Stage Four anti-Semitism

[Colorado Blue]

snip

THE GOOD NEWS is that the European Union – which too many Israelis love to hate – has come to our rescue. It has given us unequivocal criteria by which to evaluate the presence of Stage Four anti-Semitism. The EU's monitoring committee on anti-Semitism and racism has formulated its own definition of Jew-hatred:

denying Jews the right to self-determination by claiming that Israel's existence is "racist";

applying a double standard; holding Israel to a yardstick not expected of any other democratic nation;

drawing comparisons between Israeli policy and those of the Nazis;

holding world Jewry collectively responsible for the actions of Israel.

This is a dramatic and courageous definition, one that flies in the face of many post-Zionist academics.

A court in Versailles went even further and, in an exceptional decision, convicted editors at Le Monde for publishing in 2002 "Israel-Palestine: The cancer," which reportedly described Jews as "a contemptuous people" and implicitly equated Israel with Nazi Germany.

HOORAY.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1118110994403&apage=2

[Colorado Blue]

1. HALLELUJAH. nt

[ET Awful]

2. One quick thought . . .

If people are to be condemned as anti-semitic for "holding world Jewry collectively responsible for the actions of Israel," shouldn't the converse be true?

By this I mean, shouldn't accusations of anti-semitism halt for those who criticize the actions of Israel based strictly on the nature of the actions themselves? i.e. It is very common for the most vociferous supporters of Israels policies to immediately label anyone that questions those policies as anti-semitic.

So, is this definition a two way street?

[Behind the Aegis]

8. one person's perspective

I understand what you are saying. I fully believe that Israel, like any other country, is not above criticism for its policies, and that includes its politicians. The problem is that some, not all, who criticize Israel are really doing so in an anti-Semitic way. Some, again, not all, cannot think of Israel as anything other than a "Jewish state." And, that is both sides, supporters and detractors. So, it is very difficult sometimes for Jews to distinguish between whether a criticism is actually against Israel or against Jews. Anti-Semitic beliefs on the left are very real, but are often excused as attacks on Israeli policy.

I look at it this way: a person is attacked and is gay. Then, we, the public, has to decide...was it an attack on a person who happened to be gay or was it an attack on person because s/he was gay? As a gay person, my first instinct is the latter, but I try to keep an open mind. But, a non-gay person, often, looks at it as the former. Either way, it still has to be proved and usually by the group who think the attack was "because" the person was gay. Hate directed at a minority makes said minority a little edgy.

Not all attacks/disagreements on/about Israel or her politicians are anti-Semitic, but some of them are. Guess who has to prove it?

[newyorican]

3. Can't read article...

and I don't want even more spam so I won't register.

Curious timing for this post. It comes at the same time as this:

Spain's ex-PM to Israel: Ignore Europe

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Here's the first portion of the article - pruned to comply with the

Copyright Law--

Rubenstein asks "Is being anti-Israel the same as being anti-Jewish? That's the perennial question, and it deserves an updated answer."

Rubenstein disapproves of knee-jerk defense of Israeli's every action, saying "Yes, say those who defend every action taken by the Jewish state. That's not what I think. In fact, one may – must – criticize Israel without hating Jews. Israel's post-1967 policy of implanting settlements in the occupied territories contravenes international law as well as the principle of equality. So it cannot but arouse justified opposition."

However, as some appenders have been saying (and being severely criticized and mocked for) "... there's an overlap between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism." Rubinstein notes that "... one of the pro-AUT boycott Web sites links to anti-Semitic sites. Indeed, the proceedings leading up to the now-rescinded British boycott of Israeli academia seemed to have been led by "academic skinheads.""

He also writes that "... one pro-Palestinian activist at London University – an Israeli musician – defends the burning of synagogues as "a rational act" expressing opposition to Israeli policies."

Rubenstein asks "How should we classify such utterings? Are they a manifestation of radical-leftism or neo-Nazism? A more extreme version of Noam Chomsky-thinking or a less extreme version of Julius Streicher-thinking?" He answers his own question "But the precise correlation between anti-Israelism and old-fashioned Jew–hatred is of marginal importance."

Rubenstein concedes that "...the situation of Jews in the West has never been so good...."


Rubinstein also observes "To be sure, there remain pockets of old-fashioned Christian hatred." citing Michel Wieviorka and others, "Hatred of Jews in France." ...

What troubles so many of us Progressives, as well as Rubenstein is that "None of these incidents explain the bash-Israel hysteria gathering momentum in liberal circles – just as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan for disengagement from the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank is about to be implemented."

Rubenstein notes that "... here we are dealing not with opposition to Israel's policies, nor with old-style Judophobia, but with an outright denial of Jewish peoplehood and our right to self-determination. and, according to Rubenstein, "it is this mood that plagues some "liberal" circles who cannot be accused of traditional Jew-hatred."

Using the analysis of Emile Fackenhein, Rubenstein see three stages of anti-Semitism:

Stage One: "You cannot live among us as Jews" – which precipitated forced conversions;

Stage Two: "You cannot live among us" – which precipitated mass deportations;

Stage Three: "You cannot live" – which signifies murderous, "biological anti-Semitism" of the kind that culminated in the Holocaust, and of the kind advocated recently by the Egyptian television series Horse Without a Rider.

Rubenstein sees a Fourth Stage: "You cannot live in a state of your own." This stance is popular among Western leftists and "liberals."

Rubenstein says that "(t)hose who fall into this category are definitely not anti-Semitic. Yet this stage is also nourished by an irrational attitude toward all things Jewish."

(Open question - I think that they are anti-Semitic, maybe at an unconscious level)

Rubenstein asks "Why shouldn't the Jews be entitled to a national home of their own? Why should the verdict of both the League of Nations and the United Nations advocating a Jewish state in Palestine be abandoned? What universal principle justifies this "special treatment" of the Jews ?"

This is where the analysis posted by CB picks up.

BTW - I note your comment "Can't read article ... and I don't want even more spam so I won't register. " -- turn on the spam blocker in your e-mail application. And, you don't have to pay to have access to the JP - just register a username and password. Not that hard.

[newyorican]

5. Thanks...

for the synopsis...

[Coastie for Truth]

6. Accusations of Anti-Semitism

<>

BTW - I think it is anti-Semitic to -- consciously or unconsciously --- conflate all Jews - with the Neocons, the Likudniks or Sharon or Wolfowitz.

That is as racist as conflating LULAC or Cruz Bustamante or Antonio Villaraigosa with FALN, or conflating Clarence Thomas or Ward Connerly or Alan Keyes or Armstrong Williams with Charles Rangel or John Conyers or Cynthia McKinney.

<>

[drdon326]

7. Coastie....I love you , man.....

but I dont understand a word of that post.


on edit......ohhhhhhhh.....I get it. My bad.

Did you go to the now famous MAGISTRATE SCHOOL OF S.A.T. WORD USAGE ??

[The Magistrate]

11. Thank You, Doctor, For Remembering

It is a pleasure to see you still about the place, Sir.

[newyorican]

9. Some of your analogies don't work...

BTW - I think it is anti-Semitic to -- consciously or unconsciously --- conflate all Jews - with the Neocons, the Likudniks or Sharon or Wolfowitz.

This one works, but it's also stupid and illogical in addition to anti-Semitic.

That is as racist as conflating LULAC or Cruz Bustamante or Antonio Villaraigosa with FALN

This doesn't work as well as it could. As a person of Latin descent, I would view this as misinformed. A better analogy would be to conflate FALN with all Puerto Ricans. Now that would be racist. Notice the analogy contains a questionable organization and a racial group/nationality, no personalities.

or conflating Clarence Thomas or Ward Connerly or Alan Keyes or Armstrong Williams with Charles Rangel or John Conyers or Cynthia McKinney.

Nope. Doesn't work at all. Too personal. Even conflating any one of these individuals with all African Americans doesn't work. It's more illogical and stupid than racist. Much more.

Examples: Conflating Timmy McViegh with all white Americans is stupid. Conflating W.A.R. with all white Americans is racist.

Conflating Mumia Abu Jamal with all African Americans is stupid. Conflating M.O.V.E. with all African Americans is racist.

[Colorado Blue]

10. Anybody who wants the whole article, please PM me and I'll

copy it and send it to you. It explains things better if you can read the entire piece.

Or, just notify me here and I'll forward it your private mail.

Though actually, I just noticed that Coastie's post (a poem!) pretty much captures it.

Thanks Coastie:)

[dameocrat]

12. I disagree that comparisons with the nazis

are antisemitic. Whenever a state does repressive things it will be compared to Nazis. Why say "never again", if it is never appropriate to make comparisons, with Nazis. I thought the Chinese crackdown in Tienamen was Naziesque. Israelis themselves often compare the actions of their state to Nazis, look at the settlers, who read JPost.

[Coastie for Truth]

13. You don't know what Naziism is.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[dameocrat]

16. So I gather you dont't think there is any similarity between

Tienamin and what Nazis did to dissenters? Come on?

[Behind the Aegis]

17. How are they similar?

Are you talking methodology, politics, what?

[dameocrat]

20. It was a blatant disrespect for the rights of citizens to freedom

of expression. They killed dissenters.

[Lithos]

14. Dameocrat

Several points.

1) The situation in China is probably best described as a totalitarian regime imposing its will in the name of preservation of power for the elite. It lacks the nationalistic/jingoistic, psychopathic/paranoid, uber-race mythology espoused by the Nazis. (There is more).

2) The residual impact of the Nazi terror on Judaism in Israel is so strong that they have made the term Nazi into something akin to a cultural phrase that transcends mere personal insult. Often times this implication attempts to make no tie between the recipient and actual fascism, but rather to imply a transcending abhorrence that cuts across multiple planes. There is additional strength of meaning when given by one who otherwise would consider you a brother.

This is a meaning not used by the vast majority of people when they take up the phrase.

L-

[dameocrat]

15. You can quibble with whether it is appropriate to use it

with reguard to actions at Tienamin but you have more or less proved my point. It isn't antisemitic. The Nazis were totalitarians thus there are valid grounds for comparison with the Chinese government. Some of the lukudniks and particularly the settlers espouse an uber-race mythology. All are jingoists. Some advocate transfer or ethnic cleansing. Look at Benny Elon. Some advocate actuall genocide. The followers of Kahane come to mind. We have had posters here that have claimed the Palestinians are Amelkites. That can only mean one thing. Even TNR has described Kahane as a fascist and a nazi. The government of Israel has cracked down on protesters and disrespected freedom of speech thus we can expect nazi references in that context. I simply don't think anyone who draws comparisons is an antisemite or we should never say never again, because nothing bad ever repeats itself exactly.

[Lithos]

18. The issue to me isn't whether it is anti-semitic

But whether it is culturally insensitive, which is what I've proven.

The use in Israel originally grew out of an attempt to curse someone for touching on issues deep in the cultural psyche of the individual. That said, I imagine the use has also become trite to a large degree from overuse.

As for whether someone is a Nazi, the only real meaning that can be accurate is the historical use for members of the German Nazi party or any of the satellite parties which have direct ties to it. Anything else is incorrect, and tends to detract from the debate.

Case in point, your tie of cracking down on protestors and the disrespect of the freedom of speech justifies Nazi references. First, the Nazis did not invent this nor were they the most experienced or the most famous practitioners of this form of subjugation even if you limit this to within modern memory.

So unless you are talking about the historical use or highly specific comparison of events which can only easily in the context of Nazi Germany, claiming people are Nazis or attribute Nazi-like behavior to them shows equally poor ability to project or advance your debate as use of other loaded words such as claims of someone being a self-hating Jew.

L-

[dameocrat]

19. Actually nitpicking such as that in my opinion stifles debate altogether

The word Torquemada can only properly be used in the context of the inquisition by your standards yet it is used to describe Talibans persecuting women in Afghanistan. I don't mind people who draw comparisons between Talibans and the inquisition or Nazi comparisons at Tienamen. I highly doubt you objected either.

BTW, the thing that gets to me is that none of the people who want to make such rules would be able to live with them themselves. I am sure Foxman is happy about this ruling and he writes books comparing critics of Israel to Nazis.

If the issue isn't whether it is antisemitic, why comment, since that was what the article is about.

[Colorado Blue]

21. Could I give it a try? I though Lithos' explanation was

excellent but maybe I can speak from another, more personal point of view.

First, the Nazis were on a whole 'nother plane. In terms of violence, they started a world war which ultimately killed AT LEAST 50 million people. FIFTY MILLION, 20 million on the Russian front alone, 10-11 million in concentration camps. Their whole ideology was based on an ideal of "master race" and their stated goal was to establish a dominant Reich that would last 1,000 years. In the short term their goal, largely successful, was to conquer Europe and extend their power eastward, into Russia, and strike from there into the oil fields that would provide fuel for their industries.

Had it not been for the sheer guts of the British, and American intervention with its huge resources, fighting men and long-range bombers, plus Hitler's own growing craziness and the errors of his staff, Germany would surely have prevailed. They invented rockets and were close to developing the atomic bomb.

And of course in case of the Jewish people, they launched a systematic and largely successful attempt to exterminate all the Jews they could get their hands on - for completely irrational reasons based on nothing more than hatred, and centuries of cultural and religious bias that had already relegated Jews to endless humiliations, massacres, and insults. The Nazi "Final Solution" managed to kill off most of the Jews in Europe, nearly half the total population of Jews IN THE WORLD. Our population today is still 2 million less than it was before the Nazis did their thing.

And, the Jews were not fighting a tooth and nail war against the Nazis. They were completely helpless - but more than that, had been completely integrated, non-violent and were valuable, contributing members to their societies within Europe. In fact, my German in-laws, who fought for Hitler, think one of the major reasons the Germans lost the war was this insane "Final Solution". In their estimation, not only did it draw off valuable resources to deal with The Jewish Problem - but it destroyed some of the people who could most have helped the war effort: scientists, researchers, teachers. That's a pragmatic and cold-blooded way of looking at the situation but I've gotten used to it:)

The situation in Israel, BORN of the shattered remnants of the Holocaust and other pogroms, populated largely by refugees and created out of the the need to escape persecution and live normally, is so totally unlike that of Nazi Germany that the conflation of ideas is both ridiculous and offensive. Israel is and has been fighting a war for survival for many decades now. She is fighting enemies who have stated that they wish to destroy her and murder all her citizens.

She is NOT trying to exterminate or harm or persecute Arabs or Muslims or anybody else, or dominate the world, or any of the other Nazi crimes. The Occupation, the indignities suffered by the Arabs, the civil rights violations, are all terrible. But all have grown out of war and continuous terrorism and the continuous rejection of peace proposals.

Israel is the only nation ON THIS PLANET who is, apparently, expected to get hit with rockets and bombs and not retaliate.

That's amazing to me. It surely wouldn't happen HERE. Imagine what would occur if Mexico and Canada repeatedly and continuously attacked the US for more than 50 years!

When Israel does retaliate or otherwise try to prevent more attacks, or contain militants or interdict arms shipments, she's accused of being "NAZI". That is, indeed, racist - as the EU has concluded.

And, as far as "totalitarianism" is concerned - Israel has one of the most open and free presses in the world. Records are totally transparent. Go to Ha'aretz on line and you will find bruising and unmoderated discussion forums in which people from all over the world participate - including Palestinians.

Every move the Israelis make gets on the tube or is reported about or demonstrated against - often from WITHIN ISRAEL. Israeli historians are among the most self-doubting, rigorously truthseeking, myth-destroying on the face of this planet - and their arguments, books and papers are available for all to read and examine.

That is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the totalitarian system and myth-creation developed by the Nazis.

We have REAL Nazis, here and abroad, to worry about. And we should never allow the word "Nazi" to be devalued, lest we forget its true meaning.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

23. After all the examples...

you really don't get it, do you? The explanations from Lithos and CB, didn't even make a "dent!" It is not about "metaphores {sic} can never be exact," at all. "They sent Jews to Poland because German life insurance policies didn't count in foriegn {sic} countries." What are you talking about? What about the camps IN Germany...or did they forget that insurance policy thing?! :eyes:

There is a difference between being "pro-Israel" and wanting the country to survive...if you can't see that, well, nothing is going to open your eyes.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[dameocrat]

26. Settlements weren't put there because the Palestinians were

violent. They were put there because Israelis think that land is theirs.

They won't if Palestinians declare peace or whatever. The last time they did they expanded.

"A quote by Avi Schlaim, an Israeli historian, on the issue of comparisons to Nazi Germany (in this instance referring to Israeli government and military leaders, but the parallel works here as well):

The issue isn't whether or not we are the same as the Nazis, the issue is that we aren't different enough."

[Colorado Blue]

27. Israeli self-criticism, admirably stringent, should NEVER be

used as an excuse for others to compare her to Nazi Germany.

The very fact that Israeli society, and Diaspora Jewish society as well, are so open and so aware of the transgressions against the Palestinian people, marks them as the very opposite of Nazis.

The fact that the majority of Israeli citizens support not only the withdrawal, but the idea that they should be talking to Hamas even though they have vowed to destroy Israel, marks Israelis as the very opposite of the Nazis.

The Nazis, confronted with such a situation, would simply have removed it. The people would simply be gone. The Nazis wouldn't have been making enterprise zones and trying to figure out how to make peace. The US, in fact, under attack since 1948, would simply have packed up some B-52's and carpet bombed the region.

The Israelis are trying to live with the problem.

Also, the conflict between Israel and the Arabs isn't between Israel and the Palestinians. It has been, and is, between Israel and the 22 Arab League states, as well as with the Palestinians. A tremendous amount of money from oil-rich states as well as from the West, has gone into arming militias, PR efforts, attempted boycotts and other activities injurious to Israel. Jewish citizens worldwide number 13 million. The Israelis themselves are outnumbered by the Arabs, some 6 million to some 300 million. I'm attaching a map so you can see how the region looks. Perhaps the size of Israel relative to the land mass occupied by the Arab League states will put matters into a little perspective.

As far as the occupation is concerned, UN Resolution 242 specified that land was to be returned for peace.

No peace deal has arrived, statehood was rejected, violence ESCALATED after Oslo instead of decreasing; and a key feature both of the militias' philosophy and of the Palestinian Covenant is the destruction of Israel. Yet, land is being returned.

It should also be noted that, however we personally may feel that the settlements are improper, there has been a CONTINUOUS Jewish presence on the West Bank for thousands of years. This should be taken into consideration when making black and white moral judgements on other people, while enjoying life in a country siezed from indigenous people.

Finally, it must be mentioned, since the Nazis seem to be a popular idea in relation to this thread, that the Jews weren't trying to blow away Nazi Germany.

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

[dameocrat]

28. That is a strawman

nobody said the majority of the Israelis were like nazis. The settlers however are racists, and they mostly control the government. Those indigineous people we stole from can vote like everyone else nowadays. He said the government were acting like stormtroopers. Interviewed Noam Federman supporters that really did support killing any Palestinian that refused to leave. Were there any other people called storm troopers besides nazis.

I really believe if were up to you no settlement would ever get uprooted. I think the Israel apologist are saying one thing but believe another. I think they put so many conditions on peace deals that they naturally break down, and that is the intention. You have already expressed support for keeping the majority of them on the west bank. The settlers can stay but then they must become Palestinians.

There is no two state solution because there is no political will in Israel to create it. Has nothing to do with anything the Palestinians do. The Palestinians should just work for their civil rights and to citizens of Israel until Israel gets scared enough of this inevitablity to create one.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Recent polls* in Israel show opposition to the disengagement...

..is increasing, despite Sharon's understandable attempts to claim otherwise. So claims made in this forum that the majority of Israelis support the disengagement don't appear to be correct. As for claims that the majority of Israelis support dialogue with Hamas, I find that really hard to believe without some credible backup on that. The efforts and success in instilling fear into the Israeli population by Hamas murdering innocent civilians in random suicide bombings, makes me doubt that anywhere near a majority of Israelis would support any sort of dialogue with Hamas. So I'll call bullshit on that claim until it's shown otherwise...

*a disclaimer that I'm aware that poll findings can sometimes be twisted into something they weren't, and that some aren't indicative of the entire population, but from what I understand there's been several ongoing polls on disengagement and growing opposition is a reasonably recent development...

Violet...

[dameocrat]

30. This is true, but many Israeli progressives have advocated this

Since there is definately a downturn in terrorism why is there a reluctance to just give up the pithy gaza settlements.

[Colorado Blue]

32. That's not what I've been reading in the Israeli papers!

And, I might suggest, if there is resistance to disengagement, it stems at least in some degree to the perception that it isn't safe yet.

The UN and the EU are both concerned that P.A. hasn't been able to contain the militias. Also, it's disturbing that Hamas, vowing to destroy Israel, is gaining political power.

I don't think these concerns are unfounded.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Give me some links to poll results then..

What I've been reading is the momentum is being lost and now that Sharon has the support he needs in the Knesset for the disengagement plan, some of the public urgency has faded. Also that the disengagement plan understandably has put the Left in a bit of a spot, and that there would be people opposed to it, not because they agree with the settlers, but because they see it as Sharon making that move, and then never progressing further on the West Bank or Palestinian statehood...

I've been doing a bit of googling to try to find out if there is a majority of Israelis who'd support dialogue with Hamas and as yet I haven't found anything. Could you help me out here, seeing as how it was you who clued me in on it in the first place?

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

34. OK, I posted an article in this forum. Hang on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x93648

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Not exactly what was being implied...

I thought yr original claim was that the majority of Israelis support dialogue with Hamas. What you showed me was a poll result saying 50% (nowhere near a majority) would support dialogue with a PA containing Hamas...

Violet...

[eyl]

66. Correction

It's true that support for the disengagment dropped in recent polls. However, I'm not aware of any poll where the supporters dropped below a majority (i.e. 50%). Also, note that the opposition didn't grow; the percentages the supporters lost in the polls went to the "undecided" camp. This is IMO, in direct response to the continuing missile and shooting attacks in/from Gaza. Lastly, AFAIK the trend reversed itself; recent polls have shown support increasing once again (though today's killing of an Israeli soldier may reverse that trend back).

[Colorado Blue]

31. Wait a second. You don't even know me, or what I think, or

where I'm coming from. So is it appropriate to assume what I think about the settlers?

Personally, I believe they should not have been there in the first place, and that their presence has been a provocation. I do believe, in the best of all possible worlds, that Jews and Arabs should be able to live in each other's communities.

And yes, Native Americans, their number reduced to just over 1,000,000 people, can now vote in our elections. But most live in 3rd world conditions on reservations granted them by The Great White Father. Their cultures have been almost completely destroyed. They suffer from poverty, alcoholism, disease and bigotry. Yet, they continue to create and to adapt, and they personally inspire me enormously.

But we must NEVER forget, when judging other people, how America came to be. Our good fortune has been bought at enormous cost to the beautiful people who lived here before us, and whose ways, no matter how wise, couldn't stop the Iron Horse and the white man's guns.

Israeli Arabs, on the other hand, are full citizens. People in the OT don't vote because they're not part of the State of Israel. They had belonged to Jordan and Egypt, who also didn't try to create a Palestinian state.

In any case, I do believe that the large urban centers are attached to Israel, they're a part of Israel, but they should stop building more settlements and prepare to withdraw from the outlying settlements. A permanent border should be worked out, which means secure and defensible borders for Israel.

Meanwhile, Israel, Jordan and the P.A. are working together on water, power and environmental projects that should provide desalinized water and electricity for the next 50 years.

The Israelis have offered a secure railroad from the West Bank to Gaza, so people can travel safely and quickly between the two regions. Hopefully, everybody will calm down enough to be able to share access to Jerusalem and its beauties.

I disagree that the lack of will to create a Palestinian state is coming from the majority of Israelis. The polls ALL disagree with that. The settlers by no means control the Israeli government. The percentage FOR disengagement is more than 65%. In favor of continuing occupation, 35%.

However, Israel is a democracy and that 35% must be respected. They must be relocated, and hopefully persuaded to do the right thing rather than dragged screaming back into Israel proper. That would be bad for everybody. Meanwhile, the Palestinians and the 22 Arab League states must be prepared to negotiate in good faith.

And that hasn't been happening. Recent conferences merely reaffirm that the Arab elite truly believe, and the Islamic elites as a whole believe, that Israel should be destroyed. So, I don't know how this is going to work out. I'm terribly concerned that more war will erupt no matter how well-meaning the Israelis are, or how much the majority of Palestinians desire peace and a normal life.

Expecting the Israelis to give up what little physical security they have for nothing but more war, this time in a weaker position, isn't fair. But, in order to give it the very best effort, that is what must be done. The probability that great loss of life will result, is very great. So I personally feel despair. I'll append a couple of articles you might enjoy reading, about this topic.

As far as civil rights are concerned, if everybody would respect everybody else's civil rights, we wouldn't HAVE a problem.

Terrorism and war are hardly conducive to mutual respect. Such violations have been MUTUAL, since 1948 and long before. Arabs started killing local Jews in 1920. Today, a group of Israeli Arabs paid tribute to three Arabs hung for their murders. This is a violent part of the world, a region where violence is seen as a respectable means of settling disputes. It's difficult to manage in terms of Western democracy. It is going to be awhile before people prefer negotiation to violence but we must keep trying.

And we MUST keep before our eyes, a vision of peace and prosperity. Otherwise we're just staring into the fires and that will lead to certain failure.

To a large extent, both Palestinians and Israelis have been victimized by outside powers - including militias, other states, organizations funded by the Soviets - like the PLO itself - and even by the US and other Western powers. Palestinians and Israelis alike have been pawns in "The Great Game". It is time for the great powers to help, instead of harm, these good people.

A couple of links. The first is an article about a recent conference in which the Arabs reaffirmed their desire to get rid of Israel. It WAS a very civilized affair, however.

The second is an article by the "New Historian" Benny Morris - also a leftist like the man you quoted. In it, he speaks of the past, and of his changed perceptions about the possibility for a peaceful future.

So you see, we're not blind, or brutal. We trying to do the best we can, in the almost certain face of more violence and more death.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x93832

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/arafathusseini.html

[dameocrat]

35. Benny Morris has come out in favor of transfer.

He believes the Arabs should be deported to Jordan. He is a reactionary. He is not a good example to use if you want to prove you think the settlements are wrong. He basically thinks transfer is ok so long as there are no war crimes. Like that can fucking happen. Do you think enlightened ethnic cleansing will make me think you or Benny Morris(God help us!) are real liberal! I have eyes.

The settlements are not a responce to violence and death. They are a land grab. If the Palestinians on the West Bank can't vote because they don't live on Israeli land, what in the hell gave Israel a right to settle its voting citizens on it, and why didn't the settlers lose the right to vote when they moved there? Why do the Israeli papers still refer to it as Sumaria, as if it is part of Israel or something?

What American did 100 yrs ago doesn't justify Israel doing it NOW! If Israel takes urban areas on the west bank including Jerusalem that is half the west bank. The land only briefly was governed by Jordan. The 1948 UN maps clearly show it to be land designated to Palestinains, and not permenantly part of Jordan. Until Israel gives them a real generous offer the Palestinians should just work toward citizenship like the American Indian did.



"THE MEMORY OF THE APOCALYPTIC EPOCH OF THE HOLOCAUST SHOULD BECOME PART OF THE HUMAN CONSCIENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS FOR ALL TIME. BEYOND SORROW, SUFFERING, AND DEATH, THE TRAGIC ANNIHILATION OF EUROPEAN JEWRY MUST INSPIRE HUMANKIND TO COMMIT ITSELF AGAINST ALL MANIFESTATIONS OF GENOCIDE AND RACIAL HATRED. MAY A NEW LOVE FOR HUMANITY BE BORN OUT OF THE HORRORS WE HAVE KNOWN. IT IS THE SACRED DUTY OF THE GENERATION OF BERGEN-BELSEN TO DOCUMENT THE HOLOCAUST TO ITS FULLEST DEPTH, TO EDUCATE THE WORLD, AND TO PASS ON THE LEGACY OF REMEMBRANCE TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. WE PRAY AND HOPE THAT THE BERGEN-BELSEN MEMORIAL MUSEUM, DEDICATED BOTH TO THE HOLOCAUST AND THE REBIRTH OF THE SURVIVORS, WILL TAKE ROOT FROM THE TERRIBLE DESTRUCTION WHICH WE HAVE WITNESSED AND FULFILL OUR VISION AND ASPIRATIONS FOR A WORLD BLESSED WITH PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING.

--The Survivors of Bergen Belsen"

[Colorado Blue]

36. Some questions:

Show me where Benny Morris says the Palestinians should
be transferred to Jordan? I wasn't aware of that.

I'd appreciate a link or a reference to a book. If that's the case it just reflects how continuous warfare has altered his world-view. I suggest, if you were actually THERE, you might feel the same? Try to walk in his shoes, and see the problem from his perspective.

Al Qaeda has now gotten into the act, and is advocating the end of the cease-fire. So now what? How does a liberal respond to a naked threat?

***

I will say, many people believe that the West Bank should possibly link up with Jordan. That isn't such a bad idea - not to lose their identity, but perhaps to become part of the Jordan's national economic and political sphere.

That would help enormously with logistics and social and economic opportunities.

Are you sure that's not what Benny Morris was saying?

***

As far as Jerusalem is concerned, she should never have been separated from Israel. The majority of her citizens lived there, for Pete's sake. The Jews were in a Catch-22 situation - they were forbidden to buy land in the region of their capital and largest city. Does this make sense? And, Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for ages.

Jerusalem HARDLY constitutes half the west bank. Please. The BBC maps estimate the total - THE TOTAL land involved in the settlements is 2%.

Having said that, the impact on the Palestinian people is far greater than that, in terms of access, freedom of movement, water rights and so on. That's the real problem. That all must be worked out. It's impossible to do that when there is open warfare and the West Bank is in chaos. It is impossible to allow the average citizens freedom of movement when the militias and the would-be terrorists move in their midst.

The IDF charts show that, for every successful terrorist attack, vastly more are stopped before they happen. Without the checkpoints, how can that be accomplished?

[dameocrat]

38. He has been on a speaking tour making that argument.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2004/01/23/morris/

A decade and a half has gone by, and once again Morris is scandalizing Israel -- but this time in a totally different way. Now, even as he releases an updated version of his book, he is defending what with brutal honesty he describes as the "ethnic cleansing" that brought the Jewish state into existence. In a recent interview with the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Morris not only justified the 1948 expulsion of the Palestinians from Israel, but also said that then-Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion failed in his task by not expelling all Arabs from the nascent Jewish state: "If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job."

Morris went on to say that renewed expulsions of the Palestinians -- those in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and even those who are Israeli citizens -- could be "entirely reasonable" in circumstances that are "liable to be realized in five or 10 years." Unwavering Arab hatred of Israel, he argued, meant that the best way to deal with the Palestinians for now is to "build something like a cage" for them (some would argue this is already happening with the ongoing construction of the so-called "separation wall.") The Arab and Muslim world, in his eyes, consists of barbarians who don't appreciate the value of human life, barbarians knocking on the gates of the civilized West.

Of course, anyone can make bold and inflammatory statements, and when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, many people do. What makes Morris' statements seem so outrageous is that they are apparently not the words of a fanatic. They are the words of someone who has thought a great deal about his beliefs, someone who seems to be logical and rational, someone who was not only raised as a liberal, but who also still claims to hold leftist ideals and to vote for progressive Israeli politicians.



Urban areas linked to Israel includes East Jerusalem, which has traditionally been Arab and the suburbs of East Jerusalem, which compromise most of the settlements. Building a cage for the Arabs is precisely what is happening.

[Colorado Blue]

41. I want to address this at length. Later. nt

[Colorado Blue]

44. OK - this is a total misquote, and it's out of context.

******
Big surprise. Here's the original, in context:

"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."

Morris is talking here about a doomsday threat - not casually supporting the idea of transporting Arabs out of Israel. He is talking about being surrounded with nuclear weapons.

That's a big difference from the way your piece presents his ideas.

I suggest spending some time reading this history from the original sources.

I've appended a rebuttal article concerning the events of 1948.

[dameocrat]

50. Ok whatever

he also says it is likely to occur, so he is hunting for excuses to do it.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Benny Morris does support transfer of the Palestinians...

Whether that support is 'casual' or given only under particular circumstances doesn't change a thing. He supports transfer. There are no excuses or justification for that sort of disgusting attitude. The paragraph you copied even says that he doesn't support it 'at this moment' and the only reason he doesn't support it at the moment is that the world wouldn't tolerate it. You don't find this attitude acceptable, do you?

Here's snippets from the Benny Morris interview that originally appeared in Ha'aretz. I'll be interested to see how his comments can be spun and justified. I'm a fangrrl of his academic work but I wouldn't even want to be associated with trying to put a happy smiley spin on some of this stuff...

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

Survival of the Fittest? An Interview with Benny Morris

And another article about Benny Morris and that interview

No More Tears: Benny Morris and the Road Back from Liberal Zionism

And for those who think that just because Morris is a New Historian that he marches in lockstep with others who study the events of the late 1940's, then they're wrong. Morris has in the past been just as vocal at arguing with Norman Finkelstein and others who believed that the transfer of Palestinians was planned and carried out intentionally as he has argued with the likes of Karsh, who never gets the apoplectic rage stage to take too seriously...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

46. More about 1948

Another point of view:

The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.

The beginning of the Arab exodus can be traced to the weeks immediately following the announcement of the UN partition resolution. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends.

All of those who left fully anticipated being able to return to their homes after an early Arab victory, as Palestinian nationalist Aref el-Aref explained in his history of the 1948 war:

The Arabs thought they would win in less than the twinkling of an eye and that it would take no more than a day or two from the time the Arab armies crossed the border until all the colonies were conquered and the enemy would throw down his arms and cast himself on their mercy.

By the end of January1948, the exodus was so alarming the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal the borders against them. Meanwhile, Jewish leaders urged the Arabs to remain in Palestine and become citizens of Israel. The Assembly of Palestine Jewry issued this appeal on October 2, 1947:

We will do everything in our power to maintain peace, and establish a cooperation gainful to both . It is now, here and now, from Jerusalem itself, that a call must go out to the Arab nations to join forces with Jewry and the destined Jewish State and work shoulder to shoulder for our common good, for the peace and progress of sovereign equals.

On November 30, the day after the UN partition vote, the Jewish Agency announced: "The main theme behind the spontaneous celebrations we are witnessing today is our community's desire to seek peace and its determination to achieve fruitful cooperation with the Arabs...."

Israel's Proclamation of Independence, issued May 14, 1948, also invited the Palestinians to remain in their homes and become equal citizens in the new state:

In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all.


snip




http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html


WHY didn't people at least give it a try?

[Violet_Crumble]

48. So that's the version you believe?

Can I ask why?

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

57. This is heavily documented. Believe it or not, there was

history back in the dark ages when I was a student.

In any case, the situation was so intense, as I've said repeatedly, that no one account can possibly tell the "whole" truth.

But I think a little logic should be employed. The fact that a particular view of history supports a political point of view which one espouses, doesn't make it correct or complete.

That goes for all of us, we ALL need to keep open minds.

I have noticed, I must say, a great reluctance in certain quarters to accept any culpability whatsoever on the part of the Arabs, past or present.

That suggests a certain narrowness of focus, particularly in view of regional history on a broader scale.

[dameocrat]

61. You're promoting a view that supports your political outlook

.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. So what if it's heavily documented?

Heavy documentation doesn't mean it's particularly sound. So seeing that version that yr treating as though it's fact says that the Arab leaders told the Palestinian people to leave their homes in anticipation of returning victorious, can you explain to me how and when this happened? See, those alleged radio broadcasts that the zealous fans of the Israel Can Do No Wrong line don't exist and never did....

Can you show me what quarters yr talking about? Here in this forum? Unfortunately, there's some quarters that seem to think that placing any responsibility at all for what happened on Israel is somehow refusing to accept that the Arabs (btw, you do realise that they weren't all one homogenous group and had differing aims and needs back then?)...


Seeing you mentioned the need for open minds, maybe you could lead the charge and give some examples of Zionist/Israeli responsibility for what happened in 1948. For those with open minds and who take a balanced view of the conflict, that shouldn't be difficult to do at all...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

68. You have to read ALL of it.

You must read all of it, all of the sources I quoted, Morris' several books, Karsch, the older sources also.

You have to listen to the Arab professor in California, who tells of the way his family was ordered out of their home. You must hear the bitterness of his loss, the sorrow.

You must hear the voices of people who've lived for generations in camps, in sorrow and anger and fear. You must hear the voices of people fighting to build a nation in war, in terror, in hope.

I think you have to read of the destruction of Jewish towns and kibbutzim, the rapes and the massacres, the violence of Irgun, the Arab Legion, the road to Jerusalem, the signal fires on the mountains, the bodies of dead soldiers and dead women, the terrified people who fled their homes.

You have to read about the riots of 1920, 29, and the '30's. You have to read about the Naqba and you have to read about the Jewish communities, all across the Middle East, which no longer exist since 1948.

You must read poetry and hear songs. You must dance the tchiftitelli and the debka, the Arab sword dance -war dance! the exorcism dances of the Bedu women, and you must hear the voices of the klezmer singers and the mahwal of the Arab nightingale, praising the night (ya leili ya ha leili!) until the dead rise up and dance.

You must read of the Warsaw ghetto, you ride the train to Auschwitz you must never forget the ashes of the schtetl your grandfather fled or the Czars' cossacks screaming into the peaceful night on their great black horses. The curved blades flash in moonlight.

You must try to become an Arab farmer, fearful for his future, a mufti shocked by the long-legged Jewish girls in their shorts, the kibbutznik fighting mosquitoes and the brutal, ancient soil.

***

There were over 1.5 million people involved in the war of 1948: 600,000 Jews and their 35,000 warriors, the Palestinians who fled, the Arabs who stayed, the Druze, the Bedu, the many Arab armies, the commanders, the propagandists, the leaders, the reporters.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has a story.

And, if you haven't read it yet, take some time and read Durrell's Alexandria Quartet. It tells about the multi-faceted nature of truth, and the way it resolves itself through time.

***

The war of 1948 was an absolute doomsday event for the Jewish people. The phoenix would rise from the ashes, or she would be doomed forever. This must be understood above all else: Israel rose from the torn and bloody body of her mother - her millions of dead, her 2,000 years of Diaspora, the books and stories of a doomsday culture. In no way, in this time and place, was this essential, brutal fact matched by any experience in the Arab world.

Therein lies the essential asymmetry of this struggle: not in the supposed colonial nature of the Zionists, not in any supposed lack of commitment by the Arab armies, not in the respective guilt or innocence of any of the parties involved - but in the core meaning of Eretz Israel:

Shem'ah Yisroel, Adonai Eluheynu

Hear, of Israel. (Here, oh Israel)

And the great bird rose from the ashes.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. Now could you go back and address what I said?

That reply has nothing to do with what I said, nor does it answer the questions I asked.

Here's the questions again, and I would really appreciate an attempt to answer them:

* So seeing that version that yr treating as though it's fact says that the Arab leaders told the Palestinian people to leave their homes in anticipation of returning victorious, can you explain to me how and when this happened?

*Can you show me what quarters yr talking about? Here in this forum? Unfortunately, there's some quarters that seem to think that placing any responsibility at all for what happened on Israel is somehow refusing to accept that the Arabs (btw, you do realise that they weren't all one homogenous group and had differing aims and needs back then?)...


*Seeing you mentioned the need for open minds, maybe you could lead the charge and give some examples of Zionist/Israeli responsibility for what happened in 1948. For those with open minds and who take a balanced view of the conflict, that shouldn't be difficult to do at all...


And I'll take the silence both times I've asked if you've read any of Benny Morris' books to mean you haven't...

Violet...

[dameocrat]

51. According to Morris's own account this is false

The Arabs did not leave volunariy.

[Colorado Blue]

37. A few more questions:

Originally, the settlements were part of an attempt to force the hands of the Arab governments in the land for peace idea, and to provide additional security. I'm going to ask a fellow DU'er, who lives in Israel, to add to our knowledge on this point. But as to why they aren't part of Israel politically, that's another Catch-22: it wouldn't be LEGAL to annex them. They are considered, legally, to be under hostile occupation.

And, there's the very valid problem of the demonstrable need for the Jewish state to remain the Jewish state. We shouldn't have to constantly defend this simple, obvious right to self-determination in our own state.

Having said that, it presents a conumdrum for a democracy: how can a democracy remain democratic if it doesn't respect the full rights of ALL citizens? But yet, if the citizens of one cultural group turn on the citizens of another, who founded the state with the express purpose of finding freedom from persecution, how should that problem be managed?

As discussed in another thread, a one-state solution would be fine in a perfect world. In this one, it would be a disaster for the Jewish people, who would, once again, become a minority in the midst of a population who despises them.

Is that right? Would that confer justice?

And that being the case, and with full acknowledgement of the duties of all people to respect each other, isn't it more than a bit inappropriate to be using Holocaust literature to advocate such a "solution" in Israel?

***

In any case, we're dealing with terrible and complex real-world problems here, with the fact of real chaos, real violence, real war. This is having a dreadful impact on the idealistic outlook. For example, Sharon and Rice met yesterday to discuss the problem of Hamas' becoming part of the Palestinian government.

So I'll ask again: how does a democratic state, which believes in equal rights and the ability of the Palestinians to self-determination, deal with the fact that said election is empowering violent bigots, who vow to continue the war, whose stated goal is to murder Jews and destroy Israel?

The goal, whether from a state beyond Israel's borders, or from WITHIN Israel, remains the same as far as this group is concerned. The question remains, how much influence do they really have? Do the majority of Palestinians really feel this way, or would they really like this violence to end so they can live normal, happy lives?

And, I am hardly using what happened in America to justify the situation in Israel. For one thing, the Jews are indigenous to the region. We aren't white people out to conquer the poor Indians. We ARE the poor Indians. It's been flipped on us somehow, that since we've managed to survive more than 80 years of terror and war - not to mention 2,000 years of persecution in Diaspora and dhimmitude in the Mideast, we must, de facto, be the bad guys, and the Arabs must, in fact, be the Jews.

That's a particularly repugnant tactic assumed in recent years by Arab intellectuals and it is WRONG. It's every bit as wrong as racism toward Arabs. It's every bit as wrong as the settlers' trying to take advantage of the Arab people, mistreat them or disrepect their innate rights as human beings.

***

I would also suggest, that if these 22 Arab states really gave a damn about the Palestinian people, they'd be working CREATIVELY to help them and not merely maintaining concentration camps and hampering Palestinian immigration and citizenship in order to keep this conflict on the burner.

I am also using the referral to the Native Americans to suggest that a little less judgementalism from Americans and other beneficiaries of human migratory patterns, including imperialism, would be most welcome. Because in fact, the sorrow of the Native Americans was matched and overmatched, by the opportunities this land provided for the people who came here - or went to Australia, for example.

The tragedy of one group was the triumph of another.

In the Middle East, Arab nationalism and the hegemony of Islam have injured other ethnic groups and minorities, even as the Palestinians, in this one small region, have been injured by the Israelis.

There is no unambiguous right or wrong in ANY of these situations.

***

Finally, if repression of the West Bank Arabs by the Israelis is wrong - what the hell is the on-going warfare against the Israelis by the Arabs?

[dameocrat]

39. That is bullcrap

The settlements were meant to be permenant, or they would have forced the settlers to live in tents. The settlers consider them permenant.

As for American Indians, they vote today remember! They weren't forced to live in Mexico.

Your last question makes no sense.

[Colorado Blue]

40. What doesn't make sense? That there has been an ongoing

war against Israel since 1948? And that violence against Israelis is wrong?

There sure as hell has and it sure as hell is. And this war has involved the entire Arab League, plus the Soviets and other outside entities, not merely the Palestinians, and now al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iran and Saudi Arabia, plus probably a whole bunch of other folks I don't know about.

There is great determination in Europe and America as well, on the far left, to destabilize and hurt the Israeli people. This has taken the effect of attempted boycotts and economic threats. It is very serious.

And it is WRONG. It takes a lot of nerve, in that context, to talk about the Nazis. That is why the European Union regards such blather as bigotry. It doesn't reflect reality and it's cruel and it's asking for more violence, which will hurt innocents in many nations.

Radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood are trying to derail enterprise zones set up to assist the Egyptian textile industry, working in partnership with Israeli dye houses. It's affecting Arabs as well as Israelis, absolutely the most destructive thing.

As far as the settlements, I am going to defer to somebody who lives there. But a lot of them are just house trailers. And I do know this: the offer to Arafat was serious, it was generous, and it included 24 settlements plus East Jerusalem for a capital, not to mention some 40 billion dollars in reparations.

And it was refused. No further negotiation ensued, and the violence skyrocketed.

It is absolutely as wrong for the Arabs to be attacking Israelis as the other way around. There is no way to complain about the evil Israelis without acknowledging the repeated refusals of the Arabs to come to the peace table, to negotiate in good faith, while continuing the endless violence.

As far as voting is concerned, the Palestinians sure as hell do vote. They vote in their own elections.

If they want to become part of Israel they should please say so and stop shooting. But in another thread you've confirmed that they desire a two-state solution. The Israelis desire a two-state solution. The withdrawal from Gaza WILL go forward. Then we will worry about the West Bank. But after 57 years of non-stop violence people are going to have expect one thing: it is going to take time and effort to heal this land. Hurling invectives, demanding immediate action, and refusing to see the whole picture isn't going to help at all.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians don't even have Israel on their maps. The Palestinian Covenant says, very clearly, that the destruction of Israel is the goal.

So? What isn't clear about my question?

[dameocrat]

42. Since Israel started off with an act of ethnic cleansing

even by pro-transfer Benny Morris's own account, it is not shock that it was attacked from the beginning. Israel attacked Arabs from the beginning in order to create a majority Jewish state.

Who gives a shit if the Palestinians vote for the Palestinian Council. The Palestinian Council doesn't govern the West Bank. Israel and the settlers do. It is Israel that has never negotiated in good faith. Look at how they are stalling on disengagement dispite the truce. If Israel wants two states it will make one, negotiations make no difference what so ever. They never have.

As for the campaign to harm the Israeli people, just to harm Israelis. That is a lie. This campaign of boycotts would not be happening if Israel would leave the West Bank to the Palestinians or make them citizens.

[Colorado Blue]

43. BALLS.

First, Morris has revised his earlier work - itself revisionist. It was controversial to begin with, and worse, he has been accused of poor scholarship.

The view that the Israelis were primarily responsible for the flight of the Palestinians has always been disputed. It flies in the face of contemporary accounts, including those of Glubb Pasha, commander of the Arab Legions, and other observers.

And, the Arabs had the option of creating a state. They didn't have to attack with 5 armies. This WAS their option. The brand new Israeli government extended the olive branch and it was refused - as it has been repeatedly ever since.

This long critique should be read, in order to balance misconceptions about Benny's earlier work. It also demonstrates what is obvious: that the Palestinians have used Morris' work, and that of other revisionist historians, to bolster their own claims and grievances. That it is innaccurate seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Benny Morris's Reign of Error, Revisited
The Post-Zionist Critique
by Efraim Karsh*

The collapse and dispersion of Palestine's Arab society during the 1948 war is one of the most charged issues in the politics and historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Initially, Palestinians blamed the Arab world for having promised military support that never materialized.<1> Arab host states in turn regarded the Palestinians as having shamefully deserted their homeland. With the passage of time and the dimming of historical memory, the story of the 1948 war was gradually rewritten with Israel rather than the Arab states and the extremist and shortsighted Palestinian leadership becoming the main if not only culprit of the Palestinian dispersion. This false narrative received a major boost in the late 1980s with the rise of several left-leaning Israeli academics and journalists calling themselves the New Historians, who sought to question and revise understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict.<2> Ostensibly basing their research on recently declassified documents from the British Mandate period and the first years of Israeli independence, they systematically redrew the history of Zionism, turning upside down the saga of Israel's struggle for survival. Among the new historians, none has been more visible or more influential than Benny Morris, a professor at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba, whose 1987 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947-1949, became the New Historian's definitive work.

Prominent Palestinian politicians such as Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Hanan Ashrawi cited the "findings" of the New Historians to support extreme Palestinian territorial and political claims. Academics lauded Morris for using newly available documents to expose the allegedly immoral circumstances of Israel's creation. With frequent media exposure, the New Historians had an impact on mainstream Israeli opinion, which became increasingly receptive to the notion that both the fault and the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict lay disproportionately with Israel's own actions.

Such plaudits, however, were undeserved. Far from unearthing new facts or offering a novel interpretation of the Palestinian exodus, The Birth recycled the standard Arab narrative of the conflict. Morris portrayed the Palestinians as the hapless victims of unprovoked Jewish aggression. Israel's very creation became the "original sin" underlying the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Had there been an academic foundation to Morris's revisionism, such acclaim may have been warranted. But rather than incorporate new Israeli source material, Morris did little more than rehash old historiography. While laying blame for the Palestinian refugee crisis on the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces and its pre-state precursor, the Haganah, Morris failed to consult the millions of declassified documents in their archives, even as other historians used them in painstaking research.<3>

Once this fact was publicly exposed,<4> Morris conceded that he had "no access to the materials in the IDFA or Haganah archive and precious little to firsthand military materials deposited elsewhere."<5> Yet instead of acknowledging the implications of this omission upon his conclusions, Morris sought to use this "major methodological flaw" as the rationale for a new edition of The Birth, which he claimed would include new source-material.<6>

snip

http://www.meforum.org/article/711

Efraim Karsh is director of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London, and editor of the quarterly journal Israel Affairs. He is the author of Arafat's War: the Man and His Battle for Israeli Conquest (Grove Press).

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Yes, there's a revision of Birth...

You appear to be trying to make out that he's backtracked on what he wrote between Birth and Revisited. That's not the case at all. While Benny Morris has had a brainfart and turned into an extremist who advocates ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, in Revisited he uncovered more evidence of atrocities and transfers that hadn't been available when he wrote Birth...

And of course Efraim Karsh claims that Benny Morris is a shoddy scholar. I've read books by both of them and the insults slung between both, and Karsh is fond of not much else but heat and insults, something that historians tend to thrive on, and not only when it comes to this topic. The academic bloodshed over the causes of WWI leave the disagreements over the I/P conflict in the shade. But despite Benny's recent walking on the dark side, his work on the conflict is so solid and irrefutable that even if he'd wanted to, he wouldn't be able to refute it...

Saying that someone's work is contraversial in some circles does not translate as it being work of shoddy quality. Far from it. Being aware that his personal views on the conflict are ones that are vile does not mean that his academic work suddenly means jack shit...

Just curious, but have you read any books by Benny Morris or Efraim Karsh?

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

52. Yes. And here's another opinion on the topic.

The research done by Benny Morris in Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem is, despite occasional inaccuracies, more detailed and accurate than anything that preceded it. If we consider the facts Morris presents, it is reasonably clear that the flight of much of the Arab population from the territory that became Israel stemmed from battles between Arab and Jewish forces, and from the fears of Arab civilians of getting caught in the fighting. The Zionist leadership, Morris' research shows, correctly understood the danger that the Palestinian Arabs posed to the nascent Jewish state, and therefore did little to prevent their departure, at times encouraging or even precipitating it through political or military actions. In fact, Morris' own research does much to disprove the claims of his recent writings that what happened during the War of Independence was "ethnic cleansing."

The role of Arab leaders in urging the Arab population to leave is similarly well-documented. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, declared:

We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.
The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs:

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter and retake possession of their country.
In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948­49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.
Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al­Janub (August 16, 1948):

The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.
One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said:

The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.
Habib Issa said in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8,

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
And Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:

The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_refugees_arabs_why.php


I believe that people should read widely, understanding that no one book can possibly capture what exactly happened. I do believe that one shouldn't dismiss world-class teachers and scholars because one disagrees with their point of view.

The assumption that Karsh is wrong and the revisionists are right, because they support the idea of the Bad Israelis, isn't scholarly.

And I vehemently disagree that Benny has lost his mind. He's gotten older and he's seen the true extent of hatred and terror. That doesn't make him an extremist. He is NOT advocating "ethnic cleansing" of the Arabs. He has said, in certain APOCALYPTIC SITUATIONS, such as being surrounded with atomic weapons, THEN one might have to consider such an option.

That's hardly the same thing.

[dameocrat]

56. Here is the trouble with this thesis

It pretty much shows that Israel was deliberately setting up a state that didn't include Arabs, so the fact that Arabs would have felt threatened and that Israel would percieve them as a threat is well par for the coarse. I would be a threat to a state that was setting up on my land that didn't include me too.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Where did I say I hadn't read widely??

Where did I say that just one book can capture what happened? I didn't. I also didn't say that I assume Karsh is wrong and Morris is right because of some Bad Israeli thing either. That stuff has got absolutely nothing to do with what I talked about in my post...

Benny Morris IS an extremist. Any Arab saying the opposite about Israelis would be tarred and feathered as an anti-semite. And did you not read what I said - he DOES ADVOCATE ETHNIC CLEANSING BUT 'NOT AT THE MOMENT' and the reason it's not at the moment is the world might have something to say about it. I can't believe that sort of poisonous thought is being found acceptable and justified.

Please read the article he gave Ha'aretz and try to understand that the path he's following is one of bigotry. While his bigotry can be seen as being driven by fear, that in no way makes it any more acceptable than any other form of bigotry, all of which are driven by fear. I didn't get into the ignorance thing about bigotry, because I suspect it's finding out too much that's set Morris off on his current path...

Survival of the Fittest? An Interview with Benny Morris

Violet...

[eyl]

67. That's not quite what he said

This sentence:

"he DOES ADVOCATE ETHNIC CLEANSING BUT 'NOT AT THE MOMENT' and the reason it's not at the moment is the world might have something to say about it"

is not quite correct. Again, the full quote is

If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential.

Elsewhere, he justifies expulsions, under specific apocalyptic conditions; i.e., a stark choice between the ethnic cleansing of group A or the genocide of group B. Which do you consider the greater crime?

(I suspect Morris of becoming a discouraged cynic in light of recent events)

As far as I've understood him, he doesn't necessarily say complete ethnic cleansing in 1948 would have been moral; but rather, in the long term, it would have resulted in quite a bit less bloodshed, on both sides.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. It's what he said...

What you've done is try to justify his support of ethnic cleansing. Maybe you can explain something to me that I'm not getting. How would the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs be justified in the case of an attack on Israel from another Arab state? What would any of those 'apocalyptic' scenarios have to do with them? Also, as the reality is that Israel possesses nukes, I take it that yr of the school of thought that while it's okay for Israelis to support ethnic cleansing under those circumstances, it's not okay for any Arab to support ethnic cleansing of Israelis in the same apocalyptic circumstances?

Have you read what Avi Shlaim had to say about Morris' change of personal views? If you haven't, I think you really should because I think he points out quite a few things that bigots like Morris and others would love to sweep under the carpet...

Violet...

[eyl]

80. Read it again

or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front

IOW, a situation where there is an external attack supported by attacks on the rear by Israeli Arabs.

As for nukes - here, I'm not sure what he was getting at.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. CB, what books have you read of Benny Morris?

You forgot to answer the question, so I tbought I'd just give it a more prominent home. I'm only asking because the way some of yr arguments are steering, you don't appear to be aware of some of his arguments...

Violet...

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[dameocrat]

49. Karsh supports the settlements

so I don't think he is very credible. Morris has not changed his account of how Israel was born in anyway, he just justifies it by saying that the war crimes were wrong, but that Ben Gurion should have expelled them from the west bank as well.

[Colorado Blue]

53. Just because his political point of view doesn't agree with

YOURS, that doesn't mean his history is incorrect.

That's a most unscholarly assumption, and it blocks the growth of knowledge.

Since when is history a matter of political correctness?

[dameocrat]

55. It's not, but I don't believe Karsh

for other reasons as well. For one he likes to write for all the lying repuke papers. The ones still claim there are WMD, or that Saddam had something to do with Al Qaeda.

[Colorado Blue]

58. Oi.

You're limiting yourself as a scholar. All I'm saying is, broaden your view.

[dameocrat]

60. He was part of the war hawk brigade

so I tend to discount him outright. Benny is a truthful supporter of settlements.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. It also doesn't mean it's correct either...

That would be a most unscholarly assumption which blocks the growth of knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Us who haven't scholared away at the University of the Kitchen Table and The College Of Wikipedia sometimes have to remind scholars of that :)

What books of Efraim Karsh have you read again?

Violet...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. This post was ridiculously verbose.

On edit:

:- Comparing Israelis to inhabitants of Nazi Germany is silly, comparing Israelis to Nazis is even sillier.

:- Israel is not expected not to retaliate, it's expected to retaliate in such a way as not to harm innocents.

:- Israel is only one of several states that fail to do this; but more complaint is generated about this than about others.

:- This is because Israel is rich, and part of the first world, not because it is Jewish.


What I originally, said, taking several hundred words to say what I've just said in a few dozen, was:


Not only that, but the comparison, as far as I can tell, wasn't even
between "Israel" and "Nazi Germany", but between "Israelis" and "Nazis", which is even more illogical - even if the former two were equivalent (which I'm not for a moment suggesting they are) then the parallel would be with Germans in the 1930s or 40s, not with Nazis in general - there are an awful lot of Israelis who are opposed to the actions of the Israeli government.

I don't agree with your claim that "Israel is the only nation ON THIS PLANET who is, apparently, expected to get hit with rockets and bombs and not retaliate.", though.

What Israel is wanted (although not, regrettably, expected) to do is not retaliate unless it can do so without causing yet more suffering to innocent people - it possibly could, but it's shown no inclination to try. It's only "retaliation" if the victims are the same people who attacked you in the first place, otherwise it's "agression", which is what Israel is doing.

That's a standard I want all nations to hold too. Lots of others fail to do so, and I do think it's arguably unfair that so much more attention is devoted to Israeli atrocities that to Burmese or Sudanese or... (insert long list here)... ones, but I think that the difference is that Israel is a first-world nation that receives vast amounts of aid from the US, and thus is expected to hold to higher standards.

Some of Israel's supporters claim that it's because Israel is a Jewish state; I think that this is mistaken, however - the fraction of criticism of Israel that can legitimately be attributed to antisemitism is tiny, at least here in the UK.

However, either way, "What we're doing may be wrong, but other people are doing it too, so you shouldn't tell us to stop", is not a strong argument, I think.

[eyl]

72. The standard you demand

is one which is impossible to live up to.

When an enemy, as a matter of course, is deliberately hiding among, and attacking from, and utilizing, a civilian population, any retaliation* or preventative measures will inevitably harm that civilian population in one way or another. Because of that, demanding Israel not retaliate if such retaliation would harm civilians is tantamount to demanding no retaliation (or most other measures) at all. The laws of war recognize this, BTW; the presence of civilians, or the fact (or even certainty) of their being hurt, does not in and of itself rule out an attack.

As for the basis of ant-Israeli sentiment; I don't think all of it is based on ati-semetism. However, quite a bit of it does raise suspicions. As you noted, Israel is subject to quite a disproportionate amount of criticism (even if you assume, for the sake of argument, all of it is justified), while far worse offenders get off scott-free. I think attributing this solely to the fact that Israel is a first-world country is oversimplistic, especially since not all those offenders (e.g. China, Russia) don't exactly fall into the 3rd world category**.

For example, look at the recent AUT boycott. The AUT professes concern for human rights worldwide. Yet the only institutions they've ever boycotted (barring a labor dispute) are Israeli ones. I addressed this a bit more at length here.

*BTW, when you say "It's only "retaliation" if the victims are the same people who attacked you in the first place", do you mean the same specific people, or the group (formal or otherwise) they belong to? Because the former is not retaliation either (in the military sense, at least).
**Also, IMO, while you may not have the same expectations of 1st world/3rd world countries, holding them to different standards is borderline (at the very least) racism of a different sort.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

75. Going over some of your points:

:- I quite agree with you that the AUT boycott was ludicrous - it
was completely unjustified, counterproductive and immoral. I
don't think it was motivated by antisemitism, just stupidity.

:- When I say "the same people" I mean "people who bare
responsibility for the attack; i.e. could have prevented it
without disproportionate cost to themselves". Do you
mean "latter" instead of "former"? If not, could you please
explain - surely attacking the people who've just attacked you is
retaliation?

:- I think the justification for holding Israel to a higher standard
than the China or Russia is that the government is responsive to
the will of the people. It's not reasonable to condemn a nation
because a small group of people in control of it are doing bad
things, but it is if the populace as a whole are endorsing them.

:- If an action causes the deaths of more innocent Palestinians than
it saves the lives of innocent Israelis, how can it be said to be
justified?

:- Discrimination on grounds of 1st/3rd isn't *rac*ism. It's
probably some kind of -ism, but I think it's a justified one.

[eyl]

76. In order

:- I quite agree with you that the AUT boycott was ludicrous - it
was completely unjustified, counterproductive and immoral. I
don't think it was motivated by antisemitism, just stupidity.

I don't know if it was because of anti-semetism or not. I don't presume to be psychic; and besides, thesre were a lot of people in favor, and I doubt all had the same motivation. But when the Jewish state is the only one to be punished, then the possibility of anti-semetic motives on the part of at least some of the proponents has to be considered.

:- When I say "the same people" I mean "people who bare
responsibility for the attack; i.e. could have prevented it
without disproportionate cost to themselves". Do you
mean "latter" instead of "former"? If not, could you please
explain - surely attacking the people who've just attacked you is
retaliation?

In the military sense, "retaliation" is an attack against the "side" of your attackers, not them specifically. Upon further reflection, I suppose retliation would also cover attacking those who specifically attacked you (though I would porbably use "punishment" or "retribution" instead, at least in the context of this particular conflict), but there's no requirement it be done; in fact, retaliation doesn't have to be aimed against those who had anything to do with the specific attack at all; for example, if Hamas cell A missiles Sderot, retaliation can be aimed at Hamas cell B.

:- I think the justification for holding Israel to a higher standard
than the China or Russia is that the government is responsive to
the will of the people. It's not reasonable to condemn a nation
because a small group of people in control of it are doing bad
things, but it is if the populace as a whole are endorsing them.

So dictatorships get a free pass? Keep in mind thaton the international level (especially the UN) the nature of the government is irrelevent; all countries are supposed to be treated equally. Besdies, I can make an equally compelling case that it is dictatorships who should be placed under greater scrutiny, because in democracies, the people are capable of responding themselves, while in dictatorships, outside forces need intervene and therefore need the information.

:- If an action causes the deaths of more innocent Palestinians than
it saves the lives of innocent Israelis, how can it be said to be
justified?

So your conceding that some Palestinian deaths are justified, as long as the numbers match?

This can't be reduced to simple arithmatic. The policy of assassinating Palestinian terrorist leaders is intended to keep them from further killing, not retliation for previous ones (though that can be a side benefit). How do you calculate precisely how many people were saved? If he had underlings, their operations may be disrupted (that's also one of the intentions). How do you calculate the lives that saved? If, by some misfortune, unexpected Palestinian deaths occur, does the operation switch from "justified" to "unjustified"?

Mind you, this is not to say, that retaliation should take place regardless of the cost. There should be an effort to minimize bystander casualties, and reportedly, there have been*. But demanding no action be taken unless there are no such casualties is an impossible demand.

:- Discrimination on grounds of 1st/3rd isn't *rac*ism. It's probably some kind of -ism, but I think it's a justified one.

On the contrary. We set different standards for those who are incapable of adhering to normal ones. For example, the law holds young children to different standards of criminal liability than adults, because they are assumed to not have a fully developed moral sense, or to be fully able to assess the consquences of their actions. If you demand lesser standards of 3rd-worlders, you're essentially saying they're not capable of adhering to the standards "normal" countries and people are supposed to. At the very best, that's a highly paternalistic approach. Again, I draw your attention to the difference between multiple standards and multiple expectations. I don't expect the same conduct from a philanthropist and a habitual crackhead mugger; but both of them are judged by the same standard.

*Proving that is, of course, highly difficult to impossible. The only proof an assassination didn't take place is the word of those involved, so ultimately it comes down to whether you believe them or not.

[Colorado Blue]

73. Such succinct commentary!

Perhaps you'd do me the honor of working as my editor?

But, if you simply enjoy insulting me, it's free! Go ahead and enjoy:)

***

Your assertion that Israel should be held to a higher standard is exactly what the UK referred to as bigotry. No, it shouldn't. It should be held to no higher standard than any other democracy.

US aid is a blessing for a nation that has been defending herself and her people against extinction since Day 1 of her existence. The fact that the US has stood beside the Israelis should in no way obligate the Israelis to perform to a higher moral standard than, say, Great Britain, which is actively involved in a major ELECTIVE war in Iraq.

The fact that nations like Sudan, in which an active genocide is ongoing, receive less attention from the UN, from the press, and from NGPs like Amnesty International, is indeed a reflection of bias.

Furthermore, it serves to deflect attention from trouble spots in the world that really should be demanding our attention and receiving our help. It's bigoted to ignore the people who are dying in Africa, who are suffering rape and mayhem, who are being murdered and maimed, so the world can concentrate on Israel.

Finally, the argument about rich/poor doesn't work either. There are many very rich states in the Middle East. I do not see them being accused of Nazism, even though many are, in fact, dictatorships, frequently violent, repressive of women, lacking free speech and minority rights, or operating under theocratic law.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. Sorry -

I meant that the pre-edit version of my post was ridiculously verbose, not yours, in case that wasn't clear. However, on that subject, I'll issue a challenge to you or anyone else who cares to take it up: summarise this (again excessively lengthy) post in as few words as possible without losing any of the salient points.

With regard to a few of your points:

There are many states in the Middle East whose net wealth is very high, but that's not the same thing as being a rich state, at least not in this context, because that wealth is mostly in the hands of a few very rich individuals.

If you don't see these states being accused of Nazism, it's probably because you're not looking for it - a google search of Syria Nazis produced more than 200,000 hits, although admittedly a lot of those were about Syrians accusing Israel of Nazism rather than vice versa.

There are very few non-Muslims (although admittedly more than there should be) people who deny that the Israeli government doesn't behave better than most other Middle Eastern rulers.

I do accept that the fact that focus on Israel detracts from the Sudan and other places where it is more needed, and that this is indeed bias (although not bigotry in most cases, unless you twist the definition well past breaking point), but I don't see that this has any relevance to whether or not what Israel is doing is right or wrong. I'm not happy about it, though.

A burglar who gets caught and complained to the court that the police spent more resources on catching him than on other criminals would get short shrift.

[Colorado Blue]

77. OK, let's try and clarify, as you've suggested.

But, I want first to append a separate post about Israel's actual economic status, courtesy of a friend in Israel. I think it's important realize what it's really like there.

Politically, Israel is a first-world state, but economically, it's a third world state. And culturally it's really unique:

According to the definition of 3rd world economies, the 3rd world is comprised of underdeveloped or developing nations. Israel is very dependant on foreign aid, has high tariffs and is in a long, slow process of economic transformation. It is a developing economy.

A little over 10 years ago, free trade to Israel was initiated by the US. Gradually, American goods came onto the market in Israel at prices that were affordable. That is relatively recent, however. The aid from the US comes with conditions. One of those conditions is that Israel modernize the economy into a competitive market economy. That means less socialism, less welfare, and more poverty. Israel has deep pockets of poverty and growing wealth in the upper income levels.

http://www.answers.com/topic/third-world

She adds:

The categories are only theoretical. Israel is more unique. I used to consider that it was 4th world, but now that term is being applied to the very poor nations.

Israel is unique because it a rebuilding of an ancient culture through a synthesis of modern influences. It isn't by nature akin to say India, China and S.Korea, who are economically similar. The IT industries are booming in those countires also, but the poverty there is traditional and indigent. Israel has immigrants from 3rd world counties like Ethiopia, and 1st world countires like Russia.

[Colorado Blue]

78. OK, so succinct isn't one of my strong suits but here goes:)

I don't think our observations about Sudan and other places requiring more of our attention vis a vis Israel, or that the burglar complaining because he got caught, require much more conversation. I agree, the former illustrates bias, the latter is just bitching and the burglar should reform.

***

1. I will say, people seem to forget that life in a war zone is different that life under normal circumstances. When judging the behavior of Israel, that needs to be taken into account and it seldom is. It would be helpful for folks in, say, New Jersey, to imagine that they are at war with the rest of the US, and that everybody on the planet is judging whether or not you should continue to exist.

2. Rich vs. poor:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2004.html

This is a good table and it comfirms your statement. Israel, no oil, bubkus, actually has a higher per-capita income than the residents of certain oil-rich states. Whoa. And compared to NON-oil states, her economy is outta sight. Relative to Europe, she's poor, ranking below Greece.*

3. Comparisons to Nazis:

Funny you should mention Syria.

a) as you say, many of the hits you'll get will be accusations of Israel or equating Zionism with Nazism and b) even though REAL Nazis were involved and were influential in the Middle East, and some say REAL Nazis are still hiding out in the region, it doesn't seem to be politically correct to mention it, or to discuss their influence.

On the other hand, on another thread in this forum, people are using the term "supremacist" in conjunction with Zionism. In my opinion, that's just another smear tactic and I find it distressing.

It's another way to use Nazi ideology, about "superior race," and apply it to Israel.

***

Using terminology applying to other situations, many specfically to Jewish history, and trying to flip the meaning, is common. For example: antisemitism = anti Arab. This is an attack on history itself.

I was doing some research on Islamic history the other day, and recalled that a Christian historian had used the term "slow motion genocide" to define the gradual decline of Christian populations throughout the Middle East in times past. Well, I typed in the words on google and LO! I got a bunch of hits accusing ISRAEL of "the slow motion genocide of 4.5 million Palestinian refugees."

Well, considering that there were about 700,000 refugees to begin with, and there are now 4.5 million, I'd say, Wow! That is some genocide.

And of course, the role of the 22 Arab League states (and PLO) in hampering Palestinian immigration and citizenship, or helping refugees become part of local communities, or in turning down peace deals, accepting statehood and reparations on behalf of the refugees, isn't mentioned at all.

One tries to see the humor:)


Footnotes:)

*This brings up the inevitable question of reform in the Arab world. In a recent UN report, the existence of Israel was blamed as the #1 cause of misery, poverty - all the problems of the Arab world.

However, at the recent conference in Jordan, 76% of the 700 participants pointed the accusing finger-bone at Arab governments.

A positive sign - but still it shows that Israel is either seen, or being used as, a scapegoat within the Middle East. I believe this is also true in the West, it's overlapping now into conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the War in Iraq.

So what we see here is an expansion of the old "Jew as Scapegoat" meme, into the "Jewish STATE as Scapegoat" meme. And it's coming from both Christian and Islamic spheres, from the East and from the West.

Note: I find it strange that many of the leftists who post here resist the idea that Arab League states should democratize. Indeed, a TV show a few months ago featured a conversation between Natan Sharansky, who wrote a book about encouraging democracies in the Middle East, and Pat Buchanan, arch-conservative, who thinks, better the dictator you know than the democracy you don't. Amazingly, the overwhelming response here was to favor Buchanan, and completely disrespect Sharansky. I've seen several threads attempting to glorify Saddam. One person actually praised his brutality, saying it was NECESSARY. WHY?

**And, I believe there's an effect, due to the internet, to spread and magnify these constructs. Some are old, traditional antisemitism, now being applied retroactively to the very foundations of Israel, and to the idea of Judaism as a culture, and to the idea of Jews as a "people". Some even attack the idea of Judaism as a legitimate religion. They use the term "Abrahmic", and claim that Abraham was a Muslim.

These constructs are quite virulent. Some are coming from the West and some from the Middle East. They're not just the products of peasantry either, but are being taught in universities and published in respectable papers.