BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:25 PM

Oops. I said Samuel Herbert when I meant to say Herbert Samuel.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:13 PM

Prior to the the establishment of Israel, how did the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine get along?

Why didn't the Zionists give the Jews of Europe, a homeland carved out of Germany and/or Russia.

I know that this is an oversimplification but shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

I think we should give Chicago to the descendents of all Africans who were brought to the U.S. as slaves so they can have a homeland. (Perhaps Georgia would be more fitting but I was thinking of Martin.)

Maybe we could give Northern Ireland to the Travellers in the British Isles.

India is a big country, we could give all speakers of Rom a bit of it.

Maybe Canada has a province they'd like to give the displaced natives of North America.

Seems to me that the Kurds are having a similar problem. Maybe we should give them a part of Iraq or Turkey.

Oh, I forgot the most persecuted minorities of all - homosexuals. We could create a place for lesbians, too. Maybe a place in the Mediterranean.

Zion was a wonderful idea before it became political. I believe that Jews should be free to practice their religion and their traditions without discrimination but I do not believe they should have the right to displace others. Seems to me it is a country founded on guilt and anger.

...or we could set up little Vatican-like countries all over the world and then the public would just have to live in secular states surrounding their places of worship.

I know this is absurd - thats why I wrote it. I think the State of Israel, the Vatican and rule by Mullahs are all absurd and do nothing to advance freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:21 PM

AWright! Well said, Dianavan. You hit the coconut dead on that time. Funny how nobody wants to move to uncontested vacant land like Antarctica or Death Valley, ain't it?

If the lesbians was to get a place of their own, I say, give 'em the French Riviera. They could make a lot of money off tourism after they got to take the place over.

If we apes was to get a place to run, it would have to be either the Greater Chicago area or New Orleans. Man, I can see it now...

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,All the Native peoples of North America
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:23 PM

Zion was a wonderful idea before it became political. I believe that Jews should be free to practice their religion and their traditions without discrimination but I do not believe they should have the right to displace others. Seems to me it is a country founded on guilt and anger.


Ya know Dianavan, Canada and the United States were also wonderful ideas before they became political. I believe that white folks like you and CarolC should be free to practice your religions and your traditions without discrimination but I do not believe you have the right to displace others. Seems to me your countries were founded on genocide and imperialism and you should give back your countries to the Natives.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM

Damn, I was going to wade in with a few fine ascerbic comments of my own, but they were taken. I'll just say thank you thank you thank you for making this thread interesting again.
Chongo, isn't there a tourist you should be commiting felonious mayhem on?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:48 PM

Thank you, Native Peoples. Americans and Canadians and, for that matter, "Anglo-Saxons" (who invaded Britain from the continent) and "Scots" (who invaded Britain from Ireland) telling people that Israel is absurd because it is based on the displacement of others is, well, absurd. Every country everywhere is based on the displacement of some people by others, whether it's San by Bantu, Black by White, Indian by Anglo, Aboriginal by Colonial, Muslim by Jew, or Jew by Muslim. To say that the Jews shouldn't have Israel is like saying the Anglo-Saxons shouldn't have Canada...it's fine in theory but in practice it's, well, absurd. (It's also like the children of immigrants who now say that we need to curb immigration: I got mine a generation or two ago, so y'all can go to Hell!)

The fact is, Israel IS a country, and has as much right to be one as the US or Canada (in other words, every right or no right at all depending on your point of view), so there isn't that much point debating whether Zionism was a good idea in principle.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,An angry Chippewa
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:49 PM

As far as that goes, the damned Mohawks and other Six Nations should give us back the land they took by war and pillage from us! To say nothing of the blasted Cree. I can't stand them. A bunch of red apples, that's what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Tom
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:53 PM

Yeah? You stupid Ojibways stole that land. You stole it from the Mohicans or somebody like that. There aren't any Mohicans around now, so we might as well have it, right? We didn't steal it, we recovered it from the Ojibways who stole it. I can't stand it when a thief calls somebody else a thief, and that's what you are doing.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

Yeah, but he saw Haj Amin as a powerful figure, an agitator, and wanted to win him over. I never said Samuel wasn't misguided! Rioting was the customary way of venting anger and Jews were always cordially disliked on the whole. Hostility was always simmering below the surface between the various ethnic and religious groups. Bedouins, Fellahin, Druse, Christians and Circassians were usualy one step away from slaughtering each other. In fact the average Palestinian probably hated the Bidawi far more than he did the Jew.


Dianavan, how could the Zionists carve up Germany and Russia, two of the world superpowers. The problem was in Russia and Germany anyway.
The Jews are a separate ethnic and religious group, who have been yearning to return to their homeland for centuries. It wasn't just a whim. What you say about the blacks, that's why Sierra-Leone and Liberia exist. A part (large part) of Iraq and Turkey IS Kurdistan. Iraq is a modern creation drawn up on a map with little consideration for the actual reality. Turkey is what remains of the Ottoman Empire.
Homosexuals are not a minority in the sense that Jews and Roma are. You can be a homosexual regardless of race or religion.
Zionism did not just march in and displace the locals. The first settlements were in vacant, inhospitable land they made work by sheer will.

Just to stir the pot, Native Americans did much the same thing to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:03 PM

To say that one regards historical Zionism as a bad idea, Nerd, is not equivalent to denying Isrealis the right to live in Isreal now.

It was a bad idea when the Vikings raided and pillaged other people's land. It was a bad idea when the Mongols swept across Europe. It was a bad idea when Iroquois massacred Hurons. And so on, and so on...

Surely we could get to a point in our historical development as a human race where this sort of thing was not put up with any longer?

I mean, we have outlawed burning at the stake, for example. Everyone seems agreed on it. Could we not also outlaw invading and occupying other people's land, and make it stick, through effective international law?

My objections to Zionism do not mean that I oppose the present continuance of the state of Isreal. I just oppose the further expansion of Israeli settlements beyond the 1948 borders.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM

I believe that white folks like you and CarolC should be free to practice your religions and your traditions without discrimination but I do not believe you have the right to displace others. Seems to me your countries were founded on genocide and imperialism and you should give back your countries to the Natives.

You are absolutely right, GUEST. The people who did this had no right to do it. My family wasn't here when it happened... we didn't arrive here until the early part of the 20th century, but we have benefited from a horrendous crime. I would gladly give this country back to the indigenous people. I don't own any land here, so I don't think my situation would significantly change if the ownership of this country were to be given back to it's earlier inhabitants. And my own thoughts are that they would probably to a hell of a lot better job of running things that the folks we've got doing that now.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM

Here's my thoughts on the whole issue, Allan. There were crimes committed by both sides. Both sides have legitimate grievances. The Palestinians were screwed by a lot of people, not just the European Jews who settled in what is now Israel. It's time to let the Palestinians have self-determination in the land that was given to them in the partition plan (minus the part that was incorporated into Israel prior to the 1969 war), and let's give them a some assistance while they go about the business of building their country, just as Israel was given assistance while the Israelis were going about the business of building their country.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,All the Native peoples of North America
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

I'm relieved to know that none of CarolC's family was involved in stealing North America from the Native peoples. That she's happy to live on stolen land and not return to her own ancestral home says volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:26 PM

Or, we could just declare that we have a World Society, establish an equal Bill of Rights and Charter of Freedoms everywhere, make everyone a World Citizen with the right to travel where they please, establish the same minimum wage law everywhere, establish medicare everywhere, set about eliminating poverty and developing the undeveloped areas, and live in peace together...instead of dividing up into armed enclaves and fighting.

How about that for a change?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:28 PM

Are you willfully ignoring this part of my post, GUEST, just to score points?

we didn't arrive here until the early part of the 20th century, but we have benefited from a horrendous crime. I would gladly give this country back to the indigenous people.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:31 PM

...although returning to my ancestral home would be a bit tricky, since my ancestral homes are in many places. But I figure, if the people who originally inhabited the area in which I now live wanted it back, they probably wouldn't mind the income they would get from the rent I pay to live on this land.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM

One other point, GUEST. Your backhanded references addressed to me about giving land back is quite the red herring, since I have never advocated (nor do I now advocate) Israel giving any land back that was given to it in the partition plan, nor any of the land it took in the 1948 war.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:45 PM

Carol, you mean 67 don't you. You know who want to be under Palestinian suzereignity the least? The Druze and Circassians, followed by the majority of Christians. Which partition plan do you mean? It would be lovely to give them assistance, but a bit hard when the terrorists rule the streets.

You could Little Hawk and I would join gladly, but it's day-dreaming. Big Rock Candy Mountainish.

If Native Americans were able to take over other countries at the same time the Europeans were arriving, do people think they wouldn't?
Anyway, it's too late to talk about giving the US back now. Most Americans have been there as long as many of the Tribes were on their lands.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:58 PM

Carolc, your statement that your life wouldn't change much if the United States were ceded to Indian nations because you don't own land is very naive. You would suddenly be subject to a whole different set of laws which disenfranchise you. You might even have to go live on a "reservation," and have crappy schools and no social services.

You might think that no-one would mind your rent money, but if all the suddenly Indian-owned businesses were to decide you shouldn't have a job, you'd come to be seen as an undesirable tenant. Your life would change immensely because of this.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:02 PM

Carol, you mean 67 don't you.

Yes.

You know who want to be under Palestinian suzereignity the least? The Druze and Circassians, followed by the majority of Christians.

Are suggesting that the Christians are not Palestinians? They certainly see themselves as Palestinians. I don't know about the Druce and the Circassians. I'll have to look into that.

Which partition plan do you mean?

I'll get back to you on that.

It would be lovely to give them assistance, but a bit hard when the terrorists rule the streets.

Not really. Ending the occupation would be a good start. Allowing international observers into the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem to help with the handover of power would also help. Giving them financial assistance to help rebuild the civil infrastructure that was destroyed by the Sharon government would go a long way toward helping. Not undermining the legitimacy of the elected Palestinian leaders by requiring them to appear to their own people as appeasers and as servants of their occupiers, and by forcing them to provide security for their occupiers would go a long way toward helping the Palestinians build their country.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:06 PM

Israel is the ancestral home of the Jews.

God said so. And we know it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:11 PM

Carolc, your statement that your life wouldn't change much if the United States were ceded to Indian nations because you don't own land is very naive. You would suddenly be subject to a whole different set of laws which disenfranchise you. You might even have to go live on a "reservation," and have crappy schools and no social services.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Nerd, but as far as I can see, it's pure speculation. You don't know much about the way Native Americans view justice, do you?

You might think that no-one would mind your rent money, but if all the suddenly Indian-owned businesses were to decide you shouldn't have a job, you'd come to be seen as an undesirable tenant. Your life would change immensely because of this.

I am self-employed. My husband is self-employed. Again, you don't know very much about the way Native Americans conduct their business, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:37 PM

Palestinian suzereignity. They don't want to live under it trust me. The Druze are their own ethnic and religious group, they know what will happen to them if they become weak. Circassians are Muslims (but only since 1860) but totally alien in language, race and culture. They are from the Western Caucasus and were settled by the Ottomans to form a sort of loyal buffer against the marauding Bedouins.
By your own logic East Jerusalem shouldn't be part of a Palestiunian state. Never mind it's an idiocy in practical terms.
The civil infrastructure was not destroyed by Sharon's government that's pure moonshine. They received millions, the PLO pocketed it and let everything go to pot. Requiring the legitimate leaders to stop the violence against Israelis should be the first step. There is no reason or excuse for it. Most of the occupation comes from security considerations. Israel is having it's own financial difficulties you expect us to subsidize them? Isn't collecting their taxes enough?

You know it doesn't matter how Native Americans conduct their businesses but if they take over from the US Gvt they will inherit the structure and things will go on like they do today.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:57 PM

No, Allen, I don't think the united World I propose is the least bit unrealistic, it's just not going to happen in one day or one year, that's all. It has been gradually happening for the last few thousands of years as we have progressed slowly from wandering families, to wandering little tribes, to larger tribes, to nations, to trade alliances, to literacy, to universal education, to international laws, and so on...

Impulses toward larger and more harmonious associations of people are wise and inevitable. Impulses toward greater division and segregation of people are unwise and counterproductive.

It's that simple. But it doesn't all happen in one glorious instant solution.

The best way to unite the many diverse factions you describe in the Middle East, Allen, is to ensure that they all experience improvements in health, economic well-being, education, legal protections, and safety from violence. That can be done bit by bit. in stages. No society can fix everything overnight.

I am simply suggesting constructive efforts, as opposed to efforts that produce more conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:01 PM

Dianavan (inter alia) said:

Seems to me that the Kurds are having a similar problem. Maybe we should give them a part of Iraq or Turkey

Just exactly what they want, and deserve!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:03 PM

Martin Gibson is a third grade yoga doctor and likes Nick Cave. Thus, he is misinformed.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:12 PM

Little Hawk the paradox is that under the current situation nobody can experience an improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:23 PM

Palestinian suzereignity. They don't want to live under it trust me.

Please provide some documentation for this assertion.

By your own logic East Jerusalem shouldn't be part of a Palestiunian state.

How so? Please see the following part of my 27 Mar 05 - 04:02 PM post.

"Ending the occupation would be a good start. Allowing international observers into the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem to help with the handover of power would also help."

Never mind it's an idiocy in practical terms.

I thought we were going to have a civil discussion.

The civil infrastructure was not destroyed by Sharon's government that's pure moonshine.

It was indeed destroyed by the government of Israel under Sharon. Blown to smithereens along with quite a few Palestinian civilians, I might add.

They received millions, the PLO pocketed it and let everything go to pot.

This is pure moonshine.

Requiring the legitimate leaders to stop the violence against Israelis should be the first step.

The first step should be to end the illegal occupation. And the next step should be for the government of Israel to stop the violence against Palestinians. When this is done, the majority of Palestinians will no longer see themselves as having a need to commit violence against Israelis, and most Palestinians will support any moderate leaders in their efforts to eliminate the violence committed by extremist Palestinian groups. The reason they will do this will be because they will have a country of their own to protect against violent extremists. As things are right now, they have nothing.

Most of the occupation comes from security considerations.

This is not true. Even some former members of Shin Bet (sp?) and the IDF maintain that not only does the occupation not help Israeli security, but that it severely compromises Israeli security.

Israel is having it's own financial difficulties you expect us to subsidize them? Isn't collecting their taxes enough?

We are having our own financial difficulties here in the US, too. Many millions of us don't have any access to any medical care at all. And yet we send you billions of dollars every year of our hard earned tax money so you can blow up Palestinians. You can take some of that money and give it to the ones who are left.

You know it doesn't matter how Native Americans conduct their businesses but if they take over from the US Gvt they will inherit the structure and things will go on like they do today.

This is just as I have figured it. Except that I don't think the American Indians would be anywhere near as tempted by the idea of global domination that drives the people we have in power here in the US today.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:54 PM

"Palestinian suzereignity. They don't want to live under it trust me.

Please provide some documentation for this assertion. "

I can't. This isn't something I found in books, it's what I've learned from my friends and from people I've talked to.

"Never mind it's an idiocy in practical terms.

I thought we were going to have a civil discussion."

It's still a civilised conversation, I wasn't calling you or anyone else an idiot. That's my view, that it's an idiocy to divide a city in half.

"The civil infrastructure was not destroyed by Sharon's government that's pure moonshine.

It was indeed destroyed by the government of Israel under Sharon. Blown to smithereens along with quite a few Palestinian civilians, I might add.

They received millions, the PLO pocketed it and let everything go to pot.

This is pure moonshine. "

They were run to the ground by Arafat and his corrupt cronies. There were plenty of demonstrations against this and official investigations by the organizations providing the donations. Unemployment did rise significantly since this Intifada, but that's because most of them worked in Israel. It was stopped when this was increasingly abuised by smuggling terrorists in.

"Requiring the legitimate leaders to stop the violence against Israelis should be the first step.

The first step should be to end the illegal occupation. And the next step should be for the government of Israel to stop the violence against Palestinians. When this is done, the majority of Palestinians will no longer see themselves as having a need to commit violence against Israelis, and most Palestinians will support any moderate leaders in their efforts to eliminate the violence committed by extremist Palestinian groups. The reason they will do this will be because they will have a country of their own to protect against violent extremists. As things are right now, they have nothing. "

Please define what you consider the Occupation. The violence against the Palestinians occurs as a result of trying to stop their terrorist actions. The moment they cease deliberately murdering our people the need for military action will go away. The rest of that paragraph shows you don't know the extremists's mentality.
Besides, for all the violence you attribute to israelis, we don't have dates in the year in which we do massive riots and violent outbursts. The government interfers as little as possible, to prevent further friction.

"Most of the occupation comes from security considerations.

This is not true. Even some former members of Shin Bet (sp?) and the IDF maintain that not only does the occupation not help Israeli security, but that it severely compromises Israeli security."

And some hold the other view. But whether or not the considerations are right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact is they are motivated by security and they will cease to be an issue once violence has stopped.

"Israel is having it's own financial difficulties you expect us to subsidize them? Isn't collecting their taxes enough?

We are having our own financial difficulties here in the US, too. Many millions of us don't have any access to any medical care at all. And yet we send you billions of dollars every year of our hard earned tax money so you can blow up Palestinians. You can take some of that money and give it to the ones who are left "

Oh yes our hobby is to blow Palestinians up.
The financial difficulties of the US are minor compared to ours. We have no industry to speak, no reserves. We can barely keep ourselves up let alone another country.
By the same token they should give us some of the money they get from international donations. It's crazy.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:08 PM

I have always had a problem with the 1948 borders. After the six day war I naturally expected Israel to annex the West Bank. To me this put secure borders and natural boundries around the State of Israel. At this time I don't think Israel wants to do this because of the population bomb. Nevertheless there already exists what is effectively a Palestinian State in the population of Jordan. Creating a new Palestinian state in the West Bank with no sea access and inherent contentions over water resources to me is asking for trouble. I'm interested in the Israeli viewpoint on this issue.

I've also felt that Palestinian nationality was not an issue of race or religion, but a mostly manufactured method for Israel's Arab neighbors to maintain pressure on the State Of Israel by providing a natural group of 'victims' with which to harass Israel whereas most of the Palestinian refugees could have been resettled by Egypt and Lebanon, Jordan and Syria after the 1948 war.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:49 PM

I can't. This isn't something I found in books, it's what I've learned from my friends and from people I've talked to.

I tend to doubt that any of them were Christians who live in the West Bank, Gaza, and/or East Jerusalem.

Please define what you consider the Occupation.

Israeli military control of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Israeli governmental control over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Check points within the territories themselves, rather than just around the perimeters. Ever expanding Jewish only settlements that are accessed by Jewish only roads and that are protected by the IDF, that cut deeply into the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and cutting Palestinian towns and villages off from one another, separating farmers from their land, and bringing everyday life to an almost complete standstill.

The violence against the Palestinians occurs as a result of trying to stop their terrorist actions.

This is not true. The violence against the Palestinians occurs in order to persuade the ones who are still there to want to leave. I saw with my own eyes, IDF snipers shooting at old ladies who were walking down the street in order to get medical care during the spring 2002 incursions into the West Bank and Gaza, and this was during one of the temporary lifts of the curfew. Those old women were no threat to anyone. They were just trying to get help, and there was no-one nearby who could have in any way been placed in any kind of danger by what they were doing.

They received millions, the PLO pocketed it and let everything go to pot...

...They were run to the ground by Arafat and his corrupt cronies. There were plenty of demonstrations against this and official investigations by the organizations providing the donations. Unemployment did rise significantly since this Intifada, but that's because most of them worked in Israel. It was stopped when this was increasingly abuised by smuggling terrorists in.

Arafat may have taken some money (although no-one has yet proven that this is the case). However, there was a civil infrastructure, including police departments, education departments, schools, hospitals, etc. Most of these were destroyed by the IDF. And not only did the IDF destroy much of the physical infrastructure of these agencies, they also took with them many of the records, computer hard drives, and other things that these agencies needed in order to operate. They said that it was in order to look for terrorist activity, but none was found. And there is no reason to confiscate a hospital's records to look for terrorist activity. The only reason to do this is to prevent any possibility for the Palestinians to ever have an independant state.

And I have to tell you, it pisses me off that the Israeli government did that to civil infrastructure that I helped to pay for, using weapons that I also helped to pay for, when children right here in my own country are not getting adequate education, or adequate medical and dental care. I can back up my assertions with documentation if I need to. I'd rather not have to take my time away from other things that I need to do, but I will if you require it.

The moment they cease deliberately murdering our people the need for military action will go away.

This is not true. There was a period of about two years when there were no Israeli deaths as a result of PLO terrorism because the Palestinians (after the signing of the Oslo Accords) thought that they would be getting their own independent state. But the settlements continued to grow, and the occupation never ended. It was only when the Palestinians lost all hope that they would ever have their own state that the violence resumed.

But whether or not the considerations are right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact is they are motivated by security and they will cease to be an issue once violence has stopped.

That approach is one that is designed so that any goals toward accomplishing peace will fail. Why should the Palestinians unilaterally stop defending themselves, their land, and their livlihoods? Why are the Israelis the only ones who are allowed to defend themselves? You can't expect the Palestinians to have to live up to standards that Israel is not, itself, willing to live up to.

Oh yes our hobby is to blow Palestinians up.

Whether or not you choose to call it a hobby, it is, nevertheless, being done. Quite regularly, in fact.

The financial difficulties of the US are minor compared to ours. We have no industry to speak, no reserves. We can barely keep ourselves up let alone another country.

And I submit to you that these problems would go away to a very significant degree if Israel would end the occupation and allow the Palestinians to have a viable, independent, and secure state of their own, on their side of the Green Line. The occupation is killing Israel, and it is dragging many other countries down with it, including my own country.

By the same token they should give us some of the money they get from international donations. It's crazy.

Why should they do that? Israel gets many billions of dollars in aid every year, while the Palestinians only get a few millions. The Palestinians do far less damage to Israeli property than the Israelis do to Palestinian property.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:53 PM

robomatic, Jordan is not a Palestinian state. It is a Hashemite Jordanian state with a lot of Palestinian refugees in it.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:57 PM

I've also felt that Palestinian nationality was not an issue of race or religion

Palestinian nationality is an aspiration of people whose families and ancestors have been living on the land that came to be known as Palestine for more than a thousand years, for self-determination. This is really all it has ever been.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:28 PM

There is contention over water sources between all the nations in the area. Linking the West Bank (what an anachronism nowadays!) and Gaza is problematic, because it would sever the south of israel from the rest of the country.


The origins of the modern Palestinian nation are found in the brutal repressions of an 1834 of a Fellahin and Bedouin revolt againt Ibrahim Ali, the Egyptian general. After conquering the land, and Syria, in 1831, he introduced siginificant new reforms. By forming a strong, centralized authority, he made the lands safe from bandits and marauders. Then he brought in his experts to improve the lands and agriculture methods, followed by trade. In order to speed the proccess up, he allowed the Christians to trade in livestock and fodder, something which they were forbidden by the Ottomans. He intended to turn Palestine into the Egyptian bread basket, in anticipation of conflict with the Ottomans. The Bedouins and the village Sheikhs were unhappy becuase they were forbidden to extort a toll from passer-by's, and that he was trying to make them settle down. The straw that broke the camel's back was conscription. At the time it amounted to a death sentence. The first signs of revolt where when Ibrahim Pasha was informed by some of the Sheikhs that they could not provide the quota of recruits. They claimed the Fellahin had fled into the eastern wilderness. This was an old excuse, he had already heard it in Syria and east of the Jordan, so he decided to drop the quotas but harden the enforcement of the new policies. Soon riots broke out in Hebron where several of his soldiers were killed and it soon spread to Sschem, where his enemies whipped up the people in a general revolt against Egypt and her supporters. It spread to Jerusalem, the coast, and the northern towns of Tiberias and Safed. When they captured Tiberias they massacred the Jewish community. After a protracted and difficult campaign, Ibrahim succeeded in putting down the revolt. They razed hebron, butchered the populace, forced the surviving men into the army, raped the women, and handed a 120 youths over to his officers, to do with them as they pleased. This was repeated throughout the land, ravaging villages, and destroying entire quarters in various towns. The population was murdered or deported. Finaly, they disarmed the populace, a harsh blow to their pride, not to mention their own safety. Basicaly he declared a new order, where only the government could use violence. So although Egyptian rule only lasted till 1840, it cause a dramatic change in the pattern of living. It was a new but broken society.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:46 PM

Carol:

Regarding both your comments. Thank you. I'm suggesting that if Israel is going to have to accept reality, so are the Jordanians and those calling themselves Palestinians.

I have a book prepared by an Israeli covering several of the local wars. In its preface is the statement: The wars between the Arabs and the Jews are not a matter of right against wrong, they are a matter of right against right.

There are times when fairness is beyond us. The next best thing is to balance the unfairness with a minimum of overall suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:07 PM

"the paradox is that under the current situation nobody can experience an improvement"

Yup. That's the problem all right, Allen. However, that used to be the problem in Ireland too. And it used to be the problem at the Berlin Wall. Eventually a solution can be found, if people decide to stop fighting and try something else.

As someone said earlier in this discussion: like the Europeans, the Middle Easterners may eventually try getting along with one another...AFTER they have tried absolutely everthing else! :-)

That seems to be the usual way.

Gorbachev managed to end the Cold War without sliding into a 3rd World War as the Soviet Union unraveled piece by piece. That takes great imagination and flexibility. It takes a will to avoid bloodshed. A less imaginative Russian administration would probably have fought rather than change...and a couple of hundred million people would have died.

I am hoping for similar flexibility on the part of Israelis and Muslims in the Middle East. Part of the problem, though, is that the Muslims are so fragmented into so many different groups. That makes it very hard to get all of them to listen to a new proposition at any given time.

The North American Indians had exactly the same problem when dealing with the whites...and with each other. They were too divided. Israel is a single political entity. Its opponents are many entities. That makes for an unpredictable situation.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:07 PM

Carol, I'll respond more fully tommorow, but in the meantime:

"I can't. This isn't something I found in books, it's what I've learned from my friends and from people I've talked to.

I tend to doubt that any of them were Christians who live in the West Bank, Gaza, and/or East Jerusalem."

No, I was talking about the rest of the country. They have no desire to be under Moslem or PA control.

"The moment they cease deliberately murdering our people the need for military action will go away.

This is not true. There was a period of about two years when there were no Israeli deaths as a result of PLO terrorism because the Palestinians (after the signing of the Oslo Accords) thought that they would be getting their own independent state. But the settlements continued to grow, and the occupation never ended. It was only when the Palestinians lost all hope that they would ever have their own state that the violence resumed."

There was a general cessation of PALESTINIAN POLICE terrorist attacks (I think there were several). The terrorist organisations did kill people, and there were numerous attempts foiled daily. The Palestinian Police were supposed to nip the Hamas and Jihad in the bud, but didn't.

"The violence against the Palestinians occurs as a result of trying to stop their terrorist actions.

This is not true. The violence against the Palestinians occurs in order to persuade the ones who are still there to want to leave. I saw with my own eyes, IDF snipers shooting at old ladies who were walking down the street in order to get medical care during the spring 2002 incursions into the West Bank and Gaza, and this was during one of the temporary lifts of the curfew. Those old women were no threat to anyone. They were just trying to get help, and there was no-one nearby who could have in any way been placed in any kind of danger by what they were doing. "

BS. That's a ridiculous load of rubbish. We have no intentions of forcing them to leave, I don't know where you got that from.
Anyway the shooting goes with what I was saying. If there was no need to sit in the West bank and Gaza, things like this would not occur. Things are alos more complicated than they may appear, and without all the facts I (and you for that matter) can't say why they were shooting. It was a savage affair as all fights in built-up areas are. They would not have needed to be in there in the first place if it weren't for the terrorists using it as a base. Just for the record which place are you talking about.

" Oh yes our hobby is to blow Palestinians up.

Whether or not you choose to call it a hobby, it is, nevertheless, being done. Quite regularly, in fact."

So's rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens with far less justification.

"But whether or not the considerations are right or wrong doesn't matter. The fact is they are motivated by security and they will cease to be an issue once violence has stopped.

That approach is one that is designed so that any goals toward accomplishing peace will fail. Why should the Palestinians unilaterally stop defending themselves, their land, and their livlihoods? Why are the Israelis the only ones who are allowed to defend themselves? You can't expect the Palestinians to have to live up to standards that Israel is not, itself, willing to live up to. "

How does firing a rocket on Shderot or blowing up a bus defend their homes and livelihoods? That is not a justified defence, in fact it's not defence at all. It's murder. That's the violence I meant.

"By the same token they should give us some of the money they get from international donations. It's crazy.

Why should they do that? Israel gets many billions of dollars in aid every year, while the Palestinians only get a few millions. The Palestinians do far less damage to Israeli property than the Israelis do to Palestinian property. "

I was applying the same logic. As I said, it's crazy.

If you could send me those documents, I'll be glad to read. Only when it suits you though. No rush.

We are not perfect, they are not perfect, it's a very complex situation that is breeding more and more evil. The first step should be cessation of terrorism against civilians. That should come before all else.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:11 PM

Robomatic I loved your last post. You put it in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST,1/4 jewboy on my mothers side
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:15 PM

.. maybe this is one weekend in the year

when jews should just stop to think what magnitude of crimes against humanity

have and are being committed to preserve the security

of their 'chosen' little land and people..

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:15 PM

Yeah, robomatic, good post.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:15 PM

Man, have you got a lot of time on your hands.

Israel has commerce and a society that has progressed along with a democracy.

Jews in America will do whatever it takes to support Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:30 PM

Carol,

The very fact that you talk about "the way native Americans view justice" and "the way Native Americans conduct business" shows that you are dealing in stereotypes, not reality. Some Native Americans will be scrupulously fair, some will not. Many view white people with suspicion, some with hostility. The idea that the entire system of government and the ownership of all the land in the country could switch hands at once without your life being affected is pretty crazy. You may be self-employed, but presumably you need a system of laws within which to do business, and that would all change overnight.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:28 PM

Well, it's a bit difficult to make a statement about anything without getting accused of stereotyping by somebody...unless you add about 5 paragraphs of further qualifying statements to it to cover every possible angle imaginable. Anybody else noticed that?

Or am I just engaging in stereotyping? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:48 PM

I would like to see some sources for the information in your 27 Mar 05 - 07:28 PM post, Allen.

No, I was talking about the rest of the country. They have no desire to be under Moslem or PA control.

If by "the rest of the country", you mean Israel proper, excluding the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, I don't really think that is relevant to this discussion. At least not relevant to any points I have made in this discussion.

There was a general cessation of PALESTINIAN POLICE terrorist attacks (I think there were several). The terrorist organisations did kill people, and there were numerous attempts foiled daily. The Palestinian Police were supposed to nip the Hamas and Jihad in the bud, but didn't.

My understanding, based on quotes I've read from former Israeli government officials (including at least one former prime minister), among other people, is that some of the more extremist organizations did continue to try to disrupt the peace process, but that there was a pause in the kind of violence you are seeing at this time, during the period when the Palestinians had some hope for the outcome of the Oslo process. When Palestinians have hope, the majority of them just want to get on with their lives. When they have none, they are much more willing to resort to desperate measures.

BS. That's a ridiculous load of rubbish.

No it's not.

We have no intentions of forcing them to leave, I don't know where you got that from.

I didn't say "forcing" them to leave. I said "persuading" them to leave. Basically, that means making their lives so bloody miserable that they won't be able to justify staying. It's been the strategy all along. I got this information from quite a few Israeli Jews.

Anyway the shooting goes with what I was saying. If there was no need to sit in the West bank and Gaza, things like this would not occur.

The reason the IDF are in the territories is basically to protect the settlers, and to disrupt the lives of the Palestinians. Their presence does not in any way make Israel (the part not including the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem) more secure. In fact, it makes Israel a lot less secure. People still find ways of committing terrorist acts in Israel, and they have much more incentive to want to do so with the IDF and settler presence in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, making their lives such a hell.

Things are alos more complicated than they may appear

Yes, I am very aware of that. However, I tend to think I am more aware of what goes on within the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem than you are.

It was a savage affair as all fights in built-up areas are. They would not have needed to be in there in the first place if it weren't for the terrorists using it as a base. Just for the record which place are you talking about.

Are you refering to the incursions of 2002? I don't remember the name of the town in that particular case, but that case was hardly an isolated incident.

So's rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens with far less justification.

Rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens are wrong. But you are wrong about there being far less justification. The people in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have no human rights whatever. They are not even human beings in the eyes of the Israeli government and the IDF. If you were living under those conditions, I bet you'd be fighting just as hard, if not harder, to change that situation.

How does firing a rocket on Shderot or blowing up a bus defend their homes and livelihoods? That is not a justified defence, in fact it's not defence at all. It's murder. That's the violence I meant.

I can't justify it. But I can help you try to understand it. They want their freedom. They want Israel to leave them alone so they can get on with their lives. They have tried everything, and nothing has worked. My guess is that they are trying to make it too expensive for Israel (in terms of human costs) to continue to keep the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem captive any longer.

We are not perfect, they are not perfect, it's a very complex situation that is breeding more and more evil. The first step should be cessation of terrorism against civilians. That should come before all else.

That won't work. That plan sets everyone up to fail. The Israeli government first has to give the Palestinians something to hope for. And then it has to give them a good faith reason to believe that they can rely on the Israeli government to deliver on its promises.

If you could send me those documents, I'll be glad to read. Only when it suits you though. No rush.

Probably not this coming week. I have quite a lot of work to do this coming week. But I will get to it when I can.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:07 AM

I don't buy it, LH. It's easy to say lots of things without stereotyping, and if you don't do it people won't accuse you of it. CarolC alluded to "the way Native Americans view justice" and "the way Native Americans do business" as if

1) there was a homogeneous "Native American community"

and

2) all people within that community had the same ethics, morals, and business practices; and these practices were just and fair.

This is a stereotype, albeit a positive one. Many people now believe that Native Americans have special spiritual gifts and are always just, fair, close to nature and all that complex of stuff. It is a well-known sterotype, often commented on in popular culture. I am not making it up. They did a great send-up of it, for example, in South Park in an episode where people were following the kooky medical advice of two people they thought were Native American. When they found out the people were actually Mexican, they were horrified. (Never mind that Mexicans look like they do because they are descended from native Americans).

If CarolC had said, "in all the business I have had with Native Americans, they have been fair," this would not have been stereotyping. But to say "if you think Native Americans might be unjust, then you just don't know Native Americans" is pretty obviously a stereotype.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:11 AM

From robomatic -

Regarding both your comments. Thank you. I'm suggesting that if Israel is going to have to accept reality, so are the Jordanians and those calling themselves Palestinians.

What "reality" are you suggesting Israel is going to accept?

I have a book prepared by an Israeli covering several of the local wars. In its preface is the statement: The wars between the Arabs and the Jews are not a matter of right against wrong, they are a matter of right against right.

There are times when fairness is beyond us. The next best thing is to balance the unfairness with a minimum of overall suffering.

I agree with this. Time to end the occupation. That will be a good start.

From Nerd -

The very fact that you talk about "the way native Americans view justice" and "the way Native Americans conduct business" shows that you are dealing in stereotypes, not reality. Some Native Americans will be scrupulously fair, some will not. Many view white people with suspicion, some with hostility. The idea that the entire system of government and the ownership of all the land in the country could switch hands at once without your life being affected is pretty crazy. You may be self-employed, but presumably you need a system of laws within which to do business, and that would all change overnight.

I don't think I have given you enough information for you to be able to say I am stereotyping. I have not said that Native Americans are paragons of virtue and that they are all the same. But the underlying philosophies that most of their traditions are based on is not the same as that of the Europeans who have spread empire around the world. That is why the Europeans have been so successful in wiping out so many peoples around the world, and subjugating so many others.

One thing that can be said about the traditions of pretty much all of the indegenous peoples of North America... they are based on the concept of all of nature being their relatives. Just like your parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. To them, the earth and all of the things found in it (including weather phenomena) are their own flesh and blood. And for that reason, their tradition is diametrically the opposite of that of the Europeans who came here with the philosophy that land that hasn't been conquered isn't productive. And of course, that makes me their relative as well. I can live with that. That is a philosophy I feel much more at home with than the philosophy of those who hold power now.

It may surprise you to know that I do not really have a people I consider to be my own. My ethnic heritage is too mixed up to mean much of anything to me. My spiritual philosophy is unique to me, and so I am a complete minority of one, wherever I go, and whomever I am with. And for a number of different reasons, even though I fit many of the criteria of groups who have been the dominent ones, I have never had the experience of really being a part of any of them. So for me, all of humanity will have to serve as my people. It's all I've got.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:12 AM

I was working on my post for you when you posted, Nerd.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:18 AM

Finally, some interesting dialogue. I'd had enough of the tee-shirt airbrusher and his 30 year old ( 31 on June 16th) fake middle aged jewish man. I wish he'd get another cat.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism? .
From: Nerd
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 12:25 AM

Actually, most Europeans subscribe to a belief system in which all nature is our relative too; and certainly one in which Native Americans are our relatives. It's called evolutionary biology. But many of those same Europeans and Euro-Americans have no problem killing, raping and murdering their relatives.

The same has always been true of Native Americans, as previous posters on this thread have pointed out. Slavery, war, and exploitation--including one people driving out or politically dominating another--were not unknown among the native peoples of the US and Canada. There's no reason to assume they'd be unknown or even uncommon if natives were in charge today, either.

You also have neglected the southern half of North America (Mexico and points south), where large empires grew up based on the exploitation of land, slave labor, and human sacrifice.

Subject: RE: BS: A discussion - What is antisemitism?
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 04:42 AM

I pulled most of the 1834 information from a book called "Palestinians; The making of a People" by Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal. You could always try and find more information on Ibrahim Pasha and his Muhamad Ali (that's where Clay took the name from) but there isn't much available.

Carol this will be my last post on subject we are arguing around in circles. Getting nowhere.

"No, I was talking about the rest of the country. They have no desire to be under Moslem or PA control.

If by "the rest of the country", you mean Israel proper, excluding the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, I don't really think that is relevant to this discussion. At least not relevant to any points I have made in this discussion "

I had pointed this out so you can see another POV. Not even all Palestinians want to live in the PA not to mention Druze and Circassians.

"There was a general cessation of PALESTINIAN POLICE terrorist attacks (I think there were several). The terrorist organisations did kill people, and there were numerous attempts foiled daily. The Palestinian Police were supposed to nip the Hamas and Jihad in the bud, but didn't.

My understanding, based on quotes I've read from former Israeli government officials (including at least one former prime minister), among other people, is that some of the more extremist organizations did continue to try to disrupt the peace process, but that there was a pause in the kind of violence you are seeing at this time, during the period when the Palestinians had some hope for the outcome of the Oslo process. When Palestinians have hope, the majority of them just want to get on with their lives. When they have none, they are much more willing to resort to desperate measures."

It's the extremists I'm talking about! As long as they have free reign there will never be peace only more hate.

"So's rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens with far less justification.

Rocket fire and shootings and bombings against Israeli citizens are wrong. But you are wrong about there being far less justification. The people in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have no human rights whatever. They are not even human beings in the eyes of the Israeli government and the IDF. If you were living under those conditions, I bet you'd be fighting just as hard, if not harder, to change that situation"

Not human beings in the eyes of the IDF and the government? First of all that's baloney. Yes, some of them, not everyone, and you want to talk inhuman look at how the Arab governments put down unrest. This is a war, people are getting sick of it, these things will happen. You try being 19 and sent to Jenin or Hebron and see if you act with any loftier morals. No human rights is ridiculous and untrue. Is there room for improvement? Of course but things will get worse as long as there is this constant terror.

"We have no intentions of forcing them to leave, I don't know where you got that from.

I didn't say "forcing" them to leave. I said "persuading" them to leave. Basically, that means making their lives so bloody miserable that they won't be able to justify staying. It's been the strategy all along. I got this information from quite a few Israeli Jews. "

Semantics and BS. Absolute and uttter cr*p. This from Meretz members?

"Things are alos more complicated than they may appear

Yes, I am very aware of that. However, I tend to think I am more aware of what goes on within the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem than you are. "

Trust me I know probably just as much.

"How does firing a rocket on Shderot or blowing up a bus defend their homes and livelihoods? That is not a justified defence, in fact it's not defence at all. It's murder. That's the violence I meant.

I can't justify it. But I can help you try to understand it. They want their freedom. They want Israel to leave them alone so they can get on with their lives. They have tried everything, and nothing has worked. My guess is that they are trying to make it too expensive for Israel (in terms of human costs) to continue to keep the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem captive any longer. "

I do understand, but that's the majority of Palestinians. The terrorists couldn't care less. They will not stop till all Israelis are gone then Christians, Druze and when that's done probably themselves. They are dragging everyone down.

"We are not perfect, they are not perfect, it's a very complex situation that is breeding more and more evil. The first step should be cessation of terrorism against civilians. That should come before all else.

That won't work. That plan sets everyone up to fail. The Israeli government first has to give the Palestinians something to hope for. And then it has to give them a good faith reason to believe that they can rely on the Israeli government to deliver on its promises."

Weighing blood for blood we are never going to get anywhere. Why can't you just accept that terrorist attacks should cease? Is land more important than life? If they want to keep acting against the army that's legitimate, but the terrorist attacks ARE NOT. This is monstrous and incredible to hear someone who is obviously involved with human rights using such logic.