What is anti-Semitism? EU racism agency unable to define term

[shira]

Agency recently removed definition from its website which includes vilification of Israel as anti-Semitism.

The European Union’s agency for combating racism dropped its definition for anti-Semitism and now is unable to define the term, an agency spokeswoman said. “We are not aware of any official definition of anti-Semitism,” Blanca Tapia of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency told JTA on Tuesday.

Tapia was answering a query on the recent removal from the agency’s website of a “working definition” of anti-Semitism that was adopted in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia — the EU entity that her organization has replaced. The removal was first reported by the pro-Palestinian website Electronic Intifada.

Campaigners against anti-Semitism said the document is significant because alongside classical anti-Semitic behavior, it lists the vilification of Israel or Israelis, which some scholars call “new anti-Semitism.” The definition lists “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazis as examples of anti-Semitism. But Tapia said her organization had never viewed the document as a valid definition. Agency officials said the document had been pulled offline “together with other non-official documents.”

Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center told JTA that the agency’s “disowning of its own definition is astounding” and that “those who fight anti-Semitism have lost an important weapon.” He also said the “Union’s about-face on its own definition damages its credibility.” But Tapia said, “The agency does not need to develop its own definition of anti-Semitism in order to research these issues.”

In its 2012 “who we are” booklet, the agency listed “Define areas of work” among its tasks, but Tapia told JTA that the agency “has no mandate to develop its own definitions.” In 2008, the agency published a document that contains definitions for homophobia and transphobia. Tapia said, however, that the agency had defined neither and used “international standards” that “contain definitions, terms and concepts.”

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/What-is-anti-Semitism-EU-racism-agency-unable-to-define-term-334043

[oberliner]

1. Ben White leading the cartwheels at Electronic Intifada

He's got three different articles on it.

[Scootaloo]

2. Except the "working definition" was never official in the first place...

It was a guideline for a discussion paper that was hosted on the site, but was never actually adopted as an "official definition" by either the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia or its follow-up, the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency. It was removed along with several other non-official documents in a recent cleanup of the EUFRA website.

[King_David]

3. European countries don't need no definition

They know almost better than any other group exactly what AntiSemitism is and is not.

[shira]

4. Must be rough for "anti-racists" who are unable to define antisemitism....

...and who claim to not be aware of any official definition of it.

[shira]

8. Here's the latest Roger Waters. Is this antisemitic or not?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/an-interview-with-pink-floyds-roger-waters/

The voice, for instance, of the right wing rabbinate, which is so bizarre and hard to hear that you can hardly believe that it’s real. They believe some very weird stuff you know, they believe that everybody that is not a Jew is only on earth to serve them and they believe that the Indigenous people of the region that they kicked off the land in 1948 and have continued to kick off the land ever since are sub-human. The parallels with what went on in the 30’s in Germany are so crushingly obvious that it doesn’t surprise me that the movement that both you and I are involved in is growing every day.

Looks like Roger believes the most ultra-religious Haredi Kahanists are and have been running a Nazified Israel since 1948. They (the Jews of Israel) have done this to the Palestinians since 1948.

This has been a very hard sell particularly where I live in the United States of America. The Jewish lobby is extraordinary powerful here and particularly in the industry that I work in, the music industry and in rock’n roll as they say. I promise you, naming no names, I’ve spoken to people who are terrified that if they stand shoulder to shoulder with me they are going to get fucked. They have said to me “aren’t you worried for your life?” and I go “No, I’m not”. A few years ago, I was touring and 9/11 happened in the middle of the tour and 2 or 3 people in my band who happened to be United States citizens wouldn’t come on the next leg of the tour. I said “ why not? Don’t you like the music anymore?” and they replied “no, we love the music but we are Americans and it’s too dangerous for us to travel abroad, they are trying to kill us” and I thought “Wow!”

Here we see that the powerful Jewish Lobby controlling the music industry murders those they disagree with.

=======

What say you?

[Scootaloo]

15. I say the first paragraph is mostly correct, and the second one is confused.

1) Israel absolutely does hold that Palestinians are subhumans. There's really no other way to describe it. And it has held this belief, since its foundation. Kind of hard to justify purging people from their homes through intentional eradication and terror, and still call yourselves a moral people... unless you can convince yourself your victims aren't actually human, that they "deserved it." And once you enshrine that as national policy, well it just becoems too conveniant to give up.

Waters' comparison to Nazi Germany is lazy - there are other examples with stronger parallels, like 1880's United States, 1905 Kiev, 1910's South Africa, 1920's Australia, or current-day Darfur. But the attitude, that Palestinians are Amaleks, non-humans who only understand a language of brutality, whose lives are worthless, whose property is rightfully "ours"? That attitude can be compared to any number of similar mentalities in history, including that of Germans in the 1930's.

Every Israeli? No, of course not. But enough that their version of a democratic system has never produced a government with different mores, since the state's foundation.

2) Normally I roll my yes at someone taking offense to the term "Jewish Lobby" - the Israeli lobby groups insist on calling themselves "Jewish lobbies," so really to take offense at the reference they demand is ludicrous. But... I'm honestly not sure what he's talking about here, and it certainly does look like standard "Jews run Hollywood" garbage - I don't imagine that the Israel lobby gives many fucks about the music industry, you know? If he had an example, something that could be handled and examined... but apparently not.

The second part required a few more readings of both that section and the interviewer's reply. It's still muddled, but I don't think he's talking about the "Jewish Lobby" killing people. It appears he's talking about that lobby "brainwashing" people to imagine that "they" (Arabs, post 9/11) are "trying to kill us." He could be saying just what you think he is, perhaps, but that reference to 9/11 makes me think otherwise.

I would class this portion as "lazy" antisemitism. That is, just taking for granted that Jew control some aspect of something. The "lazy" is becuase no actual thought or effort goes into the assumption, no attempt to press the case is made, it's just an assumed bias. The sort of thing that should be referred to by demanding the guy either back it up or knock it off.

[shira]

22. Waters just vilified all Israeli leaders as Jewish supremacists....

...who believe gentiles live to serve them, and that's how these Jews have dehumanized the Palestinians, etc. This is the Israel that Jews worldwide overwhelmingly support. See the problem yet?

He then made the nazi comparison which he would never try against any other state.

This is beyond repulsive, gutter Jew hatred.

[Scootaloo]

29. No he didn't. Not even a little.

Shira, remember a few threads ago, I advised you that lying just doesn't work when people can just scroll up to check the facts? Well, I scrolled up, to look at the article you linked again. Just to check.

First, Roger Waters is paraphrasing from Max Blumenthal's book, “Goliath: Life and Loathing in greater Israel”. Second, the statement is about Israel's religious right. Hell, you even quoted exactly that.

I have nearly finished Max Blumenthal’s book “Goliath: Life and Loathing in greater Israel”. It’s a chilling read. It’s extremely well written in my view. He is a very good journalist and takes great pains to make sure that what he writes is correct. He also gives a voice to the other side. The voice, for instance, of the right wing rabbinate, which is so bizarre and hard to hear that you can hardly believe that it’s real. They believe some very weird stuff you know, they believe that everybody that is not a Jew is only on earth to serve them and they believe that the Indigenous people of the region that they kicked off the land in 1948 and have continued to kick off the land ever since are sub-human.

Bolding is mine, of course.

So. You're here saying that Israel's religious right speaks for all Jews on earth. All fifteen million Jews, answer to these kooks? The would-be theocrats of Israel are the definition of Jewishness? That's what you're saying when you transform "Israel's right-wing rabbinate" into ALL JEWS as you just did.

Waters just vilified all Jews

Equating all Jews on earth to Israel is bad enough, and you do that pretty frequently. This is new, and is honestly a little disturbing.

[shira]

33. He's saying these Jewish religious supremacists are the very same people....

...who kicked Palestinians off the land and have ever since regarded them as subhuman. As though THESE freaks have been running Israel from day one. THESE are the liberal zionists, from atheists like Ben Gurion and Yitzak Rabin, to Lieberman. This is Zionism in a nutshell since 1948. Jewish Religoius Supremacy. Stormfront quality bile. This Supremacist ideology (sounding like David Duke now) is what Jews worldwide overwhelmingly support.

Wake the fuck up.

=======

And I can't let you get away with that sanctimonious lying schpiel. You have it completely backwards as you've maliciously accused me multiple times (even after being called out) for being okay with throwing a grenade into a group of innocents.

[Scootaloo]

36. What he's saying is plainly stated where he says it

And just as plain is that you are trying to transform it into something that fits your own very special, very shitty idea of Jews in the world.

You don't need to tell me what Roger Waters thinks - it's right there in print. But you're doing a bang-up job of telling me what sort of grubs live in your mental garden.

[shira]

37. Typical. n/t

[Scootaloo]

38. Something we can agree on. n/t

[shira]

53. Again, here's where Waters generalizes....

The voice, for instance, of the right wing rabbinate, which is so bizarre and hard to hear that you can hardly believe that it’s real. They believe some very weird stuff you know, they believe that everybody that is not a Jew is only on earth to serve them and they believe that the Indigenous people of the region that they kicked off the land in 1948 and have continued to kick off the land ever since are sub-human. The parallels with what went on in the 30’s in Germany are so crushingly obvious that it doesn’t surprise me that the movement that both you and I are involved in is growing every day.

Anyone who knows his ass from a hole in the ground knows Waters is referring to something like the following:

[Scootaloo]

54. Hard to "generalize" when speaking about something specific, Shira.

Also - once again - he's talking about something from Blumenthal's book.

What's it like to not know your ass from a hole in the ground?

[shira]

59. And what's that specific thing he's speaking about?

Extreme religious supremacists running Israel.

This is the old, gutter anti-semitism from the WW2 era. Same mental image of the evil religious Jew in control....

http://canaryinthecoalmine.typepad.com/.a/6a013487f321e0970c015431df3b0f970c-pi

It's not surprising how an alleged anti-racist like yourself whitewashes antisemitism. The EU definition states that comparing Israeli Policy to that of Nazi Germany is antisemitic. Blumenthal and Waters make this comparison constantly. And then there's the Jews running the world, hollywood, the music industry, banks, etc...

I believe you realize how harmful this gutter hatred is to the Palestinian cause. The thing is, you don't care. And it's not like it would help if you spoke out against it. The movement is so saturated with this hate that it would fall apart completely if all the Jew haters were called out. So you deny that it exists. Great anti-racist activism there. Real classy.

[Scootaloo]

61. Do you read the stuff you quote?

I mean really, do you? The guy talks about Israel's right-wing Rabbinate, and in your head, this translates as a generalization about all Jews.

That says more about your own perception of Jews, than it does about anyone else's.

[shira]

62. Obviously, you didn't read it...

The voice, for instance, of the right wing rabbinate, which is so bizarre and hard to hear that you can hardly believe that it’s real. They believe some very weird stuff you know, they believe that everybody that is not a Jew is only on earth to serve them and they believe that the Indigenous people of the region that they kicked off the land in 1948 and have continued to kick off the land ever since are sub-human. The parallels with what went on in the 30’s in Germany are so crushingly obvious that it doesn’t surprise me that the movement that both you and I are involved in is growing every day.

So these right-wing rabbis kicked indigenous sub-humans off the land in 1948 and have continued doing so?

Or are you denying Waters said this?

[Scootaloo]

64. I'm denying that he's applying it to "all Jews" as you had claimed

And it's perfectly clear that those people were driven forth, that they continue to be so treated, and that it is the current agenda of the religious right of Israel - and the secular left, if you're the example you claim to be - to continue the tradition. The belief that they are subhuman is more than apparent in the treatment they have been receiving.

All as I covered in my previous posts.

I can only imagine that you think repeating yourself in a new response constitutes making a fresh argument. In the spirit of repetition, let me refer you to a previous thread, and repeat my advice to you:

If you're going to get into a wild, white-knuckled frenzy about something a musician says - and let me stress, I don't think you should, but I know how fond you are of apoplexy - then perhaps the guy who's calling for burning masses of human beings alive should rate rather higher on the outrage-o-meter than fuckin' Roger Waters and his balloon animals.

Also, can't help but notice you never once stated that you disagree with that asshole. Nor did anyone demand you do so. or alternately, demand that you "admit it" that you agree with him. I think there's a lesson for you to learn there, but I doubt you will.

[shira]

65. Come on...you deny there's any such thing as a genuinely liberal leftwing zionist....

Last edited Sun Dec 8, 2013, 02:46 PM - Edit history (4)

That's about as bigoted as it gets, so of course you don't see the problem accusing every Israeli government (from left to right) of acting like religious Jewish supremacists who dehumanize all non-Jews. Roger Waters is making the same sweeping, bigoted generalizations that you've been doing here since day one. Shaktimaan summed it up here:

Right there is the crux of pelsar and my debate with scoot. His argument is that everyone who self-identifies as a Zionist therefore must also support every single viewpoint and trait that he monolithically applies to the movement.

For example, as a self-proclaimed Zionist, I consider Palestinians undeserving of human rights and relish the thought of slaughtering non-jewish women and children in order to steal their rightful property; in fact, as a Zionist I consider the wanton massacring of civilians in 1948 to be the movement's defining moment. All Zionists oppose ror for Palestinian refugees of 1948 to Israel for reasons exclusively pertaining to race. And so on.

This is the reason we called his argument bigoted. He is applying sweeping generalizations without exception to everyone who identifies as being Zionist. IOW, bigotry.

Waters obviously feels the same way towards Zionism and Zionists that you do. The worst of the worst extreme, religious Kahanists are the same as the most liberal, leftwing zionists. All are judeo-nazi, racist colonists who hate the indigenous sub-human Palestinians. So Roger Waters is correct in your view and it doesn't matter that he sees religious theocratic kahanist supremacists (equivalent of the KKK) running the show in Israel since 1948.

As to the rapper ranting on facebook, I called him out for being an extreme bigot multiple times....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113451718

Meanwhile you guys can't even condemn the most vile forms of anti-jew, stormfront-style gutter hatred, whether it's PA or Hamas sponsored, or coming from the western pro-Palestinian movement. Palestinian students hold a nazi, fascist rally and the president of the university condones it officially on paper. Not a peep from you guys. But you all get your rocks off accusing the Jewish state of nazi policies, and only the Jewish state...no other. It's fucking classy, I'm telling 'ya.

[Scootaloo]

107. You're right, I don't condemn shit that you've made up

Waters is not doing what you claim. Your claim is therefor false. I see no reason to condemn it, then, any more than I feel compelled to condemn the US military for making the mastodon extinct. (They didn't, if you're wondering.) Also, Nussiebeh condemned the rally you're speaking of. As I showed you.

Given your fondness for calling everyone else in the world Nazis, you really can't get your knickers in a twist when someone else does it. if students at Berkley can be called Nazis, then so can the government of Israel. Either the rule is "only Nationalist Social party members are Nazis," or the term can be applied to whoever the fuck someone wants to apply it to. Make up your mind and be consistent. I'm indifferent either way, so I leave it to you.

As for Zionism? Zionism assumes that Jews had - and continue to have - an inherent and superior right to Palestinian land, than the Palestinian Arabs who lived there. It's inescapable, there is no way to get around that reality Shira, that was outlined in 1897 when the philosophy was more or less codified. You can call yourself whatever you want, but that's what every "variety" of Zionism comes right back to, Shira. And there's just nothing liberal, progressive, enlightened, or humanitarian about this assumed "right."

Also, claiming you're the victim of bigotry because someone disagrees with the political philosophy you've chosen is fucking dumb. More so when that philosophy itself revolves around bigotry. You can cry all you like, but when it comes to bigotry, people like you are the problem, not the victim.

[shira]

111. You can't even define Zionism correctly w/o assigning it evil motive...

Just focusing on Zionism and Zionists for now....

Israel has been the Jewish homeland going back 3000 years. The Jews are indigenous to that land as much as anyone else in the world - arguably moreso. They have been the only sovereign power in that land for the past 3000 years. When you deny this and pretend that the majority of Israel's Jews are in fact thieving, foreign, racist colonists who have zero connection to the land, you're engaging in hate speech. Why can't you at least acknowledge both Jews and Palestinians have equal rights to the land? I'm assuming you can't because it's important you portray the "Zionists" as racist, oppressive thieves and colonists who have no business being there at all, am I right?

Not all Zionists believe Jews have a superior right to the land, just an equal right, so given that fact how are all zionists bigots?

[Scootaloo]

117. Oh boy. Ypu really want to have this talk, again?

You can't even define Zionism correctly w/o assigning it evil motive...

I've explained to you before that I don't use the concept of "evil" most of the time. It's one of those big words that needs to be saved for something that truly matches. Blame the part of me that is a writer.

Something can be wrong, without necessarily falling into the rubric of "evil." For instance, Zionism (who'd have thought?). I don't figure that the men who adjoined the first Zionist congress were evil people. Naive, perhaps. Short-sighted, definitely. They came up with the idea of establishing a Jewish land in a land that was already inhabited by non-Jews. THis creates a pretty obvious logistical problem, I would think. And to be fair, these early zionists played their hand fairly - they bought land, they encouraged immigration, that sort of stuff, which there is absolutely no problem with.

These purchases didn't amount to much though - even after the British takeover, and several deals selling Palestinian land to Jewish individuals and Zionist groups - I think it was something like only 6% of the Palestinian Mandate was in Jewish hands by the time the partition plan hit the UN. And Jews weren't real keen on ditching everything and heading to some new and radically different land - voluntary immigration was low, most of the immigrants were fleeing pogroms in Russia, and weren't actually connected to the Zionist movement.

So... What now? Try to establish a state on this scattered bits of 6% of the land, maybe? Join up with Arab nationalists and try for a multireligious state? Just call it a wash? Oooor use political connections within the colonial government to force land cessions from the rightful owners, backed up with force of arms provided by the same colonial power? Well, guess which route these latter Zionists went with?

You don't have to actually guess, it's a rhetorical device.

This isn't evil - in fact it's pretty mundane in the scheme of things - but it is wrong.

Israel has been the Jewish homeland going back 3000 years.

And if we were living in the 21st century B.C.E, instead of the 21st Century C.E., this argument might count for something. We're not, it doesn't. As of the relevant time period - the early 20th century - the land was well-peopled by non-Jews, and had been for a couple thousand years. It really does not matter that a guy in Krakow followed a religion that says his homeland is in Palestine. This does not grant him rights there.

The Jews are indigenous to that land as much as anyone else in the world - arguably moreso.

By this logic, i'm indigenous to Wales, France, and Ireland. Arguably moreso than anyone else currently living there, apparently. In fact since my ancestors left those places WAY more recently than whatever ancestors tie you to the Israelite left Palestine, i have a far more valid claim on property in Brittany than you have on anything near Jerusalem. According to family folklore, I've probably also got some turf in Ghana, as well (and again, likely better claim than Gahans living there currently! Who knows where they're from, right?)

I've noticed that this very strange idea seems to only ever apply when arguing that jews have more right to Arab property than Arabs do. Never seen it applied to any other immigrant group ever.

When you deny this and pretend that Jews are in fact foreign colonists who have zero connection to the land, you're engaging in hate speech.

But they are in fact foreign colonists. The vast bulk of Israelis are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Why colonist, rather than immigrant? well, an immigrant joins the society they migrate to, a colonist takes it over.

Is this supposed "connection to the land" some measurable, quantifiable property? Can we examine the claimed Jewish connection to the land against the claimed Palestinian connection to the land and determine who's more connected through some scientific process? Hell, it's possible that the people most connected to the land are Greek orthodox Christians, we'll never know until we test. So. HOW do we run this test, Shira?

Oh... What's that? It's some sort of magical unknowable article of faith thing that you trot out to try to use as a trump card? Sorry, we're talking about a real-life issue here Shira, and this "mystical connection to the land" thing needs to go on the shelf next to other magical gewgaw arguments.

Given your argument is that Jews have a magical power that makes them inherently better and more deserving of Arab land than Arabs who live there, it's a bit strange you're trying to accuse me of hate speech for pointing out how dumb the argument is. Whatever bloats your goat i guess, but it's still a dumb argument and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Why can't you at least acknowledge both Jews and Palestinians have equal rights to the land?

Because they don't. Duh.

I'm assuming you can't because it's important you betray the "Zionists" as thieves and colonists, am I right?

Well, when you steal other people's shit, there's only so many terms that can be applied. Would you prefer "mugger"?

No, I can't "acknowledge" it because it's not a fact. To claim these two groups have equal rights to the territory is actually to grant Jews superior rights while diminishing Arabs rights. Your argument is that a Jewish guy born and raised in Tallahassee, has a claim on land just east of Jerusalem that is somehow just as valid as the claim of the people who actually own and live on that land.

That's absolutely ludicrous in every imaginable way. It is to claim that as a Jew, he has a special right granted no other variety of human being on earth, to claim territory very far away from anywhere nearby, while at the same time calling into doubt the actual rights of the people who own and keep that territory. What's more, it only goes one way - and always in the favor of the jewish guy. he can apparently demand "equal claim" to that family's property in Jerusalem whenever he wants to cash it in - but can they decide, whenever they want, that his family property in Florida should be theirs? I'm guessing no.

Not all Zionists believe Jews have a superior right to the land, so given that fact how are they bigots?

I think a better question is "how are they Zionists"? Because you've pretty much been making nothing but a constant stream of racist bullshit arguments about how jews are inherently superior in all ways - even to the point of magical, mystical powers.

[shira]

121. Jews have continuously lived in Israel for thousands of years....

The land has been recognized by the international community for dozens of centuries as the Jewish homeland. Jews don't only have a common religion that binds them, but also a common culture, ancestry, and history so atheist Jews are every bit as much Jews as religious ones. Jews are as indigenous to the land (even if they hadn't lived there in centuries) as ethnic Greeks are to their homeland. When do Greeks in the diaspora lose their indigenous status? They can't. No more than Native Americans can lose their indigenous status after many centuries. All I'm arguing is that Jews have at least as many rights to the land as any other indigenous culture there. This you deny. You can argue that your ancestors go back thousands of years to 10 different countries, but with whom do you share a common culture, ancestry, history, and/or religion in any particular country? Name your tribe, your ethnicity, race...? It's not the same, is it?

Also, modern Zionism started during the time of the Ottoman Empire. There was no design back then to oppress or take advantage of any Arabs living in Israel. The Jews just wanted a home of their own, even if it was under Turkish rule, similar to the way Jews ran Israel back in Roman times under Roman rule. You acknowledged that Jews immigrated to Israel legally, they bought and cultivated the land, etc. So I ask you, where was the harm in this? How is such a movement wrong-minded? Consider that once Jews started coming back to Israel and building it up, many neighboring Arabs moved there to take advantage of better economic conditions, meaning they were on board with the Zionist program.

[Scootaloo]

122. A few things Shira...

You seem to be confusing "ethnic" with "indigenous." When do indigenous Greeks lose their indigenous status? Well, first, that brings up the question of whether there actually is such a thing as an indigenous Greek (more on this in a second). But assuming there is, then the answer is simple; second generation, that indigenous-ness is lost, on default. The child is still a member of that ethnicity - and will continue to be so generation after generation so long as both individual and community recognize it - but not indigenous.

That is, even if there is such a thing as an indigenous Greek, then Ralph Maccio is not among their number, even though he's ethnically Greek (and Italian.) And for what it's worth, Greece doesn't recognize any indigenous groups; According to Greece, a "Greek" is a legal citizen of Greece who uses Greek as their everyday language (two more strikes against the Karate kid.)

So what defines "indigenous-ness"? Well, the nitty-gritty specifics vary by organization and nation, but they all have some commonalities;
1) The community's unique identification among their neighbors
2) The community's persistence in the territory
3) The community's presence in the territory at the time of colonization or establishment of state boundaries.

For some examples, let's have a look at some Native American groups.

Back in the 1000's, the Athabascan people who would become the Apache and Navajo entered the Southwestern portion of what is today the United States. When the Spanish claimed this territory as part of Mexico, the Apache and Navajo had only been there for about five hundred years. However these people are considered indigenous to that area, because that's where they were when the territory was claimed by Europeans.

Staying in that patch of the continent, we have a look at the neighbors of the Navajo and Apache - the Zuni, Hopi, Taos, and Acoma peoples. Together with a few smaller groups these people are collectively known as the Pueblo peoples (which is annoyingly redundant, but whatever.) These folks are the descendants of three older cultures - the Hohokam, the Mogollon, and the Ancient Pueblo culture (colloquially known as the Anasazi). As with the two nations in hte previous paragraph, the Zuni, Hopi, et al, are recognized as indigenous peoples... but the Anasazi, Mogollon, etc. are not - those peoples do not exist as distinct groups any longer, though their descendants do.

Now if we look at the southern Levant and apply what we have learned, we realize that there is one indigenous population - Palestinian Arabs (of multiple religions, Palestinian Jews are included here) - and three concurrent non-indigenous populations; Turks, the British, and non-Palestinian Jews (of multiple origins). There are possibilities of minor groups in both categories; Naqab and Sinai Bedouin would be indigenous but distinct from "Palestinian Arabs," and Syrian Arabs and Greeks would be non-indigenous, for example) but those four named are the major groups; one native population and three colonizing / immigrant populations.

If you were talking about just those native Palestinian Jews having claim equal to other native Palestinian groups, then yes, we could agree. But... you're not, and you and I both know you're not. You're making an argument that an immigrant - or even wholly foreign! - population has claim equal to the native peoples. That's just off-the-scale wrong.

As I said, there is no comprehensible logic behind a man born and raised in Florida being free to say he has as much claim to a Palestinian's land as that Palestinian himself - especially when you believe (and you certainly must believe this) that the opposite is not true - not that it would make any more sense if it were, anyway.

The sad reality to your argument is that simply claiming some tie from thousands and thousands of years ago does not give any valid claim to indigenous status, much less current property rights. Those Athabascans migrated just a thousand years ago, but the Navajo aren't indigenous people of Canada, are they? The Maori aren't Tahitians, are they? There aren't 7.1 billion Tanzanians roaming around the planet, are there?

You acknowledged that Jews immigrated to Israel legally, they bought and cultivated the land, etc. So I ask you, where was the harm in this?

I actually said I saw no harm whatsoever in that.

Maybe you've never seen my stance on immigration. You don't seem like you ever pop out of I/P, and the topic really doesn't seem to appear on DU that often anyway. I have no problem with immigration. I don't even have a problem with "illegal" immigration - I'd prefer documentation for a variety of reasons, but knowing that the "legal" system is heavily stacked against immigrants, and seeing as I know some of my own ancestors would today be considered "illegal immigrants" (Geoffrey Jones of Cardiff, Wales got off the cargo ship he rigged on in 1842 Savannah, and never got back on) I can't blame anyone for skipping that part. I see migration as an inherent feature of humanity and efforts to stymie, stifle, or prevent it to actually be fairly misanthropic.

As I said in my prior post, immigration is a different thing from colonization; immigration is people moving to a new place and settling in, becoming part of the social fabric of that place. colonization is people moving in and trying to take over and dominate that place and its communities.

Early Zionism, that of the First Zionist congress, was a call to immigration and community-building. Nothing wrong with that though as I said, it was probably naive and short-sighted - the pinnacle of the movement, the establishment of a Jewish state (or at least, statelet) was going to be pretty much impossible, since the indigenous community was well-established and not prone to moving - and also 99% non-Jewish. But, no harm in trying through these methods at all.

The problem arises later-on, during and immediately after World War One, when it was becoming clear that Jews just weren't emigrating to Palestine all that much. American and most west European Jews were perfectly happy where they were, and even facing the persecutions they did, most Eastern European Jews preferred seeking refuge either within the states they were already in, or further into western Europe - those who fled to the Ottomans dispersed through the empire, and some did end up in Palestine, though more ended up in metropolises or the Balkans. Seeing as the methods of persuading people to emigrate to Palestine weren't having the desired results, these Zionists decided to utilize the colonial apparatus of a foreign, occupying power to try to force the result they wanted, even against the desires of the inhabitants of the territory.

That is, Zionism transformed from a semi-utopian call for immigration and resettlement, to a colonial territory-grab through use of force, both implicit and explicit. There's no way you can tell me that utilizing a world superpower's authority to unilaterally cede someone else's property to you, while those people are literally in a riot against such a plan, is democratic, fair, or progressive. There's no way that you can tell me that after this forced territorial cession, military action taken against those same people to take more territory from them is any of those things, either. This, the imperial flavor of Zionism, is the taproot of both the state of Israel - and as such it's also the beginning point for pretty much every modern variety of Zionism you could name - As well as almost all varieties of anti-Zionism.

The racist element comes later, somewhere between 1948 and 1967. And truthfully it's not hard to understand why - we've got a nation that is surrounded by apparently unified enemies (stress on "apparently," as we now know the Arab nations were at each others throats as much as Israel's at the time...) and is, at the same time, trying to construct a solid and unified and distinctly Jewish identity out of all the many varieties of Jewishness present in the state - A combination of a perceived ethnic threat from outside, militaristic bravado, and and internal pressure to be as Jewishy a Jewish Jew as you could possibly be understandably could lead to an exceptionalist, even supremacist racial outlook; Israel's military victories in 1967 and '73 only cemented this trend, and the supremacist ideals did a lot of the legwork to not only justify the new occupations Israel was conducting, but also retroactively defend some of the other questionable shit in the past. This too has been added to the Zionist buffet, though there are some Zionist strains that try to avoid it, but with very limited success (after all, as Israel has certainly taken on the banner of Jewish exceptionalism, it's next to impossible to defend Israel without defending that as well.)

I've got no issue with early Zionism - some of its figures are questionable (Herzl believed that antisemitism is inherent in the goy, and so could not be fought; Jews should flee it instead) but the idea of "Hey, we should move, I think" isn't problematic at all. But when we're talking about Zionism in 2013, we're not talking about that - you're not, and I'm not, and we both know that about each other. When either of us talk about Zionism, we're not talking about the 1901 utopian ideal of establishing Jewish agrarianism in Palestine, but rather the current, modern iteration of the idea that has adopted a lot of nasty shit in the century-plus since 1897.

[shira]

133. A few things....

Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 08:51 PM - Edit history (2)

1. I don't see how you can call Zionism a colonial movement. There was no use of force, no oppression, until the Arabs first started attacking the Jews. Jews were forced to defend.

2. Also, Jews were 1/10th of the population in the late 19th century, not 1/100th. The Arab population was maybe 250,000. Both populations greatly increased in the years afterwards as more Arabs migrated due to economic opportunity. I need to do a bit of research, but I'm led to believe half of the Palestinian Arab population in 1948 were recent immigrants from the past 60 or so years. If that's the case, they're not indigenous, are they? They wouldn't even be there if not for the early Zionists.

3. It appears you don't see the Jews as a people, but only as a religion... with no common culture, customs, history, ancestry, or language. The fact is that even the most non-religious atheist Jews are part of the Jewish people or nation. This nation goes back thousands of years. That you don't see Jews as a nation is a major blind-spot for you. ETA You have to pretend Jews from overseas are a completely different people than the Jews who were in Palestine for centuries preceding the 1st aliyah. That's utter bullcrap. You can make the argument that Christians or Muslims in one part of the world aren't one people with their co-religionists elsewhere, but that doesn't fly with Jews.

4. You claim Zionists today defend some of the worst shit (like ethnic cleansing). But supposing that the only choices were throwing some Palestinians out vs. being killed and/or having yourself ethnically cleansed, what option do you realistically choose? I'm being serious. Put yourself into the Jews' shoes in 1948. What would you have done?

[aranthus]

123. To correct some of your numbers.

Of the land included in the Jewish state by the Partition resolution, Jews owned 6.6%, and Palestinian Arabs owned 3.3%. The rest was either state owned (the vast majority of it), abandoned, or in the hands of non-Palestinian absentee landlords.

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf

[Scootaloo]

125. And was this state was established by the inhabitants of the territory?

If you couldn't tell from my other post in this subthread, I've put more than a little research into native American history. So let me tell you something about "state land."

Have you ever heard of the Dawes Act? That's the use name of the General Allotment Act of 1887 passed by congress, signed by President Grover Cleveland. What this did was allow the president to use his own judgement as to which Indian tribes were most in need of "civilizing." Such tribes would have their reserved territory divided into individual parcels of land for each family to work and build on. But you see there was a catch - the maximum parcel for allotment was 40 acres, per family... and in reality the parcels tended to be much smaller.

This being the late 1800's, most of these tribes were pretty small, but had been reserved some fairly sizable portions of land. What happened when the family parcels were allotted, and there was land left over? Was it held in trust for future generations?

Nope! That would be just SILLY!

Instead such land was declared excess or abandoned, and was claimed as state land - and then it was usually sold off to industry or American individuals. A pretty huge amount of Indian territory became rancher territory or railroad territory with a stroke of a pen, and no input from the people who claimed the land.

It's worth mention that none of the Indian tribes affected by the Dawes Act had congressional representation, or a system of appeal, or any other options to avoid allotment. The state that now owned their land had been imposed upon them by force, against their desires.

So... that's the story of "state land" in an imperial state.

[aranthus]

127. But the situations aren't comparable.

More to the point, you brought up private ownership of land. I simply corrected your numbers. The fact is that Palestinians actually owned less land than the Jews. So how do the Arabs "own" the state land in Palestine. The situation in America doesn't tell us anything about that.

[shira]

134. Waters lied at the very least. There are no nutter supremacist Rabbis in the Knesset....

...today who are doing what he's claiming.

[oberliner]

86. "Roger Waters is paraphrasing from Max Blumenthal's book"

What a book that is.

[Scootaloo]

100. Haven't read it

Bet you haven't, either

[oberliner]

6. The ruler of Qatar is a disgusting pig?

This is a truth? What other ME states have rulers that are disgusting pigs?

Can you list the ME states with majority Arab population whose rulers are disgusting pigs and the ones whose rulers are not disgusting pigs?

[shira]

9. Look at #8 above. Antisemitic or not? n/t

[shira]

13. Progressive anti-racists should care about antisemitism.

Especially coming from one of the BDS/anti-zionist's leading advocates, like Roger Waters.

His anti-jewish bigotry hurts the Palestinian cause, don't you agree?

=========

I wonder if you'd ever accuse others of scouring the world for examples of anti-Muslim, anti-Black, or anti-Arab bigotry in order to claim fresh victimhood status.

Would you?

[oberliner]

10. Those were your exact words

Looking for clarity on what you were talking about.

[King_David]

16. You use the word 'hasbara ' as if it is a dirty word.

Well it is not.

Read my sig line for a translation .

You will learn something.

We can all be proud to help you people who know nothing about us people and our People,Land,Culture and strength and weaknesses... happy to supply Hasbarah to you guys cos you sure need it.

[King_David]

18. Clearly you need us LaHasbir lecha,

cos you have no clue what your talking about if you believe what you wrote.

You need someone LeHasbir (להסביר ) to you ....you need some Hasbirah from us...

[shira]

31. Psst! K-D, you're giving our secret hebrew codes away....

Change "LeHasbir" to let's have some Beer and and I'll join you in 10 at our usual rendezvous point.

Oy vey, our contacts tell me to tell you to stop giving away our top secret Hasbarado hebrew coded words to our super brilliant, ingenious foes.

[shira]

19. You're lying b/c your original claim is that Israeli law going back to 1948 guaranteed....

...a Jewish majority.

There is no such law.

[shira]

27. Well derrr.....of course Israel is a Jewish state. But there's no guarantee...

...of a Jewish majority enshrined in any basic, founding law that you've concocted in your imagination.

What the hell do u think Israel would do if the Arab birthrate within Israel was triple that of the Jewish one? I can't wait for this doozy...

[shira]

32. Where does he say Israel guarantees a Jewish majority since way back in 1948?

Last edited Sat Dec 7, 2013, 10:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Show me this 60-65 year old law.

Put up or....

...well, you know.

[oberliner]

20. You've read hasbara training pamphlets

It seems like the people most interested in such pamphlets are folks such as yourself.

[oberliner]

57. Don't really know those posters very well

In fact, I definitely know other posters who generally disagree with me on these topics a lot better.

Seriously, though, nobody is "reading pamphlets" but you around here.

[shira]

76. You know about the manuals too? Onoz!!!!

The manuals!

We're done for now.

Hey waitaminute....what manuals?

[WatermelonRat]

116. You're starting to remind me of back when Glenn Beck discovered Saul Alinsky

and for a couple of months every liberal argument was met with cries of "Aha! Classic 'Rules for Radicals' disciple I see! How much is ACORN paying you?"

You see the same thing with Islamaphobes spouting off about "taquiyaa". I'm sure somewhere out there is a site promoting anti-Israel talking points that advises bringing up "hasbara" frequently. There's an interest group pushing every conceivable argument that can be made, and does not automatically discredit the argument.

[WatermelonRat]

129. The comparison isn't between the things themselves

But of how people on the internet reference them as a means of derailing an argument.

[oberliner]

21. "Hasbara is a dirty, dirty business that you're involved in, oberliner"

"....tag-team hasbarists"

This is getting seriously unhinged.

This is a discussion board. I post my thoughts and that's it. There is nothing more going on than that.

[shira]

23. Did u get yr paycheck from Likud last week? I'm still waiting for mine.

BTW, how much do they pay u?

They're telling me to go to more boards other than DU.

[shira]

28. My hasbara pager from Likud underground HQ alerted me to this thread....

I'm duty bound and paid handsomely to "rat-pack" you.

Are you feeling the love?

[Scootaloo]

55. I have to admit, I have amusing images of you in the vein of 60's Batman

"Zounds! The Likudnikman needs my help! i must deliver this to the UN immediately!"

[shira]

60. How do u know that wasn't me delivering Bibi's Wile-E-Coyote bomb to the UN? n/t

[oberliner]

56. Your team will come around

Someone will have your back.

[shira]

79. What u see here, having each other's backs, is no different than the anti-racism....

....you see upstairs in DU forums, when decent folk "gang up" in their "packs" against certain people there making bigoted or racist remarks. Racism and bigotry are intolerable and it's perfectly justifiable to see good people recognizing hatred for what it is and calling others out for their bigotry.

[shaayecanaan]

96. Damn straight

Just say the word.

[King_David]

34. I am trying to make a song and dance routine with my good friend Aharon Barak

On his facebook.... and he said Le Chaim !!

[shira]

69. But unlike you, Barak never claimed Israel guarantees by law a Jewish majority....

That was your fabrication.

You can't even point to such a law going back to 1948 but that doesn't stop you from repeating the same lying garbage.

[oberliner]

58. Ok

It seemed like you were stating these things as facts. Guess I misunderstood. No harm no foul. I'm glad you don't think the leader of Qatar is a disgusting pig.

[merrily]

35. The term "anti-Semite" once included anti-Arabism.

[Scootaloo]

40. It still should, as there is no real difference between the tropes of them

it's something i've been trying to put together for a post for a while - I keep getting distracted by other projects though.

[merrily]

41. One difference. Arabs could never have re-defined an English word successfully.

[Shaktimaan]

128. I'm not sure

If the above statement is more anti-Jewish for hinting at a conspiracy to re-define a word that always referred to oppression of Jews, (why is it even bad that Jews have a word describing that?), or if it's more racist against Arabs for suggesting that they're far too dumb or incapable or unmotivated of pulling off such a scheme.

I don't get why people insist that anti-semitic refers to the semitic language. Really, I just can't fathom that someone could live in the world and think that discrimination works according to imperceptive semantic categories that no one knows about. Look, it's so fucking simple. If someone is being anti-Arab they're being racist. Yes. Even though Arab is not really a racial category, that's how it's perceived, so that's where it goes. (Latino isn't a race either, but I've never heard anyone bring it up in an argument for why no one can be racist against Latinos.) And anti-semitic refers to Jewish people. Just Jewish people. Is that so confusing? Are you someone who throws an inflammable substance on a fire hoping to put it out? English isn't always super duper literal. If you are confused about a word's meaning, look it up.

Or I guess just make up your own meaning along with some retarded conspiracy theory to half-way explain it, I don't really care.

[merrily]

130. Oh, please.

"Conspiracies" are not how words change. Get a grip.

Edited because I was going to leave my reply at "Oh, please," because I thought even that was more of a reply than your post merited from me. Then I decided to elaborate more. Probably a mistake on my part.

[merrily]

43. ?

[merrily]

103. How does that relate to my simple statement that the term "anti-Semitism" used to include

anti-Arabism?

[merrily]

114. You are definitely allowed. I'm only trying to understand.

[King_David]

44. ?

[King_David]

47. Avatar

[aranthus]

102. When was that?

The word was coined specifically to mean Jew hated. When did it legitimately come to include anti-Arab?

[Israeli]

52. Gideon Levy on Israel's claims of anti-Semitism .....

tell me something shira .... do you check under your bed every night before you go to sleep ?

[King_David]

63. Difficult to take Gidein Levy seriously on any topic

Especially when he claims the ADL "fabricates " incidents of AntiSemitism .

Unlike you , Levy is an "expert" on USA and Golah Jews in general .And with that point I must agree with the man... We are all just ONE people , Levy however is no expert .

He may be your hero , I think he's an opportunistic journalist with an elevated self sense if himself. Another of those that figures he's the last remaining righteous Jew left in the world like some feel on DU ( last remaining righteous Jew posting on DU)

[Israeli]

66. I choose Gideon Levy on any topic over ....

you and shira King_David..... BTW you cant even spell his name right

You seriously believe that " We are all just ONE people " .... ??? !!!!

I suggest you tell that to Rabin's family .

I could not care less what you think American .

[King_David]

67. Well that hero of yours Gideon Levy could care less about American Jews,

it was all about the ADL , he was all over them like a Rash.....


After all he wants to portray himself as the only rightous Jew left in the world.

Yep we are all one people, my Grandparents who were born in Palestine and huge family now Israel are EXACTLY the same culturally as us in the Golah = one people.

We are Culturally different from you and your 26 Post Zionist cult for sure , but no different from almost all Israeli Jews,

ie : One People minus 26 people of the cultist Post_Zionist Clan.


(your opinion does not count much with Golah or Israeli Jews = one People) you do not speak for the Jews or even for that cult of Moonies or Messianic Jews or Post-Zionists or whatever they called.

[Israeli]

73. Gideon Levy on American Jews .....

No thank you, we're doing all right. No thank you, some of you are causing us great damage. If you want to wield influence, do it in your own country. You have a lot of power and influence there. Perhaps too much; it's none of our business. You are American, not Israeli citizens, and no amount of money can or should change this fact. War and peace, social justice and government, education and religion in Israel are a matter for its citizens alone.

.. the extent of American Jewry's intervention in our affairs has long become intolerable. It's time to show them the door - the one that separates them from us.

Israeli politicians from all parties engage in an overly close rapport with American Jews, and of course, their money. The American Jewish establishment may support all Israeli governments blindly and automatically - this, too, is inexplicable and raises weighty questions. But under the official countenance of not intervening in our internal affairs, they have a thumb in every pie.

In many areas the damage is direct and considerable. The settlements in the territories, for example, would not have thrived and grown had it not been for the big money flowing from American Jews. A Ynet investigation released around two years ago found that American Jews sent $100 million to the settlements in the past decade.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/let-s-be-done-with-all-the-talanskys-1.245555

No paywall ....enjoy .

[King_David]

80. As I said , that dude is vey concerned with American Jews

But who cares what this angry self righteous arrogant little man thinks?

Almost no Jews in Israel and almost none on the Golah respect or take him seriously and the same goes with that known proven liar ,Amira Hass....

[Israeli]

109. Many King_David.....

" Almost no Jews in Israel and almost none on the Golah respect or take him seriously and the same goes with that known proven liar ,Amira Hass...."

you keep on believing that ....if it makes you feel better .

BTW we prefer the term ' Israelis ' ......not all Israelis class themselves as Jews and not all Israelis are Jewish and many many Israelis are not Zionists .

Here have some facts that are more horrifying than Gideon Levy :

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/02/the-facts-more-horrifying-than-gideon-levy.html#url=/articles/2012/11/02/the-facts-more-horrifying-than-gideon-levy.html

[King_David]

112. "We" prefer ? Ha ha ha

You most certainly do not speak for Israel or Israelis , your views are minority ,tiny marginal , insignificant .


(You keep on answering with links instead of yourself , I can do my own google, I converse on here this forum with people, why do you always answer with a link so some other shady character answers --- even to these people you "converse" with and try pretend your the last righteous Jew on DU--- you supply them with @links@ and not answers )

[Israeli]

113. and you do ?

whatever you say American ....your the expert .

How many days have you spent over here on your tourist visa King_David ?

[King_David]

115. Never claimed I did ..although it's my birthright

As you do claim to...and are not .. Not even close .. Youare right your culture is different .. It's a cultist , elitist , self righteous (the last remaining 26 righteous Jews in the world--Post Zionist or whatever they called today)

And I'm not American --

My grandparents were born in Palestine --- Where were yours born ?
Not that it matters - we all have the same birthright .

I'm just a simple Gay Jewish boy who's land of my immediate and past ancestors you happen to live in ...and rightfully so.

[shira]

68. You choose lies and propaganda...

Ben Dror Yemini nailed Gideon Levy for the "baron of lies" that he is, and although Levy responded he didn't manage to refute anything Yemini accused him of:

For example and in response to Yemini, Levy admitted there was no front-page story about a dog's death that captured headlines during Cast Lead in 2008-09. Levy used that dog's death to show how a major Israeli newspaper covered that event, while relegating the deaths of tens of Palestinians to page 16. That was a complete and utter lie. It wasn't that Levy just got the date wrong (the dog died years earlier). He tried using that to show that at the height of the Gaza war, a popular Israeli newspaper thought more of a dog than the lives of 10's of Palestinians.

[Israeli]

74. Dear shira : This Is What Anti-Semitism Means

http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=61201

Excerpts :

" I bring this up only because the Israeli right appears to be once again confusing anti-Semitism with “being opposed to things that the Israeli right want everyone to think are non-negotiable.”

Case in point: The sanctions that the European Union is poised to institute against West Bank settlements. The Israeli right feels pretty strongly that such sanctions will do damage to the settlement enterprise, and while we can’t really be sure of the outcome of a policy that hasn’t been implemented yet, I feel safe in saying that the Israeli right is, well, right—in fact, that’s the point of the sanctions: To damage the settlement enterprise. It’s a political action intended to produce political ends. "

" Now, we could start by noting that whatever you may think of the settlement enterprise, not even Israel thinks that the West Bank is “part of Israel.” Those lands haven’t been annexed, and indeed their future is (putatively, at least) under negotiation by the Israeli government even as we speak. We could start there. "

" Indeed, the right’s tendency to label everything vaguely unpleasant as anti-Semitism (and a new Holocaust to boot!) is so strong that Israel’s more non-hyperbolic citizens often mock and satirize it. Perhaps my favorite example of this is an old routine by iconic comedy troupe HaHamishia HaKamarite—you don’t even need a working knowledge of Hebrew to enjoy it.

The mockery comes because many, many Israelis (left, right, and ambidextrous) understand that there’s simply no intellectually honest way to shoe-horn a decision to suspend “grants, prizes, and financial instruments… to Israeli entities or to their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967” into the idea of hating on Jews because they’re Jews. Or into the idea of killing them. It’s ahistorical. It’s nonsensical. It suggests a lack of book learning. And it’s deeply, profoundly offensive. "

" But the European Union doesn’t oppose the West Bank settlements because the people living in them are Jews. The European Union opposes the West Bank settlements because the people living in them (and the government that sent them) are breaking international law:

In conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the EU of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967…the EU has made it clear that it will not recognize any changes to pre-1967 border, other than those agreed by the parties to the Middle East Peace Process.

But Israel’s right wing (and the Americans who support it) want the world to simply give up and give in, to adopt its ideological position and red-roofed West Bank homes as a fait accompli and play a supporting role in denying the Palestinian people their civil and human rights into perpetuity. "

[shira]

77. Although it shouldn't be antisemitic to oppose settlements in occupied territory....

...what the EU is doing is essentially antisemitic, as they directly fund settlements and other illegal projects in occupied territory elsewhere NOW, in both Cyprus and Morocco:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113447933

In other words, let's have just one standard for all, not one standard for the Jews and another different standard for the rest of the world. Go on and oppose the settlements for all the right reasons....but don't be a hypocrite with double-standards or else it looks awfully rotten.

[azurnoir]

85. so by those standards the current US administration must be antisemitic

because it is induced Israel to negotiate it's conquered territory with the Palestinians but has not forced Cyprus or Morocco to do the same

posted mostly for the inevitable tap dance that will follow

[shira]

88. Whaa? The EU is currently boycotting settlements & occupied territory only in Israel....

...while it directly funds settlements in occupied Cyprus and voted for European nations to exploit natural resources in illegally Moroccan occupied Western Sahara.

Meanwhile, the US is trying to negotiate peace and has worked against bigoted efforts to isolate Israel.

[azurnoir]

89. the US is inducing Israel to negotiate land it obviously considers its own without doing the same in

Cyprus or Morocco period

tappity tap tap but the EU

[oberliner]

78. Except that's not what anyone is talking about

Everyone here is totally opposed to the settlements.

[Israeli]

110. sure oberliner....

[ZombieHorde]

82. Anti-Semite means anti-Jew, in current usage.

Israel has nothing to do with it. A person can think Haiti is a shit hole without being anti-black.

[aranthus]

83. Can one be against the existence of Italy and not be anti-Italian?

That's where the divide is. The Arab/Palestinian position is against Israel's existence, not merely against any particular government policy.

[azurnoir]

84. quote from above comment "The Arab/Palestinian position is against Israel's existence"

yes that why there was an Arab Peace Initiative that Israel rejected twice out of hand but to take such an extreme zero sum stance, it one must wonder if a bit of projection and broadbrushing is in play

now let's que some anti-Palestinian hate vids from the usual source, perhaps? or not

[aranthus]

91. Yes, that is their position.

They are prepared to make peace with "Israel," but not a Jewish state. Of course since Israel is a Jewish state, their rejection cancels out the peace initiative. They are anti-Zionist, and the core of the anti-Zionist position is to be against a Jewish state. When you dry off from swimming in denial we can talk.

[azurnoir]

99. "They (Arabs) are prepared to make peace with "Israel," but not a Jewish state

rather hair splitting are you, the Jewish State issue disenfranchises the 25% of Israel's population that is not Jewish, the Prawer plan could be seen as showing Israel's intentions towards its non Jewish population

[aranthus]

118. No it isn't.

They are willing to make peace with Israel in the sense that they will accept that they cant destroy it. They can accept that the Jews are in Israel by superior force of arms. Making peace with the Jewish state requires accepting that the Jews are in Israel by right. That they are so unlikely to ever do that never is a fair estimate.

[azurnoir]

120. so tell me do Native Americans accept that Europeans are in America by rights or superior arms

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 05:40 AM - Edit history (1)

for that matter does does a displaced population of any country accept that their 'displacers' are there by that displacers rights? If indeed the Palestinians aims are what you claim would simply mouthing some forced words that disenfranchise a countries minority group(s) really change what is thought and felt?

[aranthus]

124. I don't know.

However, the situation is very different. Europeans who came here were colonists and conquerors who invaded the sovereign territory of Native Americans and took over. Now, that society is a world power, and certainly no other country formally challenges its legitimacy. Nor, do the Native Americans have the slightest chance of altering the situation, nor as far as I know are any of them openly trying, such as by organizing a world boycott against the US until Americans turn over the keys to them.

The situation with Israel is substantially different. Jews are an indigenous people of the region (meaning that the Jewish people originated there), and the Jews had as much right to a country there as anyone (they weren't naked colonizers like the Americans). Second, Israel is still a small country, who's existence is challenged by her neighbors. Third, the Palestinians have explicitly made war against the Jews to deny them any kind of a state in even part of the region even before there was a single refugee or displaced person. There simply isn't any comparison between I/P and the Native American experience.

[ZombieHorde]

87. Yes, one can be against the "existence" of Italy and not be anti-Italian.

The rhetorical constructs of states are very much different than people.

[aranthus]

90. Try telling that to an Italian.

The concept of a state, and the people that the state protects, are very much related.

[ZombieHorde]

92. I agree that we usually cling very stongly to our thoughts and opinions.

However, states don't exist in the way most people think of them. States are a belief or an opinion created by language. Italy is not a property of matter or energy. Italy is thought, and nothing more.

Some people do work together, or claim to work within a shared methodology (when the claim is a lie we usually call it "corruption&quot , and some of those methodologies are called "states," but those methodologies are still only thoughts.

Then there is the rhetorical construct of shared identities, such as Italian, gay, liberal, wo/man, skeptic, Christian, etc., which is very similar except they are often imposed upon an individual, and usually necessary for acts of persuasion.

[aranthus]

93. No, we cling most strongly to them.

They are what make us human instead of mere animals. If you are hostile to my ideological identity (as opposed to political beliefs), then you are hostile to me. If you simply dismiss national identity as "thought and nothing more," then you aren't living in the real world.

[ZombieHorde]

94. Humans are mere animals.

Different animals have different behaviors and abilities. One ability that seems to be unique for humans is the invention of abstracts such as symbols and negatives, but this doesn't make us objectively more or less than any other animal.

I am not dismissing national identity, I am saying it is a belief created by language. For some people, the belief is very powerful, but a belief is still a thought.

[aranthus]

101. That's totally wrong.

We've had this discussion before, and it's lost on you, but for others, I will explain. No, not all citizens of France are of French ancestry. Some are Arabs who aren't particularly French at all, and who complain that they are not treated as equals by the ethnic French. That doesn't mean that France is illegitimate as a state. The Arabs living there have civil rights, they just don't have national rights to shape the state according to their culture. That right belongs to the ethnic French majority. The same is true in Israel, except that the state does not share the name of the dominant culture, but that of course is irrelevant. Call it Judea, and the Arabs living there still wouldn't be Jews. So what? They have civil rights. They just don't have the national rights of a dominant culture. For that they could agree to peace with the Jewish state and create their own Arab state on the West Bank and Gaza. None of this is racism. In contrast, your denigration of the Jewish people to "the Jewish sect," is per se anti-Semitic. delrem we have already seen how you have to misread legal precedent to make your case and I see no reason to hash that out with you any further.

[merrily]

104. "Israel is defined in several of its laws as a "Jewish and democratic state" (medina

yehudit ve-demokratit). However, the term "Jewish" is a polyseme that can relate equally to the Jewish people or religion (see: Who is a Jew?). The debate about the meaning of the term Jewish and its legal and social applications is one of the most profound issues with which Israeli society deals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

[lostincalifornia]

126. With the history Europe has they know damn well what it is in that connotation, against Jews period

Shame on them