The New Thought Police, criticizing Isreal = antisemitism?

[Ace Pace]

Read Mikes site about the whole mess, and enjoy his view of the things. It's really refreshing.

it is refreshing, but when you consider it from the ground view, some points about the "people" being racist are just plain wrong.

[NecronLord]

2: It's a damn sight more consideration that the Native American, Inuit, Aztec, African or Aboriginal peoples got.

And? Who do you see defending that? (well ok, perhaps the Aztecs were too destructive, but not the rest of the south/cent american civilisations).

Simply X's actions not being as bad as Y's does not reduce in any way the moral guilt of X (With the possible exception of when X's actions are aimed at opposing Y's actions).

[Coyote]

2: It's a damn sight more consideration that the Native American, Inuit, Aztec, African or Aboriginal peoples got.

And? Who do you see defending that? ...

Simply X's actions not being as bad as Y's does not reduce in any way the moral guilt of X ...

My point is that many of the people who point to Israel and castigate them for "Imperialism" and "Racism" are also the people who live in nice, comfortable Western countries such as America, Canada, or Australia-- nations built on the very graves of native people. Or, they hail from European countries which made their living by establishing those colonies atop those graves.

I find the irony mildly amusing:
"You're living on conquered land, Israel!"
"And you're not?"

The Jews felt that they were going to lead lives of continual harassement and persecution. History seemed to back up that fear-- so the Jews decided to try to be safe on land of their own. Do they not have a right to be able to live their lives in security?

The first land bought in Palestine was bought fair and square. It was not done at gunpoint. Jews moved in and obtained land in honest deals. They then offered to share the land through UN negotiations. Both of these attempts at peaceful land acquisition were a hell of a lot more thoughtful to the Arabs than any deals made to the Indians or Aborigines. The Arabs refused and eventually they-- not the Jews-- declared war and attacked.

Did the war eventully go on to encompass too much? I think so. The Arabs had to go somewhere and to the West Bank and Gaza they went. They should be allowed to live there in peace, but so far I am not sure that they would be willing to do so, even if every single Jew pulled out of these territories; soldiers and settlers alike.

[HemlockGrey]

But unlike Israel, the United States has publicy, and often, acknowledged that Manifest Destiny and surrounding atrocities was a Bad Thing.

[Coyote]

And it is under a flag similar to Manifest Destiny that many in the religious right of Israel try to establish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. And that, I agree 100%, is wrong and unjustified. The Arabs have to have a place to call their own and many are willing to accept the two-state solution.

This is where not all fish are salmon: I and many others criticize the settlement policy and the land grabbing, and this criticism is not anti-Semitic at all. It is responsible foreign policy. Israel has no right to take and hold that land in what even Ariel Sharon admitted was an "occupation".

I get defensive when "Israel has no right to exist" because it is "founded on racist or imperialit principles". Well, if Israel has no right to exist because of its founding on racist and imperialist principles, why does Canada, Australia, America, Mexico, and a host of Latin American countries have a right to exist? They, too, are founded on racist and imperialist principles.

Here is where the lines get blurry and age-old self preservation instincts kick in: why is it that out of all the nations in the world that were created out of imperialism and racist principles-- and there are a lot of them, in fact I can't think of a single one that is free of this taint somewhere in their history-- why is it that only the nation of the Jews is the one who's legitimacy and right to exist is called into question?

Can people see why this is met with a raised eyebrow and a defensive look? Every single country-- look in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe-- all have a racist or imperialist nature to their past somehow. It may be national, it my be ethnic, ir may be tribal, but all are founded in some way on beating down others who might have challenged them. Possibly Greenland and Iceland, which I believe were uninhabited, can escape this criticism.

Yet for some reason, only Israel gets castigated for this. Hmmmm......

And given history's treatment of the Jews, it becomes easy to see why many would leap to this conclusion of 'Anti-Semitism'. I don't think this is conscious anti-Semitism the way a Nazi believer would be aware of it, but there is a subtle insistence on treating the Jews differently that for some reason gets right past the mind's awareness censors.

I agree that imperialism or racism should not be perpetuated, and that is where I think the legitimate criticism of Israel kicks in: the right wingers that seek to expand borders into the West Bank and Gaza. Israel exists now and should be accepted; any further expansion of its borders has little justification.

[Xenophobe3691]

Read Mikes site about the whole mess, and enjoy his view of the things. It's really refreshing.

It's also the viewpoint of a man who's never been there. No one should ever trust what they hear in the media or read on the web, or anywhere else. It'll always be biased towards the Palestinians or the Israelis.

[Saurencaerthai]

The Jews felt that they were going to lead lives of continual harassement and persecution. History seemed to back up that fear-- so the Jews decided to try to be safe on land of their own. Do they not have a right to be able to live their lives in security?

The first land bought in Palestine was bought fair and square. It was not done at gunpoint. Jews moved in and obtained land in honest deals. They then offered to share the land through UN negotiations. Both of these attempts at peaceful land acquisition were a hell of a lot more thoughtful to the Arabs than any deals made to the Indians or Aborigines. The Arabs refused and eventually they-- not the Jews-- declared war and attacked.

Did the war eventully go on to encompass too much? I think so. The Arabs had to go somewhere and to the West Bank and Gaza they went. They should be allowed to live there in peace, but so far I am not sure that they would be willing to do so, even if every single Jew pulled out of these territories; soldiers and settlers alike.

Then remember Barak? He offered some obscene portion of the terratories in question, something like 90% of it in exchange for peace.

[Xenophobe3691]

The Jews felt that they were going to lead lives of continual harassement and persecution. History seemed to back up that fear-- so the Jews decided to try to be safe on land of their own. Do they not have a right to be able to live their lives in security?

The first land bought in Palestine was bought fair and square. It was not done at gunpoint. Jews moved in and obtained land in honest deals. They then offered to share the land through UN negotiations. Both of these attempts at peaceful land acquisition were a hell of a lot more thoughtful to the Arabs than any deals made to the Indians or Aborigines. The Arabs refused and eventually they-- not the Jews-- declared war and attacked.

Did the war eventully go on to encompass too much? I think so. The Arabs had to go somewhere and to the West Bank and Gaza they went. They should be allowed to live there in peace, but so far I am not sure that they would be willing to do so, even if every single Jew pulled out of these territories; soldiers and settlers alike.

Then remember Barak? He offered some obscene portion of the terratories in question, something like 90% of it in exchange for peace.

98 %. Unfortunately, Arafat was in charge back then, so that plan really didn't have any chance of succeeding.

Does anyone else also remember the plan Prince Faisal put up? What happened to it?

[Coyote]

The Barak initiative looked good on paper but it was a mockery in the details: the Palestinians would have no army, no control over their own borders, foreign policy would be submitted to Israel for approval first, Israli air force could overfly with impunity... and the area would be criss-crossed by access roads for Settlements that Palestinians would need internal passports to go through.

[Darth Wong]

And it is under a flag similar to Manifest Destiny that many in the religious right of Israel try to establish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. And that, I agree 100%, is wrong and unjustified. The Arabs have to have a place to call their own and many are willing to accept the two-state solution.

This is where not all fish are salmon: I and many others criticize the settlement policy and the land grabbing, and this criticism is not anti-Semitic at all. It is responsible foreign policy. Israel has no right to take and hold that land in what even Ariel Sharon admitted was an "occupation".

Yes, in that respect you are more moderate than many non-Jewish Americans, who have converted an alliance with Israel into a hatred of Palestinians.

I get defensive when "Israel has no right to exist" because it is "founded on racist or imperialit principles". Well, if Israel has no right to exist because of its founding on racist and imperialist principles, why does Canada, Australia, America, Mexico, and a host of Latin American countries have a right to exist? They, too, are founded on racist and imperialist principles.

Ummm, there's a key difference here, Coyote. Those nations no longer define themselves by race. Israel still openly defines itself as a Jewish state, and that definition influences their state policy to this day. If Canada defined itself as a "white state" today, you can bet there would be a lot of hostility directed toward us.

[fgalkin]

Ummm, there's a key difference here, Coyote. Those nations no longer define themselves by race. Israel still openly defines itself as a Jewish state, and that definition influences their state policy to this day. If Canada defined itself as a "white state" today, you can bet there would be a lot of hostility directed toward us.

I can name quite a lot of countries that define themselves in terms of race or ethnicity.

Shit I say nuke the entire middle east and be done with this shit.

And I say shoot you and be done with this kind of bullshit. I have friends livning in Israel.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Ace Pace]

Shit I say nuke the entire middle east and be done with this shit.

uh, you want to kill me? fine

[Peregrin Toker]

Israel still openly defines itself as a Jewish state, and that definition influences their state policy to this day.

I'm afraid that "one nation under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance has left many Americans desensitized to deliberate mixing of religion and politics...

[Xenophobe3691]

Israel still openly defines itself as a Jewish state, and that definition influences their state policy to this day.

I don't get it. How does Religion = Race, besides both being cripplingly flawed?

[Peregrin Toker]

Israel still openly defines itself as a Jewish state, and that definition influences their state policy to this day.

I don't get it. How does Religion = Race, besides both being cripplingly flawed?

Because "jewish" can refer to ethnicity as well as race.

[Xenophobe3691]

Israel still openly defines itself as a Jewish state, and that definition influences their state policy to this day.

I don't get it. How does Religion = Race, besides both being cripplingly flawed?

Because "jewish" can refer to ethnicity as well as race.

Unfortunately, Race cannot be converted into, while Religion can. Therefore, Race is more of a caste system, while Religion is choice based.

[HemlockGrey]

Shit I say nuke the entire middle east and be done with this shit.

And once again Lt. Hit-Man gifts us with his particular brand of scintillating political discourse.


The real problem is that, while many(most, all) nations engaged in racist and imperialist actions, most have ceased to do so, and those who do are rightfully regarded as barbaric and immorale. Israel, however, is doing everything in it's power to ensure that this standard does not apply to it. Therein lies the problem.

[Axis Kast]

There is no "Jewish" ethnicity. Such misconceptions actually stem from common stereotypes first propagated during the Diaspora when Jewish communities stemmed up independant from the majority Christian population of Europe and were subsequently classified as entities unto themselves. The gist of Wong's statement still holds true however - Israel defines itself as a Jewish state for Jewish Israelis rather than a nation for all its citizens.

[Xenophobe3691]

There is no "Jewish" ethnicity. Such misconceptions actually stem from common stereotypes first propagated during the Diaspora when Jewish communities stemmed up independant from the majority Christian population of Europe and were subsequently classified as entities unto themselves. The gist of Wong's statement still holds true however - Israel defines itself as a Jewish state for Jewish Israelis rather than a nation for all its citizens.

Israel seems to have little trouble granting citizenship and full civil rights to Arabs born in Israel Proper. Even better, they don't have to serve!

[Axis Kast]

Israel seems to have little trouble granting citizenship and full civil rights to Arabs born in Israel Proper. Even better, they don't have to serve!

There remains an undercurrent of discrimination.

[Xenophobe3691]

Israel seems to have little trouble granting citizenship and full civil rights to Arabs born in Israel Proper. Even better, they don't have to serve!

There remains an undercurrent of discrimination.

As there is an undercurrent of discrimination in many parts of American and European society. I get some weird-ass stares walking with my parents in the middle of Florida.

[Darth Wong]

Israel seems to have little trouble granting citizenship and full civil rights to Arabs born in Israel Proper. Even better, they don't have to serve!

Only as long as they remain a relatively powerless minority. Prevention of Arab demographic domination is, in fact, a major plank of Israel's state policy and controls much of their decision-making. Their absolute refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homes, for example, is caused by their fear that Arabs would become numerous enough to have real political power, and they consider that unacceptable in a "Jewish state".

Besides, "Israel Proper" is just a code-word for "the part of Israel where they do not practice apartheid, unlike the Occupied Territories where Jews have a voice but Arabs don't".

[Joe]

Their absolute refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homes, for example, is caused by their fear that Arabs would become numerous enough to have real political power, and they consider that unacceptable in a "Jewish state".

I'm no Israel fan, but is it really fair to expect Israel to allow resettlement of a minority whose hostility is well-established?

[Darth Wong]

Their absolute refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homes, for example, is caused by their fear that Arabs would become numerous enough to have real political power, and they consider that unacceptable in a "Jewish state".

I'm no Israel fan, but is it really fair to expect Israel to allow resettlement of a minority whose hostility is well-established?

Maybe if they treated them better, they wouldn't be so hostile. Is that so foreign a concept?

[Joe]

Maybe if they treated them better, they wouldn't be so hostile. Is that so foreign a concept?

50 years ago they were ready to throw the Jews into the sea. Maltreatment by the Israelis has only worsened that hatred, but the point is that it was already there before the fact.