitions are reigning down on him, and those are the people I'm siding with, if I have to choose sides.

As I said previously, I'm not trying to lay blame on any one side. Both "sides" are guilty. Both "sides" need to stop right the fuck now.

But they're like two bullies in a very small sandbox. They both want the whole thing, and when they're dressed-down they both shout that the other bully started it and that it's only fair to fight back.

[barb162]

92. With a few exceptions I basically agree with your analysis

The main problem I am having is with groups who refuse to moderate and dedicate themselves to killing off or getting rid of another nation. When that nation decides to fight back, it's evil Israel. I expect the latest round of negotiations to be stopgaps (read failures) because neither the Palestinians nor the Lebanese can or wish to control their sizable paramilitaries (terrorists as defined by the US State Dept). In both cases, some of these groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel have been elected to office.

Yesterday the Pals called for a ceasefire and today some Pal militants said they wouldn't abide by it. What's the point of Israel negotiating with the Palestinian government when that government won't rein in its militants shooting off rockets in to Israel. Same comment applies to Lebanon.

Let's see if this time the UN won't be the paper tiger. It's always easy to say it's better to negotiate than to fight. Usually this is true. But when one is dealing with terrorists, who have used ceasefires to rearm ,what is the wisdom in talking?

Both sides don't want the whole thing, which is why Israel left Gaza and why it will be giving up settlements in the West Bank. The Pal government, Hamas, wants the whole enchilada.

[barb162]

88. The US is funding Palestinians and Israel

I don't know if we fund Lebanon

[still_one]

33. true

but also true is that being a supporter of Israel doesn't make one a neocon, anti-Muslim, or anti-Palestinian

[Marie26]

41. Sigh. Of course not. nt

[oberliner]

43. Antisemitic vs. Not Antisemitic criticism

Not Antisemitic criticisms of Israel:

Israel's response to Hezbollah has been entirely disproportionate.
Israel is not using enough discretion in attacking only Hezbollah militants to avoid civilian casualities.
Israel should work towards a peaceful negotiation of this conflict rather than resorting to violence.
Israel should immediately bring a halt to its military operations and sign a cease fire agreement.

Antisemitic criticism of Israel:

How ironic it is that Israel is currently using the same sorts of tactics used against Jews by the nazis.
Zionists do not care at all about human life and are only interested in killing people and taking their land.
AIPAC is exerting its power in America to coerce the United States into supporting Israel against it's own best interests.

I've seen both around here in the past few days.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. .

:yourock:

:applause:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

45. Are members of the Knesset who criticize Israel's policies

anti-semitic? Is Ha'aretz? Are the members of the IDF who refuse to serve in the Palestinian territories?

[Behind the Aegis]

48. .

:eyes:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[CanuckAmok]

76. NIMBY.

Arab's arent "us". They're not white.

Somehow, Israelis are "us", according to the press. Why? Because of European (read: white) lineage? Because they buy our stuff?

I don't know.

Israel's behaviour is tolerated by the Western World community, particularly the US, because they're at war with "Ni**ers".

If they were pulling the same shit against, say, Finland, or any other essentially white nation we'd be having fits.

Why do you think the religious right stands behind Israel (beyond the econimic factors, of course)... do you really think Fallwell and Gingrich want a nation of 6,000,000 non-Christians in a position of economic, military and political influence? No, they want Israel to annihilate niggers in the name of "religious freedom".

Sorry to be so blunt, but that's what I see in this bizarre alignment.

I'm not anti-Israel or anti-Arab by any stretch of the imagination; what I'm anti- is anti- any group waging war on civilians, intentionally or otherwise.

I'm anti- suicide bombers in shopping plazas, and I'm anti- F-16 bombing neighbourhoods. I'm also anti- any nation not willing to negotiate a cease-fire or truce.

Maybe one has to be an Atheist (as I am) to see this for what it is; an argument over which imaginary playfriend claimed dominion in the sandbox first. Frankly, I don't care, and it appears to me that either side or both sides are about to make the sandbox uninhabitable for hundreds of years.

[oberliner]

82. Respectfully Disagree

I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

More than half of all Israelis have African or Asian lineage, not European.

I think that the religious right supports Israel for reasons related to their vision of Armageddon.

Although I certainly agree that the religious right have some very racist attitudes towards Arabs.

[CanuckAmok]

96. dammit!

I wrote this really cogent response to your post, and I somehow deleted it before posting it.

And, hey, it's late, so I surrender the last word to you. Yours was a pretty good response, so I'll sleep well tonight.

[nealmhughes]

65. Israel is a country with various parties represented in its government.

There are Christian, Jewish, Druze and Muslim Israeli citizens.

Even within the Jewish self-described ethnos, one will find every range of religious and cultural expression, as well as politicals.

Antisemitism is a ridiculous concept: it seems to make people of a particular historical descent and religious tradition into "others" to the rest of the world... Antisemitism is akin to racism: ridiculous on its face, with no bearing in reality. Do Jewish children come into the world with a differing Piaget scale of development from Methodist or Sunni children? Do the Ashkenazim have an innate ability to produce visual art while the Sephardim lack this? Of course not!

One is Jewish because they and their relatives say they are and society agrees.

One is "Black" because society and they and their relatives say they are.

Skin anyone on the dissecting table, remove any eye folds and body modifications, and one will be hardpressed to determine religion, race or other cultural identifier from mere observation.

Israel was founded as a refuge from antisemitism, that is fact. The West uniformly ignored the atrocities of the Czars and the Fuhrers and the Kings of Europe against those they called Jews.

But foundation in suffering does not hallow every action by Israel. Much is required to move past the atrocities of the past without creating new ones.

The same must be said for the Arabs in Greater Syria: yes, you got a raw deal from the West. Yes, Israel is "Western" and "Jewish," but your outrage over past events does not absolve your every action.

Violence and destruction can only be morally justified when at the extreme limits of otherwise measured response is failed, i.e., the destruction of Berlin by the Red Army was literally required in order to prevent the continued ruination of Europe by the Nazis -- but only because noone had the moral authority to stop Hitler and the Nazis in their growth. Does Soviet victory over Nazism absolve Stalin and his Politburo and apparachniks of all other violence they perpetrated? No.

Israel is a country. Jews are people, just like Hindus, snake-handling Pentecostals, and atheists.

[H2O Man]

67. Of course it does not.

Nor does criticism of Israel in and of itself imply that one believes that Israel is more at fault than the Arab nations and groups involved. Nor does it imply that one necessarily favors one country, or one people, over another.

It's a difficult range of topics to discuss. People hold strong opinions. Many have had extended family experiences that influence their point of view.

As difficult as some conversations on these threads have become, I think they are beneficial. I think the moderators are doing a fine job of keeping things in check. And I think that, with almost no exceptions, the people involved in the discussions are united in that they are opposed to the violence that is wounding and killing human beings, no matter what description applies to them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. No more than being critical of Burmese policies makes one anti-Asian.

Or, being critical of Robert Mugabe's government makes on anti-black.

[tlsmith1963]

93. It's Not Always Anti-Semitism

I think that Israel should be criticized just like other countries are criticized. There is no anti-Semitism in my stance. I just feel that all counties need to be treated the same way. If a country does something wrong, people should be free to say it. And I feel both sides are to blame in this conflict, btw. So much carnage has happened that I don't think it matters who started it anymore.

Tammy