BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left

Subject: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:40 PM

Here is a fine column from 2/25/04 by George Will.
More an more Jews unfortunately are realizing the shift in anti-semitism from right to left.

If the blue click thing doesn't work, please cut & paste and read this relevant article.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo25.html

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:49 PM

http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo25.html


Which article, MG?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:57 PM

Brucie, Thanks for doing the link right. I tested it and it goes to where I wanted it, the article titled:

"Gibson's movie should be least of Jews' worries"

Thanks, again.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:39 PM

Hmmmmm, no reactions yet.

George Will is one of the most respected journalists there is.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:20 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:31 PM

I have to admit. There is much truth to the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:56 AM

Yes, the right wing currently has an unholy alliance with Zionists, because in Christian fundamentalist belief Israel must be in Jewish hands for the prophecy of Revelation to be fulfilled. In other words, Right-Wing Fundamentalist Christians believe they must defend the Jews' right to Israel so that the rapture can occur and the Jews can go to Hell. Meanwhile, the Zionists don't believe in the Christian prophecy, so they maintain the alliance which is in their immediate interest.

But don't fool yourself. It doesn't make the right wing any less anti-semitic.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:32 AM

That's an interesting article though there are some arguments or formulations I do not agree with. Two examples:

(1) A formulation: The choice of the word 'migration' (from the right to the left) is very unfortunate. Something that migrates leaves the old place. 'Spreading' is a much better word. The left in several countries adopts anti-semitism but the right doesn't give it up.

(2) The argument anti-semitism = anti-zionism is put in such a blunt way that the author of the article cab be read as meaning that any criticism of Israel's politics could be seen as anti-semitism. I do not believe the author means that but he comes dangerously close to this type of argumentation.

The examples in the article are cleverly selected to bolster the intended impression.

However, the main argument sadly is true: Anti-semitism, disguised, unintentional, or even open, has become acceptable in the more extreme parts of the (European) left. I restrict myself to this continent, for I do not know enough about others.

We had at least two other threads about that theme, one for instance starting from an article by Pilar Rahola (easy to find in a search if you care).

In several European countries with sizable Arab minorities (France, in particular) physical attacks on Jews by Arabs are increasing. The Arabs in these countries are, let there be no doubt about it, on the lowest steps of the social ladder, exploited by the white majority, with little chance to get a job with a decent wage or a job at all, with little acceptance of their different culture. The left as usual, good on them, stand by the underpriviledged people with a different culture. The underpriviledge take their rage and fury, the origions of which are understandable, towards another small minority, though mostly not underpriviledged, and try to win a war in the host country which they consider they lose in their countries of origin. The left, apprehensive of the origins of the rage, go too far in endorsing the ways in which very few Arabs living in Europe find an outlet for their feelings.

Being on the side of the underpriviledged and against the oppressors it seems now natural to support the fight against Israel. Some easily forget that a small minority in a large region (Jews) once has been supported by the left in their fight for separation and independence.

In Germany, open anti-semitism is still restricted to the right (for bad historical reasons). When e chairman of the Greens once made anti-semitic remarks he had to resign within a few days. But, on the other hand, this very man is the only Green candidate to win his constituency (the others come into the parliament by proportional representation). So, at least, anti-semitic remarks don't make a left candidate uneligible.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:18 PM

You're welcome, MG. Thanks for the lead to the article. A few years back, I recall reading an article published by the Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies in which video 'games' available on the internet allowed one to run an extermination camp. You could choose the people you put in the camp (Jew, Muslim, Turk, etc) and the purpose of the 'game' was to kill off the quota as inexpensively as possible. I remember that the 'game' was popular amongst youth in some European countries. I imagine the White Supremist groups have their equivalent. There are some very sick puppies out there.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:17 PM

"In other words, Right-Wing Fundamentalist Christians believe they must defend the Jews' right to Israel so that the rapture can occur and the Jews can go to Hell."

Bless you, Nerd but I have to disagree. In the words of a deeply fundamentalist friend, "the Jews have their deal with God, we have ours". I know not everyone agrees, but it's scripturally based:

Romans 11:25-29

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
   "The deliverer will come from Zion;
       he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
    And this is my covenant with them
       when I take away their sins."
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

(italics added)

Not trying to convert anyone, just pointing out that a good number of fundamentalists (not that I'm one) firmly support Israel because they believe they're on the same side.

It's sad that for once people are trying to get along rather than kill each other and we can't be pleased with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 02:52 PM

Wow, bible spouting, just like on cable TV.

Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 04:26 PM

Sometimes you have to beat them at their own game.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: michaelr
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 07:33 PM

"George Will is one of the most respected journalists there is."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 09:23 PM

George Will is a pretty darned good conservative journalist, given extra credit maybe because there are so many popular put-on hacks in the field. But he's not so bad as a many others. Backed into a corner he merely throws up his hands and wonders why we are evil, but at some point we all do--except for some liberal hacks who think one day we will all be much better people if we just keep mouthing the right platitudes. He's better than that, at least.

   I do think there is a trend wherein it's cool and free-thinking to criticize Israel. Because compare them to other countries, right?But compared to a lot of other countries it seems on balance that they are being specially singled out for this brand of "fairness." Some of my Jewish friends criticize the living crap out of Israel, but they've been there, recently, and know much more about it than I do.

I don't know that the good of this country could have been achieved without the bad that was part of the same damn deal. Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 27 Feb 04 - 11:54 PM

The above was before reading the column, not that I disown it.
   Boy it goes quickly from Europe to America then from (sometimes) trendy criticism of Israel to Hitler and exterminating people. Look! it's a bird! it's a plane! no it's a dweeby guy in a bow tie and a cape making lots of absurd over-reaching leaps in a single bound. Too quick for me, it's like reading soup. A nasty one with weird crap thrown in to make it seem "gourmet." Maybe he's reduced to this gunk because he's as aware as anyone that the conservative president and candidate is an incompetent disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 03:06 AM

I do think there is a trend wherein it's cool and free-thinking to criticize Israel. Because compare them to other countries, right?But compared to a lot of other countries it seems on balance that they are being specially singled out for this brand of "fairness."

I disagree. South Africa was criticized just as much. More so, I'd say, because when we criticized South Africa, we didn't raked through the coals for doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 03:09 AM

Strick, the problem with using Romans 11 in that way is that Romans 11 says that all men have been made disobedient by God, so that he may have mercy on them all. In other words, according to Romans 11, everyone will be saved.

But most fundamentalist Christians do not believe this. They do not believe that Jews will automatically be saved. They believe that Jews will, in fact, go to Hell unless they convert to Christianity.

I can't speak for your friend, and fundamentalist Christianity is not monolithic, but certainly "accepting Jesus Christ" is essential for salvation to MOST fundamentalist Christians. Inasmuch as Jews do not accept Jesus, they are destined not to be saved.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 11:49 AM

Sorry, don't mean to have a theological debate here. Much truth in what you say given the tension between Romans and John 3:16. Some even think other Christians are going to hell. They do remember what Isiah, Jeremiah, the minor Prophets and Revelation say about the Remnant. Since they can't tell who will or will not eventually be "saved", they have to respect them as human beings. No one I know is blithely sitting around waiting for everyone else to die and go to hell. Only the most annoying go around trying to convert everyone.

Even the most hardcore know that the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. They know that it isn't important that you consider this His first or second visit, only that you accept Him when He comes.

Now if you're from my tradition, Romans 11 opens up a lot of interesting possiblilities, particularly if you know that God, while keeping His promises, still gets to do what He pleases. Over the centuries it's the people who try to put God in a box and wrap Him up with a bow that usually get the bigest surprises.

Sorry for the sermonette. I know this isn't the place for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: kendall
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 11:58 AM

George Will is so far out in right field that I can't hear what he is saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 12:00 PM

But he does love baseball.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Frankham
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 12:20 PM

Anti-semitism is not the same thing as criticism of Israel's policies. I am an American and am critical of many of my country's policies but that doesn't make me an anti-American except in the mind of narrow bigots.

I would imagine that there are quite a number of Israeli's who are critical of the Sharon regime. I know that they are often "refusniks" and put in jail.

George Will can write fairly well and purports to have a modicum of persuasion in his arguments. He is opinionated, however, and reflects a Right-wing point of view. That's why he is on the op-ed columns and not to be taken as the final word on anything. In short, it's spin.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 06:35 PM

Well CarolC you may disagree, but the example of South Africa doesn't address my opinion about "a lot of other countries, on balance". It only addresses the "compared to other countries" that I pointed out. I'm sorry if you were raked over the coals for your opinion, and I don't mean to imply that yours is trendy, but I think I do see a bit of a trend.

   Will's column roller-paints a big hunk of the world as Euro-loony and anti-semitic, and is so busy with it he doesn't have time to express an opinion about Israel. Hunh. Without saying whether he does or doesn't think there's grounds for legitimate criticism of Israel, his mush of accusation seems pretty darned cowardly. The possibility that a current trend of criticism might be sympathetic to that of many American Zionists themselves doesn't seem to occur to him, and yet my friend Seth despises Sharon, and only returned from studying in Israel because of his father's health.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 07:29 PM

I guess I don't understand your point then, Fred, about "a lot of other countries, on balance". I can only speak for my own reasons for doing things, but when it comes to criticizing countries, Israel, and South Africa and the US South during aparthied, all have received similar criticisms from me at one point or another. Other countries get criticized by me for different reasons. I criticize the US about as much as I do Israel. South Africa is no longer problematic in the ways that it used to be, so I don't tend to focus on that so much.

Most of the other countries I might criticize are being made more problematic than they might otherwise be because of interference from the US, so I would like to see what happens in those coutries without our interference before I form any solid opinions about how they do things.

I find myself agreeing with your second paragraph in your 28 Feb 04 - 06:35 PM post. But that's hardly surprising. I've never had much use for the "opinions" of Mr. Will.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 08:06 PM

CarolC my point just isn't directed at you and your opinions in particular. Maybe that's the part you miss? It's quite facile to compare a thing to a few other things, yet it may still seem that some come up much more often than others that might also. It is a trend when British military provides a large share of villians and buffoons in movies. Or when the bad guys tend to be either Europeans or Dennis Hopper. Noticing a trend may feel unflattering to someone who'd rather not think so, but it's really a separate question from whether particular criticisms are valid or not.

George Will is pretty good at criticising Bush from a conservative point of view, and as often as he alienates me out with his perspective, I try to look at other points of view. What kind of liberal would I be if I didn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 09:36 PM

I didn't think your point was directed at me, Fred. Maybe I'm not getting your point just because my perceptions of things are very different from yours. I've been hearing way more criticisms from the vast majority of people in the US about Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, the French, "old Europe", and on occasion, even Canada, in the last couple of years than I have of Israel. If I were to try to establish the presence of any trends as far as criticism is concerned, Israel most certainly wouldn't be at the top of the list of countries or peoples who are getting the most criticism.

I saw an action movie recently that was made not too long after 9/11. The bad guys in the movie were a French man and a bunch of Muslims and Arabs. Most of the bad guys in movies these days are Arabs, Muslims, and the Russian Mafia. So in popular culture, Israel isn't even on the radar screen for criticsm or bad guy status.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 09:51 PM

ZEN JUDAISM

If you wish to know The Way, don't ask for directions. Argue.

Take only what is given. Own nothing but your robes and an alms bowl. Unless, of course, you have the closet space.

Let your mind be as a floating cloud. Let your stillness be as the wooded glen. And sit up straight. You'll never meet the Buddha with posture like that.

There is no escaping karma. In a previous life you never called, you never wrote, you never visited. And whose fault was that?

Wherever you go, there you are. Your luggage is another story.

To practice Zen and the art of Jewish motorcycle maintenance, do the following: Get rid of the motorcycle. What were you thinking?

Be aware of your body. Be aware of your perceptions. Keep in mind that not every physical sensation is a symptom of a terminal illness. If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?

Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this and attaining Enlightenment will be the least of your problems.

The Tao has no expectations. The Tao demands nothing of others. The Tao does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take sides. The Tao is not Jewish.

Drink tea and nourish life. With the first sip, joy. With the second, satisfaction. With the third, Danish.

The Buddha taught that one should practice loving kindness to all sentient beings. Still, would it kill you to find a nice sentient being who happens to be Jewish?

Be patient and achieve all things. Be impatient and achieve all things faster.

In nature, there is no good or bad, better or worse. The wind may blow or not. The flowering branch grows long or short. Do not judge or prefer. Ask only, "Can I get this wholesale?"

To Find the Buddha, look within. Deep inside you are ten thousand flowers. Each flower blossoms ten thousand times. Each blossom has ten thousand petals. You might want to see a specialist.

Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated?

Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkes.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 28 Feb 04 - 10:34 PM

Right CarolC. It's not even on the radar screen. Except among liberal intellectuals, which is what the subject of this thread is clearly about. Not about people who are eating Freedom Fries or action movies exploiting 9/11,or popular culture generally. No, I don't expect to see a Zionist villian in a theatre near me this or next month. Maybe being raked over the coals has disposed you to want to miss the obvious, but the subject is still a trend among liberal intellectuals, not Everybody. You seem annoyed by the idea that I've heard other people than you criticising Israel. Sorry I think I have, I'm probably mistaken. I live in the Ohio River Valley, and now that I think of it when I thought they said "Zionist" they were probably talking about their "sinuses", which is a common complaint. So, my mistake. Never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 01:06 AM

I guess I'm over my head in this discussion. I don't hang out with any "liberal intellectuals" so I don't know what kinds of things they talk about. My mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 10:43 AM

When people do stupid stuff they will try to rationalize it with some verse or story from their respective religions.

But stupid stuff usually comes to taking other folks stuff. This ain't sanctioned by any major religon that I am aware of but it continues.

Follow the bucks!

And give Faith and religion danged break...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 11:41 AM

Sorry for the sermonette. I know this isn't the place for it.{

Sure it is (the place for it, that is). There's no restriction "below the line". You might have to put up with irrationally angry responses to it, but this is the place for it.

Liberalism and anti-religious rationalism are the majority here but that's more by default than design. Most "communities" become a bit incestuous in their thinking and this place is no exception -- but just because you will be despised for your POV doesn't mean that you cannot express it here.

Might even be a breath of fresh air (as your presence has been) to have someone so polite AND knowledgeble AND possessing of a different POV than the majority here.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 01:21 PM

Kendall: get a hearing aid! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 01:52 PM

I saw an action movie recently that was made not too long after 9/11. The bad guys in the movie were a French man and a bunch of Muslims and Arabs. Most of the bad guys in movies these days are Arabs, Muslims, and the Russian Mafia. So in popular culture, Israel isn't even on the radar screen for criticsm or bad guy status.

That's because we know who owns Hollywood and controls the media.

Not everyone is as rich as Mel Gibson and can afford to bypass the owners and controllers to tell the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 02:55 PM

"That's because we know who owns Hollywood and controls the media."

Maybe your half of we knows, but this half doesn't. Who?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 03:54 PM

Brucie, it's an international conspiracy of Jewish bankers and communists. At least that's what they used to say back in the 1930s.

Why would Jewish bankers team up with Communists? No one seemed able to answer that one.

Strick, I for one enjoyed the sermonette. Interesting stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 04:22 PM

Thank you, Nerd. I'm a little slow at times.

So, let me see if I understand you, GUEST. You don't like Jews because they are part of a conspiracy to do what? Go to synagogues? So if I read you correctly, you don't like Israel because you don't like Jewish people? So, in short, you are a racist. Well, I'm not.

Geh cocken offen yom, then have a nice day.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 05:08 PM

Guest, 29 Feb 04 - 01:52 PM, if what you're after is to spread hate, please don't use my words to help you do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 07:01 PM

I for one throughly enjoyed "ZEN JUDAISM".

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 07:33 PM

Zen Judaism is bullshit. There's even less of those knuckleheads then there are Jews for Jesus.

Kendall, George Will is so far in right field that you can't hear him? Maybe you are too far in left field.

The truth is amongst the Jewish community, of which I truly am an active member,is that there is a growing undertone of anti-semitism on college campuses. I think that is related to this article.

Please do not compare George Will's conservative approach to the likes of Rush Limbough or Sean Hannity. You can say he is wrong and not know what he is talking about, I believe he does. MichaelR may laugb that he is not repsected as a journalist, but no one here or anywhere reads anything by MichaelR.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 07:35 PM

"The Buddha taught that one should practice loving kindness to all sentient beings. Still, would it kill you to find a nice sentient being who happens to be Jewish?"

Gee, and I thought it was just for comic relief, like the "ZEN BUBBA" thing that's been circulating.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 07:48 PM

If you say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 08:26 PM

"Drink tea and nourish life. With the first sip, joy. With the second,
satisfaction. With the third, Danish."

Well I could be wrong, but my study of Zen or Buddhism never once turned up a reference to Danish.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,freda
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 08:29 PM

yes, there is a growing tide of antisemitism, particularly since the war in Iraq.

but that antisemitism seems spread through a lot of communities, left and right.

to suggest that criticism of the current government in israel is antisemitism, is a generalised attack on the right to political comment. it projects negative motives on political opponents.

it implies, you can only comment legitimately where you agree with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 10:21 PM

The shift though has been from the right to the left.

Now it's the downtrodden Palestinians who the liberal left has aligned with. More and more Jews who did align with the left now, like me, tend to sit on the fence in a moderate approach to it all.

The common sense approach is that neither an extreme right or extreme left stance will get you anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 29 Feb 04 - 11:43 PM

Sure, I admit to knowing some liberal intellectuals CarolC. Quite a few more if you use the term "intellectuals" very loosely. I know it's uncomfortable to have one's views vaguely associated with a trend, but get over it. Or don't, and deny that you've ever noticed any such thing as a liberal, or a liberal intellectual. Oh, you already did, okay. I think I've heard of it, though. There's where we disagree, apparently.

I've heard all kinds of things. I've heard people say they wouldn't watch Seinfeld because it was Jewish propaganda. I've heard people ask if Rosh Hashanah was the Jewish "Easter". (Yes, I said, it is, and Tupac Shakur is the Jewish St. Patrick.)

   As for Hollywood I think there's a lot of truth that Jewish people have made big contributions to it. One reason is that Jews were able to get into the business when nobody else saw the potential of it, and another is that Jews have had to have a portable sense of of culture, and could tell cultural stories, when other people couldn't see there were cultural stories to be told. (They just thought things were the way they were.) People can call it a conspiracy if they want, but I usually call it people being who they are, doing their work.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 12:10 AM

I'm not arguing with you Fred, or doubting that you've experienced what you say you have. I'm just saying that I'm not in a position to participate in this discussion based on my own experiences, since I have not had that experience myself. I live in rural Alabama. Care to guess how many "liberal intellectuals" there are in the trailer park (across from Fort Benning military reservation) where I live?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 12:13 AM

Can that be done on the fingers of one hand, or do I just use my elbow?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 12:16 AM

Oh, oh, oh, (raising hand). I know! I know! Two, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 12:28 AM

I don't know, brucie. I haven't met any here myself.

Strick, JtS isn't a liberal. He's a conservative. And I'm not willing to put myself into any categories, since I find that my views about things tend to be all over the spectrum. Sorry to disappoint ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: bazza
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 03:25 AM

As soon as its mentioned that the Jews run Hollywood the media and banking etc somebody comes up with the racist card,the fact is that they do.They are a vey clever race and have a natuaral apptitude for making money caused I think by christian belief that forbade usary and the Jews filled the gap also the Rabbi,s married thus passing on there knowledge to there children etc where the Christians kept the flock in ignorance and only a few priest had any education.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 09:26 AM

Even if what you say is true, Carol, he's a Canadian Conservative which puts him two shades to the left of me and John Hardly has called ME a liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:22 AM

bazza: It's genetic I suppose? How foolish. SSDD.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:33 AM

Hey out there. Someone else want to deal with this shithead? I'm not going to be able to handle it with my normal cool and calm.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:35 AM

Conservatives have been far more pro Jewish and pro Isreal in the USA than the left in the last few years.    If you don't believe George Will- how about Ed Koch.   In the current issue of Hadassah magazine Ed Koch (former mayor of New York and strong democratic liberal) has an article on why he is supporting George Bush for president.   He has also appeared on numerouse shows (Imus, Oreilly) to state the same thing.

Koch is a life long democrat.   He says that he disagrees with Bush on just about everything except Israel. He things George Bush has done more to support Jews than any other president, and far more than any other democratic candidate still in the race.   Therefore, he is overlooking all the other issues and supporting Bush.

Koch is a very respected political figure and being Jewish- very aware of the issues.   I think his endorsment is a very strong statement on how conservatives are more supportive of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:39 AM

Just because Hardly's been calling you names doesn't make it right for you to be calling JtS names, too.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Strick
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:47 AM

Forgive me brucie. I know Carol's husband from another life and I was quoting him in my reference to Conservative Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:58 AM

I disagree that supporting the current government of Israel amounts to being "pro-Israel" while not supporting the current government of Israel amounts to being "anti-Israel". That makes just as much sense as saying that to be against the Bush administration amounts to being "anti-US". And to say that you support Jews by supporting the current government in Israel is an impossiblity, since a significant percentage of Jews don't support the current government in Israel.

I support Jews and I support Israel. But I support the Israel that was envisioned by Yitzhak Rabin, not the Israel that is envisioned by Ariel Sharon.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 12:15 PM

Carol C.

Jews support Israel no matter who is in charge, because the loyalty is to Israel, not to the man. Israel is a democracy and elected Sharon. Someone may not agree with all of his politics, but I can tell you for a fact that Jews overall will support Israel no matter who is in charge.

I am sure that you come into contact with just as many Jews everyday from your perch overlooking the rural Alabama trailer court landscape as you do liberal intellectuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 12:34 PM

Jews support Israel no matter who is in charge, because the loyalty is to Israel, not to the man. Israel is a democracy and elected Sharon. Someone may not agree with all of his politics, but I can tell you for a fact that Jews overall will support Israel no matter who is in charge.

I dont' disagree with this. My point is that to say that not supporting the current government of Israel amounts to not supporting Israel is a red herring and a non-sequiter.

I am sure that you come into contact with just as many Jews everyday from your perch overlooking the rural Alabama trailer court landscape as you do liberal intellectuals.

You're probably right. But I'm not in a perch overlooking the trailer court. I'm smack dab right in the middle of it the trailer court.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 01:48 PM

The shithead remark was for bazza

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 03:30 PM

Seems to me what bazza is doing is promoting a stereotype. But it also seem to me that the whole premise of this thread is the promotion of a stereotype. Peraonally, I don't have much use for stereotypes.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 04:07 PM

I'm sure that you don't Carol C. I have to try to not picture you brushing only one tooth in the morning.

Jews do not eat red herring. Pickled herring, yes. You have to understand the people before you can make comments about what they might think.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 04:47 PM

I have use for stereotypes: Sanyo, JVC, Sony, GE, Panasonic, Hitachi, like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 05:39 PM

I'm sure that you don't Carol C. I have to try to not picture you brushing only one tooth in the morning.

As it happens, there are quite a few people in this trailer park who are soldiers stationed at Fort Benning. Do you have difficulty picturing them with a full set of teeth?

You have to understand the people before you can make comments about what they might think.

I don't disagree with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 05:55 PM

Here's what one Israeli Jew has to say about this subject:

Manufacturing Anti-Semites by URI AVNERY

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: axman664
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 06:12 PM

"Yes, the right wing currently has an unholy alliance with Zionists, because in Christian fundamentalist belief Israel must be in Jewish hands for the prophecy of Revelation to be fulfilled."--Nerd

I'm not interested in contesting the above point; I feel that it should be mentioned that there are other reasons why conservatives are tending to ally themselves with Zionists. From what I observe (and I am no political scientist), many conservatives agree that the best way to ensure the security of our democracy is to democratize as much of the world as possible. This is undoubtedly one of the primary motivators for invading Iraq. And certainly if we wish to democratize the Middle East, we must support existing democracies, like that of Israel's, Pakistan's, India's, and now Afghanistan.

A sect of conservatives are called neoconservatives, or "neocons", and I think that many of these neocons are Jewish. Cf: Paul Wolfowitz. So to say that the right wing is anti-semitic is a bit blankety, don't you think?

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 06:52 PM

Ha! CarolC, that was pretty funny, I'm sorry to have not got your original sense. I'm a little dumb. I live in a hipster-doofus village that supports a few "alternative" newspapers and a major one that everyone says is left-leaning. But realistically, I bet you could find a few liberal intellectuals there too, even some of the soldiers. It's a good point that criticizing Sharon isn't anti-Israel. I think I've said what I can say--I'm not quite sure that the good things in the U.S. democracy weren't paid for with some of the bad things. It's hard for me to think I know if it could have survived and achieved good without the evil. I just don't know. And I'm not Jewish.
I'm about out of my depth here. But I do have this to say. I've met people who believe the Jewish conspiracy stuff, and even one who maintained the holocaust was a hoax (and she liked Dan Fogelberg). Well, I wasn't there, but if it's a hoax everyone might as well give up, because there's no point in resisting a conspiracy like that. Uncle. I also have some Jewish buddies who wish they could get some help from the big conspiracy sometimes, and not have to go to study in a dangerous place on just a shoestring with a few bucks saved from working like dogs at crappy jobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 07:04 PM

Hi Fred. I'm Carol's husband. I've lived near Fort Benning for nearly six yeas now and this

I bet you could find a few liberal intellectuals there too, even some of the soldiers.

is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. I've met lots of intelligent people here but nearly none who could be called intellectual.

A liberal intellectual army officer?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HA HA

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 08:50 PM

bazza: "...are a vey clever race" They are a culture not a race. As soon as you start talking about a race, you become a racist.

I didn't want to enter this discussion but now I feel compelled. I thought I agreed with Carole C. but now I know I'm in a league by myself. I don't think I'm anti-semetic or anti-Jewish but I have big problems with the current Israeli policies. I believe that liberals supported the state of Israel at one time but that the shift has occurred because of their treatment of their neighbors.

Unfortunately, the support the U.S. has given Israel has come at a very heavy price. Israel is perceived (by me at least) as an American puppet that is protecting American interests in the middle east. It is an unholy alliance that has created a situation where the Israelis have become oppressors. So I am anti-Israel but I am not anti-Jewish. Is this possible? Surely not all Jews are Israelis. I will even go so far as to say that I'm not even sure Israel has a right to exist as a material state. Zionism is as dangerous as any other extreme nationalism, if not more so.

So there you go. I'm standing here with my chin out.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 04 - 09:42 PM

Meanwhile, Arafat is getting his peepee slapped for having $300 million dollars that belong to ??????

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 01:16 AM

As if the world bank has any moral authority!

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 02:39 AM

I understand where dianavan and others who can't abide Israel are coming from. I agree too that what is at issue is the global perception of the Palestinian problem (although "treatment of their neighbors" is a vague and misleading phrase; presumably it's not Syria you're concerned about...) The perception that Israel is cruel to the Palestinians is exactly what is causing the left to waver in its support for Israel.

But it's a perception. The Palestinians are caught in the middle of a web of powerful interests, most of them Arab, who wish to keep them oppressed. There is little Israel can do about it.

I'll outline just a bit Israel's perspective on the matter. Although I'm not a big Zionist, I've heard many of the Zionist arguments from friends and family.

1) Israel began by simply obeying the terms of the partition created by Great Britain when Palestine was ceded; one state for Jews, one for Arabs. Many of the Arabs who lived in Israel tried to go to Jordan, but Jordan kicked them out again. Israel did not feel it had responsibility for these people anymore, so they became refugees. Remember, there are Arab citizens of Israel who never left, and are not refugees today but citizens with full rights. So the "Palestinians" who are made Israel's problem could be seen as an Arab responsibility, too.

2) Israel originally observed its original borders, but was repeatedly attacked by Arab neighbors and won some of their territory in the ensuing wars. Now those countries whine and whine about Israel having taken their land. They shouldn't have attacked Israel in the first place. People who criticize Israel from the US (or Canada) should remember that Israel has as much right to the west bank as we have to most of our lands; we weren't attacked before we seized them. Europeans who criticize Israel should remember that their own rapacious greed created the colonial morass out of which the Palestinian issue emerged. Judge not...

3) "created a situation where the Israelis have become oppressors." Surely you mean the Israeli government here. Remember that many citizens of Israel do not support the policies you vaguely allude to.

In a broader sense, what can Israel do? They have repeatedly tried to negotiate with Arafat, and Rabin essentially offered him everything he asked for; he STILL would not agree to any amicable arrangement. Arafat is the problem, not the Israeli government in general--although this Israeli government is awful.   Israel bounces from progressive to reactionary governments, and nobody can make any headway with Arafat. That alone should tell you who the problem is.

Here's the reason: Arafat's power is entirely based on the Palestinians being an oppressed minority. As soon as they negotiate and come up with a solution, he will be the scapegoat of the folks who want the whole of Israel to be an Arab country. He would be like Michael Collins was in Ireland: a patsy sent to negotiate because any solution would be seen as a failure. So he essentially refuses to negotiate in good faith. In the meantime he's become a multi-millionaire while he supposedly represents starving homeless refugees.

4) Arab governments the world over love to lament the plight of the Palestinians. Funny how they won't do a damn thing to help them, though. Arguably, the refugees are Jordan's mess as much as Israel's, but Jordan won't help. Other Arab countries also weep and wail about the cruel Israelis. But give Palestinians a place to live in THEIR countries? No way! That would take the heat off Israel, which is the last thing they want.

The Arab nations have achieved a massive PR coup in convincing the world that the Palestinian situation is Israel's fault. They have done it by keeping the Palestinians in poverty. The Palestinian situation was caused by a vague British mandate, an indifferent and callous Jordanian King, a series of wars uniformly started by Arabs, and an intransigent Palestinian authority. It was helped along by a group of Arab governments who want to use the Palestinians as pawns in their long war against Israel. Israel has been in a no-win situation with them from the beginning.

Remember the US's response to being attacked on 9-11. We attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq, killng many hundreds of people. While you and I may not agree with these actions, we generally don't say "I hate the US because of this, and I question its right to exist." When Israel kills four Palestinians after a suicide bombing, this is precisely the response they face from an increasingly hostile world.

Look, I too would prefer a world where states did not have religions. But the world Israel is in DOES have state religions, and in those countries religious minorities always suffer discrimination. If there can be hundreds of Muslim and Christian countries, why is one Jewish state so much to ask? And Israel is essentially no different from Bangladesh or Pakistan, Zaire or Zimbabwe, Bolivia or Peru: a relatively artificial creation of a departing colonial power. It has as much and as little right to exist as just about every country in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and South America. Which is to say: every legal right that any authority in the world recognizes.

Axeman664,

Yes, of course it was too broad to suggest that "the right" as a blanket category, is anti-semitic, just as it is too broad to do that to "the left." That was not what I started out trying to say, but I DID sound that way. Sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 07:31 AM

Very good post, Nerd

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:24 AM

As usual, Nerd.

Hello Jack The Sailor. I'm always glad to get a laugh, but I'm afraid I was in earnest. I'll take it, though, I'm not too proud. I have a Jewish friend in Alabama who believes in the Shroud of Turin--perhaps I'm disposed to expect the unexpected?

Not that I take the media and banking comments seriously, but the interesting thing it does point up is the failure of American Christians to make or accept good movies which embody instead of merely illustrate their values, in relation to a recognizable vision of contemporary life. Before Mel Gibson's current thing, there was some talk about a growing Christian movie industry, which was trying to move beyond the apocalypse sort of thing. The stories tend to come from revelations, or else it's robes and sandals and all that. They don't seem to know what else to do. There are plenty of exceptions, but the people I would think of as really great Christian storytellers (Scorcese, that guy who did The Mission and Black Robe, lots of stuff, many serious people) are not much embraced by any semblance of a Christian community. There's always this Sunday-School illustration mentality that proscribes against the work of grown-up artists. Christians don't seem to recognize themselves, or seem to know what their values are supposed to be, beyond not liking naughty words and boobies. I think if the Christian community could embrace their own voices, quit twisting in the wind, and um, well, quit posing as "Christians" for everyone to notice them, they'd soon see they've only been conspiring against themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:41 AM

Many of your points, Nerd, are factually incorrect. This one, for instance:

They have repeatedly tried to negotiate with Arafat, and Rabin essentially offered him everything he asked for; he STILL would not agree to any amicable arrangement.

Arafat signed the agreement with Rabin, and he and the PLO were living up to their part of the agreement. It was Israel (under Netanyahu, after Rabin was murdered) who pulled out of that agreement. This is even acknowleged by many Israelis. Had Israel complied with the Oslo agreement instead of reneging on it, the second intifada would probably never have been started. The Israeli government most certainly is responsible for the plight of the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 11:42 AM

But, 'for instance' is not proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 12:32 PM

Not proof of what? Shall I provide links to quotes from prominent members of the Israeli government, past and present?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 01:12 PM

No thankyou.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: bazza
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 01:24 PM

I,m sorry if my comment caused upset,I thought my question would bring some replys saying the Jews are not running the film industry,banking etc and would come up with something to enlighten me,
these questiones are just curiosity no more,I have two Jewish first cousins and a close friend ,I apologize,Bazza.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 01:33 PM

We disagree, CarolC. Obviously, more prominent members of the Israeli government are on my side of this disagreement than yours, and more prominent Palestinians on your side than mine. This alone does not prove anything, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 02:21 PM

CarolC, I see where I went wrong in my first post above. I typed Rabin when I meant Ehud Barak; just a slip of the fingers! I was referrng to the 2000 Camp David meetings, where Barak offered so much he shocked the Israeli public and the US government, going far beyond the concessions offered in Oslo. As you know, Arafat rejected him out of hand.

As you also know, the Oslo accords signed by Rabin called for non-violence, which did not materialize. So Netanyahu did pull out, but if you break a contract and afterwards I send you an official letter terminating the contract on the grounds that you broke it, my official letter is not to blame for the dissolution of the contract. I'm not saying the Israeli government was blameless in some of the Oslo period violence, but the Palestinians violated Oslo at least as much as the Israelis. Which side officially pulled out of a non-functioning agreement is irrelevant.

As to the origins of the whole mess,

From palestinefacts.org

On November 29, 1947, the U.N. General Assembly by a two-thirds vote (33 to 13 with Britain and nine others abstaining) passed Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish community of Palestine jubilantly accepted partition despite the small size and strategic vulnerability of the proposed state. Not only were Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip not included, but also Jerusalem, most of the Galilee in the North and parts of the Negev desert in the South were excluded. The Arab national movement in Palestine, as well as all the Arab states, angrily rejected partition. They demanded the entire country for themselves and threatened to resist partition by force. Had they accepted the U.N. proposal in 1947, the independent Palestinian Arab state, covering an area much larger than the West Bank and Gaza, would have been created along with Israel. Instead, they launched a war to destroy the nascent Jewish state.

This was AFTER 77% of historical Palestine had already become (Trans)Jordan, which is itself a Palestinian Arab state. Just how is Israel supposed to be responsible for the supposed absence of a state for Palestinian Arabs? I must say I never understood this contention.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Backstage Manager(inactive)
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 03:03 PM

There was a very interesting article in Sunday's NY Times Magazine about anti-Semitism in France, much of it coming from the left, or from those supported by the left.

Yet today, when synagogues are firebombed, she complained, the left is silent because the anti-Jewish violence is perceived as coming from radical Muslims, whose cause the left has adopted as its own.

You can read the whole article here.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: pdq
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 03:06 PM

I try to stay away from politics, but here is something to think about. Former

New York City mayor Ed Koch has endorsed President George W. Bush for

for re-election. Koch is a lifetime Liberal, a Democrat and a practising Jew.

He is not alone in feeling that another eight years of Clintonesque foreign

policy, where the US reacted to each crisis rather than planning ahead, will

likely result in the destruction of the state of Israel.   Liberals usually support

forcing Israel to make greater concessions than are practical. Democrats are

giving mixed signals to the Muslim nations and the Republicans are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 04:09 PM

bazza, I apologize to you. I didn't see the humour. Please excuse me.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 05:36 PM

Nerd, Isreal never complied with it's obligation under Oslo. It was obliged to stop construction of settlements, and also to begin dismantling settlements. Not only did it not do that, it continued construction and even accelerated the rate of construction of settlements. The PLO did, in fact, comply with its obligation of non-violence. In the two year period after Oslo was signed, and before Rabin was murdered, there were no killings of Israelis by PLO terrorists. Two years.

The second intifada didn't begin until long after Israel had already violated the agreement. The second indifada started precisely because Israel wasn't honoring its obligations under Oslo.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 07:13 PM

Danged if there ain't more than a few folks that ain't ssing things the way this ol' hillbilly been seein' 'um...

Ahhhh, this "right for the US to exist" crap is just that. With the US's military might and nuclear arsonal, the only thing that can bring it down is its arrogance and short-sightedness.

As fir why Arab countries ain't too trilled to get in the middle of the Isreali/Palestinain situation one only needs to check out Isreal's nuclear capabilities, which are unbelievably formadible coonsidering it's size.

Ahhh, this ain't 'bout religion as much as it's about one group of folks stealing others folks stuff. BTW, the US is on the wrong side of this little greedy bad habit.

Ahhh, contrary to my feelings that Clinton was the best Republican that the Republicans have had in the last 50 years, I would point out the tireless efforts of his administration made trying to broker a deal between Isreal and the Palestinians and deserves cerdit for that. The current administration initially turned its back on the Middle East and when it blew up, did and continues to do very little.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:53 PM

"... If there can be hundreds of Muslim and Christian countries, why is one Jewish state so much to ask?"

I'm unsure if the question is serious or rhetorical, but the answer is...because having ANY country based on and run by a single religion in this world, where every country has residents of 'other' religions, is a bad idea. Adding one more does not solve anything.

There is, technically, a difference between an Arab state and an Islamic state, but making that distinction at the partition of Palestine in 1947 would not have made much difference, as the fights would have gone on anyway.

Of course the Palestinians didn't want a bunch of land suddenly given to Jews...and of course the Jews didn't like being attacked when they thought they were finally getting a place to live where they had some say-so about their status and control over BEING Jewish. And of course the other Arab states didn't like losing territory to this upstart state that they didn't want in the first place...and of course no one was willing to back down or give in when a couple thousand years of religious/cultural bickering were at stake! And of course the USA and other countries felt they had to help defend and support Israel because of various social, religious and political considerations! How could there NOT have been wars and frustration and wrangling and debate over borders and rights and blame for the whole mess?

There is one, and ONLY one reasonable¹ solution to the whole thing...no borders, no fences, no state with ANY religion having official status in the area. Since 3 different religions claim it as a "Holy Land", it should be administered is such a way as to allow them all access and equality. Will it happen? Of course it will not happen...you'd be hard put to find 27 people on either side in the area who would agree to TRY my idea...and even if they did, they would fight for another 50 years over the details of how to administer it. "But they outnumber us.." "But we should have an equal number of votes on the council"..."Well, we should have areas 'they' can't go..."..etc.

(1)note, I say 'reasonable'...there are a couple solutions which are not even easy to contemplate)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:29 PM

I'm curious to know what, in Koch's opinion, Bush has done or not done that has been beneficial (according to Koch's definition of "beneficial" in this situation) for Israel that Clinton did or did not do while he was in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:48 PM

Bill D - Sounds like a reasonable solution to me. Maybe it should be declared a world heritage site (maybe it already is) and possibly be governed by a council with equal representation from each religion. I really don't think that the people who live there want this to continue. There is no purpose to this on-going conflict (unless, of course, it is for U.S. military strategic location). I think the whole thing is fuelled (in more ways than one) by the U.S. govt.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:14 PM

Tom Clancy proposed something similar in one of his novels (Red Rabbit?). Then we could make the Vatican, Mecca, Qom, Canterbury, Salt Lake City, etc., World Heritage sites. Yep. I guess what's good enough for one is good enough for all.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:22 PM

brucie.."...we could make..." *grin*, oh, RIGHT!

dianavan...and would we allow people to LIVE in a heritage site? In equal numbers? Who would moderate disputes? Maybe we (whoever 'we' is..the UN?) ought to just PARTITION the area without asking permission of the battling factions, eh? That would be..ummm...interesting...

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:58 PM

Bill D.

Biggest problem I see with your idea is that virtually every Jewish prayer book would have to be re-written.

Jews won't give up Israel and the home of our religion, as promised to us by God. Moses didn't lead us to Saudi Arabia, you know.

dianavan, you obviously know nothing about the Jewish religion. No, we don't take off work for Hanukah.

Hey, for all you pseudo intellectual slobs, I started a pretty good thread. All this leftest bantering I believe supports what I said and know in the beginning. Jews are abondoning the left for the survival of Israel.

We take all of that money we have and put it behind the ones who support it. Long live the Jewish United Fund.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 11:36 PM

Golda M once made mention of Moses and his sense of direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 11:42 PM

So Martin, to what degree do you think this money and the Jewish United Fund, along with the migration of Jews to the Right, will effect the outcome of the upcoming elections? Would you say that the outcome is a foregone conclusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,einstein
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:08 AM

God is not a real estate agent.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:12 AM

He is a surreal estate agent.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:13 AM

Marty: you said, "dianavan, you obviously know nothing about the Jewish religion. No, we don't take off work for Hanukah."

What are you talking about? I said nothing about Hanukah!

You're right about one thing. I know very little about the Jewish religion. Thats why I ask questions. Did I suggest that Jews give up their homeland? No, I suggest that they SHARE it with two other major religions that consider it their holy land. Whats your solution? Continual conflict? Don't answer that, I already know the answer. By the way, your attitude does more harm to the common perception of Jews than anything anyone else might say.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 02:07 AM

Jews do not eat red herring. Pickled herring, yes. You have to understand the people before you can make comments about what they might think.

And some Jews eat falafel and flat bread, traditional Arabic foods:

Arabic Jews

(I wonder if Timna Brauer is a leftist.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:44 PM

BillD,

that's not a reasonable solution. It would make the Jews a tiny opressed minority in any state that would replace the current set-up. I think you know this.

Bobert, your theory of why the Arab countries would not "get in the middle" of the "Israeli-Palestinian" issue has two major flaws. One, we know by now that Israel could not use nuclear weapons against their neighboring Arab states because it would render much of Israel uninhabitable. Two, the Arab states did nothing to help the Palestinians, and indeed kept and in some cases forced the Palestinians out of trans-Jordan, Syria and other countries BEFORE Israel had any nuclear capability.

CarolC, most people simply do not agree with your interpretation of Oslo. You point out one obligation the Israelis did not meet and one obligation the Palestinians did meet. But there was much more to Oslo than this.

You make it sound like all the Palestinians have to do is not kill anyone and they're in compliance. In fact, there were many things that the Palestinian authority was supposed to do from the very outset of Oslo that they never did, for example, amending the Palestinian Covenant to stop it from calling for Israel's destruction. That's pretty basic, wouldn't you say? In fact, the Palestinians violated more basic tenets of Oslo than the Israelis did, according to both Jewish and Christian groups.

It may be that they refrained from murder for two whole years. (What prize do you suggest we give them?) What they did not do was refrain from calling for the elimination of Israel, while at the same time claiming hypocritically that they "recognized Israel's right to exist."

It's like saying "I recognize Jim's right to live, but he annoys me so I'll still call for his assassination!"

Israel did in fact cede territory and authority. They recognized the Palestinian Authority, released terrorist prisoners, granted amnesty to terrorists at large (we're talking about thousands of prisoners released and amnesty cases).

In some cases, you are right, settlements went on and even accelerated. But in light of the non-amendment of the Covenant, Israel did not see that they had to go out of their way to prevent settlements. So they met some obligations and not others, just like the Palestinians.

Then there's the question of what Oslo was meant to achieve. Faisal Husseini, the former PLO leader in Jerusalem and Palestinian Authority member, admitted that Oslo was:

"a Trojan Horse . . . just a temporary procedure . . . just a step towards something bigger: Palestine from the river to the sea," i.e., from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, eradicating Israel. According to Husseini, Oslo was a method of "ambushing the Israelis and cheating them."

They succeeded, because now more people (like you) are convinced that Israel is to blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:03 PM

Yes. Oslo was flawed. There was no endgame from the standpoint of the Israelis. The Palestinians knew what they wanted, and they put their expectations right out there on the table. But Israel has never given any indication of what its endgame is. They have never acknoweleged the Palestinian's right to exist. Not only that, but the standard line that Israel has been using about the Palestinians is that not only do they not have a right to exist, but that they never even existed in the first place.

It may be that they refrained from murder for two whole years. (What prize do you suggest we give them?)

Israel could have stopped building settlements. And they should have. That would have been a sign to the Palestinians that Israel had negotiated in good faith.

What they did not do was refrain from calling for the elimination of Israel, while at the same time claiming hypocritically that they "recognized Israel's right to exist."

Why should ammend their covenant in that way if Israel refuses to recognise the Palestinian's right to exist? Israel won't even say that the Palestinians have a right to keep the land that they currently have.

Talk about hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 03:03 PM

Israel's endgame is what it has always been: Security and a homeland for Jews. I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 04:31 PM

No, that's a goal brucie. The endgame involves who gets to live where and who can own land and vote in the Knesset, or have a government of their own and be self-determining, and things like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 06:06 PM

Your revelations about what Jews and Arabs eat is not at all enlightening.

Hundres of miles from your trailer park are actually big supermarkets in Jewish neighborhoods that have aisles and aisles of Kosher food. Seeing that Israel is in the middle east why do you find it so necessary to point out to me that Jews in Israel eat traditional middle eastern foods. There aren't "Arab" foods, they are "middle eastern" foods. Falafal and couscous and the like are staples found in every Kosher restaurant and food store.

As for dianavan, I have worked with and known people like you who do not know squat about Jews and have asked me on Hanukah why I did not take the day off. I'm glad you ask questions. Keep asking. Oh by the way, I do not have horns or a big nose. Money, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 07:03 PM

I have horns and a big nose but, alas, no money.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 07:15 PM

Well danged, Nerd, I don't know what I'm gonna do with you?

But, ahhhh, remember the '67 June War, also called the 6 Day War? Well, the Arab countries discovered that when it comes to war the Isrealis are purdy danged good at it. You assertion that they wouldn't use one of their 200 or so nuclear weapons is not a given or elas, why the heck would they have them? Yeah given an unfortunate set of circumstances and.... BANG!

Same answer fir why the Arab world has not stuck its hand in the Palestinian *mousetrap*.... BANG!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 07:40 PM

Marty - You have never worked with anyone like me and stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about horns, a big nose or Hanukah. Do you think your God is impressed by your money?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 08:35 PM

"BillD,
that's not a reasonable solution. It would make the Jews a tiny opressed minority in any state that would replace the current set-up. I think you know this."

*sigh*..nobody reads what I say...*wry grin*...I said 'reasonable' because it IS reasonable to share if 3 religions claim it as a Holy Land. I went on to say it would never work because no one would agree to share...all for different reasons. Maybe that's what YOU mean by 'not reasonable', I just call it 'unworkable'.

Martin Gibson...it matters little where Moses led the folks to- there were already people there. They didn't find empty space. Just as the first settlers to the US didn't find it empty. Perhaps Moses and the wanderers were better organized and kept better records.
Whether or not one believes it was "promised" by someone who had the authority to make the "promise" is a matter of what version of history and theology you suscribe to!

All this is just speculation...the Jews DO feel it is historically part of their right to be there...so do the Arabs.... and the Christians have a strong claim to muck about there if THEIR claim about a Messiah is valid.

Since, except for Egypt and China and India...etc, this is where almost everything was happening in "those days", they all do have a reason to claim 'some' rights...but no one wants to discuss much except their own.

   Substitute a few terms and dates and religions, and this whole discussion could be about Ireland, or the Baltic nations, or Korea, or "your state's name here".
...everyone is more important than everyone else...just ask 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 09:01 PM

Seeing that Israel is in the middle east why do you find it so necessary to point out to me that Jews in Israel eat traditional middle eastern foods.

The traditional foods of the Middle East are, to a sizable extent, the traditional foods of Arabs. I'm guessing you didn't read the article, which was by a woman who is an Arabic Jew. I am guessing you'd rather not think about or acknowledge the fact that some Jews are Arabs and that some Arabs are Jews.

However, I didn't post that article to discuss food. I found that article while I was searching for something else. I thought of your statement that you have to know something about a people to know what they think. I think you know little to nothing about Arabs, and possibly even about the present day Jews whose ancestors didn't take a side trip through Europe on their way from the Middle East to wherever they are now.

Hundres of miles from your trailer park are actually big supermarkets in Jewish neighborhoods that have aisles and aisles of Kosher food.

Yes. One of those would be the GIANT supermarket in Kemp Mill (Wheaton), Maryland, where my family and I used to do our grocery shopping when I was growing up there. It's located just about in the middle of this map:

Kemp Mill (and surrounding area)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 09:10 PM

BTW Martin, I think you'd make a hell of a bad boxer. You seem to always lead with your chin.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 04:56 AM

Nerd - 03 Mar 04 - 12:44 PM

Very good post! Agree wholeheartedly.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 01:38 PM

Money, maybe.

Maybe, maybe not.

Your posts exude a certain shrill insecurity. My barking puupy analogy doesn't seem far off the mark for you. Calm down why don't ya. Kick off your shoes and relax. If you quit the 3rd grade insults you may even find a friend or two here.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 07:20 PM

BillD,

Now I get it. Sorry!

CarolC,

The Palestinians should have amended the covenant because it was part of the Oslo agreement to do so. You yourself were saying that the second intifadeh was called for because the Israelis did not comply. I pointed out that the Palestinians did not comply either. Then you say, well, why should the Palestinians comply if Israel won't do this, that and the other?

The Oslo agreement called for some things that were easy and could have been done in no time (like amending the Palestinian covenant) and some things that were hard and would take a long time (such as stopping thousands of people who have already begun to move house into new settlements). I think it was pretty reasonable for the Israelis to use the amendment of the covenant as a test case to see if Palestine would comply. Palestine could use, say, the amnesty, which logistically was very easy. Israel went ahead with the amnesty.

Israel has a perfectly good reason for not recognizing the right of the PLO to have their own state: the Palestinians already have their own state. It's called Jordan, and Israel recognizes Jordan. From Israel's point of view, that's what the British set aside Jordan for, and that's what Jordan was supposed to be. It's the Palestinians inside Jordan who shut the other Palestinians out. From the Israeli perspective, saying that the Palestinians deserve another state makes no sense.

Think of it this way: what if Israel makes an agreement with the PLO tomorrow and they set up a new Palestinian state called Bethlehem. The PLO kicks out or does not let in about half the currently stateless Palestinians. Those Palestinians then become terrorists, calling for yet another Palestinian State. Instead of attacking Bethlehem, they bomb Israeli civilians, saying their new state must come from what is left of Israel.

Fifty years later, people outside the region will have forgotten that there is already a Palestine--after all, it's called Bethlehem, not Palestine! They will angrily call for Israel to stop oppressing the poor Palestinians who have no homeland.

That's precisely what happened in 1948, with the "50 years later" part occurring today! When does it stop? When the Palestinian state(s) stretch from the river to the sea. That is, as you put it, the Palestinian endgame (as their own minister confirmed in the quote in my above post).

Despite this, Ehud Barak offered Arafat a proposal that would have not only recognized but established a Palestinian State, with everything Arafat had asked for. Arafat did not accept it, revealing that he, too, wants the Palestinians to remain stateless. What more can Isreal do?

Bobert,

I was talking about events that go back way before 1967 (which I don't actually remember, by the way, being too young at the time). It was 1948 when the Arab world turned their backs on the Palestinians. Israel had no nukes at the time.

Also, I'm not sure what you think the Israelis would do. If Jordan, Syria, and other countries offered Palestinians a place to settle, the Israelis would welcome it. The Arab nations don't do it because their real goal is to weaken Israel by whatever means they can, and keeping the Palestinians where they are meets that goal.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 07:26 PM

The figure of 200 nukes in Israel's arsenal sounds very high. Where is that figure from?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 09:19 PM

Carol C.

You always drool on your chin. You would make a fine boxer. You really know how to tap dance when you don't know what you are talking about. Isn't it hard for you to concentrate with that NASCAR race on so loud in the background.

dianavan:

I'm kind of glad I don't.

Jack the Sailor:

No, money really. Honestly hard earned money. Money that will be given to charities that support Israel. Your boat left without you, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,einstein
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 10:15 PM

mg, whenever you can't beat someone's argument, you make a personal attack instead.

pretty useless, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 10:44 PM

Looks to me like he's overcompensating for something, einstein.

nerd, I don't have time to answer your post properly right now. But you're wrong about Jordan. Jordan is Jordan. The land that the Palestinians are on now is the land they have been living on for centuries. They were granted that land in the same agreement that granted the Israelis what was supposed to be Israel. And in that agreement, Israel was given quite a bit less land than it now has. Israel took, by force, land that was not granted to it in any agreement.

The terms of Barak's offer were in no way conducive to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. And it wasn't in the least bit generous. Barak offered the Palestinians a scattering of tiny bantustans, surrounded by Israeli controlled land. It offered the Palestinians pretty much exactly what the Blacks in South Africa had under apartheid.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:30 AM

Marty -

You don't, what? Think?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 03:51 AM

CarolC,

Too bad you didn't have time to reply properly. Instead you did so hysterically. Apartheid? Please.

What the heck does "Jordan is Jordan" mean? Jordan came out of trans-Jordan, which was the eastern part of the British Mandate (barring the Golan Heights, which went to French Syria). There was no such historical country, just a river. Trans-Jordan meant the part of British Palestine that was located on the other side of the Jordan River. It makes up 77 percent of Palestine. The British set this state up as a puppet regime so they would have access to Arab oil (sound familiar?) and equipped and trained a deadly army of Arabs, which they stationed on the borders of the Jewish areas just months before the mandate was to end. In other words, they set the Jews up.

It was the League of Nations, after the British had admitted they'd fucked the whole thing up, who came up with a plan to create another Palestinian state, whittling away at the Jewish borders. This was in the area currently known as "the West Bank." After the 1948 war, Jordan annexed the West Bank, which once again had originally been given to the Jews by the British, then to the Palestinian Arabs by the league of nations.

You well know that Israel "took" the land in question back after having been attacked by several nations in a coordinated assault. Far from being a land belonging by rights to Palestinian Arabs, it was in the part of the land Britain earmarked for the Jewish state. And it was not being used for a state for the Palestinian refugees anyway, so Jordan was no more an observer of the League of Nations' wishes than Israel was.

It is true, of course, that some Palestinian Arabs have been living for generations in what is now Israel. (Indeed, some are citizens with full rights--Apartheid indeed!) When countries with State religions are established, displacements of this kind often occur. India's borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh at exactly the same time spring to mind. But Pakistan did not immediately become a power-hungry auto

cracy bent on keeping some Muslims out, which is the route Jordan took. I'm the first to admit that colonialism sucked for the colonized, and that Jews and Arabs all got Screwed by the colonial powers, but how can you blame the Jews (later the Israelis) for this?   And how can you blame them for taking land won in a war where they were the ones attacked? As I said, neither the US nor any European nation would have given back the land, and if the Arabs had won they certainly would not have given back Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 05:56 AM

Just a couple of points Nerd,

The area now known as the middle east was never colonised by any European power, formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, it was broken up under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, to be adminstered by the League of Nations. That particularly ineffectual talking shop then granted League of Nations Mandates to administer parts of that area to the United Kingdom and to France.

The proposed British solution, after two separate arab rebellions, both initiated by the arabs, based on complete downright lies formulated and disseminated by Yasser Arafat's Uncle was to grant 20% of the territory to the Jews and 80% to the arabs. The Jews were prepared to accept this, the Arabs under the guidance of Arafat's uncle were not. Some moderates on the Arab side saw the way this was going and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was created. Under the rules of the British proposal the Jews could only have their 20%, they were specifically forbidden from settling in Arab areas, the Arabs on the other hand were perfectly entitled to buy land and settle in the Jewish area.

After the League of Nations Mandate expired and the British withdrew, the United Nations again came up with a similar proposal, which was again accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. They fought a war which created the State of Israel, this state being immediately recognised by the United Nations. In 1951, the Israeli Parliament offered right of return to all Palestinian refugees, this was rejected, the Arab states wanted to see the State of Israel eliminated.

I agree with you that having been offered something, which you then reject and put the dispute to force of arms and lose. It is totally unreasonable, and unrealistic, to expect that you can then demand that the original offer still stands, and that you will now accept it on the premise that it only represents an interim position, until you are ready to strike again.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:11 AM

The proposed British solution, after two separate arab rebellions, both initiated by the arabs, based on complete downright lies formulated and disseminated by Yasser Arafat's Uncle

Yes. The uncle of Arafat who was installed in power by the British against the wishes of the majority of Arabs, after they (the British) freed him from prison.

nerd, I'm still working on it, but I think it's you who is being hysterical, simply by using words like 'hysterical'.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:18 AM

Just one point though, before I go hunting up, for about the gazillionth time, the historical facts that I keep having to post over and over here: there were no Jewish borders in the region until the war of 1948. And the Arabs were the majority in the area that is now Israel, by a sizable percentage, until the early 1900s, when migrations of large numbers of European Jews began to change the demographics of the region.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:40 AM

the Arabs were the majority in the area that is now Israel, by a sizable percentage, until the early 1900s, when migrations of large numbers of European Jews began to change the demographics of the region.

Your Alabama trailer park, along with every other inch of the U.S.A. is on land that was stolen from Native Americans. Are you planning to give any of it back any time soon?

If you go back in history, you'll find that the first Arabs arrived in what is now Israel, as conquerors who, in effect, stole the land, in the 7th century AD. Jews were living there, often in the majority, more than 3,000 years earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:47 AM

I have often been labeled a liberal which I guess puts me on the "left". I am not anti-semitic just as I am not anti-muslim or anti-anything to do with religion.

I would like for a peaceful solution to be found to this situation which I don't think either side is willing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 12:30 PM

Here you go, nerd:

This is from the website maintained by Jews for Justice in the Middle East:

The Origin of the Palesine-Israel conflict

As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational "terrorists" who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this original injustice.

This paper outlines the history of Palestine to show how this process occurred and what a moral solution to the region's problems should consist of. If you care about the people of the Middle East, Jewish and Arab, you owe it to yourself to read this account of the other side of the historical record.

Introduction

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs' inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).
The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.
One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930's and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.
But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic "land without people for a people without land" was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see.

Early History of the Region

The British Mandate Period 1920 -1948

Ghandi on the Palestine conflict - 1938

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.

Statehood and Expulsion 1948 http://www.cactus48.com/statehood.html

The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Views of the Future

Jewish Criticism of Zionism

Conclusion 1 For Jewish Readers

Conclusion 2

This is no generous offer. It is a humiliating demand for surrender! (Jewish human rights organization, Gush Shalom, on "Barak's Generous Offer")

Your Alabama trailer park, along with every other inch of the U.S.A. is on land that was stolen from Native Americans. Are you planning to give any of it back any time soon?

I abhor what was done to the indegenous people of the Americas by the Europeans. As it happens, if native peoples came to where I live and said they wanted their land back, it wouldn't really be any skin off my nose, since I don't own any land, and since it wouldn't be too much trouble to move my little "wee hoose" on wheels to another location. Or, if they took ownership of this trailer park, I could just continue to rent it, and give them my rent payments.

However, I'm not calling for any Jews to be removed from where they are except for the ones in the settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. What I am calling for (beyond the removal of the settlements) is for the government of Israel to STOP the continuing removal of Palestinians from the land they now occupy, and for the government of Israel to END THE OCCUPATION of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and to leave the Palestinians alone while they go about the business of setting up their independent state.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 12:36 PM

I can't get the Statehood and Expulsion link to work in this thread, so here's what's in that link:

Statehood and Expulsion 1948

What was the Arab reaction to the announcement of the creation of the state of Israel?

"The armies of the Arab states entered the war immediately after the State of Israel was founded in May. Fighting continued, almost all of it within the territory assigned to the Palestinian state...About 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled in the 1948 conflict." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the part of Palestine assigned to a Jewish state in mortal danger from the Arab armies?

"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts...[Jordan's King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements...Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off "the overwhelming hordes' of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified." "Our Roots Are Still Alive," by the Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

Ethnic cleansing of the Arab population of Palestine

"Joseph Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund...On December 19, 1940, he wrote: 'It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country...The Zionist enterprise so far...has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with 'land buying' - but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe'...There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

Ethnic cleansing - continued

"Following the outbreak of 1936, no mainstream (Zionist) leader was able to conceive of future coexistence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples - achievable only by transfer and expulsion. Publicly they all continued to speak of coexistence and to attribute the violence to a small minority of zealots and agitators. But this was merely a public pose..Ben Gurion summed up: 'With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it,'" Israel historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims."

Ethnic cleansing - continued

"Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the Jewish state. He hoped to see them flee. He said as much to his colleagues and aides in meetings in August, September and October [1948]. But no [general] expulsion policy was ever enunciated and Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals 'understand' what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the 'great expeller' and he did not want the Israeli government to be implicated in a morally questionable policy...But while there was no 'expulsion policy', the July and October [1948] offensives were characterized by far more expulsions and, indeed, brutality towards Arab civilians than the first half of the war." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949"

Didn't the Palestinians leave their homes voluntarily during the 1948 war?

"Israeli propaganda has largely relinquished the claim that the Palestinian exodus of 1948 was 'self-inspired'. Official circles implicitly concede that the Arab population fled as a result of Israeli action - whether directly, as in the case of Lydda and Ramleh, or indirectly, due to the panic that and similar actions (the Deir Yassin massacre) inspired in Arab population centers throughout Palestine. However, even though the historical record has been grudgingly set straight, the Israeli establishment still refused to accept moral or political responsibility for the refugee problem it- or its predecessors - actively created." Peretz Kidron, quoted in "Blaming the Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens.

Arab orders to evacuate non-existent

"The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put." Erskine Childers, British researcher, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Ethnic cleansing- continued

"That Ben-Gurion's ultimate aim was to evacuate as much of the Arab population as possible from the Jewish state can hardly be doubted, if only from the variety of means he employed to achieve his purpose...most decisively, the destruction of whole villages and the eviction of their inhabitants...even [if] they had not participated in the war and had stayed in Israel hoping to live in peace and equality, as promised in the Declaration of Independence." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel."

The deliberate destruction of Arab villages to prevent return of Palestinians

"During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.

After the fighting was over, why didn't the Palestinians return to their homes?

"The first UN General Assembly resolution--Number 194- affirming the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of return... [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal before the law with a Jewish Israeli." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

Is there any justification for this expropriation of land?

"The fact that the Arabs fled in terror, because of real fear of a repetition of the 1948 Zionist massacres, is no reason for denying them their homes, fields and livelihoods. Civilians caught in an area of military activity generally panic. But they have always been able to return to their homes when the danger subsides. Military conquest does not abolish private rights to property; nor does it entitle the victor to confiscate the homes, property and personal belongings of the noncombatant civilian population. The seizure of Arab property by the Israelis was an outrage." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

How about the negotiations after the 1948-1949 wars?

"[At Lausanne,] Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians were trying to save by negotiations what they had lost in the war--a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel, however... [preferred] tenuous armistice agreements to a definite peace that would involve territorial concessions and the repatriation of even a token number of refugees. The refusal to recognize the Palestinians' right to self-determination and statehood proved over the years to be the main source of the turbulence, violence, and bloodshed that came to pass." Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth Of Israel."

Israel admitted to UN but then reneged on the conditions under which it was admitted

"The [Lausanne] conference officially opened on 27 April 1949. On 12 May the [UN's] Palestine Conciliation ,Committee reaped its only success when it induced the parties to sign a joint protocol on the framework for a comprehensive peace. . Israel for the first time accepted the principle of repatriation [of the Arab refugees] and the internationalization of Jerusalem. . .[but] they did so as a mere exercise in public relations aimed at strengthening Israel's international image...Walter Eytan, the head of the Israeli delegation, [stated]..'My main purpose was to begin to undermine the protocol of 12 May, which we had signed only under duress of our struggle for admission to the U.N. Refusal to sign would...have immediately been reported to the Secretary-General and the various governments.'" Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, "The Making of the Arab-Israel Conflict, 1947-1951."

Israeli admission to the U.N.- continued

"The Preamble of this resolution of admission included a safeguarding clause as follows: 'Recalling its resolution of 29 November 1947 (on partition) and 11 December 1948 (on reparation and compensation), and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions, the General Assembly...decides to admit Israel into membership in the United Nations.'

"Here, it must be observed, is a condition and an undertaking to implement the resolutions mentioned. There was no question of such implementation being conditioned on the conclusion of peace on Israeli terms as the Israelis later claimed to justify their non-compliance." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

What was the fate of the Palestinians who had now become refugees?

"The winter of 1949, the first winter of exile for more than seven hundred fifty thousand Palestinians, was cold and hard...Families huddled in caves, abandoned huts, or makeshift tents...Many of the starving were only miles away from their own vegetable gardens and orchards in occupied Palestine - the new state of Israel...At the end of 1949 the United Nations finally acted. It set up the United Nations Relief and Works Administration (UNRWA) to take over sixty refugee camps from voluntary agencies. It managed to keep people alive, but only barely." "Our Roots Are Still Alive" by The Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:07 PM

Teribus is right: the colonial power occupying Palestine was in fact the Ottoman Empire, with the Brits acting as the victorious conquerors at the behest of the League of Nations after WWI, so my saying "British Palestine" may have been unwarranted shorthand. Nevertheless, the British were the power in the area for about thirty years, and established such things as a bureaucracy and currency and other marks of colonial rule. Whether you choose to call this colonialism or not is up to you; the Jews at the time certainly did. In any case, the Ottoman occupation was colonialism, albeit not strictly European.

CarolC, I could go to other websites and provide the "facts" from the opposite perspective. But it is neither useful nor within the purpose of even below-the-line mudcat to do this; instead I suggest visiting www.palestinefacts.org; if the blickymaker isn't working I won't post all the contents of the site here.

It is true, as I said, that some Arabs were bound to be displaced by the establishment of Israel. But the original plan created by the Brits provided for them by creating the state of TransJordan (now Jordan), which once again comprises 77 percent of Palestine. That Jordan was and is Palestine was never in dispute; the currency of transjordan, for example, was the same "Palestine mandate currency" that was used in what is now Israel. The British simply unilaterally gave Jordan independence in 1946, essentially ending its inclusion in the rest of Palestine. But it was Palestine, and it still is. If the Palestinians had gone into that part of Palestine, and the Jordanians had let them in, there would have been no "Palestinian refugee problem."

Then the UN came up with another plan, and if the Palestinians had accepted that they would now have a state on the West Bank. Having rejected offer after offer from the Brits acting for the League of Nations, the League of Nations itself, the UN, and Israel, and having helped initiate several wars in the region, they STILL claim they are being prevented from establishing a state.

I actually agree with you, CarolC, that ultimately Israel should give up the West Bank and allow a Palestinian state there. I do NOT think they are somehow required to do it, because you and I have very different views of the past. But it would be both generous and logical to do so and it would prevent any kind of onerous apartheid system from coming into play in Israel. There obviously has to be a negotiated settlement to achieve this, and there has not been the proper combination of a progressive Israeli government and someone on the Palestinian side with both the power and the good faith to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. I suspect it will never happen until Arafat is dead, and maybe not for a long time after that. In the meantime, there is no use blaming a succession of quite different Israeli governments when the more obvious problem all along has been Arafat.

You're right, I was probably hysterical before. It's one of those weeks at work. Plus I was egged on by my ol' friend and sparring partner mg and his drool remark!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:12 PM

All we're missing here is "Paul's Epistle to the Romans."

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Frankham
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 04:41 PM

There are a lot of historical "facts" being displayed. The
idea that the Left is somehow anti-Semitic is laughable. The Leftr has never been able to agree on anything including who was involved
in Bolshevism.

This is true with Jewish folks as well. There's an old saying,
whenever you have two Jews in the same room, there are twelve
different opinions. I respect the willingness of Jews to analyze
and argue different positions. I think that this is healthy
and there are no monolithic Jews that represent how they think.
No one Jew can claim to represent his country or administration
policies as there is no American that can claim to be more
American than any other citizen.

George Wills is an enemy poser. He lumps all Lefties into one
category.

Here's what I think is going on. There is a Jewish reaction and
a Palestinian reaction and each can claim a litany of historical
facts to support their adversarial positions. This doesn't help
solve their problems.

In Israel, Palestinians are dehumanized. Amoung Palestinians,
Israelis are dehumanized. This solves nothing.

The solution is for each side to stop reacting and become proactive
in solving the problems by listening carefully to one another. A real attempt must be made to understand fully the contentions made by each
side. This has not been done. It's as if each entrenched side
has purposely put on ear plugs to the opposite point of view.

Name-calling and scapegoating by saying that all Lefties or Righties
are anti-Semitic just muddies the waters. And it's not true.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 05:27 PM

Carol C.

Did anyone tell you that you spend way too much time on your computer, on this forum, posting the most unreadable, unfactual crap I have ever read, or better yet, ignore?

Good God, do you work? Have a family? Have any other kind of life but just banging out crap you find on the Internet to a relatively small readership? Do you ever get influenced by real life experience?

Frank, a good post, but I have been in a room with hundreds of Jews who all have the same opinion, think like a community, and feel that they are all family. So I don't know where that old saying comes from.

And I think George Will is quite a fine, literate, and thoughtful commentator.

As I have said before, I don't know why all the solutions that are presented here by the pseudo so very informed are not ever really enacted in the real world. It must be that everyone else just must be wrong, or worse yet, an enemy poser.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 06:58 PM

Martin... I'd be interested to know how you arrive at your figures on how much time I spend on the internet, and why you think it's any of your business. I'll make a deal with you. You stop making threads like this one, and I'll stop posting to them.

nerd, you tell me you think it's unproductive for you to read the information I've posted, and then you try to steer me to information that you want me to see. This seems a bit inconsistant, and difficult for me to understand.

As it happens, I'm very familiar with the site, www.palestinefacts.org, and have been for a couple of years. It's pretty obvious to me that it is an organization with a political agenda and not a human rights agenda. I would put it in the same category as this site: Palestine Remembered. If you accept what the Palestine Remembered site has to say about the Middle East, I'll consider accepting what your site has to say. But I don't think you'll even read what's in their site. I suspect you haven't even read what's in the links I posted earlier.

There is one thing from the Palestinefacts.org site that I'm willing to use in a quote. That's the part where the British appointed al Husseini (sp?) against the wishes of the Arabs. That part could only serve the purpose of making the British look bad, and considering all of the damage that's been done as a result of their meddling in the region, I don't have a particular problem with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 07:03 PM

BTW, nerd, you're wrong about the idea that Israel was waging defensive wars against the Arabs. There were all offensive wars (attacks by Israel against other countries) with the exception of '73. That one was Arabs taking back land that Israel took from them by force. The experts I'm using as my sources on this one are former Israeli prime ministers and high level military people.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 07:51 PM

CarolC,

I think it's amusing that you consider a pro-Palestinian website to have "A Human Rights Agenda" but a pro Israeli one to have "not a human rights agenda." What does this even mean? Cactus 48 is like the anti-palestinefacts. They both have a political agenda, nothing more and nothing less. You and I are having a political argument, not a "I support Human Rights and you don't" argument. I trust that both of us support Human Rights.

I did read what you posted, but it didn't contain any Israeli prime ministers admitting that Israel attacked anyone. I didn't say it was unproductive for me to read it but that posting long articles to mudcat is generally frownd upon by Joe and the Clones.

I also didn't say that Israel was fighting purely defensive wars; I only said they were attacked first. The US was attacked by Japan first, but that was one of the only really defensive actions we fought in World War II (not counting defending our allies, I mean). Most of the rest of the war against Japan was an offensive war, or a war for islands that neither side had real claim to. This does not change the fact that most people quite reasonably blame Japan and not the US, and most people have admitted US right to have bases on various of the islands, etc. So I'm not sure what the alleged former Prime Ministers of Israel are alleged to have said, since you managed to mention neither their identities nor their actual claims. I trust you'll respond with specifics anon...

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 08:32 PM

I'm a dumbass. I didn't mean that defending ourselves against Japan was one of the only defensive actions we fought, so let me rephrase that a third time. It was one of the only times we were defending our own territory from attack, as Israel was at the beginning of their various and sundry wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 09:43 PM

I think it's amusing that you consider a pro-Palestinian website to have "A Human Rights Agenda" but a pro Israeli one to have "not a human rights agenda." What does this even mean? Cactus 48 is like the anti-palestinefacts. They both have a political agenda, nothing more and nothing less. You and I are having a political argument, not a "I support Human Rights and you don't" argument.

This is incorrect. The Jewish human rights organizations are just that... human rights organizations. They are neither pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israel. They are neither anti-Palestinian nor anti-Israel. The Palestinian website I posted a link to in my second to last post is a pro-Palestinian website. It is not a human rights website. www.palistinefacts.org is a political website and not a human rights website. If you support human rights, getting your information from political websites will not serve your purpose.

I trust that both of us support Human Rights.

I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself. I am in support of human rights. For everybody

I did read what you posted, but it didn't contain any Israeli prime ministers admitting that Israel attacked anyone. I didn't say it was unproductive for me to read it but that posting long articles to mudcat is generally frownd upon by Joe and the Clones.

I said I couldn't get the link to work for that particular page, so I posted the contents. You apparantly didn't read the contents of the links, or you would have seen these quotes (btw, I said former Prime Ministers and high level military people):

"Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

""The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle.""

Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued

""I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."" Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights

""Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997"

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 10:17 PM

P.S. the tactics the current Israeli government is using on the Palestinians are pretty much exactly the same as the ones Israel used on the Syrians in the Golan Heights, as described by Moshe Dayan. So that makes it a violation of the human rights of Israeli Jews also, because these tactics are causing the deaths of many innocent Israeli Jews. And then of course there's the matter of imprisoning conscientious objectors instead of allowing them alternative service. That's also a violation of the human rights of Israeli Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:01 PM

Attention advocates of Israel!

Give it up. You cannot possibly argue a pto-Israel POV on Mudcat with CarolC. She will wear you down, just as she has worn down so many before you.

No matter what you know, she will find a contradictory web site to reference. She'll Chomsky and Finkelstein you until your brain is mush.

She has the stamina. Count up the posts in this thread. You'll see that plurality are from CarolC. Do the same on any other thread on the Middle East and you'll see the same thing.

Give it up. No one, not even the combined efforts of every advocate of Israel in the history of Mudcat, is a match for CarolC and her version of the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 12:02 AM

Yawn. Martin, all I can ever think to say to you anymore is ...dude.

   Nerd, incidental to this discussion, I like your style, including your embarrassing admissions, apologies, revisions, your claim to be a dumbass. It seems you have a decent perspective on being involved in a dispute.

Carolc I think your response about American lands sounds both flippantly pat, and desperately logical. It belittles the question of human rights for you to deny that the question means more to you than a material piece of rented land that you could somehow give back. Nobody can. Those people are dead. Everyone's just renting the land. There wouldn't be any trailer on wheels. Anyway, the question means more to me, and I have to try to figure how to properly understand in myself the evils that were and are part of the deal, if I hope for anything better. I guess you're above history, somewhere, looking down at Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 03:00 AM

If Israel isn't supposed to be a country, why is it there?

Why isn't there a Palestine?

Where is Arafat with the 300 million dollars?

Why did Martha not say, "And that's a good thing!" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 01:33 PM

I don't think I quite understand your point, Fred. Maybe you don't understand what I was saying. I was asked how I would feel if I had to give back the land on which I'm living to native peoples. Since I don't have any land, the question is not terribly relevent to me. I've only been living on this particular piece of land for a few months. I've never lived in any one place for more than about ten years, with the average being a little under five years. And my family has only been here in the US for a couple of generations, so I don't have much family history here. I don't know how else to answer a question about how I would feel about something other than to say that this is how I think I would feel.

Certainly, the wrongs that have been done to the Indians cannot be undone. But what if, for instance, as a remedy for this injustice, the land that is now the US were to be given back to native nations to govern, but that the people who are now here could remain. I don't think I would have a problem with this. In fact, I might even prefer it.

If you're asking how would I feel if things could be put back the way they were before the Europeans came, how can I say? How can anyone say? I probably wouldn't be here.

Anyway, the question means more to me, and I have to try to figure how to properly understand in myself the evils that were and are part of the deal, if I hope for anything better. I guess you're above history, somewhere, looking down at Israel.

I'm not looking down on anybody. The way I properly understand in myself the evils that were and are a part of the deal from the past, is to try to prevent, or at least speak up about, the evils that are being done to people now. In the present. I can't change the past, but I can work to correct the injustices of today. And so can you. The situation in Israel is ongoing. My tax dollars are being used to make it possible. That makes me complicit. It's my responsibility to speak up about it, and not be a "good German".

brucie, I don't have time to worry about Arafat's 300 million. I'm too busy worrying about the several billions of taxpayer dollars that the US Pentagon has misplaced and can't account for.

If the Palestinians aren't supposed to live on the land they currently occupy, why are they there?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 01:58 PM

Carol, what's a few billions. But a few billion here and a few billion there, pretty soon it'll add up to real money.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 02:13 PM

Certainly, the wrongs that have been done to the Indians cannot be undone. But what if, for instance, as a remedy for this injustice, the land that is now the US were to be given back to native nations to govern, but that the people who are now here could remain. I don't think I would have a problem with this. In fact, I might even prefer it.

In other words, you're saying that the large majority of the population should be under the control of a small minority. A system that is in direct opposition to any definition of democracy and human rights predicated on the notion of equality.

This latest missive of yours also contradicts your countless posts that all Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories must be evacuated. You reserve for yourself the right to remain on Native American land while denying a similar right to others.

You are a classic example of Phil Ochs' definition of a liberal. "Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it effects them personally."

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 05:45 PM

CarolC,

way to change the subject again! Arafat's 300 Million doesn't concern you, even though if he spent that on bettering the lot of the Palestinian refugees he could probably buy them enough land to live on. Even though he claims to be their leader while he bleeds them dry. Even thought he is the one theoretically negotiating with Israel--even though if the negotiations were successful he'd be worse off financially. Why can't you see it's a clear conflict of interest (and downright unseemly) for him to be so damn wealthy?

Also, I didn't see quotes from Israeli prime ministers saying what youclaimed. I saw Chomsky saying what you claimed, peppered with brief and doctored bits of quotes from Israelis. We all know Chomsky has no axe to grind, right?

The quotes you gave are clearly doctored. for example,

General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'

Clearly there was no threat of destruction, as Israel kicked everyone's asses. That does not mean Israel was not attacked. The rest is not a quote, until that vague bit at the end. In fact, there is no evidence that Weitzman said what the spin-doctor claims. When I see a quotation broken up by many ellipses, during which the author fills in his or her own spin, I don't trust the result.

For example, I could write:

CarolC doesn't care at all about the Palestinian situation; Arafat's behavior does not concern her because she's "too busy worrying about the several billions of taxpayer dollars that the US Pentagon has misplaced and can't account for." She does think that the Jews can all stay where they are, however: "I'm not calling for any Jews to be removed from where they are," she says.

Now in that passage the quotes are all accurate but in context they did not mean what I claimed they did. The only way you can be really sure is with what appears to be full, long quotations in full sentences, without paraphrasing by the so-called experts.

Begin's quote relates to Egypt but not Jordan or Syria. It still does not suggest Israel could have avoided war. Same for Rabin. And Dayan's quote basically states that the Syrians were so greedy for even useless land that they would shoot Israelis on bulldozers. Granted this doesn't make Israel look good, but don't both sides look equally bad? In fact, weren't the Syrians the ones who shot at unarmed bulldozer operators? So granted Dayan was a tough, coldhearted bastard, but Israel was STILL fired on first.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 06:42 PM

Carolc my point IS that you don't see my point. Which sounds like a smartass remark, but I'm afraid it's what I mean.
Maybe a better way to say it is that I don't have to factor my material situation or my German or my Cherokee ancestry to say that I do know how I feel--that I'm glad of some things despite the horror and hypocrisy that went into achieving them. I don't need to use a calculator or a ledger.
I don't object to criticism of Israel or think you ought to be a "good German" (which seems a slightly misplaced remark) and be silent but I think you may be unfairly comparing it's history to an abstract ideal of National Security in Neverland instead of to how anything of any value has ever actually been achieved in the world. Perhaps feeling that you "shouldn't" be critical of Israel makes you argue stridently, but in any case, it seems strident, and unweighed by comparison with everywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Frankham
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 06:54 PM

There is no information here that suggests that both sides
are not culpable. Who cares who fired on who for what reason?
If Israel decides to "kick ass", it will find the fire returned.
What good does that do? I don't think that quotes or elispses
mean too much anyway because the issue is that this problem is
not going to go away until there is a cessation on both sides
of violence and enemy posing. Each side has it's "justification"
for continuning the madness. Does any one really believe the wall will have any effect in ceasing hostilities? Does anyone really
believe the Bush Administration is up to helping to make peace
in the Middle East? They didn't even know the difference between
a Sunni and a Shi'ite.

Noam Chomsky has the right idea. The UN should step in and declare
that Israel have parity with the Palestinians in the running of
the state and allow for diversity of religious freedom. The state might be a socialist one but it needs to be shared between the
Jewish people and the Palestinians who lived there when it was being settled. Otherwise, we will be talking about this for years to
come and more bodies are strewn over the Middle East.

It's futile to declare that the suicide bombers are just crazy
people without an ideology or reason for their heinous acts.
As to Arafat, he does not represent the Palestinian people any
more. To blame him for the atrocities doesn't do anything.

The UN needs to be promoted by the US and Israel and not shunted
aside when nationalistic considerations are given so that the respective countries act unilaterally. The UN may not be perfect
but it's the only hope for the solution to this conflict.

The way Israel is going by way of Sharon will lead to a self-destructive conclusion. It will lead to less democracy and more repression. The Palestinians must be understood in terms of their needs and not ignored by Israel or the other Arab countries. Some
assistance must be given to Palestinians to alleviate their
poverty and reliance on hostile teachings from madrasas or other
rigid fundamentalism. Both Israel and Palestinians need to be
re-educated by learning how to build bridges. This is being
promoted by small groups now.

So it's futile to promote reasons why each side should continue
it's hostility and war. Information about how to build that
bridge is more important.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 11:50 PM

Ok. This is what I have to say to nerd, and Fred at this time. I'm a little cramped for time on the computer, so I can't answer with the care and depth that I would like, but it's the best I can do at this time.

Here it is:

I don't feel a need to blame Israel for anything. I have never started one of these threads. I do not start any discussions on this subject. But people keep using (over and over and over and over and over and over, ad nauseum) both here in the Mudcat as well as in the US generally, a lot of lies and distortions of history in order to justify the continuing subjugation, dehumanization, and oppression of a whole people. When I encounter this, I speak up about it. A perfect example of that sort of thing is this from nerd (please interpret my use of caps in my response as frustration, and not stridency):

way to change the subject again! Arafat's 300 Million doesn't concern you, even though if he spent that on bettering the lot of the Palestinian refugees he could probably buy them enough land to live on.

WHAT THE HELL GOOD WOULD IT DO FOR ARAFAT TO BUY THEM LAND IF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL IS JUST GOING TO KICK THEM OFF OF IT AND THEN BULLDOZE THEIR HOMES!!!?????????

You answer me that one nerd!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:56 AM

The following from the Jewish human rights organization, B'Tselem (click on "Siege Policy"), describes what, more than anything Arafat could do or has done, has brought the Palestinian economy to its knees:

Since September 2000, the IDF has erected an extensive network of checkpoints, road blocks, trenches and other obstacles - a virtual siege around every Palestinian community in the West Bank. Most West Bank roads are now reserved exclusively for Jewish travel.

Most checkpoints and physical obstacles do not prevent entry into Israel; they prevent travel between Palestinian cities and villages within the West Bank. They disrupt every aspect of Palestinian daily life. Children cannot get to schools, adults cannot reach jobs, and patients cannot get medical treatment. The restrictions on movement have contributed to a collapse of the Palestinian economy.

The checkpoints do not target only those who pose a security threat to Israel; they target everyone. In fact, those most harmed are people physically unable to bypass the obstacles: families with small children, pregnant women, the sick and the elderly.

When over two million people cannot travel even a few miles down the road, cannot conduct any aspect of their daily lives without encountering innumerable obstacles, such restrictions are no longer legitimate security measures - they are collective punishments.

Here are links to some other Jewish human rights and peace organizations.

Jewish Unity for a Just Peace

Gush Shalom

Refuser Solidarity Network

Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI)

Shalom Achshav

Jewish Voice for Peace http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/ (I can't get this link to work, but copy-pasting the URL has worked for me)

Jews Against the Occupation

Bat Shalom

B'Tselem

European Jews for a Just Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:56 AM

CarolC:

Please don't scream at me with bold capitals, three exclamation points and nine question marks. That's the internet equivalent of what we in Philly call a shit fit. And you know what they say, "if the shit fits, somebody's gonna end up wearin' it!"

I wasn't referring to buying land in Israel. The Palestinian refugees could, for example, buy land in Jordan, which is (have I mentioned this before?) a real nice Palestinian Arab state!

You talk of the "the continuing subjugation, dehumanization, and oppression of a whole people." This is wrong. Not all (or even most) Palestinian Arabs are refugees. They are Jordanian citizens and/or the citizens of many other countries, including Israel, Egypt, Syria and the US. What we have is a specific refugee problem, NOT a question of a "people with no homeland." It is part of the terrific PR job the PLO has accomplished that people like you think the refugees are "a whole people."

Once again, Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state occupying 77 percent of British Mandate Palestine. It is entirely a creation of the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab segments. Its name derives from the British designation transjordan, meaning "that part of Palestine on the East of the river Jordan."   It was the part of Palestine the Arabs got. It is the much bigger part, and the much better part, with all the oil and other natural resources. You never seem to respond to or even acknowledge this in your posts, and you perpetuate the myth that the Palestinian refugees in Israel are the whole of the Palestinian Arab community.   

You said before "Jordan is Jordan." I could equally well say "Israel is Israel." Neither makes any sense in this context. Both countries are just about equally old (Jordan a few years older), and both are in Palestine. Once there was Palestine, now there are two countries, one Arab, one Hebrew. Jordan is Arab Palestine. How many ways do we have to say it?

The Palestinian Arabs claim they have no homeland. What it comes down to is this: some of the Arabs did not want to move about fifty miles away to enter the country the Arabs got out of the deal. They did not accept the terms offered by the British or the UN. Furthermore, some of the Palestinians in Jordan wanted to keep them out. It's a tough situation but it's not Israel's fault.

Frank, indeed I agree with you about many things here. I was not using "kick ass" in an approving way, simply as a description of the outcome of the wars in question. I simply meant to say that it is obvious from the way the wars played out that Israel was not in danger in destruction, and that a General saying so is not the same thing as saying that the war was unjustified. They were attacked and WOULD have been destroyed if they had not fought back.

In much the same way, we are not in danger of destruction by the Canadian military, but if we offered no resistance they could still take over the US (if they wanted to , that is!) Therefore if they attacked us we would fight back. I daresay we might even kick ass (not that I would approve of such an action!) Luckily the Canadians are very polite neighbors.

The main problem with the UN on this issue is structural: there are many Arab countries, many more Muslim countries in Asia and Africa that vote with the Arab countries, and other historically anti-Jewish countries (for a time, the USSR) that have a ball making Israel defend its right to exist annually. These nations have found that by voting in a bloc they isolate Israel so that only US support keeps Israel afloat. I agree that in theory the UN should work out this problem, but they have failed to do so many times and I'm not sure it's realistic to think they can achieve it. I hope that they can.

As I've said, I am in favor of a two-state solution, with hostilities ending on both sides. I think the West Bank is more trouble than it's worth for Israel, and it would be fitting and logical to give it over to another Palestinian Arab state, or else to give it to Jordan with the understanding that the Palestinian Arabs currently stateless could become Jordanian citizens.

I also agree that Sharon's government is a big step backwards. I think there are younger people in both communities who are frustrated with Arafat and Sharon and the whole lot of Dinosaurs running both groups. Unfortunately, there are also young people in both countries who are religious fanatics and wish to kill everyone on the other side.

The only thing I don't agree with is that the Jews should give up or share sovereignty in Israel. I want to see it partitioned for the time being, not shared. The problem with a sharing scenario is that one group will inevitably become a minority, and that will likely lead to injustice again. Remember, though, that we are not talking about vast distances. For Palestinians to move from their ancestral spot to the west bank, while a disruption, is not really that big a move. I moved further than that for grad school.

I'm in favor of a world with no state religion and no religious intolerance. Sadly, that isn't the world we live in yet. It is the world we need to work toward, and solving this thorny problem would be a big step.

Fred, thanks for your kind comments. I too often come across as overly strident on Mudcat, so I'm making an effort to embrace my inner dumbass!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 03:29 AM

CarolC,

You're changing the subject again. Sure the roadblocks suck and need to go. But why is it relevant to Arafat being so damn rich and yet supposedly a dispossessed refugee who cares deeply for his people? You'd rather not contemplate this, so you bring up irrelevancies like the Pentagon budget and roadblocks in the West Bank. We can all agree on the roadblocks being a bad thing without it having the slightest bearing on the historical questions we've been discussing, or on the fact that the Palestinian refugees have by and large been screwed by other Palestinians, including Arafat, Hamas, and the entire country of Jordan.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Galbraith
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 10:19 AM

brucie, I don't have time to worry about Arafat's 300 million. I'm too busy worrying about the several billions of taxpayer dollars that the US Pentagon has misplaced and can't account for.

To get an idea of the proportion of Arafat's corruption and the difference that it's made to Palestinian society, look at the $300 million as a per capita expense of the Plaestinian people. It works out to approximately $100 per Palestinian man, woman and child that Arafat has stolen.

That same per capita expense in America would mean that George W. Bush had put more than $22 billion dollars of taxpayer money into his own bank account.

Now, add in the fact that per capita income for Americans is about 10 times that of Palestinians. Then, and only then, can you begin to get an idea of the magnitude of Arafat's corruption and the harm that he's done to his people in stealing directly from them and in keeping them on a path away from peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 11:03 AM

GUEST, Galbraith. Great analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 12:17 PM

I'll yell at you if I want to nerd. Don't tell me what to do.

When I say Palestinians, I am referring to the people who live in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. These people may be Muslim, and they may be Christian, and in some cases they may be Jewish. They mostly have Arabic ancestry. But in all cases, I'm talking about the people whose families have lived in and farmed those areas for hundreds of years. Your practice of constantly referring to Jordan is misleading, and shows your true intentions, which have nothing to do with making peace between two peoples. It looks to me like what you favor is the removal of the remaining Palestinians from their homes in the Occupied Territories. One of the reasons Jordan hasn't absorbed the refugees that currently live within its borders as they appear on maps today is because they just don't have the resources to absorb that many refugees, and because of unrest between the people from whom the Palestinians would take away jobs (if they could find any jobs). And if they were to have to absorb two million Palestinians from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, it would cause massive disruption of their own social fabric.

Once again, Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state occupying 77 percent of British Mandate Palestine. It is entirely a creation of the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab segments. Its name derives from the British designation transjordan, meaning "that part of Palestine on the East of the river Jordan."   It was the part of Palestine the Arabs got. It is the much bigger part, and the much better part, with all the oil and other natural resources. You never seem to respond to or even acknowledge this in your posts, and you perpetuate the myth that the Palestinian refugees in Israel are the whole of the Palestinian Arab community.

The Palestinians in Israel aren't all refugees. Many of them are living where they and their families have been living for centuries. The ones who are refugees are mostly ones who were chased off of land that had been granted to the Arabs by the British in the partition plan, and who were chased off of their land by the Israelis at the point of a gun in the period just before, during, and after 1948. That is, the ones who weren't outright massacrred.

Ok, Galbraith. Arafat is a bad man. He is a crook and he stole some money. Are you saying that these things justify the massive human rights abuses that Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians? Because if you are, you would be advocating collective punishment, and I'm sure Hitler would be proud of you for that. People keep using Arafat to justify Israel treating the Palestinians worse than they would treat their livestock.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... a Palestinian once said that Arafat would be long gone by now if Israel didn't make such a big issue about him. Arafat is exactly where the government of Israel wants him to be. Look how effective having him to use as a whipping boy has been to get people like you to ignore the horrible things the government if Israel is doing to the Palestinians while you complain about Arafat. Plus, having him remaain in power gives them an excuse to do whatever they want to the Palestinians. The government of Israel doesn't want him gone. He's too useful to them.

I suggest that if they want Arafat gone, they should end the occupation, and forget about him. He would quickly fade away into the mists of history if they would do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:42 PM

CarolC,

I didn't tell you what to do. I said "please." Where I come from that counts as a request.

However, you saying "don't tell me what to do" is, er, telling me what to do. See the difference?

If you agree that the Palestinians in Israel aren't all refugees, and that Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state, then how can you refer to the refugees as "a whole people?" You are being inconsistent.

You're also ignoring history again. In 1947, the UN's UNSCOP committee partitioned the remainder of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, AFTER Jordan was already granted to the Arabs. The Jews accepted this, and the Arabs immediately went to war. It was the Arabs who began the war, and they never denied it. The following is a quote from Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee's spokesman, to the UN Security Council on April 16, 1948. You will note that it's full sentences with no paraphrasing by me or anyone else:

"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight."

Israel had 140,000 armed forces in the 1948 war, their entire military-age population. Together, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq sent 670,000 troops, and the Palestinian Arabs still in Israel had 50,000. This was not a Jewish war of aggression!

You also forget that it was Jordan that annexed the West Bank after the 1948 war, not Israel. The land granted to the Arabs by the partition plan was largely absorbed into Jordan, where it did the Palestinian Arabs no good. Indeed, shortly thereafter, seeing the PLO as a rival that would surely take over Jordan, King Hussein expelled Arafat and his people.

The 1967 war, as you said, had the first shots fired by Israel at the Egyptians, but the Syrians and Jordanians attacked Israel. All three countries had been saying for months that they would attack and destroy Israel soon. The 1973 war, which pro-Palestinian argument junkies rarely mention, was a pure war of agression against Israel by the Arabs of ten countries (principally again Egypt, Jordan, Syria, but also Iraq, the Saudis and many others). If you want to play the "who was attacked more" game you will lose, unless you resort to yelling out distortons and lies.

Your saying "I'll yell if I want to," your telling Galbraith that Hitler would be proud, and many other of your actions here convince me that you're not interested in reasonable discussion of this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Galbraith
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:41 PM

Ok, Galbraith. Arafat is a bad man. He is a crook and he stole some money. Are you saying that these things justify the massive human rights abuses that Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians? Because if you are, you would be advocating collective punishment, and I'm sure Hitler would be proud of you for that. People keep using Arafat to justify Israel treating the Palestinians worse than they would treat their livestock.

CarolC put a lot of words into my mouth that have nothing to do with what I said.

My post dealt with one issue, and one issue only: Arafat's personal corruption and the proportionate effect of that corruption on his own people. CarolC then says that I used that corruption to justify human rights abuses on the part of Israel against the Palestinians.

THAT, CAROLC, IS UTTER NONSENSE AND YOU KNOW IT!

As any one who has read the post know, I did not even mention Israel. I dealt only with Arafat.

Then CarolC states that "Hitler would be proud" of me.

THAT, CAROLC, IS UTTERLY DESPICABLE AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!

I made a completely rational post about Arafat's corruption and for that CarolC infers that I'm a Nazi. Such techniques are the last resort of someone unprepared for civilized debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:56 PM

Seventh Inning Stretch

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:12 PM

I'm not in the least bit ashamed of myself, Galbraith. Are you advocating collective punishment or not? If you're not, then what I said in my last post doesn't apply to you, because I said: Are you saying that these things justify the massive human rights abuses that Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians? Because if you are, you would be advocating collective punishment, and I'm sure Hitler would be proud of you for that.

On the other hand, if you are advocating collective punishment, then what I said stands.

From nerd:

I didn't tell you what to do. I said "please." Where I come from that counts as a request.

However, you saying "don't tell me what to do" is, er, telling me what to do. See the difference?

Ok. I'll rephrase... I'll yell at you if I want to. Please don't tell me what to do.

If you agree that the Palestinians in Israel aren't all refugees, and that Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state, then how can you refer to the refugees as "a whole people?" You are being inconsistent.

I don't recall saying that I agree that Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state. Please show me where I have done this.

The rest of your points are going to have to wait until I have more time than I have right now for answering. Maybe tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:13 PM

Well, back after a few days to this. I see a "Guest" (not me, really Fred!) ripped Carol C. just perfectly about not being able to argue.

You know Carol C., I posted this thread originally just for you. I have enjoyed how you have wasted so much time and energy arguing and frantically trying to defend your stance against George Will's opinion. Millions have undgoutably read this column. Some may have bought into it, others may have not. Maybe others had their opinioned swayed or were enlightened by it.

You know, George Will writes many columns for some highly repsected newspapers. I have an idea that your opinions reached a small number of readers who have bothered to respond to this thread. I am sure that you can out debate anyone in your trailer park, especially after they have had their brains rattled by the Nascar roaring on their TV along with some Reba McIntyre music on their boombox.

Matter of fact, it kind of inspires me to look and post more articles like this when I see them. I need to keep you busy and keep your ideas off the streets.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:31 PM

Well, gol danged. We still arguing this one out? Didn't we have enuff of this with the several 200 plus threads last year? I mean, like this stuff ain't rocket surgery folks...

Ahhhh, the Palestians are screwed. Why? Out armed big time. Danged, Isreal ougtta just nuke 'um all and be done with it rather than kill 'em off one at a time. It would be be much more humane and you wouldn't have to worry about so many family members suffering to loss of brothers, dads, sisters, mom, uncles, etc... Then after the Geiger counters quit ticking in ahunner or two years, the Isrealis can just occupy it all... Like what's wrong with that... Hey, if yer dog is suffering and is toward the end, you take it to the vet and have it put to sleep, don't ya'? Well, of course, you do. Nuke 'em for God's sake!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:31 PM

I had a feeling this was a trolling for CarolC thread. But I didn't want to sound presumptious so I didn't say anything.

Martin, I think you might want to reconsider your tactics, though. I never even had an opinion about the situation in the Middle East, other than making the basic assumption that the Arabs were probably responsible for most of the trouble, until the spring of 2002. That was during the Israeli incursion into the Occupied Territories in March, I believe. I noticed, for the first time, that the hate-filled vitriol I was seeing and hearing in the US media as well as here in the Mudcat (hate towards Palestinians) didn't match up with what I was seeing of the Palestinians myself, and with the things I was hearing them say.

I started to do a little research on my own in response to questions that these things raised in my mind. And I started discovering the Jewish human rights organizations, and discovering, through them, that I had been lied to and mislead all of my life by the US government and the US media, about the real cause of the problems in the Middle East.

So because of you, and people like you, I have learned a lot of important things I was ignorant of before, and every time you or someone like you starts a thread like this one, you provide me with an opportunity to present another side to the story. If what you want is to keep me and people like me ignorant, it would seem to me that you would be better served by not starting threads like this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:35 PM

Good one, Brucie.

By the way, CarolC, you may say that it sounds to YOU as if I want the Palestinians removed into Jordan. But you're not reading too closely then. I have repeatedly stated my position: I think Israel should give up the west bank and that the Palestinians should have a state there. It makes the most sense demographically. BUT, the problem is that the Jordan river is a defensible border, and the border between the west bank and Israel is not. That's the whole reason that Israel has held on to the West Bank in the first place; even you would have to admit that otherwise it's been more trouble to them than it's worth. Therefore, I think that Israel is reasonable to wait until they have a workable treaty with strong safeguards in place before they do this. Once they create this state, I think that Palestinian refugees wherever they may be should move to the new Palestinian state and cease to make claims on other parts of Israel. Enough is enough.

In the meantime, I think it is misleading for Palestinian Arabs to claim that they have been deprived of a state by Israel, and that's where Jordan comes in. Jordan WAS the state set aside for Palestinian Arabs by the British, and Jordan then ANNEXED the state set aside for Palestinian Arabs by the UN. Israel now has the land because Jordan attacked Israel and then lost the war.

As regards the earlier discussion about traditional foods being Middle Eastern and not Arabic: the problem here is one of those murky cultural/racial questions. Racially, there was almost certainly no difference originally between Arabs and Hebrews. Both languages are South Semitic languages, and both groups must have descended from a pretty recent common source. (It is no accident that Arafat looks exactly like the caricatures of Jews that were so popular in Nazi Germany.) The two groups differentiated largely on religious grounds, and even the religions themselves have common roots. So there are bound to be similarities along all areas of culture. Too bad it doesn't help them get along!

Incidentally, given that Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic tongues, "Anti-Semitism" SHOULD mean anti-Arab sentiment, too. I have a good friend who was married to an Arab (he has since died), and she has been subject to a lot of harrassment since 9/11 when she travels; she got put on one of those lists that the government used to deny existed, because she had traveled a lot to Yemen and London and is the widow of an Arabic guy. She likes to accuse the security guys of Anti-Semitism, which puzzles them because she herself is Native American!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:42 PM

By the way, CarolC, you may say that it sounds to YOU as if I want the Palestinians removed into Jordan. But you're not reading too closely then. I have repeatedly stated my position: I think Israel should give up the west bank and that the Palestinians should have a state there. It makes the most sense demographically. BUT, the problem is that the Jordan river is a defensible border, and the border between the west bank and Israel is not. That's the whole reason that Israel has held on to the West Bank in the first place; even you would have to admit that otherwise it's been more trouble to them than it's worth. Therefore, I think that Israel is reasonable to wait until they have a workable treaty with strong safeguards in place before they do this. Once they create this state, I think that Palestinian refugees wherever they may be should move to the new Palestinian state and cease to make claims on other parts of Israel. Enough is enough.

Well this is where we part ways, then. Because Israel has no intention of ever letting the Palestinians keep even the land they now occupy. They won't be finished until all of the Palestinians are gone. You can take that to the bank.

The rest, as I said a little earlier, is going to have to wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:57 PM

MG, you are wicked!

Bobert, how many times do I have to tell you, Israel can't nuke the Palestinians! Then Jews really MIGHT be born with horns and big noses, from the radiation! :-) Seriously, though, you're wicked too...just a different kind o' wicked!

CarolC, what is Jordan if not a Palestinian Arab state? It's an Arab state (albeit with Bedouins substantially in control) and it's in Palestine. In fact, as I may have said one or two or three times before, it is about 77% of Palestine. You have never bothered to contradict this, and indeed if you did so you'd just be lying. In fact you quoted me at length on this in one post and then did not advance any argument to counter it. That's why I assumed you accepted that Jordan was a Palestinian Arab state.

But in re-reading your posts I discovered the truth: you have merely re-defined Palestinian to mean "the people who live in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem." Sorry, that's not what "Palestinian" means. Jordan is in Palestine and its people are mostly Palestinians.

(The current administration does this too: "when we say "patriot," we mean someone who supports Bush and Ashcroft. When we say "No Child," we in fact mean "many children." Or a la Monty Python, when I say "Dog Kennel," I in fact mean "Mattress.")

In fact, since you create racial and ethnic categories with no historical meaning, I think Hitler would be proud of you.

(Not really, but I wanted to demonstrate how easy and cheap it is to throw that one around, CarolC.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 07:18 PM

Hey, Nerd, I didn't say to nuke Palestine. I said to nuke the Palestinians... Hey, I know that nukin' Palestine would be like spittin' into the wind...

Shoot, I learnt up my geometry purdy danged good, feller, so don't mess wid me.

Awww, Iz jus funnin'. Don't nuke nobody. Iz sorry I said that. If folks would jus' quit stealing other folks stuff all these issues wouldn't be issues. Specially each others lives.

Now, I ain't gonna get into how amny angels can dance on the end o' pin here, but me and the Wes Ginny Slide Rule have figgured out that the US governemnt ain't done *Jack* to find a peaceful solution. Not *Jack*!!

Maybe we oughta nuke Washington, D.C.?

Nah, wouldn't solve much o' nuthin' and probably ruin my veggie garden fir years to come...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 08:44 PM

Part of the problem is that in the past countries surrounding Israel (This land is your land, this land is my land, from the Arab border to the Arab border to the Arab border . . .") have vowed to kill everyone in the country, "drive them into the sea". So, Israel gets a little touchy, ya know? Can't says I blame 'em.

I still would like to know where the 200 nuclear weapon figure came from. I would have thought Israel to possess fewer than twenty.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 08:57 PM

(Not really, but I wanted to demonstrate how easy and cheap it is to throw that one around, CarolC.)

Oh, nerd, I've had as bad as that and worse thrown at me in the many threads of this sort here in the Mudcat. I've become used to it. In fact, I almost expect it.

Right now, I have only small increments of time to be online. Just enough to respond to clever little quips like that one at the top of this post, but not enough to do the kind of work it's going to take me to thoroughly answer your other points.

I will answer this one now, though...

But in re-reading your posts I discovered the truth: you have merely re-defined Palestinian to mean "the people who live in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem." Sorry, that's not what "Palestinian" means. Jordan is in Palestine and its people are mostly Palestinians.

The people who call themselves Palestinians are the ones I have described, and the refugees from the area that is now called Israel and the Occupied territories, who are currently living in other coutries. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

Obviously it's a complicated thing to sort out, but here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Website called World Religions and Cultures

"Many Palestinians, while holding Jordanian citizenship, consider themselves Palestinians first, resenting being called Jordanians (Culturgrams)."

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 09:09 PM

Actually, brucie, the 1967 June Wars should have impressed upon the Arab nations that pushin' Isreal into the sea ain't a realistic goal.

As fir the 200 nuclear weapons? I made it up. Shoot, you got a couple and yer in the big leagues. Ask North Korea. But seriously, I did hear a number close to that on Pacifica radio within the last month or two. Heck, it was probably jus' 170 'er so. Nuthin' to worry 'bout so you all break up. Go on home.

But seriously, Part II, what if it is 20? Hmmmmm? Ya seen a piccure of Hiroshama? Bad news fir the Arabs...

People say that the Isrealis wouldn't drop one of these things like on Syria but ask the Syrians how they feel. Or the Lebanese? Jordonese? Or the __________ese? I mean, folks who drive bulldozers thru folks homes ain't exactly trustworthy neighbors......

Now I ain't gonna get drawed into this danged thead. Poor ol' CarolC keeps fallin' fir it. I done battled this one last year. Got some shrapnel wound scars to prove it. There are some folks 'round here that think it's okay fir the Palestianians to get their stuff stolen and if ya' stand up and yell "Thief" yer branded anti-Semitic.

So this will be my last postin' to this miserable thread...

Good bye, and have at it..... again, and again, and again...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 09:57 PM

Mg, I didn't think that was you, it was that kid a while back I liked to compare you to, when I thought you sounded like him in your trollish way.

CarolC I don't see how your response to me and Nerd responded to me at all, but I understand you're busy. I really don't remember posting any historical lies to justify anything. I don't like to post history and links and such, but prefer to summarise my overall take, which is admittedly based on my own values and the conflicts they get into with the way things happen to be. Respectfully, I think your concern for human rights doesn't factor all of them in this conflict, one of which is pursuit of happiness for people whose religion I have no interest in whatsoever. Guess that's because I believe lies, and hate Palestinians.
    I didn't quite see you as an ivory tower intellectual on this until your response to Nerd that you could only speak for your own concern for human rights. Christ, no wonder people have been rude to you. Other people may be giving their lives to their beliefs, or serving in support of something larger than themselves, and you can only 'speak for yourself.' I'm beginning to think that may be exactly what you are doing, and that your views are something of a vanity. Well. Good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 12:38 PM

Other people may be giving their lives to their beliefs, or serving in support of something larger than themselves, and you can only 'speak for yourself.' I'm beginning to think that may be exactly what you are doing, and that your views are something of a vanity.

Fred, once again, I don't really understand what you're saying. Are you saying that I should tell nerd whether or not he supports human rights? I think that would be much more of a vanity than what I have done, which is to let him determine whether or not he supports human rights. In fact, I think it would be extremely presumptious for me to tell nerd whether or not he supports human rights. I think it's up to him to say what his position is on that issue.

nerd, I've decided to tackle your questions and points one by one. I'll get started on the first one in a little while.

Now I ain't gonna get drawed into this danged thead. Poor ol' CarolC keeps fallin' fir it. I done battled this one last year. Got some shrapnel wound scars to prove it.

Hey Bobert. I have been told that I fell on my head a lot when I was little. I think that probably explains it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:00 PM

CarolC,

You talk about human rights. It seems that gay Palestinians would much rather take their chances living illegally in Israel, than put up with the human rights they have in Palestinian society.

Musa moved to Israel more than four years ago for the same reason that many gay Palestinians have left their homeland -- to escape the stigma that Muslim culture imposes on homosexuality.

"Here it's okay to be homosexual," he said. "There I feel threatened."

Read the whole story from yesterday's Washington Post.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:23 PM

Once again, Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state occupying 77 percent of British Mandate Palestine. It is entirely a creation of the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab segments. Its name derives from the British designation transjordan, meaning "that part of Palestine on the East of the river Jordan." It was the part of Palestine the Arabs got. It is the much bigger part, and the much better part, with all the oil and other natural resources.

Ok. I'm not going to respond to this entire paragraph right away, but I will respond now to this one part:

It is the much bigger part, and the much better part, with all the oil and other natural resources.

All the oil and natural resources?

This is what the CIA Factbook has to say about the natural resources of the country that is known today as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:

Jordan is a small Arab country with inadequate supplies of water and other natural resources such as oil.

My Random House World Atlas and the CIA factbook both list the natural resources of Jordan as follows: phosphates, potash, and shale. Jordan doesn't appear on the list of Oil producing countries in this site. I have done several Google searches to determine what Jordan't oil production and export is, and each time my search turns up nothing, as compared to countries like Saudi Arabia, which turns up quite a lot of information.

According to this site, Alexander's Gas and Oil Connection, Jordan may be able to produce oil from it's oil shale at some point in the future, but right now, any oil resources Jordan posesses are still just theoretical oil resources. And my understanding of shale oil is that it is expensive to extract and it takes a long time to put into production, so Jordan may not have any financial benefit from oil resources for a long time to come.


Oil

Jordan has no significant oil resources of its own, and relies on Iraqi oil for nearly all of its needs (around 106,000 bpd in 2002). Jordan's oil imports from Iraq are permitted by the United Nations under a special dispensation from the general UN sanctions regime on Iraq.

In December 2002, Jordan's government renewed its agreement with Iraq on oil supplies. Under the agreement, Jordan receives half of its crude oil free of charge, and receives steeply discounted prices for the rest. In addition to the crude oil imports, Jordan also imports about 20,000 bpd of refined petroleum products from Iraq, also priced at a substantial discount...

...Jordan does possess a significant quantity of oil shale resources, possibly as much as 40 bn tons. Canada's Suncor has conducted limited exploration digging in the Lajjun area, southwest of Amman, and has conducted discussions with the Jordanian government on the possible development of an oil shale extraction facility, but no development agreement has been signed.

I'll respond to the "other resources" part in my next post.

You talk about human rights. It seems that gay Palestinians would much rather take their chances living illegally in Israel, than put up with the human rights they have in Palestinian society.

So what's your answer, Guest? Kill them all? Or maybe just kill the ones who aren't gay?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:46 PM

"So what's your answer, Guest? Kill them all? Or maybe just kill the ones who aren't gay?"

You seem to have an agenda of tarring and feathering anyone who is at all critical of anything Palestinian.

Galbraith responds to Arafat's corruption and you tell him that "Hitler would be proud."

A guest points to an article about a Palestinian gay who prefers to live in Israel because of the homophobic persecution he faces in Palestinian society and you respond with innuendo impugning genocidal motives.

You're something.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:49 PM

...and you're a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 01:58 PM

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Natural Resources Authority Petroleum Directorate website

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:02 PM

More direct link

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:02 PM

Yes, you're very, very good at endless expressions of your position.
But, when someone says something that you can't argue with, you shut with them right down with innuendo and name-calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:04 PM

Another link from the horse's mouth

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM

That's very amusing Guest, C-watch, because that's exactly what I've noticed you doing.

Wolfgang, I don't know if you posted those links in support of what I posted, or in order to refute it, but from what I saw, they most certainly do support what I posted, which is that the oil resources in Jordan are in the exploration phase, and not the production phase, and I have not seen any solid guesses as to when Jordan might be able to get some financial benefit from oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 02:49 PM

is the much bigger part, and the much better part, with all the oil and other natural resources. (Nerd)

All the oil and natural resources? (Carol)

Am I right that all your long post after this start can be summarised as follows:

"You are right, Nerd, about the oil resources though at the present prices actual production may not come for a long time."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 03:42 PM

CarolC I can only imagine you don't understand these points because you are too busy with your ping pong and scorecard to even consider what they mean.

You can't really think anyone ever meant to ask you what you would, in fact, do, if Indian lands were taken back, and yet you choose to respond as if it were a practical question. It's what's called a rhetorical question, and I think it was probably posed to remind you that you're discussing human affairs on planet earth, where, as in the great tragedies, even our most positive values may sometimes come into conflict.

You can't really think I meant that you should actually tell Nerd or anyone what they think about human rights, or that he was asking you to, but you choose to sit on a high horse and respond with silly pseudo-logical stuff that is very dry, but not very funny. If you really don't get it, oh well, but I think you simply prefer arguing your favorite bits, and are marking these things out of bounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 04:32 PM

Fred, I think your posts don't make much sense to me because you're projecting onto me a lot of motives and attitudes that aren't mine. I don't consider the question of how I would feel if Indian lands were taken back to be a rhetorical one. I consider it as important as the question of how I would feel if I were a Palestinian who was being disposessed of his or her ancestral land. I think it shows a lack of regard for real human issues and the tragedies that ensue, to not see it as anything other than a rhetorical question. And I'm not just arguing my favorite bits. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but I have, several times, said that I haven't got enough time to answer these points and questions properly, as quickly as some people think I should. But I'm working on it. So how about taking a chill pill?

Wolfgang, I haven't really gotten to the crux of my big point yet. I posted the oil stuff as just one pillar in my whole premise. That particular pillar is that nobody knows just yet how much of a benefit Jordan's "oil resources" might have on the current population of Jordan (if any), much less on an influx of two million new refugees from Israel and the Occupied territories. But oil is just one factor that needs to be considered. I'm still working on the rest of my responses to nerd's questions and assertions. I suspect it's going to take a fair bit of time before you will be able to get any real sense of where I'm headed in my response, because it's very complicated, and can't be boiled down into simple sound bytes, and my time for doing this is, unfortunately, quite limited.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 05:05 PM

So nice to see at this point that others have been catching on to what I've noticed for a while.

Carol C. is the ultimate expert on bullshit, finding things on the Internet, all of which she holds as gospel, claims to not understand what others are talking about while she tapdances and looks for more bullshit links to shove down our throat that we are supposed to take as gospel.

Keep calling others trolls, Carol C. You do it obviously at your convenience. I would suggest that you get out of your trailer court that you are hunkered down in and go talk to some real people. Why don;t you go to a synagogue in perhaps Mobile or Birmingham. They probably have something of a Jewish population there. See how many "real" Jews feel about Israel and Palestine compare to the way you profess the few radicals who take the time to set up propaganda web-sites that you buy into do. The Jewish United Fund, despite these propaganda web sites, raise huge dollars for the defense of Israel. I know. I subscribe personally.

I don't really see many others agreeing with you at this point because everyone now has you pegged. You really the sound of your own voice. But really, you say nothing redeeming.

Keep coming back at me for more. I could give a rat's ass. I consider the source. So do others.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 06:53 PM

You presume a lot, Martin. But considering the kinds of responses you've been getting from others here in the Mudcat, as well as your puerile behavior here, I guess I'm not going to worry too much about what you think of me.

Keep coming back at me for more. I could give a rat's ass. I consider the source. So do others.

That's pretty laughable considering you said you started this thread just for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 07:05 PM

CarolC,

Re your post of 07 Mar 04 - 08:57 PM

Once again, your quote does not demonstrate what you said it did. Your quote was:

"Many Palestinians, while holding Jordanian citizenship, consider themselves Palestinians first, resenting being called Jordanians (Culturgrams)."

Okay...but this does not mean they were originally living in what is now Israel or the occupied territories. As I said, Transjordan was created as a British client state. The regime which named it Jordan were (I think) Bedouins installed by the British. The majority of the population is Palestinian, and many of them already lived in what is now Jordan before partition. Your quote can refer to them.

As an analogy, many Newfoundlanders consider themselves Newfoundlanders first and resent being called Canadians. This doesn't mean they came to Newfoundland from anywhere else. On the contrary, they were there before it became part of Canada. Many Palestinians were in Jordan before it became Jordan. They may feel like the Newfoundlanders do.

One thing your link does provide is a breakdown of Jordan's ethnic makeup. Guess what? Palestinians are the largest single group, at 50% of the population. So let's see, we have a 98% Arab state, in Palestine, and more of its people are Palestinian than from any other subgroup of Arabs. In what sense then is it not a Palestinian Arab state?

So Far Wolfgang has responded well to your oil points; "Jordan has oil, but it has not yet been exploited" seems to be the Jordanian Government's position. Who am I (or you?) to argue with them? Certainly it's more Oil than Israel has!

Remember, I didn't say Jordan had a lot of natural resources, just that it had a lot of natural resources relative to Israel. North America it ain't--but we knew this.

By the way, CarolC, I think you're being unnecessarily hostile towards people who don't agree with you. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have violated people's Human Rights--they have, for example, killed people. I think both you and I have to accept this or we would be in deep denial. So supporters of either side can be "for Human Rights" in general, and can understand or justify the violation of human rights in specific cases. (If not, both sides should just burn in hell and we can stop talking.) So our argument comes down to: which of those cases are justifiable? This is a gray area, not a black-and-white either-or, and I don't feel the need to impugn anyone as a Nazi or cast aspersions on their morality because they see things another way.   

In this context, to say that your opponents in an argument might not be "for human rights" or that "Hitler would be proud" of them amounts to mere insult-slinging, the latter especially in a thread about anti-Semitism where you know many of your interlocutors are Jews.   

Bobert, somehow I KNEW you didn't really mean to nuke 'em :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: mg
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 08:29 PM

was there not a tri-state originally? Jordan, Palestine and Israel? And are not many of the Palestinians in Jordan originally refugees who were given (contrary to popular opinion that Arab states did nothing..if it is indeed an Arab state..I don't know..) Jordanian citizenship? I think part of the solution is that the former British colonies, who bungled this up pretty well, and America (however defined) should take in many refugees, and the refugees who want to immigrate should not be held back by their fellows for political reasons. There has been great social pressure on them not to give in to offers of immigration etc....but they need to...they have held out long enough and it is not helping them at all. Quick offer them immigration while there are still those among them who know how to farm....mg

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 08:56 PM

Sigh. CarolC I'm not projecting any attitudes or motives on you, but think so if that's what you enjoy. I'm only trying to discover what they are from what you say. After much consideration of what you've said I find you partisan, self-contradictory, and rather abstractly argumentative, but I have no firm idea why. I'm only guessing that you must like being that way.

Earlier the question of Indian rights was something you could do nothing about, but speak presently for Palestinians, now it's a real question which I'm ignoring the reality of. I've already said why it's substantially rhetorical--because the people most affected are dead. Instead of going around in perfectly rhetorical circles with you I believe I'll have that chill pill, thanks.

Write a book, if you're as serious as you think you are, posting history on the net is like... posting history on the net.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 09:09 PM

Yep Carol C. You are right. I started this thread for you.

I kind of like what Fred said so I will re-quote his post above:

"After much consideration of what you've said I find you partisan, self-contradictory, and rather abstractly argumentative, but I have no firm idea why. I'm only guessing that you must like being that way"

As for what others here think, I certazinly don't take all of thisd as dangerously silly as yourself. Besides, I also like to post somewhat seriously in the music section besides yanking a few chains such as yours south of the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 09:41 PM

mary,

we've gone over the history ad nausaeum above.

There was not originally a tri-state or anything like it, just a region of the ottoman empire given to British administration as the "Palestine Mandate" by the League of Nations.   The Brits subdivided the Mandate into Jewish Palestine and Arab Transjordan. Transjordan let in some of the Arabs from Jewish Palestine but not all of them. Given that the main purpose of Transjordan was to accomodate those people, it's more than just popular opinion that the Arabs didn't do enough.   

When they realized their solution was not working, the Brits referred the matter to the UN, but first unilaterally granted Transjordan independence.

Transjordan, originally set up for the purpose of being a homeland of Palestinian Arabs, became a state which was eventually renamed Jordan.

THEN the UN decided there should be another subdivision of what remained of Palestine after Transjordan was taken out. That was the divsion into Israel and a Palestinian Arab state in the west bank and Gaza strip. The Jews accepted this proposal, creating Israel. The Arab nations, including the Palestinians in the West Bank, rejected the UN's proposal, wanting all of Israel for their state. They started a war with Israel, which Israel won.

Jordan annexed the land the UN had set aside for the Arabs on the West Bank. In a later war, in which Jordan once again attacked Israel, Israel took that territory from Jordan, creating the occupied territories of today.

The occupied territories have never been a separate state, because their occupants rejected the terms of statehood offered by the UN.

Indeed, there are many who argue, as CarolC notes above in disagreement, that "Palestinian" is neither an ethnic nor a religious nor a political designation, so much as a regional one. The Palestinians, according to this argument, are not a "people" or a "nation" at all, they're just the Arabs living in a given region. As such, they are in a sense interchangeable with other Arabs and thus have no claim on Palestine particularly.

Like CarolC, I don't like or agree with this argument, but probably for different reasons. I personally can accept all of the premises, that they are not a "people" or a "nation," etc. But if they have a regional identity, that to me is significant; "southerners" in the US is an example of the same phenomenon, and some of them feel pretty strongly about it. But there are some foolish Israeli hard-liners who argue that they're all just Arabs, so why can't they live in any of the Arab countries?

Anyway, the short answer to your intial question is "no," there was no Palestinian "tri-state area."

I like the proposal you suggest, however. If the Palestinians would be willing to emigrate it would be an elegant solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 10:09 PM

Why not Uganda. Wasn't that offered to Jews as a potential homeland in 1947? (?) Arab world thought that was fine at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 10:59 PM

nerd, I can hardly keep up with the ever increasing demands that you are placing on my time. Maybe you can give me an opportunity to respond to your earlier points before you start introducing any new ones.

BTW, I don't know why you think I'm being hostile to others. As far as I can see, most of the hostility on this thread is directed at me. But I'm a big girl, and I'm handling it ok. I don't feel any hostility toward you (except maybe some exasperation at the amount of work you're giving me to do), I don't feel any hostility toward Fred, and I don't even feel any hostility toward Mr. Gibson. I don't feel any hostility towards the govenment of Israel even. A lot of mistrust, but not hostility. It's just that I see an entirely different reality than you do (as far as I can tell from your posts). And the reality I see compels me to respond to certain kinds of things in certain kinds of ways. It's how I am able to live with myself in the midst of a rather insane world.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have violated people's Human Rights--they have, for example, killed people. I think both you and I have to accept this or we would be in deep denial. So supporters of either side can be "for Human Rights" in general, and can understand or justify the violation of human rights in specific cases. (If not, both sides should just burn in hell and we can stop talking.) So our argument comes down to: which of those cases are justifiable? This is a gray area, not a black-and-white either-or, and I don't feel the need to impugn anyone as a Nazi or cast aspersions on their morality because they see things another way.

This is how I see it. My boyfriend when I was in high school and for a few years after I graduated, was Jewish. His grandmother was a holocaust victim. She had survived imprisonment in a concentration camp. I was living in an area that was quite Jewish, culturally. Most of my friends were Jewish. My mother was a civil rights worker when I was a child. She marched with Martin Luther King. I grew up in environments that were saturated with conscience. 'Conscience' is something that is deeply engrained in my psyche. I don't see that ever changing.

Now, I was taught, very thoroughly, by the Jewish environment in which I was growing up, that we must never allow ourselves to become complicit. And that we must never allow another situation in which people could be made to suffer as the Jews did during the holocaust. The thing that stuns me about discussions like this one, is that it looks to me like some people think "never again" should only apply to Jews. I can't see it that way. To me, "never again" means all human beings. So that is why I cannot be silent while I see Palestinians being treated by the government of Israel in ways that would horrify Jews if they saw other Jews being treated in that way by any government.

I don't feel any hostility towards Jews who are behaving in this way. I feel deep sorrow. Because even though I'm not Jewish, these people feel like my family. And the Palestinians feel like my family, too. And I feel my family being broken apart by these things. And it breaks my heart. And no matter how much it pisses off people for whom the subject of Israel and the Palestinians is a highly charged subject, I cannot be silent, and I will not allow myself to become complicit with my silence.

I'll get to your assertion that Jordan is Palestine fairly soon, but not right away.

Fred, you're welcome to whatever perception of me works for you. And you as well, Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:15 AM

Thanks, CarolC. I was pretty clear about why I thought you were being hostile. (Hint: you compared one of us to Hitler, and suggested that I was not "for human rights.") But I understand that things sound differently when "re-voiced" in our heads from the writings of another person. It's why the internet will never replace talking!

Now to the argument. There are two ways to apprehend the major differences between the Jewish situation during the Holocaust and the Palestinian situation now. During the Holocaust, Jews did not stay in Europe for political reasons. Many Palestinians have decided to stay in the occupied territories for political reasons.

Secondly, During the Holocaust, Jews all over the world encouraged European Jews to come to them. Now, Arabs in other countries say "stay where you are," to the Palestinians. From these two differences we can see that the situation for Jews in the holocaust was much much worse; there was simply no political statement that was worth staying for. There are no death camps in Palestine, no gassing of innocents, no slavery.

So Arabs like to SAY it's just like the holocaust, but if it were, the Palestinians would be fleeing for their lives, and the Arabs in other countries would be giving them free passage and granting them citizenship. The fact that neither is happening should tell you something. Palestine is more like Allied-occupied Germany or US-occupied Baghdad than Nazi-occupied Poland was for the Jews. It's still not a picnic, I grant you, but Hitler's Europe it ain't. Therefore Never Again does not apply.

And to your statement that

I cannot be silent while I see Palestinians being treated by the government of Israel in ways that would horrify Jews if they saw other Jews being treated in that way by any government.

I say, when Jews see something truly horrific, first of all they encourage the other Jews to leave, then if necessary they airlift the other Jews out! Why don't the other Arabs react this way? Because the situation in Palestine is NOT currently as horrific as, say, 1942 Poland or 1987 Ethiopia. It's a military occupation such as most of the world has endured at one time or another.

And finally, the reason the Jews in Israel will continue the occupation until a workable settlement is reached is because they truly believe the survival of Israel is at stake. I happen to agree with them. I wonder if you do?

You say "we must never allow ourselves to be complicit."

Israelis say, "the question is not whether to be complicit in the abstract, but which option of complicity we choose. If we were not complicit in the military occupation of the West Bank by Jewish forces, we would be complicit in our own occupation by Arab forces. Either way, everybody suffers. So if the suffering is to be a constant, why go out of your way to be the one who suffers most? And in the process become a religion without state support anywhere in the world?"

And I say, if I have to be complicit in someone's suffering (which I unfortunately do, and so do you, at least to the extent of not rushing to Palestine ourselves to see what we can do), I'd rather do it in a world in which Israel exists. Because somewhere in the back of the Jewish mind, there is always the question: What if I have to go to Israel? Will it be there for me?

That is something, I think, that can never be engrained in your psyche because you live in a Jewish neighborhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:46 AM

(Hint: you compared one of us to Hitler, and suggested that I was not "for human rights.")

No, I did not compare one of you to Hitler. I compared a behavior to Hitler. And I posed it as a question. I asked the other person if he/she advocated a certain behavior that I connected to Hitler. I did not accuse that person of this behavior.

I did not suggest that you aren't for human rights. What I said, and what I've been criticized by Fred Miller for saying, is that I can't speak for you about weather or not you are for human rights, that only you can say whether or not you are for human rights. *Please* stop mis-quoting me.

I have not said that what is happening to the Palestinians is like the holocaust. But it is causing suffering in individuals that is as great as the suffering in individuals who experienced the holocaust.
And when I think about what we are saying when we say, never again, I'm not thinking about all of the particular details of how that suffering is/was caused. I'm thinking about the suffering.

The reason the Palestinians are reacting differently in their circumstance than the Jews did in theirs, is because there are vastly different causitive factors for what causes suffering in the two groups. For Jews, separation from their religion and ethnic identity is often a source of some of the greatest suffering for them. In other words, it's the loss of a way of life. But because of the nature of the diaspora, this way of life is of a fairly portable nature, and, until the creation of the State of Israel, was not tied to any particular location in which they found themselves.

For the Palestinians, the destruction of their way of life, the thing that causes them some of their greatest suffering, is the loss of their land. The loss of their beloved orchards and farmland. Their culture is inextricably tied to their relationship to the land. And despite what you have tried to assert, their relationship to the land that is now within the borders of Israel and the Occupied Territories is the land they have been occupying for more than a thousand years. Maybe not calling themselves Palestinians, but living in that place nonetheless.

And finally, the reason the Jews in Israel will continue the occupation until a workable settlement is reached is because they truly believe the survival of Israel is at stake. I happen to agree with them. I wonder if you do?

I am convinced that the occupation is causing great harm to Israel as well as to the Palestinians. I'm also convinced that the government of Israel has no interest in making any settlements with the Palestinians, but is working toward their eventual removal.

If we were not complicit in the military occupation of the West Bank by Jewish forces, we would be complicit in our own occupation by Arab forces.

This, I disagree with. The premise is based on faulty information and faulty assumptions. You have been taught that these are the only choices. But you don't see what the others see. Palestinians have a saying. They say that one of the biggest problems with the government of Israel is that they just don't know how to take "yes" for an answer.

And you're right. I will never have the degree of indoctrination that you have recieved about the "history" of Israel. (Although I have certainly had enough of it to know what it is.) But some Jews do look beyond that indoctrination and see that the thing they have been taught to fear most is not the thing that is doing them the most harm.

And believe it or not, I do know what it feels like to know that there are many, many people in my daily environment who want to kill me or do other bad things to me. As a woman living in the US, I know that everywhere I go, there are men who want to kill and/or rape me just because I am a woman. I am never without that fear (or at least that realization). I never leave my home without a canister of pepper spray. But I can't go around treating all men like I think they want to kill, and/or rape me. Even though all of the facts point to the reality than many of them do. I have to deal with each one individually, and not perpetuate and injustice by treating all of them as rapists and killers.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 11:12 AM

I have not said that what is happening to the Palestinians is like the holocaust. But it is causing suffering in individuals that is as great as the suffering in individuals who experienced the holocaust.

-CarolC, 09 Mar 04 - 02:46 AM

what the Israeli soldiers and settlers are doing to innocent Palestinians must be described as GENOCIDE.

-CarolC, 23 Jul 03 - 11:17 AM, in this thread.

Clearly, CarolC has, indeed, equated the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to the Holocaust.

My dictionary defines "genocide" as: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

In 1939, there were 15 million Jews in the entire world. In 1945, that number had been reduced to 9 million. Most of the Jews of Europe had been systematically exterminated.

In 1967, at the beginning of the occupation, there were slightly less than 1 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Today, there are almost 3.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza.

Clearly, any reference to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as "genocide" is a lie. A population suffering from genocide does not triple.

I agree that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is oppressive to the Palestinians and long for a peaceful conclusion to it. However, to equate life anywhere in the West Bank and Gaza with the death and slavery of Aushwitz, or Treblinka, or Dachau or any other Nazi extermination or slave labor camp, is a despicable lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:03 PM

Guest, C-watch, nerd and I were talking about my behavior in this thread. And my behavior toward other posters to this thread.

Re: the rest of your post, I have not ever said that the two situation are quantitatively similar. But qualitatively, there are similarities.

I don't know what dictionary you use, but my dictionary (Webster's) defines "genocide" as follows:

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

The difference of that one word, destruction rather than extermination is important for understanding my use of the word in any context.

What I said in that other thread, and which you not only took out of context, you very cleverly linked to a different post of mine in that thread, maybe so people wouldn't see the entire context in which that statement of mine was made, was this (and it was in response to someone else's use of the term "mass murder" to describe what suicide bombers are doing to children in Israel):

Although if you want to use the term "mass murder" to describe what the suicide bombers do to innocent Israeli children, then by comparison, what the Israeli soldiers and settlers are doing to innocent Palestinians must be described as GENOCIDE.

It would be useful to keep in mind that the numbers of Israelis killed by Palestinians is approximately one third of the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis.

Numbers of Israelis killed by Palestinians since 2000:

846

134 of these were minors under the age of 18


Numbers of Palestinians killed by Israelis since 2000:

2,434

846 of these were minors under the age of 18

At any rate, it is not my opinion that the government of Israel or any other Israelis are committing genocide against the Palestinians. If they do succeed in removing all of the Palestinians from Israel and the Occupied Territories, then they will be guilty of ethnic cleansing.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,C-Watch
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:35 PM

I don't know what dictionary you use

American Heritgae Dictionary -online edition

you very cleverly linked to a different post of mine in that thread, maybe so people wouldn't see the entire context in which that statement of mine was made

At any rate, it is not my opinion that the government of Israel or any other Israelis are committing genocide against the Palestinians.

If the link I provided to that thread led to a different post, there was nothing "clever" about it. It was just inexperience with the "make a link ("blue clicky") feature. In any case, if I'd been trying to keep anyone from seeing the context of your message, I would not have provided the exact reference as to date and time.

You are the one who has, in fact, said the Israelis are committing genocide. As noted, you've capitalized, in Internet convention, screamed "GENOCIDE."

what the Israeli soldiers and settlers are doing to innocent Palestinians must be described as GENOCIDE.

-CarolC, 23 Jul 03 - 11:17 AM

If they do succeed in removing all of the Palestinians from Israel and the Occupied Territories, then they will be guilty of ethnic cleansing.

Despite the occasional statements of a few Isreali extremists, with little popular support, Israel has never attempted to remove the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. Furthermore, as you probably well know, Israel has a substantial population of Arabs whose families stayed in 1948. They have full rights of citizenship and are proportionatly represented in the Israeli Knesset. Your statement is a lie meant to inflame and cause hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:53 PM

Great post C-Watch.

Say does the C in C-Watch stand for Carol C. or for a vulgar name for female genitalia? Either way, I appreciate your post.

Carol C. maybe you should have stayed with your Jewish boyfriend. I'm sure you were treated well.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 02:56 PM

No Guest, C-Watch. I said:

Although if you want to use the term "mass murder" to describe what the suicide bombers do to innocent Israeli children, then by comparison, what the Israeli soldiers and settlers are doing to innocent Palestinians must be described as GENOCIDE.

I don't consider what the suicide bombers are doing to be "mass murder". So, conversely, I don't consider what the Israelis are doing as genocide. This distinction may be too subtle for you to see, but it is an important distinction nevertheless. I do not consider what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians to be genocide.

Despite the occasional statements of a few Isreali extremists, with little popular support, Israel has never attempted to remove the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.

This is something that only time will tell.

Furthermore, as you probably well know, Israel has a substantial population of Arabs whose families stayed in 1948. They have full rights of citizenship and are proportionatly represented in the Israeli Knesset. Your statement is a lie meant to inflame and cause hatred.

What I "know" is that the Palestinians in Israel do not enjoy the same rights of citizenship as the Israeli Jews. There are a whole differen set of laws that apply to people who are not Jewish, and the laws governing representation in the Knesset is different for non-Jews than it is for Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,C-Watch
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 03:12 PM

I don't consider what the suicide bombers are doing to be "mass murder".

Suicide bombings that result in multiple murders are, without question, mass murders. Since you are so find of providing links, here's a site that defines mass murder. You'll note that while suicide bombers are not specifically mentioned, the suicide bombings fit almost every criteria to a T.

What I "know" is that the Palestinians in Israel do not enjoy the same rights of citizenship as the Israeli Jews. There are a whole differen set of laws that apply to people who are not Jewish, and the laws governing representation in the Knesset is different for non-Jews than it is for Jews.

There is one, and only one difference. Israeli Arab citizens are exempt from military service. The Israeli Knesset operates in a sytem of proportional representation. The percentage of Arab Knesset members is almost identical to the proportion of Arabs within Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:54 PM

Just stopped in to see how everyone's doin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 06:59 PM

Well, Guest, C-Watch, the description in your link is not one that I was aware of when I made that post. If it is the correct definition of the term, then the suicide bombers would probably fit the description. But then so would Ariel Sharon, with the exception that he did not take his own life after massacring innocent Palestinians (and I'm not refering to Sabra and Shatilla). There are a number of other Israelis who fit that description as well with the exception that they have not taken their own lives after committing the murders. Personally, I think I'll still refrain from using the term "mass murderer" for both of these groups of people.

There is one, and only one difference. Israeli Arab citizens are exempt from military service. The Israeli Knesset operates in a sytem of proportional representation. The percentage of Arab Knesset members is almost identical to the proportion of Arabs within Israel.

This is incorrect. There are different laws pertaining to property ownership, and there are different laws about who can serve in the Knesset. I also don't think that the Palestinian representitives to the Knesset are allowed to vote in the Knesset, but I'll have to double check that one. Also, I heard that there is a new law about Israeli Palestinians not being allowed to marry Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. But I'll need to double check that one as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 07:50 PM

Uhhh, 'scuse me but ya'll keep on attacking CarolC with nonsense about her trailer park and Nascar screaming in the background.

Aren't they the folks that the Democrats are out to get the votes from? The Nascar Dads?

Most of 'em that I know vote Republican. I thought this was about anti-semitism and the left?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,C-Watch
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 08:31 PM

Your information about Arab citizenship rights in Israel is incorrect.

You can find the breakdown of parties represented in the Knesset at this link. You will note that there are two parties that are specifically Arab. Several of the leftist Israeli parties also include Arab members.

Arab members of the Knesset have eqaul voting rights within the Knesset as do the Jewish members. The votes of Israel's Arab citizens count as much as the votes of Jewish citizens in determining the makeup of the Knesset, which as I've previously noted, is based on proportional representation.

Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens and thus do not vote in Knesset election.

Arabic, by the way, is an official language of the State of Israel along with Hebrew.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Nerd, cookie musta got tossed
Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:47 PM

Hi everyone,

been away from the computer all day.

CarolC, I was not misquoting you, I was stating what you suggested about me by saying "I really couldn't say." You were stating that from my posts, for all you knew, I COULD be "against Human Rights." This then suggests that my posts and my online demeanor are such that one could come away with this impression.

It would be like someone saying, "well from Carol's attitude, she MIGHT be a (fill in expletive here); I just don't know. You'll have to ask her." The stong SUGGESTION is that the speaker thinks you ARE said expletive.

And as for the person you compared to Hitler, when you say "are you saying that X applies, because if so Hitler would be proud of you," rhetorically you are suggesting a comparison to Hitler. You are trying to back someone away from a statement he has made by saying "the way I understand it, that statement suggests a Hitler-like attitude," which in itself SUGGESTS you think he is like Hitler.

Technicalities aside, it's a little offensive.

So far C-Watch and others are doing a pretty good job pointing your inaccuracies.

And you're right. I will never have the degree of indoctrination that you have recieved about the "history" of Israel.

This crap about indoctrination is pretty offensive too. There, you are misquoting me rather severely. I never said anything about indoctrination. What I said was that Jews wish Israel to exist, and that all things being equal, and given that there will be the same amount of suffering in the world (a premise I know you don't share, but one which we honestly believe to be true), we would prefer the option that keeps Israel in existence. As they say, "so sue us." But don't slander us!

I won't post new stuff because I know you haven't had time to respond to my old stuff yet.

Chief, you'll notice I haven't mentioned NASCAR or trailers once. I think that stuff is irrelevant to this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:05 AM

Chief, that's just Martin, who thinks he's funny (no offense Martin but I think you aren't a great humorist)and he has apparently never seen a photo of CarolC, to judge from what he imagines. He replies to stereotypes that she never suggested, then applies whatever he can think of to her. It's just dumb, and people have been ignoring it.

The article at the top of this thread is one of the worst you could find by it's author.

Thanks for permission to think what I want of you CarolC, really--I know I can anyway but it really does matter to me that you don't begrudge it. I don't have any bad feelings either but honestly I'm fascinated by your persistence in foolishness. I think you're being sophomoric on purpose. You could say what you mean without mentioning Hitler, but you prefer to, then to back away from the implications. You like to pretend you are tone-deaf, and then argue about which dictionary definition you're using. You go, Vulcan girl. It's sophomoric. It's silly. You could drive tonight to instances of slavery in south Florida, but you argue that individual suffering of Palestinians is equal to individual suffering of Jews in the holocaust. You know what? It isn't, because every single thing is different, despite Locke, or Mill, or blah blah blah, or Chomsky. You're baiting and switching, to attract attention to your opinions. It does more harm than good, but you don't care. Did you read in Chomsky somewhere how to formulate dramatic opinions that serve to call attention to yourself? Good for you. You aren't tone-deaf, and you aren't special because people call you anti-semitic when you aren't. You're just being a kid.

It's poshlost, that sort of sentimental narcissistic self-importance that Russians considerately thought to name. As if I came back with a greater-good argument like, um, screw Palestinians. What have they ever contributed to world culture, compared to Jews? They exist just a little bit more than, say, Symbonians. I mean really. fuck them anyway. And also. What Christian that anyone could name goes into a court with the idea of "turning the other cheek"? Screw Christians too, they're just pretending to have actual beliefs, right up until anything matters to them. See? It's pretty easy to come up with flashy stupid stuff, but of course, I didn't actually say any of it. What I actually said was blah blah blah....

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:07 AM

BTW, carolC, I was not referring to your comments to Fred, but the one you made directly to me. After I attempted to be inclusive and to respect your point of view by saying

"I trust that both of us support Human Rights"

You responded with.

"I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself. I am in support of human rights. For everybody"

This was a bit snippy, to say the least.

It's like when someone says "now, now, we're all adults," and the rsponse is "well, I'M and adult, but I don't know about YOU!"

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Alex.S
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:28 AM

Well, I am Jewish (I know this is often a tough concept to the unititiated, but I mean this more culturally/thnically than religiously). Here in LA, most of the people I meet are what one might call members of the "liberal intelligentsia" and many are, in fact, Jewish.

Not once in my life have I encountered any real anti-semitism. We must draw a careful distinction between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, the latter being far more common, and then only in the far left (socialist types).

It's too bad, because several decades ago Jews and socialism mixed nicely (and here, at least, they still do). But, I hear from friends at UC Berkeley (That university bastion of academic liberalism)that anti-zionism is now widespread.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 02:40 AM

Alex Statman,

I'm glad you made the distinction between anti-semitism and anti-zionism. I believe in the ideal of Zionism but reject the current material state. I am not anti-semitic. I have believed this since 1965. For me it is not a new idea. Its interesting that the intelligentsia is beginning to see the whole picture. I hope they can explain it better than me. I was always afraid to express my views for fear of being labelled anti-semitic.

Just goes to show you that radical ideas, given time, may eventually become mainstream.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 03:15 AM

Anti-Zionism a radical idea? Nice try. Most Americans and most of the world have been Anti-Zionist from the get-go.

Alex, one of the reasons you have not encountered anti-Semitism may simply be because it is socially frowned upon. As anti-Zionism becomes more and more permissible, anti-Semites will inevitably begin to express anti-Zionist ideas while keeping quiet about their deeper anti-Semitism. So it's very possible you've encountered real anti-semites, if not open anti-semitism. This does not mean that most anti-Zionists are also anti-Semites, but certainly most anti-semites are anti-Zionist.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 02:42 PM

Nerd, What's the differnce? (I mean that sincerely). How do you really separate one from the other?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 03:17 PM

I consider it as important as the question of how I would feel if I were a Palestinian who was being disposessed of his or her ancestral land. I think it shows a lack of regard for real human issues and the tragedies that ensue, to not see it as anything other than a rhetorical question. (Carol)

I've hesitated very long whether I should give you a response to that question. The reason for my hesitation will become clear soon.
I'll give you the same response I have given in another thread, but considerably longer.

After the last big war, about 14 Million Germans (I have taken the number from one of the Evicted sites, so it surely is a bit of an exaggeration) have been dispossessed and evicted from their ancestral lands (some hundred thousands have been killed in that action). I don't tell you that to complain, for the reasons that have led to this development are known and Germany alone is responsible. (That's why I have hesitated for I am very far from any type of 'we too have suffered' argumentation which would be awfully wrong for many different reasons). I'll tell you that to show how the consequences of evictions can be dealt with in another way than in the Middle East.

These evictions usually had one day's notice and often only one suitcase of belongings was allowed to be taken. These evictions were not only from former parts of Germany to remaining parts of Germany (still the same land, you may say), but also evictions from the land of their birth of ethnic German minorities who had lived for centuries in for instance Czechoslovakia. For most of these people the evictions were for good, for the Iron Curtain prevented them to see their homes even as visitors. Imagine how it feels to be evicted from your home with one day notice and never to see it again for close to sixty years. Only a minority of the evicted has been able to travel now in the recent years (and in the best case made friends with the new residents, who called the same house 'home').

Perhaps it was a slowly dawning sense of guilt or the knowledge that Germany's crimes had led to this development, I don't know, for I was not yet born then. But the evicted were made welcome (my family of then 8 people had to make room for another family of 4 in a house that is now occupied by 2 persons), given rooms and, later, jobs. The feeling was that Germany had a responsibility for them and that they were our co-citizens for good.

If Germany had kept the refugees in camps close to the borders under inhumane conditions with vague promises of helping them to regain their ancestral homes, the development in Central Europe might have been considerably less peaceful than it was. To blame Israel alone for the very real suffering of the Palestinians in the West Bank (formerly a part of Jordan) and Gaza (formerly a part of Egypt) forgets some other players who have used the Palestinians as pawns in a power game.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 04:05 PM

Well, Chief Chaos, as you know there are people on the left who are very inflexible about certain things. The idea of a state religion rankles them, and they are too rigidly perfectionist to say, "well, if other states have religions then Israel should be allowed to as well." So they would be anti-Zionist on the grounds that it involved moving people into an area and setting up a government based on their religion. They would also advocate dropping state religions everywhere, and a lot of other pie-in-the-sky ideals that will not come to pass anytime soon.

I don't have a problem with the statement "in a reasonable world, Israel would not be necessary, and I advocate a reasonable world rather than a Jewish State in this world" which was essentially what BillD was saying above. And this is anti-Zionist from first principles. But it is not anti-Semitic.

You can also amend this position to not be anti-Zionist, simply by saying "but barring a more reasonable world, I'll support Israel," which is basically my position.

In practice, I agree with you, it is hard to tell whether anti-Semitism lurks behind anti-Zionism or not. But we can't just assume it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:22 AM

Zionism was a necessity. Jews got tired of pograms. They wanted a place to live. I think today that anyone who is Jewish is automatically a citizen of Israel (although I stand to be corrected on that), and I do not think Jews have anything to apologize for with regard to Zionism. I personally don't give a rat's ass who likes my position or not. If I were Jewish, and given the history of persecution Jews have faced, I'd want a home I knew I'd be welcome in at anytime. And, given the sordidity of that history, I'd want a few nukes around just to have. Jews have depended on the various countries they lived in to protect them with law. Does anyone here need a list of countries in which that failed? No. Next time there's a pogram against Jews, it will be very expensive for all concerned. And it's about time.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:49 AM

Brucie,

it's not quite true that we are all citizens of Israel. I can't vote for representatives there, because I am an American citizen. But Jews would automatically be granted citizenship if we wanted it and if we went to live there..

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:52 AM

Gotcha. I was dredging what's left of my memory. Thanks, Nerd.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 03:44 AM

brucie - Everyone wants a place to live.

In my family, every generation seems to have found a new (different) place to live. I'm not sure if I have a homeland and I don't care. That hasn't stopped me from living my life. Pograms do not work but Jews are not the first (or the last) to live in countries with laws that do not protect them. There have been internment camps, apartheid, concentration camps, slavery, reservations and so on. What about those people? Should they not be given land that was historically theirs? The only reason Israel was given this special distinction was because the U.S. and Britain needed a strategic location to protect their oil interests.

Displacing one group to satisy the needs of another is not the answer. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because you feel you have been "dumped on" does not give you the right to dump on others. Conflict is always reduced to us and them and whoever has the biggest guns wins. Thats the problem.

Do you ever think there may come a time when people will realize that nations are politically structured to separate people? Someday we may decide to stop fighting and realize that we are all born on this planet and therefore have a right to live here? Borders serve the power elite and their need to control the movement of goods and people. The conflict in the middle east isn't a religious conflict. Its economic.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:03 AM

Dianavan, I think it's a bit of a lowball to characterize Jewish concerns as a feeling that they've been dumped on. Sure there are other reasons for the establishment of Israel than the most important ones. There are other reasons for everything, but it doesn't negate the good, it's just mixed.

   I've decided for myself that I really only support human rights to a limited extent. Driving cars results in human rights violations, in that accidents will undeniably happen, and individual human suffering will be caused, no matter what we do. I'd like it to improve, but for now I live with it. Our jury system results in human rights violations, and since this is known, I draw the line at the death penalty. But until I know a better way to do things without introducing a new set of flaws I guess I'm complicit and a good German in this ongoing abuse. Hitler would be proud of me. I'm a Nazi.

   I'm not Jewish, or especially religious, but if Jews don't mind, Jewish culture is also partly my culture, and Israel is also a democracy. I don't fully support the U.S. in it's current form, but that's the trouble with democracy. I'm still rooting for it to do better.

I don't have to worry about defending Israel and it would be pretty easy for me to criticize in an unbalanced idealistic manner, but who would it serve, but me? People without children are always better and more committed parents than us flawed cretins who have them. The obvious solution is that only childless people should have children.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Frankham
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:12 AM

Martin Gibson, I've been giving it some thought and I really feel
that you have more to fear from the radical right than you do from
the left.

The right's religious agenda is something like this. Preserve Israel
but when the Second Coming happens (which Bush believes) the Jewish
people will be exterminated by God because they don't believe in
Jesus. That's really scary!

Armageddon is blown completely out of proportion due to a misinterpretation of Revelations.

Unless you are a Jew for Jesus, when the radical right is finished,
Jews will be at the least second class citizens and at the most
taken out. The left has no such agenda and many of the great spokespeople for the left were Jewish.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:25 AM

I agree that borders are a mistake. We will be without them soon enough. The multinationals and NWO will see to that. This is just debate and statement of positions. It won't matter much in fifty years.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:51 PM

dianavan: You are correct about much of what you say, but in western history, NO group of people have been scapegoated as freguently as Jews. That's fact. I side with Israel. I alos think Palestinians need a homeland. However, I think the security of Israel has to come first. That's my last comment on it. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:14 PM

Okay, I understand a little better now.

Te only thing that I have a bone to pick with is how Israel chooses to enforce it's sovereignty (sovereignity?). Unfortunately it's true that far more Palestinians have died in the conflict than Israelis. Sort of makes it a moot point blowing ones'self up.
We (the U.S. military) are constrained from using force above and beyond "an appropriate response". This means if someone pulls a knife we are not allowed to respond with a bazooka. Israel has the right to defend herself by all means but their responses to shootings and suicide bombings include far too many "innocents" (one could argue that there is no such thing as an innocent Palestinian). Massad, the Israeli special forces unit, used to be able to get close enough to a suspect to plant explosives in their cell phones. That way only the suspect had their head blown off. Responding to an attack with air borne missiles, tanks, helicopter gun ships etc. is out of hand and only generates more attacks from the other side. We would never allow, nor would the British ever consider, blowing away an apartment building to get one or two "suspected" IRA members. Although the police did blow up a rowhouse in Philadelphia a couple decades ago and end up taking out the whole of the rowhouses in an "unforseen" fire.
If Massad used to be able to do in one target at a time, why are they generating so much "collateral damage" now?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:49 PM

CC: Ther is nothing 'selective' about suicide bombing a bus full of kids. I don't mean to sound cold, but this wasn't an issue when it was just Israelis getting hit. Now it's an issue because people attacking them are getting hit. Now we know why Israelis--specifically Jews--need a country of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:24 PM

I don't have time to read everthing that's been posted since my last post right now. I'll post this now, and then, when I have time, I'll read and, if needed, respond. This is the information I've been busy gathering in the last few days:

Once again, Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state occupying 77 percent of British Mandate Palestine. It is entirely a creation of the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab segments. Its name derives from the British designation transjordan, meaning "that part of Palestine on the East of the river Jordan." It was the part of Palestine the Arabs got. It is the much bigger part, and the much better part, with all the oil and other natural resources.

This is entirely misleading, and hardly faithful to historical fact.

According to one of the official Jordanian websites, during the period of Ottoman rule:

"The four centuries of Ottoman rule (1516-1918 CE) were a period of general stagnation in Jordan. The Ottomans were primarily interested in Jordan in terms of its importance to the pilgrimage route to Mecca al-Mukarrama. They built a series of square fortresses—at Qasr al-Dab'a, Qasr Qatraneh, and Qal'at Hasa—to protect pilgrims from the desert tribes and to provide them with sources of food and water. However, the Ottoman administration was weak and could not effectively control the Bedouin tribes. Over the course of Ottoman rule, many towns and villages were abandoned, agriculture declined, and families and tribes moved frequently from one village to another. The Bedouins, however, remained masters of the desert, continuing to live much as they had for hundreds of years.

Population continued to dwindle until the late 19th century, when Jordan received several waves of immigrants. Syrians and Palestinians migrated to Jordan to escape over-taxation and feuds, while Muslim Circassians and Chechens fled Russian persecution to settle in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Turkey."

According to all of the documents I've been able to locate about the Mandate period, none of them suggest that the Arabs living in the area that is now Israel and the Occupied Territories should be moved from where they lived to Transjordan. In fact, most of them, including the Balfour declaration, say that the rights of non-Jewish residents should not be infringed:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Some more sites with information about the Mandate period:

Wikipedia

Jordan website



Map of 1947 UN Partition plan

The following quotes are from declassified Israeli documents and personal diaries. Anyone who wants to, can verify them on their own:

Moshe Sharett , first Israeli foreign minister:

1914...

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise.

1937:

"The proposed Jewish state (proposed 1937 Peel Commission partition plan) territory would not be continuous; its borders would be twisted and broken; the question of defending the frontier line would pose enormous difficulties .... the frontier line would separate villages from their fields .... Moreover the [Palestinian] Arab reaction would be negative because they would lose everything and gain almost nothing ..... in contrast to us they would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such ... They would lose the richest part of Palestine; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be a loss to the hinterland Arab states..... It would mean that they would be driven back to the desert ('Zorkim Otam') .... A Jewish territory [state] with fewer Arab subjects would make it easy for us but it would also mean a procrustean bed for us while a plan based on expansion into larger territory would mean more [Palestinian] Arab subjects in the Jewish territory.

For the next 10 years the possibility of transferring the Arab population would not be 'practical'. As for the long-term future: I am prepared to see in this a vision, not a mystical way but in a realistic way, of a population exchange on a much more important scale and including larger territories. As for now, we must not forget who would have to exchange the land? those villages which live more than others on irrigation, on orange and fruit plantations, in houses built near water wells and pumping stations, on livestock and property and easy access to markets. Where would they go? What would they receive in return? ... This would be such an uprooting, such a shock, the likes of which had never occurred and could drown the whole thing in rivers of blood. At this stage let us not entertain ourselves with the analogy of population transfer between Turkey and Greece; there were different conditions there. Those Arabs who would remain would revolt; would the Jewish state be able to suppress the revolt without assistance from the British Army?"

1949

"the most spectacular event in the contemporary history of Palestine, in a way more spectacular than the creation of the Jewish state, is the wholesale evacuation of its (Palestinian) Arab population. . . . The opportunities opened up by the present reality for a lasting and radical solution of the most vexing problem of the Jewish state (referring to the Palestinian Arabs living in the portion of the 1947 UN Partition plan) are so far-reaching, as to take one's breath away. The reversion of the status quo ante is unthinkable."

Quotes from Ahad Ha'Am, a Russian Jewish intellectual

1891

"We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ..... But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains .... are not cultivated."

"If a time comes when our people in Palestine develop so that, in small or great measure, they push out the native inhabitants, these will not give up their place easily."

"....[the Zionist pioneers believed that] the only language the Arabs understand is that of force ..... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency."

"[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules."

"We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it. But this is a GREAT ERROR. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has sharp and crafty mind . . . Should time come when life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they WILL NOT easily step aside."

"Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ..."

On the subject of the boycott of Arab labor by Jewish labor...

"Apart from the political danger, I can't put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people, and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: if it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve at the end of times power in Eretz Yisrael? And if this be the Messiah: I do not wish to see his coming."
1914...

"(the Zionists) wax angry towards those who remind them that there is still another people in Eretz Yisrael that has been living there and does not intend at all to leave its place. In a future when this illusion will have been torn from their hearts and they will look with open eyes upon the reality as it is, they will certainly understand how important this question is and how great our duty to work for its solution."

Israeli historian and military strategist, Martin Van Creveld, in his book The Sword and The Olive:

"In the Event of invading (Arab) forces were limited to approximately 30,000 men. The strongest single contingent was the Jordanian one, already described. Next came Egyptians with 5,500 men, then the Iraqis with 4,500 who ..... were joined by perhaps 3,000 local irregulars. The total was thus around eight rather under strength brigades, some of them definitely of second-and even third-rate quality. To these must be added approximately 2,000 Lebanese (one brigade) and 6,000 Syrians (three brigades). Thus, even though the Arabs countries outnumbered the Yishuv by better then forty-to-one, in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews' favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000."

"As for Abdullah's Arab Legion, it had fought better than any other Arab force. Yet on scarcely any occasion had the Arab Legion attempted to conquer territories allotted to the Jews by the partition plan, preferring to stay on the defensive."

".... there was no common military headquarters, no attempts at coordinating the offenses of the Arab armies, and ... not even a regular liaison service for sharing enemy intelligence."
"Perhaps the most important [of Arab armies problems] was a crippled shortage of ammunition, owing to the international arms embargo ..., in the case of the Iraqis and Egyptians, long lines of communications. For example, after February 25, 1948, the Arab Legion received no new ammunition for its 20mm guns. Some of the ammunition used by the Iraqi artillery was more than thirty years old; the Syrians had no ammunition for their heavy 155mm guns. Whereas Jewish stockpiles were growing all the times [especially the big arms shipment from Czechoslovakia in May 1948], the enemies were so depleted they stole ammunition shipments for each other. In addition, they were ill-coordinated, technically incompetent, slow, ponderous, badly led, and unable to cope with night operations that willy-nilly, constituted the IDF's expertise."

Yigal Allon , commander of the Haganah's Palmach between 1945-1948

"The echo of the fall of (Palestinian)Arab Safad carried far . . . The confidence of thousands of (Palestinian) Arabs of the Hula was shaken . . . We had only five days left . . . until 15 May([1948). We regarded it as imperative to cleanse (Palestinian Arabs from) the interior of the Galilee and create Jewish territorial continuity in the whole of the Upper Galilee. The protracted battles reduced our forces, and we faced major tasks in blocking (prospective Syrian and Lebanese) invasion routes. We, therefore, looked for a means that would not oblige us to use force to drive out tens of thousands of hostile (Palestinian) Arabs left in the Galilee and who, in the event of an invasion, could strike at us from behind. We tried to utilize a stratagem that exploited the (Arab) defeat in Safad and in area cleared by (Operation) Broom - a stratagem that worked wonderfully.

I gathered the Jewish mukhtars, who had ties with the different (local Palestinian) Arab villages, and I asked them to whisper in the ears of several (Palestinian) Arabs that a giant Jewish reinforcement had reached the Galilee and were about to clean out the villages of Hula, to advise them as friends, to flee while they could. And rumour spread throughout Hula that the time had come to flee. The flight encompassed tens of thousands. The stratagem fully achieved its objective . . . and we were able to deploy ourselves in face of the [prospective] invaders along the borders, with out fear for our rear."

"We looked for means which would not obligate us to use force in order to get tens of thousands of sulky (Palestinian) Arabs who remained in Galilee to flee, for in case of an Arab invasion, they would attack us from rear."

In reference to the expulsion of the villages of Lydda and Ramle of their Palestinian inhabitants:

"clogged the routes of the advance of the (Transjordan Arab) Legion and had foisted upon the Arab economy the problem of "maintaining another 45,000 souls . . . Moreover, the phenomenon of the flight of tens of thousands will no doubt cause demoralsation in every Arab area (the refugees) reach . . . This victory will yet have great effect on other sectors."

Mapam party do-leader Meir Ya'ari, on the subject of Allon's strategy of using refugees to accomplish military goals:

"Many of us are losing their (human) image . . How easily they speak of how it is possible and permissible to take women, children, and old men and to fill the road with them because such is the imperative of strategy. And this we say, the members of Hashomer Hatzair, who remember who used this means against our people during the Second World] war. . . . I am appalled."

Yigal Allon, in justifying to Ben-Gurion a plan for military conquest of the West Bank:

"Our offensive has to leave the way open for the army and the refugees to retreat. We shall easily find the reason or, to be more accurate, the pretexts, to justify our offensive, as we did up to now."

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:26 PM

Laws that are different for Israeli Arabs:

(This law pertains only to Israeli Arabs...)

The Absentee Property Law (1950), states that any land left vacated by those who were forced to flee during the war of 1948-1949 becomes the property of the state of Israel. This applies to 200,000 Palestinian of Israeli citizenship (20% of the total), who fled their homes in 1948 and settled elsewhere within Israel. The absentee law also applies to those Palestinians who fled to other countries and to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. All of them have been denied all rights to the properties (lands, houses, corporations, shares, bank accounts, bank safes, etc.), which they owned until 1948.

The Laws preventing Arab parties that do not recognize the Jewish character of the Israeli State from participating in elections.

The 1945 emergency legislation, which allows the confiscation of Arab land (by 1998 only 10% of the immovable property owned by Palestinians before 1948 remained in Palestinian hands).
The educational law, which has the promotion of Jewish culture and Zionist ideology as one of its declared aims.

This law applies only to Israeli Arabs:

Following enactment of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law on 31 July 2003, thousands of couples will be forced to live apart. Children will be separated from their parents at the age of 12 or will become lawbreakers through no fault of their own. Many families will remain in Israel with no legal status in order to live together.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:51 PM

Carol,

I never said it was the British intention to move anyone into Transjordan, but that Transjordan was the part of the Palestine mandate set aside for Arabs. Nothing you have said contradicts that. Anyone moving anywhere would have been entirely voluntary. Just as Muslims were allowed to remain in India, even though Pakistan was created to be a Muslim state, so they would have been allowed to remain in Israel. Whether they wanted to live in a Jewish state was another question.

I also never said anything that contradicts the 1947 map; indeed, it reflects exactly what I said: that AFTER there had already been a state in the British Palestine Mandate set aside for Arabs (Transjordan), the UN set aside ANOTHER one (the west bank and Gaza Strip). Israel agreed to those borders, but the Arabs in several countries rose against them and the Palestinians in Israel rose up, so israel fought back. Jordan took the land; Israel won it from Jordan in a later war. We've been through it all before, and it makes the 1947 UN plan irrelevant. The Arabs, including the Palestinians, were the ones who rejected that plan.

As to the laws, the US has also enacted wartime emergency laws that may look repressive (and indeed were). You took the characterization of these laws from an obviously biased and distorted website. For example, the law stating that Israel took lands from people who were "forced to flee." They were forced to flee because they rejected Israeli citizenship and rose up in armed revolt against the government! Guess what? The US confiscated British lands in the Revolutionary war, too. It was the Arabs who started that war, and now they complain that they lost their land.

Your discussion of how the Israelis deceived the Palestinians and got them to flee only makes the Israelis look smart AND just. They avoided having to fight pitched battles, and kill or be killed. Is this such a bad thing? Remember again, they did not start that war.

Finally, in the following statement:

This law applies only to Israeli Arabs:

Following enactment of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law on 31 July 2003, thousands of couples will be forced to live apart. Children will be separated from their parents at the age of 12 or will become lawbreakers through no fault of their own. Many families will remain in Israel with no legal status in order to live together.

you neglect even to tell us what the law is or what it does. It seems from the title that it would only apply to immigrants. If so, they can choose whether or not to immigrate there based on what the laws are. Anyway, is this separation of couples really a consequence? We can't tell from what you give us.

This isn't really information, it's propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:12 PM

This isn't really information, it's propaganda.

You're mighty quick with the accusations there, nerd. It was an omission that I didn't notice until after I posted. And I didn't have time to correct it until now.

Nationality and Entry into Israel Law

I never said it was the British intention to move anyone into Transjordan, but that Transjordan was the part of the Palestine mandate set aside for Arabs.

Please provide the document where it is stated that it was the British intention that Transjordan was the part of the Palestine mandate set aside for Arabs. I've not yet found any evidence that this is the case. I've only found evidence that the British were making conflicting promises to the various groups involved, and that they didn't make any clear cut declarations of their intent (at least none that weren't contradicted by others that they also made). The Hashemites think that not only was it not a part of Palestine, but that Transjordan was the part of the Mandate that was set aside for them. The Hashemites do not represent the indigenous people of what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:25 PM

CarolC, I was not misquoting you, I was stating what you suggested about me by saying "I really couldn't say." You were stating that from my posts, for all you knew, I COULD be "against Human Rights." This then suggests that my posts and my online demeanor are such that one could come away with this impression.

You were, indeed, misquoting me, and telling me what my meaning was on top of that. I find this a bit offensive.

And as for the person you compared to Hitler, when you say "are you saying that X applies, because if so Hitler would be proud of you," rhetorically you are suggesting a comparison to Hitler. You are trying to back someone away from a statement he has made by saying "the way I understand it, that statement suggests a Hitler-like attitude," which in itself SUGGESTS you think he is like Hitler.

Again, I find you telling me what my meaning and my intentions were in asking that question. You are doing exactly the thing you are accusing me of doing.

I was trying to get the person I was addressing (can't even remember who it was now) to "shit or get off the pot" so to speak. Either you advocate collective punishment or not. If you do, then the comparison is apt. If you don't, then it's time to move on to the next question.

Technicalities aside, it's a little offensive.

And again, so is your habit of telling me what I mean by what I say.

This crap about indoctrination is pretty offensive too. There, you are misquoting me rather severely. I never said anything about indoctrination. What I said was that Jews wish Israel to exist, and that all things being equal, and given that there will be the same amount of suffering in the world (a premise I know you don't share, but one which we honestly believe to be true), we would prefer the option that keeps Israel in existence. As they say, "so sue us." But don't slander us!

Ok. I'm willing to accept that that is what you meant by what you said. Now, are you willing to extend to me the same courtesy?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM

Wolfgang, I appreciate your post.

brucie, I don't begrudge Jews their homeland in Israel. I think the early Zionists created a lot of the problems the region is experiencing now, with the way they went about getting this homeland. I don't have any problem with Israel being a homeland for Jews now, but I do have a problem with the government of Israel and a large part of the world community not treating the Palestinians like human beings, and I have a problem with Israeli expansionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 11:57 PM

CarolC,

I'm going to call you on some of this stuff. I am not doing the same things I accuse you of. First of all, although my quotes are not precise, and therefore could fit the definition of "misquoting," I did a good job in each case of paraphrasing what you actually said. So:

on the issue of supporting human rights, you said "I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself."

My paraphrase: "I really couldn't say [whether Nerd supports Human Rights]." I think this is pretty fair.

Second, when you said:

"Are you saying that these things justify the massive human rights abuses that Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians? Because if you are, you would be advocating collective punishment, and I'm sure Hitler would be proud of you for that."

I generalized to "are you saying that X applies, because if so Hitler would be proud of you,"

Again, I think, a pretty fair paraphrase.

Now, what I actually said was "Somewhere in the back of the Jewish mind, there is always the question: What if I have to go to Israel? Will it be there for me? That is something, I think, that can never be engrained in your psyche because you live in a Jewish neighborhood."

You quoted me thus: "And you're right. I will never have the degree of indoctrination that you have recieved about the 'history' of Israel." The only thing your statement had to do with mine was Israel. I was not talking about history, or indoctrination, nor I think did I seem to be doing so. I was talking about the future, not the past. But by putting "you're right" before an invented statement that no-one ever made before now, you are indicating that this was what I said. Like in "you're right, Nerd, you ARE an asshole!"

If you had said, "Nerd, your words suggest that you have been indoctrinated," then I would have disagreed, but not taken offense.

I did not, as you say "tell you your meaning." I was careful to use the word "suggest" in describing what your words only suggested. Insoe cases I had to use the word "suggests" three times in a sentence. (Does this suggest that I am obsessive about shit like this? Perhaps!)

But honestly, CarolC, when you say "are you saying such and such?" Nine times out of ten, the person on the receiving end will take that to mean that you think that IS what he or she is saying. To use that construction without intending the person to draw that conclusion is unwise, as you will be misunderstood.

As for your comments to me, I refer you to my post of 10 Mar 04 - 12:07 AM, which I quote in full (and expand upon) below:

BTW, carolC, I was not referring to your comments to Fred, but the one you made directly to me. After I attempted to be inclusive and to respect your point of view by saying

"I trust that both of us support Human Rights"

You responded with.

"I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself. I am in support of human rights. For everybody"

So to break this down, I said "this positive attribute belongs to both of us"...which was a compliment to you. And you responded with "well, I believe it belongs to ME, but I'm not sure it belongs to YOU," which was at least a slight, and perhaps a direct insult, to me.

It's like when someone says "now, now, we're all adults," and the response is "well, I'M and adult, but I don't know about YOU!"

If you honestly tell me you did not mean this specific quote in that way, then I'll believe you. (But please tell me how you DID mean it, then!)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:50 AM

Nerd, I think this discussion has deteriorated into a personality conflict. I do not agree with your characteriaztion of me, and since I know me and you don't, I'm going to stick with what I know. I'm going to refrain from trying to characterize you, for the same reason I wouldn't speak for you about whether or not you support human rights... because it's not my place to do so. At this point, I think these kinds of exchanges are unproductive, and I have no interest in participating in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Frankham
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:04 PM

Nerd and Carol, back to your corners. You both should be commended
for the in-depth information and background. Let's stay off the personal crap because it gets in the way of your "points" which
are interesting and useful. They are indicative of the problems of
the Middle East and I enjoyed reading the history that you both present.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:04 PM

Excuse me while I return this thread to its topic, "Anti-Semitism & The Left."

The new issue of Adbusters, a left wing magazine based in Canada, blames the Bush foreign policy on a small cadre of neo-cons dominated by Jews with a Likud Party agenda.

This type of anti-Semitsm on left is not so different from that of the McCarthyite right wingers of my father's day who blamed communism on a small cadre dominated by Jews.

Here's the Adbusters article.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:21 PM

CarolC,

I advanced no "characterization of you" at all. I merely pointed out what you said and what many readers would take away from it. Remember, I was not the only one offended by your Hitler remark.

You may know yourself pretty well, but you are apparently oblivious to how you sound to others sometimes. It's no great sin, and it happens to all of us.

(To which you may choose to respond "well, I know it happens to YOU, but not to me!" But I trust you won't do that.)

Okay, back to my corner now...

c-Watch,

It IS, unfortunately, true that many leading neo-cons are Jews and that in the short term, a neo-conservative agenda and a pro-Sharon agenda coincide. Whether it's anti-semitism to point this out depends on how you say it.

I think the adbusters article, trying to claim that it is Political Correctness not to call a Jew a Jew, certainly verges on anti-semitism. It's like when people say, "well, why won't anybody point out that most terrorists are Arabs? Why NOT make all Arabs empty their pockets at the airport?"

Thanks for pointing out that piece.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 09:27 PM

Nerd, a couple of times you've given the impression that there was a separate quibble I had with CarolC about the tone of her remarks about who supports human rights. I was talking about her comment to you though, which I and I most likely everyone but ostensibly CarolC herself heard the same tone of insult in.

Again I disagree with CarolC. I follow these sorts of discussions precisely for the purpose of getting a sense of what people are on about, rather than as a source of history and statistics. She seems to find my line of interest "unproductive"--and I hers. In fact, I'm not sure how much I disagree with her general point, but do know I quite disagree with the manner of stating it.
   
   I could certainly be wrong in my perception of her slant on things. Could easily be quite wrong. But if one hopes to speak for a reason, wouldn't it be productive to take feedback on how one sounds? or why people are put off? I'd think so, if one were serious about speaking for something beyond themselves. I think I'd leave off facile pseudo-ironies about Hitler and the holocaust and simply find another way of stating the case. What harm would that do?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 09:33 PM

Carol C is a serious defender of human rights. I respect her for that. I like Carol, and although I do not agree with her, I admire how hard she fights for the cause she supports. Many of the posts have got pretty harsh from lots of people. Trust that she really believes what she says. And, she is arguing from that position.

If I were Palestinian, I would appreciate having her helping my cause. S'long's we all understand that, things get a bit clearer. Pardon me for speaking on your behalf, ma'am.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:47 PM

Pardon me for speaking on your behalf, ma'am.

Nothing to pardon, brucie. Thanks, once again, for your kindness.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:13 AM

Yes, Fred, I understood that you were talking about the same incident with CarolC. I made the distinction because CarolC seemed at one point to have forgotten that she had addressed me on the matter directly. So when I talked about the Human Rights thing, she said:

"I did not suggest that you aren't for human rights. What I said, and what I've been criticized by Fred Miller for saying, is that I can't speak for you about weather or not you are for human rights, that only you can say whether or not you are for human rights."

Fine, but in my original post I had said "I trust that both of us support Human Rights"; this was in fact what she was responding to. How could I have said this if I myself did not support Human Rights? The only sense I could make of her later comments was that she had forgotten that it all began with a statement by me that I supported human rights and would assume she did too.

This context makes the faulty logic of the whole "I can't speak for you" thing pretty transparent, too. I obviously was not asking anyone to speak for me, as I had already spoken for myself.

Brucie, I agree with you about CarolC, too. It's the low-level insults that she apparently does not mean, but that many of us feel, that got us off on this line. But in general, she's a fighter for what she believes in, and that's always inpressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:26 AM

Well. Everybody is nicer than me. Again. Damn. All the chairs taken when the music stops. Here I am, again, the lone jerk. Where's Martin when you need him. I think it's a conspiracy.

   I don't think I can back-pedal from having said I don't find CarolC's position serious, but instead I think she sounds like a liberal with a pet cause, which she holds apart from all others involving much the same principles. Including those on the other side of her position.

   And I don't agree with you Nerd about low insults. CarolC doesn't do that easily or very much at all, but to the extent she seems to, the problem is more for me that it tips off the whole tone and gist of her position. It's not that she implies that you are not for human rights, it's that she generally implies that nobody is unless they agree with her, and does not admit comparison to the many ways that human rights are compromised toward other ends. Listen: She says things like "I don't begrudge Jews their homeland in Israel"--I guess it's just me, thinking For God's sake who do you imagine you are, anyway? I can't come around to it, at all. No more than I can come around to George Will's posturing in the article above. Oh well.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Galbraith
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:36 AM

"Trust that she really believes what she says."

Brucie,

Please reread my post of 07 Mar 04 - 05:41 PM. It dealt with one topic: Arafat's corruption.

CarolC's response at 07 Mar 04 - 12:17 PM was: "Are you saying that these things justify the massive human rights abuses that Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians? Because if you are, you would be advocating collective punishment, and I'm sure Hitler would be proud of you for that."

I did not even mention Israel. For all she knew, I may have been a pro-Palestinian activist who happens to believe that the cause would be better served by a leader who wasn't plundering from his people.

CarolC's implicit message is that anyone who provides a reasoned response to the issue of Arafat's corruption is justifying human rights abuses and is a Nazi.

I've gathered that CarolC's personal and unjustified attack on me was not an isolated incident. Do you think that she believe what she says when mounted that attack on me?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:46 AM

If anyone were to do an analysis of this thread, or for that matter, any of the threads on Israle/Palestine, as compared to other threads about world affairs, they would see that the number of personal attacks I recieve on Israel/Palestine related threads is almost one humdred percent greater than those I receive on any other type of thread. This is because, since the people making the personal attacks on me are trying to defend reprehensible, and therefore indefensable actions of the government of Israel, they must resort to ad hominem attacks and smear tactics on those who challenge their viewpoint. Martin Gibson, Nerd, Fred Miller, and various "Guests" are the ones doing it on this particular thread.

Galbraith, I am not suggesting that you are a Nazi, nor was I then. I think it was a mistake for me to use my response to you as a way to make the point that a lot of people seem to think that the whole Palestinian population should be punished for whatever Arafat does or does not do. That is collective punishment, and I think those who use Arafat as an excuse for the actions of the Israeli government are advocating collective punishment. That was a favorite tactic of the Nazis. People should be aware of that. But you're right. You were not doing that. My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Frankham
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:19 PM

Again, the idea that there is one good side and one bad side is naive.
Of course there are human rights abuses on both sides. The Israelis need to ask the question, however, why would an individual strap
explosives on his/her body and detonate it in a public place? What has lead to this madness? The Palestinians have to ask themselves
at what point will they tolerate Jewish religious practices and
depart from the extremist Hamas-style reactionary groups?

When will the bulldozing of innocent people's homes stop and when
will the rock throwing and suicide bombings as well?

It's simply ridiculous to assign to either side a completely high moral ground for their actions.

America in it's present condition is unable to broker a deal as mediator. Bush's ties to apocalyptic religious bias regarding Israel disqualifies him in every way. The UN is the only hope and in spite
of the John Darby approach to the "Left Behind" novels, a world
government is not such a bad idea. It would curb the conceits and arrogance of the Bushites and the Radical Religious Right.

I'm still for Chomsky's solution.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:59 PM

...and Nerd, to answer your question, I don't see how anyone can be for human rights while supporting what the government of Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians. As far as I can see, to do that is to promote Jewish rights above the rights of others.

But I don't think it's my place to tell you what you think, or what your positions are about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:13 PM

OK, we got lots of positions. I'm hoping to change this thread's direction just a bit. We know there's a problem, and we ain't gettin' anywhere with THAT. What's the solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:47 PM

Hi Folks,

Many of you may know that I am Carol's husband. Carol has told me that this thread was started by Martin Gibson as a deliberate attempt to troll for her. I haven't read much of it, but I have read enough to believe that this opinion is warranted. I would appreciate it if you all would go back and reread what she has said. In that light, I think then you will find her reactions make perfect sense. She told me what she was thinking when she wrote about speaking for Nerd's belief in human rights.

Nerd, she certainly does not feel exactly as you do about human rights, there are, after all, different levels of support. She also is precisely honest about what she says. If she says she cannot speak for you, she means that she cannot speak for you, not that she thinks that you do not support human rights. This distinction may seem murky to you but it is clear to her, and to me.

I would appreciate it if you'd cut her a little slack.

Thanks Nerd for this kind statement.

But in general, she's a fighter for what she believes in, and that's always inpressive.

I think it perfectly describes Carol's participation in these discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:51 PM

I guess we cross posted Brucie.

I'd really like to see this thread drop off the page and go away.

Why don't you start another thread if you want to discuss solutions? One without the trolling and ill will of this one.


Thanks

Rob

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:58 PM

"I would appreciate it if you'd cut her a little slack."

A little slack? You mean just like your little Jack the Sailor?

HA HA HA!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:28 PM

Good idea, Rob. I have done so. See "Middle East Solutions" on a thread near you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:37 PM

The childish immaturity of Mr. Gibson
is evidenced in every utterance
He howls and bellows like a little lost pup
with bile and venom and sputterence
To engage in conversation with him is
to be dragged into the gutterence.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 09:09 PM

I think CarolC accusing me of personal attacks is unfair.

(Jack, of course you must defend her.)

Again, CarolC said "I can't speak for you" immediately after I had already said I was for Human Rights. The only way to take this is as "I think there is still doubt, and that you may be lying." THAT is a personal attack, and as far as I could see it came from nowhere.

What, specifically, did CarolC take as a personal attack from me? I'd be interested to see where she think's I've been "attacking."

CarolC, by saying the following:

I don't see how anyone can be for human rights while supporting what the government of Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians. As far as I can see, to do that is to promote Jewish rights above the rights of others.

you have shown that

(1) everything you've said about me and human rights and what you really meant (to me and to your husband) is at best an evasion, because now you say you really think I can't possibly support human rights with my politics (which is interesting)

and

(2) you haven't been reading what I've been saying. I don't support what the government of Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and I don't support what Palestinian terrorists are doing to Israelis. But I don't think a solution can be reached until there is a Palestinian leadership with both the power and the will to negotiate for the Palestinian people. Israel has a democratically elected government and trusts its leaders. It has had progressive governments, conservative governments, and reactionary governments, and NONE of them could work with Arafat. There has not yet been a Palestinian leader who could bring anything to the table, which is precisely why Galbraith's points about Arafat's corruption are relevant, and why your trivialization of those points was unfair. Arafat does not want this problem solved because the problem is the source of his power and wealth. THAT is what has been stopping the peace process for forty years.

Let a real Palestinian leader come forward, who is really commtted to peace, and I think a solution will be reached. Until then, Israel is as unable as the Palestinians to solve this problem. You can blame them all you want, but it will not help.

And the whole "It's not up to me to tell you thing" is old, carolC (and JTS). If you said to me "I think you may be an asshole, but it's not up to me to tell you whether you are an asshole or not. Only you can say if you are an asshole," then where I come from you have still called me an asshole, you've just used a lot of extra words.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 09:50 PM

ATTTENTION!!

I am back after a few days out of town.

The last post claiming to be me was not me. Jack the Sailor, I did not post what was said about you by someone claiming to be me. Honestly, I do not need someone posing as me to get myself hated by some in this group who I also have no respect for. However, if you do not like this thread, which I did start with a legimate article post by a renowned journalist, then get the fuck off of it.

Whoever posted as me, Fuck you.

Fred Miller, I think this afrticle was one of the best ever written by George Will who is an award winning writer and who I KNOW is repsected by the Jewish community. As for your not finding my posts funny, I just do not give a shit.

As for Chief Chaos, I know what this thread is about, moron, I started it for Christ sakes.

For all of those who have particpated in this thread who have wasted your time arguing with a stubborn Israel hater like Carol C., I do have respect for your tenacity.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM

I have to say, this whole big discussion about what Nerd insists I meant by what I *didn't* say, is just about one of the silliest things I've ever seen here in the Mudcat.

So Martin, that was not you who stopped just short of calling me a cunt? ( ...in the post under your name that mentions 'female genitalia') Or was that you?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:51 PM

BTW, Nerd, I subscribe to the idea that if you don't have anything nice to say, and if no basic, very important principles (such as human rights) are at stake, don't say anything. Maybe you've never heard of that one. Personally, I think it's a good way of doing things.

That is why I haven't responded to the many posts of yours and Fred's in which the two of you enumerate all of the ways you find my style of posting unattractive, or disagreeable, by telling you what I think of yours. And I think I'll continue to keep it to myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:08 PM

It sure would be nice if we could move from here to that wonderful new thread entitled, "Middle East Solution" which was started by a common, uncomplicated, ordinary, every-day saviour of North America's destiny. Holy Shit are y'all pissed off. Just a little light humour here, that's all. Nothin' to see, let's move along; nothin' to see, let's move along.

Special thanks to Pat Paulsen for the NA's destiny remark. Shameless theft on my part.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:17 PM

And with that, a peace settled over the people at Mudcat Cafe. Brothers and Sisters decided to end the thread at the magic number of 250. And to all a good night.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:30 PM

CarolC, I agree that this is one of the silliest things on Mudcat. But to me the silly thing is your refusal to admit when you have insulted someone.

Your last post, for example, amounted to "You know, I'm not going to say what I think of you because that would not be nice."

Just saying THAT is not nice. Just saying THAT is an insult. Just saying THAT is not keeping your mouth shut when you have nothing nice to say, which most certainly is NOT your policy.

But I'm sure you don't see that. You never do anything offensive, and the rest of us are entirely to blame. Have it your way then.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:39 PM

And then a voice was heard . . . .

All right, what the hell's going on here. Everyone get to bed. NOW!

Now I lay me down to sleep,
And pray my friends will count some sheep,
And when we wake another day,
This thread will then have gone away.

Good night Billy Bob. Good night Mary Lou. Good night Susie Ellen. Good night John Boy. Good night Willie Shatner. Good night Obi Wan. Good night y'all.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:52 PM

Martin Gibson you cowardly little shit!

You fucking two bit troll. Fuck off yourself!

I just came on this thread to call you a shit. Apparantly idiots like Nerd can't tell their smell from yours.


Nerd.

You ignorant slut. You have no sense of irony.

Now you have been insulted. Study what I have said. I do this to you as a favour. Maybe now, you will take your head out of your ass and stop whining.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 12:44 AM

Actually, I prefer being insulted in the way you have done it, JTS. While it is, you will have to admit, rather puerile, it's so much better than the cowardly, whining way (to use two of your words) employed by others who use tortuous logic to try to prove they never insulted you.

I also like the fact that after CarolC accuses me of making personal attacks, and I ask her to give me an example, she tries to take the moral high ground by saying that it would be unkind of her to point out where I have been unseemly, and that she NEVER says anything unkind, unless human rights are being violated.

Bullshit. There WERE no personal attacks. CarolC makes blanket accusations, and when she is called on them, her husband comes in roaring shit and fuck and acts like a child.

Well, you have showed US, Jack the Sailor. We certainly respect you all the more now, and think your defense of your wife is both admirable and relevant. (NOT!)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 01:08 AM

jglyaebg.zj.shfgkuaw i38757 jhwekrICBM9876*&bhbweruyebghu.

My computer bleeped twice when I typed the above. You may have only minutes left to get some differences settled, because I think I may just have launched a ridiculous number of INTER-CONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 01:09 AM

Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 01:50 AM

The irony, Nerd, is that at the time when I first said that I couldn't say whether or not you supported human rights, I had no opinions of you of any sort except that I thought that, from what I had seen of you in other threads, you seemed like a fairly likable person. When I said I couldn't say whether or not you supported human rights, I was fully prepared to accept whatever you had to say about whether or not you support human rights.

But your behavior since then has given me an opinion of you. I don't expect that even if I did tell you which of your posts I feel were personal attacks, you would accept what I had to say. You have not accepted anything I have had to say about what I think and what I feel. So I don't see much point in getting into it with you. It would be an excercise in futility.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:16 AM

CarolC, we've been over this before.

The flaw in your logic, as I pointed out above, is that I had already said I supported human rights by the time you said "I don't know if you support human rights." My statement, "I trust you and I both support human rights," has as a necessary premise "I support human rights." If I did not support them, I could not believe that you and I both supported them. Therefore my support for human rights was obvious to anyone who had read my statement and applied to it the most rudimentary logical interpretation.

You're too smart to have missed this. Thus, if you had really been inclined to accept my statement that I supported human rights, you would have done so. Instead you rejected it. Your subsequent desperate (and pretty much unnecessary) attempts to reframe your statement so that you can pretend to be above reproach have not, I think, fooled anybody (except perhaps the loyal JTS).

I still have no real opinion of you, by the way, because a forum like mudcat can only give a distorted impression, especially in political threads. (Well, that's not strictly true; I have some opinions. I think you can be as stubborn as all get-out, for example, but obviously I can too or we would not still be arguing this.) Mostly, I only have opinions of your opinions, not of your character, if you see what I mean.

I also think your husband flipped out there for a moment, but even that isn't a lasting opinion. I'm sure he's a fine fellow in real life!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:39 AM

Look Pal.

I didn't flip out, I was just giving you the fight you seemed to be asking for.

I told you that Carol was not accusing you of being against human rights. You two are just not talking on the same wavelength. Is it really worthwhile to argue over a misunderstanding?

As I said before, I want this thread to suffer its well deserved demise. Please do not continue it. If you want to talk about the Palestinian problem please do not do so in support of Martin Gibson's trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:32 PM

Jack the Sailor

Thanks for turning off Nascar on TV long enough to get into something meaningful. I put this thread up for the likes of you and Carol C. Glad to see you see yourself in George Will's essay.

I'm not trolling. I'm stating an opinion. an opinion I support from a learned journalist. If you are uncomfortable with it and you obviously were, that's your problem and your old lady's.

Your wife obviously has a problem with jews and Israel. Thankfully, in your tin can of a home in your trailer park in rural hillbilly country, we don't have to come in contact with you personally.

Go brush your tooth.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:44 PM

I wish I had a tin can of a home in a trailer park. That would be a step up from where I am at present. Poverty is no disgrace, but it is a damnable inconvenience.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:26 PM

I wish I had a tooth.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 05:03 PM

True, poverty is no disgrace.

Living like a pig is a different story.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 15 Mar 04 - 05:51 PM

yes!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 10:53 AM

The score is 249 posts for continued war on this thread and 48 for solutions on the other thread. Any effin' wonder they can't get their shit together in the Middle East?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:13 AM

W c'mon Brucie - you got to admit this one is much more amusing - I MEAN - you've got to wait months for stuff such as:

Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:52 PM

Martin Gibson you cowardly little shit!

You fucking two bit troll. Fuck off yourself!

I just came on this thread to call you a shit. Apparantly idiots like Nerd can't tell their smell from yours.


Nerd.

You ignorant slut. You have no sense of irony.

Now you have been insulted. Study what I have said. I do this to you as a favour. Maybe now, you will take your head out of your ass and stop whining.

To be followed by, on being accused of flipping out:

Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:39 AM

Look Pal.

I didn't flip out, I was just giving you the fight you seemed to be asking for.

This thread has been a hilarious tag match - Nerd and MG are winning hands down - Particularly liked "Go brush your tooth" - priceless, absolutely priceless, thanks chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:15 AM

Brucie, please, one thread is running for four days and the other for 20 days. To compare the absolute number of posts is fundamentally flawed. If you take less flawed measures like average number of posts per day or number of posts in this thread when it was as old as the other thread now is, then in both cases the 'solutions' thread wins: the interest in solutions is higher. What does that mean for the Middle East?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 11:52 AM

Thanks, Wolfgang. You are a gentleman and a scholar to chide me so politely.

IRONY: The grenade exploded near my leg, and now my leg is very irony.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 07:53 PM

Mg, wasn't me, but it was stupid of me to even bring it up. As for the other stuff, fine.

The other thread is interesting, but a little hypothetical. Whatever the subject, we're still just posting our opinions. I think I was only disputing opinions, and how they struck me, but if that amounts to personal attacks, maybe, okay, whatever. I'd be glad to hear it back, and it's really the non-responsiveness to one's p.o.v.--the evasiveness--that's rude and low. Count that up. The new thread that interests me is about writing a good post.