Graffiti On History's Walls

[drdon326]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031103/usnews/3anti.htm

very long....dont bother reading

[bluesoul]

1. Well

There is just as much of anti-Islamism, anti-Arabism, anti-Palestinianism around, you don't even have to check extreme right wing forums there's plenty of it elsewhere

[ForestsBeatBushes]

155. So?

What does that have to do with the original message?

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Very depressing

But important reading. I loved the analogy, "Are the arsonist and the firefighter truly moral equivalents?" Too bad this will be lost or ignored by many here and elsewhere.

[Resistance]

3. well this guy is a lying dope

The article is another example of the lies in the mainstream press that are printed to serve Israel's interests:

How can any conscientious person read this garbage and think it at all worthwhile? Zuckerman writes "-traditional anti-Semitism has lately re-emerged as anti-Zionism". What a lie that is - US News should be ashamed. This isn't news; it's lying for the sake of brainwashing the American reader. No wonder people are voting for Bush and supporting Sharon. They are being lied to regularly by dopes like Zuckerman.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. So are you saying

That Jews control the media to place, "lies in the mainstream press that are printed to serve Israel's interests?" How else could they accomplish this?

[Resistance]

5. What?

Where did I even give the slightest hint of a view that "Jews control the media"?

I didn't. You're making stuff up again.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. I asked a question

How does this massive amount of "lies" end up in the mainstream media supporting Israel then, according to you?

[Resistance]

9. For starters,

Dopes like Zuckerman are saying what the powerful agenda-setting elite want the American populace to be told. That the left are full of anti-semites. That Israel is only 'defending' itself against terror (when the reality is that Israel engages in at least just as much terrorism as Hamas).

So the dopes who are either flat-out lying, or who are so ignorant and brainwashed themselves that they actually believe their own garbage, are the ones who get their garbage printed in mainstream rags like U.S. News. This piece is pure propaganda. Whether it results from lies or ignorance doesn't matter much - the intent is still to brainwash the reader.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. More questions

* Who are the, "powerful agenda-setting elite?"
* Do you really believe, "Israel engages in at least just as much terrorism as Hamas?"

[Resistance]

13. A couple suggestions

* Start reading leftist and progressive sources such as WSWS or Zmag to start figuring it out.
* Israel does engage in at least as much terrorism as Hamas - this is a fact, not something one "believes in" or not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. I read WSWS

It makes me laugh a lot.

So you decline to answer question one and really do believe question two. Sad. Very sad.

[Resistance]

16. oh really

what is it in WSWS that makes you laugh so much. All the Leftists complaining about this "agenda-setting elite" who they can never identify yet always bitch about?

I don't decline to answer your question - I am trying to help you by suggesting where you can start figuring out a more Leftist viewpoint.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. WSWS

Not to stray too far afield, but WSWS reminds me of the college radicals I know many years ago. It reads like it is written by the young and naive.

You say you don't decline to answer the question, but then decline to answer the question. So who is this all-powerful elite? Masons perhaps?

[Resistance]

29. Ok

Look I don't care if you want to spin the thing into an attack that I decline to answer your question. I don't have time to explain the world to you, so what I did is point you in a direction where I think you might learn more on where I'm coming from. Why don't we just leave it at that?

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. A basic question

I asked a pretty basic question, "Who are the, "powerful agenda-setting elite?"

[Resistance]

41. The world is a complex place, muddle

The point I am making is that it's difficult to pinpoint who exactly they are. The only way to describe this group is to use phrases like "powerful agenda-setting elite", and I assume that most people generally understand what that means.

Basically they are rich corporate managers who make important decisions that affect everyone, yet always serve their own greedy interests.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. See, that wasn't hard

I just wanted your definition.

[Gimel]

62. Here is the correct answer

An insider sent me the real dope! I'll share it with you, just to show you are onto something, Resistance.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jordan/max_2003_10_28.php3?printer_friendly

[rini]

82. Actually

most people don't have a clue who you mean. Somehow I think you and I would come up with diametrically different answers. So please name some names, or organizations, or groups, something concrete.

[edzontar]

85. Complexity is hard for some people to grasp.

Especially people who "laugh" at "college radicals."

Yeah-protesting that war sure was "funny"--especially when the National Guard shot ya down!!!

What a laugh!

[ForestsBeatBushes]

157. Grasping at Straws

After looking over this forum, I have seen a lot of people proclaim that the past isn't important. If that is so, why are you bringing up the incident in 1970?

[edzontar]

165. Because I FELT like it!!!!!

Besides I am a historian and have some personal experience related to the incident in question.

1970 was REAL to me, my friend, and insulting "campus radicals" pisses me off, got it?

If you don't, I really don't care.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

173. Please accept my apology.

I certainly touched a nerve and I most certainly did not intend to.

The movement of the 1950's, really, through the very early 1970's is something this country can always be proud of. The National Guard murders at Kent State were absolutely dispicable. I hope you will forgive my flippance.

However, perhaps this might give you an idea of what it might be like to have your entire family thrown into camps some 25-30 years prior to that. Imagine having no country take them in, having only 1 or 2 survive, now have Israel as a place to look to just in case...and then read some of the statements in this forum.

Now, that is absolutely dispicable as well.

[edzontar]

184. Where I grew up, I knew people who survived the camps....

I dated a girl in Hi-Skool whose dad had the number tattoo.

I also used to buy vegetables from a guy in Rome (Italy) who had the number on his arm too.

He was one of the few Romans (Jewish Romans) who survived the deportations of 43-44.

That noted, I cannot speak from direct experience of this phenomemon.

But I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and knew people who did.

By the way, support for Palestinains rights has nothing to do with hating Jews, at least not in my case.

I grew up wanting to BE Jewish.

I was in love with my Third Grade teacher. Miss Isaac. I went to her wedding at a great beautiful temple in Brookline, Mass.

It was so beautiful, I wanted to cry.

I went to Seders.

On Jewish holidays, there were like three kids in my class.

Most of my girlfreinds were Jewish.

One of my best friends from those years is a noted Klezmer musician.

Blah blah. I'm probably older than you.

Don't assume that opposition to Sharon policies=anti-Semitism or anti-Israel views.

Lots of Israelis opoose these policies too.

[GabysPoppy]

187. How come the line

"Some of my best friends are Jewish" not hit me the right way?

[Violet_Crumble]

193. I can hazard an educated guess...

Some people are over-zealous about accusing or implying that others are anti-semitic based on what they say about their friends. As the words "some of my best friends are Jewish" wasn't in the post you replied to with that quote, and the poster in question left what appears to be a very sincere and heartfelt post, implications that someone's anti-semitic if they have friends who are Jewish and dare to say so does come across as a bit churlish...

Violet...

[GabysPoppy]

195. speed reading can be a bitch at times

"Most of my girlfreinds were Jewish."


"One of my best friends from those years is a noted Klezmer musician."

But I am sure Mr. Ed is thankful of your help in trying to explain or re-explain another post of his,

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[ForestsBeatBushes]

198. At the risk of defending a Moderator,

"Ed" posted the following:

"Most of my girlfreinds were Jewish."

and

"One of my best friends from those years is a noted Klezmer musician."

which are tantamount to 'some of my best friends are...'; so, how about some substance over style, or, in this case, over some nitpicking?

[Violet_Crumble]

202. And?

You think someone putting quotes around something that wasn't said and accusing someone of saying them is 'nit-picking'? Oh-kay, whatever floats yr boat...

If yr so keen on substance, and there was very little in yr previous post to showcase the substance that you must surely adhere to, how's about you explain to me why folk can't even comment about whether friends or family are Jewish without having it implied that they're anti-semitic?

Violet...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

214. Perhaps you're familiar with the old canard,

"Some of my best friends are < fill in the racial-ethnic stereotype > - for the USA, most of the time, this would be 'African American'-but, whichever it is, the specified group becomes quite adept at recognizing it. Perhaps you are a member of the majority culture and therefore are unaware of this history...otherwise, it is odd one so intelligent as yourself would be unaware of just how loaded certain statements are for others.

[bluesoul]

217. Well

No more loaded as when you say you are against killing innocent civilians yet come up with all possible excuses and justifications when PALESTINIAN civilians are killed by the IDF or settlers..

[ForestsBeatBushes]

222. I don't believe I've ever said that.

[Violet_Crumble]

220. Nope, that doesn't work...

See, I've seen Muddle recently talk about Jewish friends, but no one jumped on him for it. So, it does appear that if someone isn't a person who defends Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories, then if they have Jewish friends and dare to mention it, they're open season for accusations or implications of anti-semitism. And being a member of a minority group, I can assure you that even within my group, there's some who have a nasty habit of accusing other people of being anti-my particular group....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

224. Depends on how you do it

Like many things in life, it's all marketing.

I talked about Jewish friends in passing as part of a couple different posts, but mostly because some are switching parties and, even those who are not recognize it is an issue in the Jewish community.

But I didn't present a full-fledged defense to the tune of, "some of my best friends are..." Rather than serve as a defense, that takes on the appearance of a stereotype.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

226. Ah, straight from the man!

Please, Violet and Muddle, disregard my #225 as it has just been answered in yours, Muddle, (#224).

[Violet_Crumble]

229. Full-fledged defense?

Huh???

[Muddleoftheroad]

235. Try Post 184

nt

[Violet_Crumble]

238. And?

That's a 'full fledged defence'??? Explain how and of what, Muddle...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

243. Really?

You really don't grasp that edzontar was defending himself by saying he had issues with Israel and not Jewish people?

[Violet_Crumble]

248. Yes, really...

If you think Ed had to defend himself by saying he had issues with Israel and not Jewish people then can you point out why you think he had to defend himself? And I didn't see any sort of defence in the post at all...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

250. Your posts are hilarious

If I said it was dark at night, you would challenge me, pointing out that might not be the case depending on the time of year and your polar location.

Clearly, HE felt the need to defend himself. If you don't think that's what it was, it is your business.

[Violet_Crumble]

256. Try addressing what's being discussed, not me...

It's easy. Try it...

It's not clear that he felt the need to defend himself. That's why I asked you to explain why you thought he felt the need to defend himself seeing as how it's you that's made the claim his post was an over-the-top defence. Want to try answering the question instead of going on about me rather than what's being discussed?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

259. I was addressing your posts

And I will continue to do so.

It's obvious he felt the need to defend himself and later explain it, which is all quite unfortunate. As I said in another post, I don't see the need, but he did.

[Violet_Crumble]

266. Yr addressing them by making them personal...

And I hope you don't continue to do so. I've had a gutful over the past few days of you responding to my posts by talking about me, whether it be about private PMs or claims that I'm replying to everything you post in the forum. If you want to talk about the I/P conflict when you address my posts, go for it, but please knock off the personal comments, okay? And that includes calling me dearie. I've explained to you why it's offensive now, so let's not see that one see the light of day again...



Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

268. I continue to respond to your posts

Just like you, I have had a "gutful" of your comments and attacks as well. But I try to be friendly and try to move on. I suggest you do the same.

[Violet_Crumble]

276. I must have missed all this...

Y'know, all the attacks and you being friendly. Oh well. I have no intention of not responding to I/P related posts I disagree with and nothing's going to change that. I made a simple request. Try discussing the I/P conflict and stop making personal comments and making claims about a past history of constant abusive PMs that doesn't exist. If that translates as 'moving on', then do it, Muddle. I haven't been the one making the personal comments so I'm staying right where I am...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

278. Clearly, you are not

Moving on.

Clearly, you insist on continuing this thread ad infinitum not about the issue, but about your issues with me. Were I mod at this point I would lock the thread to stop this fairly insipid "Did not"/"Did too" line of debate.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

225. Okay, obviously I don't know the answer to

this one, so please tell me: does he 'talk about Jewish friends' or refer to the canard that 'some of his best friends are Jewish'?

That is all I'm trying to get across; there's a distinction to be made.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

237. I didn't imply that at all

Again you try to speak for me. Again you fail.

I simply pointed out that the poster in question had handled it badly.

[Violet_Crumble]

240. Okay, explain it then...

How was it handled badly?

And again I'll point out that I don't speak for you, therefore I don't fail. At least I don't do what you do to me and insist I've said things I've never said, which is what you did further down in the thread...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

245. Funny

I'd reference your previous post but someone deleted it.

It was handled badly because it was an over-the-top defense. Methinks thou protesteth too much kind of thing. I have no reason to believe edzontar is anti-Semitic whatsoever, but clearly he felt the need to defend and, in so doing, probably raised more questions than he solved. That's all.

Were he a politician, it would be a gaff. As a poster, it's no big deal.

[Violet_Crumble]

249. What's funny?

I've got absolutely no idea why my post was deleted or why anyone would have hit alert on it in the first place. Do you?

You still haven't explained why you think the post was a defence. And if you think someone is protesting too much, (and where was the protest in that post?) what questions are they raising? I've always thought that if someone is protesting too much and setting off alarm bells, then it's because it's more than likely they're anti-semitic. Now yr telling me those warning signals don't mean that at all?

I have an online friend who's best friend is Jewish. My friend also opposes Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories. So, if she were to post that her best friend is Jewish, she'd be raising more questions than she solved and be leaving herself open to someone popping up with something like 'oh no. not another 'some of my best friends are Jewish' routine!'?


Violet...

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

258. Uh, I didn't ask you if you'd hit alert...

And don't try to patronise me by calling me dearie....


If as you claim it's sooo obvious why it was a defence, then it should be simple for you to explain. And I've read the post in question, and it wasn't over-the-top, no more than the example I gave of one of my friends...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

260. Wasn't patronizing

It's an expression. If you don't like it, TFB.

As for the post in question, it contained by my count NINE separate and distinct defenses, each of which takes on the tone of, "Some of my best friends are..." If that's not over the top, then what is?

[Violet_Crumble]

263. Oh yes it was...

So what if it's an expression? So's words like nigger, slopehead, wog, etc, but they're all offensive, and you calling me dearie was offensive. I haven't seen you call any males here 'dearie'. I wonder why? What you said, even though you might not be aware of this, was a word that's used by sexists to talk down to women. Telling me it's too fucking bad if I have a problem with that word being used towards me is not the reaction I expected from someone who I would have thought cared about what minority groups find offensive, which is what you appear to be doing with ed's post.....

You still haven't explained why you think that post was a defence or why you think Ed would have felt the need to defend himself...

No, there was nothing over-the-top in the post. You want to know what's over the top? One example would be someone claiming that OPEC was created as a Muslim religious grouping or claiming that many Muslims hate Jews etc...

[Muddleoftheroad]

265. Wow, you take everything wrong

I don't call men dearie, because it is a term of endearment that is cross-gender. Where I have lived, men use it for women and women for men. Despite all your endless assaults on me here and by IM, I still find you endearing, hence the term.

I was telling you it was TFB because no matter what I say to you, you seem to react, shall we say, strongly. So even an attempt at being nice results in a massive nuclear response.

I HAVE explained why I think the post was over the top. I've explained it wildly enough.

As for the last, yet again you misstate my point. In fact you so wildly mix it up as to be almost funny.

[Violet_Crumble]

269. So now you are the authority on what's not offensive?

It doesn't matter what experience I've had with that word being used on me? All that matters is what you say it is, so therefore I have zero right to be offended? Just fucking wonderful. I should have thought of that when the moron I worked with who called me a slut behind my back informed me that he was just joking and wasn't being offensive. What matters is that terms like that offend *me* and I'd be hoping you could at least have the decency to not use words I find offensive because they do get used by sexists to try to look down at women...

Also, I'll ask you again. Can you please refrain from making personal comments when communicating with me at DU? I've never assaulted you endlessly either here (otherwise there would have been many, many deletions of posts and possibly a banning) and most definately haven't by PM. I don't appreciate the accusations and think there's no need for this sort of thing that has absolutely nothing to do with the I/P conflict...

No, you haven't explained why that post was over the top. But you never will so I guess I won't lose any sleep wondering anymore...

Huh? How did I mistate yr point? You don't think examples of comments I talked about aren't over the top??

Violet...

[Name removed]

270. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

275. I thought I made it clear in my post that I didn't...

I've TOLD you why I find the word you used on me offensive. You know already that I find it otherwise, so don't use it. I've already asked you not to, and if you find me asking you not to refer to me in a way I find offensive to be assaulting you, then you must see assaults where other people don't...

I reply to yr posts, and I at least comment on the I/P conflict and not on you, so how on earth you see that as personal is beyond me. How many times am I going to have to ask you to keep yr comments to the I/P conflict and not about me personally? Is there some reason you find this impossible to do?

So, if nine separate claims in one post is over the top, is hundreds in various threads over the top too? Just curious...

I didn't mistate yr point at all about OPEC. I can go grab the posts and refresh yr memory if you still claim otherwise...

Violet...

[Name removed]

277. Deleted message

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

[ForestsBeatBushes]

239. What 'quote' was invented in this thread by Gabyspoppy?

I went back to Ed's message in question and found both

"Most of my girlfreinds were Jewish."

and

"One of my best friends from those years is a noted Klezmer musician."

Those quotes are right there in Ed's message.

They were not, therefore, invented by Gabyspoppy.

However, if you are referring to his stating that he misread them for the old 'some of my best friends are' type of quote, that is different.

I do not insist or even state that those specific words are in Ed's post; what I tried to explain to you, is how certain phrases can trigger certain responses in minorities that cause little bells to go off.

Surely you can understand that? I don't think I have misjudged you; I believe you absolutely can understand that.

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

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

[drdon326]

230. Hey Violet....

did you read the article yet??

or do you still want to dismiss it WITHOUT having read it??

[Violet_Crumble]

232. Hey, don...

First you tell me what's so special about this article before I tell you whether or not I've read it. Tell me what's new in there that I wouldn't have seen before, tell me that it's not just another one of those articles that make generalisations about Arabs and/or Muslims, that say that SOME criticism of Israel can be legitimate but then goes on to basically say that there's no legitimate reason for Israel to be criticised over its actions in the Occupied Territories. Tell me it's not just another of those lame articles so common in the US that bash the UN without showing any real understanding of it or how it works and what it's limitations are. Once you've filled me in on those, I'll quench yr excitement by letting you know whether I've read it or not. Deal? :)

Violet...

[bluesoul]

233. Haha

Violet :yourock:

[drdon326]

234. My apologies....

it was a simple question and you refused to answer.

thanks for nothing.

[Violet_Crumble]

236. No, if you'd paid attention...

I gave you an answer...

Seeing as how you refused to answer the questions I asked, they were too hard for you don?

thanks for nothing ;)

Violet...

[edzontar]

252. Thank you Violet, for defending my intent, which was innocent...

And my words, which were ineloquent, even sentimental...

I should have known those ill-chosen phrases would leave me open for these attacks....I guess i walked into this one totally blind and stupid.

But I appreciate your effort to defend me from myself.

I have attempted to clarify my intentions below...those of good will recognize that I am just a sentimental old fool crying into my drink.

Thank You

[Muddleoftheroad]

254. For clarification

I wasn't attacking you in the least. I think your words were ill chosen, that's all. You give no indication of any hidden hatreds, we merely disagree as happens in a democracy.

[edzontar]

279. Thanks--I never felt that you were attacking me....

Which, given the apparent opening I gave you, and how kind-a mean I've been to you on occassion, I really do appreciate.

Thanks for being a gentleman, and have a happy Halloween.

[bluesoul]

280. May I also wish

A happy Halloween to ALL! :bounce: :party: :toast:

[Violet_Crumble]

261. No worries, Ed...

I picked up the sincerity in yr post and was a bit taken aback that it wasn't picked up by others. I'm positive those here who are of good will appreciate yr clarification. I'm not too sure about the others, which are thankfully few here :)

Violet...

[rini]

294. VC

Please give those who are offended by "certain phrases" the respect of honoring their feelings.

[Violet_Crumble]

295. r

I would if that 'certain phrase' had actually appeared, which it didn't. Kind of interesting though that you didn't have the same thing to say about the poster who wrote off my offense taken at a certain word with Too Fucking Bad. Oh, well...

Violet...

[edzontar]

246. I was just being retrospective....no offense intended

If you look at the post that initiated this exchange, you will note that I had taken emotional umbrage when I was called out for invoking Kent State re: Camous Radicals, an event that has a personal dimension for me.

Enough said on that.

Then the person I was in exchange with mentioned how I should also feel compassion for those who lost families in the Holocaust, and i thought of my old girlfriend whose father had been in the camps.

So I sentimentally, automatically and perhaps irrelevently drifted from there into nostalgia for the days of my youth when lived in a Jewish neighborhood and thought of all my lovely friends from those days.. some of whom have passed on, others who I have lost touch with....others who are still close....

"In My Life" etc.

Maybe I was further prompted by the added factor that my Klezmer friend had just sent me an e-mail yesterday after like 15 years of no communication.

So if I slipped into some of those stupid old phrases, "One of my best friends... etc.", please understand that i was only waxing nostalgic...the post represented a perhaps inappropriate moment of melancholy memory-gazing ....inititated by some vague idea of addressing the issue of the anti-Semitism that anyone who defends anything Palestinian is instantly and constantly accused of here....

Anyway any digression onto hackneyed and insenstive cliche was totally unintentinal on my part--and I am more than a little embarrassed and apologize if anyone took offense.

[GabysPoppy]

253. Thank you for your apology

I hope your defenders take note of you "unintended" mistake.

We can all learn from mistakes we make intended or unintended, a point hopefully not lost on either of us.

Only when we fall into the hole we dig for ourselves and rather than attempt to remove ourselves but choose to continue to dig have we lost our values completely.

Thank you again for your post.

:thumbsup:

[Violet_Crumble]

264. Shouldn't you be apologising?

For misquoting Ed in the first place, and for accusing me of speed-reading? I'm not sure why you put quotes round unintended, nor do I (and I assume yr talking about me) think that Ed's post was a mistake, nor had he dug a hole. What he did, and what I think incredibly highly of him for, was apologise for any offense his words caused anyone who was offended. It's much more gracious than getting a Too Fucking Bad, which is what I just copped over something that offended me :(


Violet...

[edzontar]

281. Dear Friends--can we just call it a misunderstanding....

Please don't fight over my silly stupid sentimental post anymore.

I thank my friends who recognized the innocence of the thing and ask forebearance from those I unintentionally offended.

It is a beautiful day (where i am, at least) and this thread is getting so full I can barely open it.

I thank you all for caring and wish you a happy Halloween and a safe weekend.

[The Magistrate]

283. Well Said, Mr. Zontar

There is a rhetorical device of "ironic" quotation, the use of which seems to have seems to have kicked off this ruckus.

One thing to be aware of, Sir, is that habitues of this forum, myself most certainly included, are combative personalities, who rather enjoy a good scrap, for its own sake, and may be relied upon to find cause for one in even the most apparently unpromising venues.

[drdon326]

284. Magistrate.....

I would be interested if you read the article and your opinion??

[ForestsBeatBushes]

286. Your recurring question of posters here makes me

ROFLMAO - thanks.

[The Magistrate]

287. It Is A Pretty Good Article, Doctor

The handling of the history is partisan, certainly, but less so than many, and not beyond the bounds of legitimate advocacy. The general thrust of the analysis of present day concerns is sound. You will be aware, from comments elsewhere, of my views on the degree of conflation between "Anti-Zionism" amd Anti-Semitism. Some figures on the left, and some leftist journals, have disgraced themselves at times in this connection. There are certainly legitimate grounds on which to criticize Israel; just as certainly, some criticism of Israel is clearly an expression of unreasoning hatred.

The two soundest points in the article seem to me these. First, Israel is becoming, in discourse on this subject, a sort of personification of "The Jew" to many. The verbal short-hand of speaking of a country and a people as a single entity is common, of course, but where there exists such a deep body of bigotry as there does against Jews, it can be a particularly unwholesome thing. Second, Israel is a state like any other, no better and no worse. Neither its establishment, nor its military measures in course of war, are noteably different from the general practice of states in history or the present day. Most of the charges against it are exaggerated or selective, and this is so owing to the efforts of particular political blocs with a special interest in the matter. This is not an endorsement of all actions of Israel, particularly not of all actions of its current government, but it is a statement much more true than otherwise.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

288. Terrific Analysis - thanks, Magistrate.

[drdon326]

289. Thank you.

I agree....excellent analysis.

[Violet_Crumble]

290. Ironic quotation...

Ironic quotation is something I use myself and recognise in others, and it involves placing quotation marks around a word to signify that word is being used ironically, eg. that 'expert' claims.... or Having read that 'intellectual' comment in this thread of the article.... Ironic quotation does not involve misquoting someone and then accusing them of having said it....

Violet...

[Lithos]

285. Thank you Mr. Zontar

I too wish you a happy Halloween and a safe weekend.

L-

[Jim Sagle]

292. Maybe because you've heard it so often?

Never again.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

293. I know I have AND I'm sick of it:

NEVER AGAIN.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

106. "difficult to pinpoint who they are" "powerful agenda-setting elite"...

that rings a bell -


"hidden hand that guides the new world order"...

"handful of unaccountable bureaucrats and corporations plotting behind closed doors"...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=26237

[edzontar]

84. What is wrong with college radicals?

Many of them are key figures in the Democratic party today.

they opposed the war and joined the fight for civil rights, woen's rights, free speech, etc.

Pretty good I'd say.

Long live College Radicals!!!

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. It was not an indictment of ALL college radicals

It was a personal indictment of the young, naive, protest-everything kind. Sorry, my college days are post-Vietnam, so the radical I knew were lame.

[Aidoneus]

90. how so?

.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

158. Oh, lighten up:

Trotsky is so out.

[bluesoul]

159. Yeah, well

So is Mark Steyn or Frontpagemag...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

180. Have you stooped to something like "so's your mother"?

[Aidoneus]

170. how so?

.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

181. I am sorry...

I guess I didn't realize just how 'underground' Democratic Underground goes! - WOW -

[Aidoneus]

186. apologies are not necessary

an answer to the question would be nice, tho'.. that might make for an interesting discussion if it is pursued.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

197. There's nothing to be pursued.

Being new here, I made a flippant remark about Trotsky being 'so out'; I didn't realize Trotsky is instead 'so in' at Democratic Underground. Obviously my mistake.

[bluesoul]

6. Zionism

Considering what Zionism means for Palestinians, one could hardly find a problem in opposing some of its ideology and policy...

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Zionism

Zionism means an Israel that is the homeland for the Jewish people. Do you have a problem with that? Many Palestinians seem to.

[Resistance]

10. Don't flip things around

before at least acknowledging first what it is that Zionism means to Palestinians. For Palestinians, Zionism means ethnic cleansing. Murders of innocents in the name of stealing their land. Bulldozing of their homes. Burning of their farmland. Settlement expansion on Palestinians land. This is what Zionism means for Palestinians. Please acknowledge this fact instead of distorting it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Anti-Zionism

Also means ethnic cleansing. It means the loss of the homeland of Israel. Since many here and certainly many in the Arab world don't accept Israel has a right to exist, what happens if that occurs?

And no, I won't acknowledge your view of the "facts." Israel is fighting a terrorist insurgency that targets innocents. Doing so is never pretty. The ills that occur to the Palestinian people are the direct result of their leadership embracing terror groups and allowing them to hide among a civilian population. You can't ignore cause and just focus on effect.

[Resistance]

15. Untrue

Anti-Zionism does not = ethnic cleansing. It merely means an opposition to the Zionism in the view of Palestinians, which includes all the things I listed above, such as theft of land and murder of innocent people.

Yeah I know you won't acknowledge the facts. Israel is engaged in a plan to steal the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and murder and destruction and creating homelessness and landlesslness is all a part of this plan. "Fighting a terrorist insurgency" is the cover Israel uses to commit their own terrorism.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Zionism by definition

Means the existence of the state of Israel as homeland for the Jewish people. Opposition to that means that the Jewish people are no longer welcome and most likely not even allowed in their nation. Just the sort of treatment they get in most of the Arab world.

Israel is engaged in a fight for survival with several groups that want to see it destroyed. Unfortunately, those groups are allowed to flourish and hide among a civilian population so that every time Israel does anything against them, civilians get hurt. But if Israel does nothing, its own civilians get killed.

The solution to your fears of Israel is for the Palestinians to sign a peace treaty instead of fighting an endless war of attrition. But part of that peace treaty means giving up terror and they never seem willing to do so.

[Resistance]

26. Wrong

Why do you twist and spin what I have fairly clearly explained? Zionism in the Palestinian view means theft of land, murder of innocent people, destruction of homes, etc. From that perspective, Anti-Zionism is opposition to those things. Why is it such a hard thing to grasp that 'Zionism' to one person means something different to another person?

Israel is engaged in a fight to steal land from people who have been living there since the birth of modern Zionism. The "fight for survival" thing is bullshit - it's a fight to take away land that isn't theirs, plain and simple. Anyone who knows a thing about the true history of the region can see that.

And what are you talking about now with "your fears of Israel"? Where did I say a word about a "fear of Israel"? You are making stuff up again. So far, you've twisted one thing, ignored another, and have made other things up. Don't look now, but that ground you think you're standing on isn't too solid is it?

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Twisting meanings

The Palestinians can say purple is actually orange, but it is still orange. And Zionism is still Zionism. To end Zionism means the end of Israel, which is exactly what many in the Arab world want.

The fight for survival is not bullshit, certainly not on the streets of Tel Aviv and Haifa and others where Israeli civilians are constantly targeted by terrorists.

Collectively, your post discussed Palestinian and your fears of Israel. If you don't like that term, which would you prefer?

The ground I stand on is solid. It is Israel and it isn't going anywhere.

[Resistance]

43. Wrong again

Do you really not grasp the concept that two people can view a certain term or phrase, and come away with differing opinions on it?

The fight for survival is bullshit in the sense of the propaganda that you are fed through mainstream publications such as U.S. News which excuses every act of Israeli aggression as "defending itself" and "fighting terrorists". Sure everyone fights for their survival in the most basic sense, and sure every State has a right to self-defense. But the bullshit starts when you commit terrorist acts and murder innocent people, then tell the world and a subservient news media that you committed that aggression because you are "fighting for survival".

Nobody believes that murdering thousands on 9/11 was a "fight for survival" - it was a terrorist act. Same with Israel's terror against Palestinians - it's not "fighting for survival" to slam missiles into crowds of civilians, demolishing their homes, making thousands homeless, and stealing their land.

Terror and ethnic cleansing does not equal "fighting for survival", no matter who does it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. Different definitions

You can associate ADDITIONAL meanings to a word, but the basic definition remains. And it is that basic definition of Zionism that so many in the Arab world dislike.

The fight for survival is very real. Even here at DU there are several who question the viability of a Jewish state. Certainly, there is the big push in the Arab media to promote the one-state fantasy. That would be the death of Israel and you say survival is bullshit?

The acts against terrorists will continue until the Palestinians go after the terrorists themselves. If Israel and the PA can ever work out peace (assuming the PA decides terror is a bad thing and stops it) and suddenly the PA stops shutting down the terrorists, do you expect Israel to ignore that?

When terrorists hide among a civilian population that does not stop them, fight them or report them, then civilians get hurt when the authorities step in. I've seen it in the inner city. Neighborhoods tolerating the gangs, but God help the police if they try to arrest someone and then bystanders get shot.

[The Magistrate]

61. Allow Me To Differ Somewhat, Mr. Resistance

In the eyes of the persons who carried out the demolition of the World Trade Towers, and attempted same of the Pentagon, the act was indeed the expression of a fight for survival. The Islamic fundamentalist radicals who have taken up arms are certainly convinced that Islam is threatened direly by the unbelieving West, which they feel means to destroy it utterly. Their faith includes provision that the diety will not permit this, of course, but also that it is only if they do all they can to prevent it that the diety will intervene. If you are going to urge this relativistic view in the one connection, you must accept it in the other. You may well agree with the view you present as that of Arab Palestinians, while disagreeing with the view of the radical Islamic fundamentalists at arms, and so feel at liberty to ignore the latter's view of their acts, but of course Mr. Muddle, and many others, disagree with the view you present as that of Arab Palestinians. They have the same liberty to view it as false that you do to view the radical Islamic fundamentalists' view as false, on that same ground.

[Gimel]

126. There is only your belief in hyperbole

it's not "fighting for survival" to slam missiles into crowds of civilians, demolishing their homes, making thousands homeless, and stealing their land.

If you believe that Israel does the above for fun, then your indignation might be real. Suicide bombers are destroying hundreds of buses filled with civilians.

You might as well say that NASA destroyed Ilan Ramon and the Indian astronaut intentionally.

[Violet_Crumble]

128. They didn't say Israel does it for fun...

What they said was it's not fighting for survival....

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

127. Since when are you the sole authority on the definition of Zionism?

From the guidelines:

Please exercise extreme caution and sensitivity when using the words "anti-Semitism" or "Zionism." There is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these words. If you must use them, please make sure your intended meaning is clear.

You'd do well to stop insisting that yr definition of the word Zionism is the absolute definition. It isn't...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

133. Meanings

I'm pretty sure that's meant to limit DEROGATORY meanings. Saying it is what it is, well that's logical. I did NOT attempt to limit ADDITIONAL meanings or discussion. But Zionism is the belief in Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people. That's what it is.

[bluesoul]

136. Zionism

The problem with it is when it denies other their right to live on the land they have been living for all of their lives. Homeland for Jewish people - that's fine. Just not at the expence of others. Palestinians have just as much of a right to live where they have lived even before Israel as a state was founded. Israelis/Jews already have Israel within the recognized borders. Anything more is land grabbing and driving other people from their homes. There's my problem with it...

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. You are entitled to have a problem with it

But the definition is what it is. Israel remains the homeland for the Jewish people just as it was created in 1948 or a couple thousand years before that.

[Violet_Crumble]

139. And yr definition is yr opinion....

It's definately NOT saying it is what it is, because, well, it's illogical to claim that a word where the definition is debated because it could mean different things is the definitive definition and everyone must believe yr simplistic opinion is fact. And I strongly suspect that because the word can mean different things to different people, that's why it's mentioned in the guidelines....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

142. Feel free to strongly suspect

Anything you wish. You can debate the meaning of any word you wish, but their basic definitions remain. You can, as societies often do, even ADD definitions.

Let me ask you this, why are you bothered by this definition?

[Violet_Crumble]

147. I never said I was bothered...

So stop twisting things. What I've pointed out is the blatantly obvious fact that there's no agreed definition of Zionism and it's sheer silliness for someone to insist that their definition is the definitive one that everyone else must use....

On edit: Actually, I don't just strongly suspect - I know. Read what I posted from the guidelines again. All I did was repeat exactly what the guidelines said about the use of the word: 'There is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these words.'

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

168. Again

You stated, "And yr definition is yr opinion.... It's definately NOT saying it is what it is, because, well, it's illogical to claim that a word where the definition is debated because it could mean different things is the definitive definition and everyone must believe yr simplistic opinion is fact."

Snow might conjure up little tiny flakes in some people's minds and big blizzards in others, but snow is still snow. Zionism is still Zionism.

[Violet_Crumble]

194. What part of this aren't you comprehending?

Yr personal definition of Zionism is NOT the definitive definition and to insist that all others must have the same opinion on its definition as you is quite illogical....

Again, and I hope you bother reading it this time, here's what the guidelines have to say: "Please exercise extreme caution and sensitivity when using the words "anti-Semitism" or "Zionism." There is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these words. If you must use them, please make sure your intended meaning is clear."

Snow? There is absolutely no debate at all on what snow is. The definition of Zionism is however one where there is a wide range of opinions, of which yr simplistic one is one of many...

Violet...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

199. "...of which yr simplistic one..."

Why do you find it necessary to insult the man?

[Violet_Crumble]

203. Huh??

Since when has pointing out that a definition someone uses is simplistic been a personal insult? Now, if I'd called Muddle simplistic or a simpleton, there'd be something to what you say, but then I'd wonder to myself why you've been so strangely silent on the real insults by certain members of "Team Israel" in this thread :)

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

206. Caution

I've been exercising caution. You are the one exercised about this, I am not. It is what it is. You can add definitions on to it all you want, but the basic one remains.

There is an oddly Soviet character to this debate. You seem to want to challenge the actual meaning of a word, why?

[Violet_Crumble]

209. Exercised?

The only exercise I got today was walking from the car-park to work and back again....

I'm NOT challenging the actual meaning of a word, because yr personal opinion is NOT the actual definition. Read the guidelines again and if still in doubt, and ask Skinner that same question you asked me, seeing as how I agree with what he said about there being a wide range of opinions on the definition of the word Zionism, and yr disagreeing with that...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

213. Not disagreeing with Skinner

Just disagreeing with you.

I continue to exercise caution and have not said ANY definition is incorrect. I merely state that Zionism is the support of the nation of Israel as the homeland for the Jews. Next, I plan to define other similarly complex issues like why nations with huge reservoirs of oil are rich enough to aid their Palestinian cousins.

[bluesoul]

215. Well

That's the least then can do for their "brothers" as Israel has billions of $$$ from the US in money, arms etc...

[Violet_Crumble]

216. Then you aren't disagreeing with me either...

Because I agree totally with what was said in the guidelines....


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

219. No

You agree totally with your interpretation of the guidelines.

[Violet_Crumble]

223. Did you even bother reading what the guidelines said?

Because I agree with what they said, not with my own interpretation of them. Yr the one who's done all the convenient personal interpretation of them, Muddle...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

227. At some point

We might as well dissolve into, "Did not" and "Did too" comments.

Clearly, I disagree. I will continue to post as I see fit. You will do the same.

Life goes on.

[Violet_Crumble]

242. What did that have to do with the discussion?

I don't recall ever saying you couldn't continue to post as you see fit....

Violet...

[Cassandra]

121. It's not that we don't understand what you've said...

you say it so often. It's that some of us are not buying what you insist on selling.

[Jim Sagle]

296. Got any evidence of Israeli PLANS to steal land?

Or are you just BSing?


Never again.

[Darranar]

297. Israel IS stealing land.

[bluesoul]

298. Well

Obviously mr Sagle doesn't see that. And if you don't see it, then it doesn't happen. Simple...

[rini]

79. let's see

so far you have called a King's College professor an idiot, now you call this author a dope. Is there anyone with whom you disagree you give credit for any intellegence?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

156. common tactic

when you can't argue with the message, attack the messenger

[GabysPoppy]

18. In an attempt to bring the discussion back to the original article

The new anti-Semitism transcends boundaries, nationalities, politics, and social systems. Israel has become the object of envy and resentment in much the same way that the individual Jew was once the object of envy and resentment. Israel, in effect, is emerging as the collective Jew among nations. After more than half a century of Holocaust education, hundreds of courses in high schools and colleges, and thousands of books dedicated to exposing its evils, traditional anti-Semitism as a domestic issue had all but disappeared in much of the world. "The Jewish problem" was no longer defined by what happened to the Jews of Germany or France or Poland or Russia. Instead, in Europe and the Muslim world--even in Asia--traditional anti-Semitism has lately re-emerged as anti-Zionism, focused on the Jews of Israel, the role of Israel, and, for some, on Jews in the United States who support Israel.

[bluesoul]

19. Victim mentality

Oh my, more of the victim mentality. Funny, considering what the Palestinians have to go through daily and all the victims on their side. My grandfather was victim of the holocaust, but that doesn't give me the right to do anything I want because of what happened 60 years ago to my ancestors...

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Not just a mentality

A reality. If you are still victimized around the world, you are still a victim.

[bluesoul]

22. Really

Around the world? How are Jews victims? Do they get killed around the world daily? As far as I know there have been more cases of Muslims/Arabs harrassed or even killed in the USA, Europe or elsewhere where they are not a majority then Jews. Words are one thing, concrete actions are another. If you're an Arab/Muslim you are more likely to get in trouble regardless of what you do or you are a suspect by default (especially in the USA in the recent time) so speaking about victims and discrimination..

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Anti-Semtism

Do you deny the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe for example?

As for the Muslim population at over 1 billion, I would think there would be more instances of hate than with the tiny worldwide Jewish population.

[bluesoul]

24. let me clarify

I do not deny certain cases, although I can't remember the last time someone would be killed in Europe for being a Jew. I do remember cases of Muslims (Great Britain) As you say it does have to do with their number, but that only proves my point. There has been desecration of monuments, tombstones, graves, but believe it or not not just Jewish but Muslim and Christian alike. There are all kind of extremists, fanatics and primitives around the world, I for one will never deny that fact. And I don't condone any of that stuff. Ok?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

109. July 2002...

Say that you’re a Jew,” Marinus Schöberl’s tormentors are supposed to have demanded as they beat him. As of this writing, three young men — the brothers Marcel S. and Marco S., 18 and 24 years old respectively, and their friend Sebastien F., also 18 — are on trial in Neuruppin, Germany for the murder of the then-16-year-old Marinus near the small eastern German town of Potzlow in July 2002. None of the accused disputes his involvement, and the prosecution’s reconstruction of the events leading to Marinus’s death is based largely on the boys’ own confessions. Marinus was not in fact Jewish, but various markers of “otherness” — the fact that the teenager stuttered, that he wore baggy “hip hop” pants, perhaps most importantly that his hair was dyed blond — were apparently sufficient to convince his three assailants that he was or might be. They “wanted to create for themselves the image of an enemy,” Thomas Weichelt, the lawyer for Marinus’s parents, has observed. A local district attorney told the Berliner Zeitung that the cruelty displayed in Marinus’s murder “represents a new dimension even for hard-baked prosecutors.” After having forced him to drink alcohol until inebriated, beaten him unconscious, and then urinated on him, the trio of assailants dragged Marinus to a nearby abandoned stable. There, having ordered Marinus to bite the side of a concrete feeding trough, Marcel S. stomped on the back of Marinus’s head with his combat boots. After Marinus, nonetheless, apparently survived this maneuver, Marcel S. crushed his skull with a concrete slab. In a statement given to the police, another witness, Nicole B., reported that Marcel S. would later describe Marinus as a “shitty Jew” and remark that as such “he didn’t deserve any different.”

http://www.policyreview.org/oct03/rosenthal.html

[rini]

87. sir

one is not paranoid if someone really is trying to kill you. As for victim status, one is only a victim if one acts like a victim.

Seems everyone on this board is Jewish or has a Jewish grandfather. Mmmmmmmm, if memory serves, Torqemada had Jewish relatives, as did King Phillip, as was suggested of Hitler. The point being BFD!

[Resistance]

27. Totally untrue, GabysPoppy

"anti-Semitism has lately re-emerged as anti-Zionism"?

What a totally untrue statement, and highly offensive to those who oppose Israel's ethnic cleansing, terrorism, destruction of homes, murder of peace activists and civilians, creation of homelessness and despair, razing of farmlands, racist policy, and theft of land that isn't theirs.

Opposition to these horrible things has NOTHING to do with anti-semitism, and your attempt to equate the two is shameful.

[GabysPoppy]

30. Sound familiar?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=24535#24559

6. That was quick!


The first comment on the article is a smear against the person making the allegation.

Good job. Personally, if I was in the business of vilifying those who say things I don't want to hear, I would probably drop the pretense of addressing the actual issue too.

[Resistance]

31. ?

What does that have to do with your untrue, offensive statements?

[GabysPoppy]

36. Everything

[Resistance]

40. Maybe in your world

Would you mind explaining it to the rest of us?

[GabysPoppy]

42. Mayby I should have indicated that was a direct quote from the article

I would have thought anyone who read the article would have known that.

I will edit if time hasn't expired so that others who don't take the time to read the article don't make the same mistake.

[Resistance]

44. What does it matter who said it?

It's still untrue and offensive. I assume you agree with the parts that you clipped out (is that really so unreasonable?)- so do you or don't you agree?

[GabysPoppy]

52. It's still untrue and offensive?

In your view of the world. You're entitled to your opinion but that in itself doesn't make your opinion right.

Which is proven by the fact that an overwhelming majority of Democrats are in support of Israel. To accuse them of being a part of a great conspiracy is just a feeble attempt to marginalize them.

[bluesoul]

53. Democrats

And overwhelmingly majority of Democrats (politicians) supported the Iraq war, that doesn't mean anything. What their voters think about it is another thing..

[Resistance]

54. what?

Follow closely, please.

Here is the untrue and offensive remark which I directly targeted: "anti-Semitism has lately re-emerged as anti-Zionism".

I will grant you for the moment that it's only my opinion. But I want to ask, how is Democratic "support for Israel" proof that I am wrong to call Zuckerman's statements untrue and offensive?

Please could you not trot out the rhetorical remarks, and stay focused on the specific point I am making? Anti-Zionism is not a re-emergence of anti-semitism, and to say so is offensive to the people who are opposed to Israel's aggression and theft of Palestinian land.

How could you possibly think you are proving my opinion to be wrong by stating that "Democrats support Israel"? What does that have a thing to do with the attempt to equate anti-semitism with anti-Zionism?

[GabysPoppy]

56. Follow closely, please

"Here is the untrue and offensive remark which I directly targeted: "anti-Semitism has lately re-emerged as anti-Zionism"."

I think it is true.

"Anti-Zionism is not a re-emergence of anti-semitism, and to say so is offensive to the people who are opposed to Israel's aggression and theft of Palestinian land."

I think that people who trot this out are people who believe they can get around outright anti-semitic remarks by substituting the word Zionism.


"How could you possibly think you are proving my opinion to be wrong by stating that "Democrats support Israel"? What does that have a thing to do with the attempt to equate anti-semitism with anti-Zionism?"

Just to make the point that the statements you have made in posts 3, 9, 13, 16, 29, and 26 are yours and not shared by the majority of the Democrat Party. Here are some words of good advice to follow.

"Do you really not grasp the concept that two people can view a certain term or phrase, and come away with differing opinions on it?"

You may recognize them, they are your own in post #43

[Resistance]

58. Comments

You should not believe the lies which dopes like Zuckerman are feeding you. Opposition to the Zionism which murders innocent people, steals land, and destroys lives is NOT based on anti-semitism. How could you believe these lies? Furthermore, what progressive could NOT oppose the murder of innocents and theft of land? Could you please explain how these crimes can be supported?

---------

Oh so your rhetorical remarks were aimed at generally responding to posts I made elsewhere. Thanks for at least clearing that up.

[GabysPoppy]

59. My comment

You have determined that everything Zuckerman utters is a lie and he is a dope.

Yet were I to claim that everything the ISM for example utters is a lie and that they are dopes, might cause you a bit unrest I imagine.

I'm sorry, life doesn't work that way and when comments begin with those assumptions, the balance of any remarks are a waste of time to discuss.

[Resistance]

64. There is one question I would like answered.

How could any progressive not oppose the murders of innocents and the theft of land regardless of who is committing the crimes?

[GabysPoppy]

67. I will answer more than one question

I don't think any "progressive" would be or should be opposed to the murder of innocents. I just don't believe you have been given the franchise to determine who is a progressive whether on this or any forum.

A "progressive" doesn't begin with your philosophies and travel leftward from that starting point. The word "progressive" is meant to include more peoples than you are ready to include.

As for your second question "the theft of land". That is a very broad statement that cannot be answered with either a yes or no. Were you to determine that Mr. Arafat's definition of the land that belongs to the Palestinians should mean from the Jordan to the Meditteranean, then in that case I dispute your claim. If the definition is that of some lunatic fundamentalist claiming every inch of the area, I would not dispute the term "stolen land".

I don't think we want to nitpick every inch of territory nor is it our responsibility. I would leave that to REASONABLE representatives from both sides. The fact that those left to negotiate are NOT REASONABLE at the current time is the cruelest factor of all and that includes both adversaries.

I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.

[Resistance]

68. Well you might be surprised to learn

how much I agree with you on all those points:

"I don't think any "progressive" would be or should be opposed to the murder of innocents." Agreed.

I just don't believe you have been given the franchise to determine who is a progressive whether on this or any forum. (Duh!) Agreed.

A "progressive" doesn't begin with your philosophies and travel leftward from that starting point. LOL cute way of putting it. Agreed.

Were you to determine that Mr. Arafat's definition of the land that belongs to the Palestinians should mean from the Jordan to the Meditteranean, then in that case I dispute your claim. If the definition is that of some lunatic fundamentalist claiming every inch of the area, I would not dispute the term "stolen land". Agreed, although I think you're dodging the obvious. (Israel is, by most sane accounts, involved in theft of land)

I don't think we want to nitpick every inch of territory nor is it our responsibility. Agreed.

I would leave that to REASONABLE representatives from both sides. The fact that those left to negotiate are NOT REASONABLE at the current time is the cruelest factor of all and that includes both adversaries. Agreed.

I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. Well, honestly as much as I would like to jump for joy at the prospective idea that we've somehow crossed opposing sides of a bridge, and have met in the middle, I think what this amounts to is alot of nice sounding rhetoric which most people agree with, yet manages to dodge the obvious point I was making: Israel is stealing land that isn't theirs, and as progressives, we should oppose this criminal theivery.

Furthermore, to reiterate the original point I've been making: opposition to Israel's criminal theft of land is NOT anti-semitism.

[GabysPoppy]

69. Round and round we go

"Agreed, although I think you're dodging the obvious. (Israel is, by most sane accounts, involved in theft of land)"

Once again you decide what a "sane account" is. You also insist on making the broad statement of a "theft of land" without definition as to who's definition we should accept.


"Furthermore, to reiterate the original point I've been making: opposition to Israel's criminal theft of land is NOT anti-semitism."


Here was the original point I took from the article.


"Instead, in Europe and the Muslim world--even in Asia--traditional anti-Semitism has lately re-emerged as anti-Zionism, focused on the Jews of Israel, the role of Israel, and, for some, on Jews in the United States who support Israel."

You sir, chose to insert the land issue into this quote where no land issue exists. I'm sorry, you are not going to reframe the debate as you like. I will accept your opinion on anything I say but I will not except your opinion on something I didn't say.

[The Magistrate]

71. Indeed, Mr. Poppy

What seems to be referenced as Anti-Semitism reborn as Anti-Zionism, are such "arguements" as that Jews control the government of the United States, and the economy of the world, wielding this to sustain Israel, that Jews intend the destruction of Islam, and the desecration of sites Moslems consider sacred, and that this is the reason for Jewish focus on Jerusalem, that Jews collaborated with, or even directed, Hitler, and are today only doing what Hitler did, and similar garbage. All of these things can be found by reading in current Islamic fundamentalist tracts, and even in other places, passing as "Anti-Zionist" critiques of the state of Israel.

[The Magistrate]

72. The Machine Hiccoughed

My apologies for the error.

[Gimel]

176. Most of them oppose it

right out. They don't even know who's land it is, or when or where the murders took place, but you call them innocent and, by golly, they'll oppose them. They don't need to read the history or look into the opposing view. They are sure it is right by the sound of the angry voices. It's the call of the protest that gets them out there, willing to take a stand.

[Adalah]

25. Anti-semitism is repulsive

as is any form of bigotry. There is resentment directed at Jews internationally, often fueled by objection to Israel and it's policies. This, of course, is anti-semitic. No one should feel the wrath of those that oppose Israel's policies simply because they happen to be Jewish. But it is also important to note the charge of anti-semitism can be misused against those with honest misgivings about Israel's actions. Surely Israel is the object of envy and resentment, but that can be a result of America's steadfast support, not necessarily anti-semitism.

[Resistance]

28. Let's be clear on something

Israel is an object of criticism due to it's ethnic cleansing, settlement expansion on land that isn't theirs, murders of innocent people, demolitions of homes, and creation of despair and misery for the Palestinian people. This has zero to do with anti-semitism. Opposition to Israel's aggression is based on compassion and a sense of humanity towards the victims of Israeli terror and land theft.

[Adalah]

32. As I stated,

the charge of anti-semitism is misused against those with honest objections to Israel and it's policies. The problem is when someone becomes the object of another's wrath simply because they are Jewish. This often happens in Europe, for example.

[bluesoul]

33. Well

Adalah does have a point. There is clear anti-semitism that doesn't necessarily have to do with criticism rather then pure hatred. But on the other hand the most critical articles that I have read regarding Israel's policies were written by Israelis or Jews around the world. So much for the notion that the criticism comes from anti-semitism. So are all those Israeli/Jewish peace activists and others (such as the refuseniks in the IDF) anti-semits and Israel haters? I would not think so. They just clearly object to a certain policy. As do many of those that critisize Israel's policy. But I am afraid some here refuse to acknowledge that.

Adalah on that note, I respect you fair and even handed approach on the issue :toast:

[Adalah]

35. It may be put best

by saying anti-semites are all critical of Israel, but not all critics of Israel are anti-semitic. (Pulled out the Logic 101 textbook for that one).

[bluesoul]

38. Actually

if it's about being against someone for what he/she is that is not criticism that is hatred. So I wouldn't even call them critics (as criticism is at least some argumented way of opposing) as those true anti-semits are pure haters and in many cases they are also anti-Arabs (they too are semits) from my experience (those in the USA or Europe) So...

[bluesoul]

39. Let me put it this way

It's not like the KKK, Aryan Nations, Stormfront or the Neonazis and their likes hate Jews and love Arabs/Muslims. They hate all of them and anyone that doesn't fit in their "true aryan" picture.

[Adalah]

50. Quite true

The Jewish people are often the victim of "equal opportunity" haters that extend their ignorance to other groups, including Arabs and Muslims. But, sadly, anti-semitism is too prevalent in the Arab world and Arab criticism of Israel is sometimes rooted in that anti-semitism, but not always.

[The Magistrate]

63. Well Said, Mr. Adalah

Welcome to the forum; you bid fair to make a valuable contribution here.

There is indeed much to criticize about various acts of the state of Israel. There is also some portion of criticism directed at it that is rooted in hate for Jews.

There is no good served when persons who do criticize Israel pre-emptively state that they will be called Anti-Semites for doing so: that is a mere low debator's ploy, to cast a prejudicial slur against those who would disagree with the criticism they make.

[Adalah]

66. Thank you

Surely no one wants to be accused of anti-semitism or see it expressed.

[Lurking Dem]

70. Pardon me

but you seem to be making a rather classical error.

Because you have an opinion that Zionism can be defined as X and your own criticism of the Government of Israel or actions by the IDF is simply that and not an expression of anti-Semitism, you assume that others who state the same things hold the same defintion of Zionism that you do.

You are mistaken.

I have been a victim of anti-Semitism here in the US, so have my husband and son. It exists. It is real. And it is sometimes dangerous (like the guy they arrested here in Nashville pointing an assault rifle at the kids in the Jewish daycare).

You are using Zionism to refer to Israeli expansionism. Many on the Left do that under the mistaken assumption they are being descriptive rather than confusing. Don't assume that everyone who uses the term defines it the same way you do or feels the same way about Jews that you do.

[Lurking Dem]

164. Or maybe not.

One of these days I'll learn to edit posts in time.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[bluesoul]

46. Well

It exists just as anti-Arab or anti-Muslim feelings exist. Some even on this board...

[drdon326]

47. Bluesoul....

re: the article......what was your most or least favorite parts??

[bluesoul]

51. Well

One word: Generalizing (with a clear bias and issues)

[edzontar]

55. Zuckerman is one of MWO's "A-list Media Whores"

For a reason.

He is a hateful, reactionary. lying, anti-Democratic Repuke.

Mahathir Mohamad is a jerk and a bigot--I think we can agree on that....

[bluesoul]

57. Amen

to that!

[drdon326]

60. OK....

But did you read the article??

[edzontar]

65. I gave it a glance.

But i don't "read" Zuckerman.

Besides, you recomended that I shouldn't.

[Aidoneus]

73. nothing is too rightwing for I/P

considering the sources involved (the one posting, and what is being posted from--this is the same trash rag that has for months been making up all sorts of crazy fictions about Chavez, for example), what else would be expected?

[edzontar]

86. So it would seem....

I recently read something about "racial smells" on another post that was more fitting to a KKK site than a supposed progressive Democrat forum.

Do the rules even apply here?

[drdon326]

74. One of my favorite parts....

"It is difficult for westerners, unmarked by the searing memories of Jewish history, to realize the extent to which the survival of Israel remains an issue for Jews, who cannot dismiss the overheated Arab rhetoric that seeks to justify terrorism against innocent civilians by describing Israel's existence as illegitimate. That rhetoric is the product of a careful calculation by Arab political leaders who recognized the popular appeal of scapegoating Israel for their failure to provide for their own people while legitimizing their regimes."

to paraphrase a famous line:

Anti-semitism's greatest achievement is convincing people
it really doesnt exist.

[Darranar]

75. Nice generalizations...

about both Westerners AND Jews.

Is the survival of Israel an issue for me? Yes. Is it as important as ending the conflict? No. If a two-state solution will not work, and a one-state solution will, then I'm all for it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. The big difference

"Is the survival of Israel an issue for me? Yes. Is it as important as ending the conflict? No."

Sorry, some things are worth fighting for and Israel remains one of them. Just because you would rather end the conflict that have Israel free, that is your business.

[Darranar]

77. Of course Israel "is worth fighting" for...

in the sense that I would prefer its existence (as a Jewish state) to its nonexistence (once again, as a Jewish state). But is it important enough to me to support the continued killing of innocent people? No, it is not and it will never be.

There are many refuges for Jews around the world aside from Israel. I do not think that the presence of anti-semitism is great enough to justify a continued Jewish state at the price of continued suffering for thousands of innocent people.

Anyway, your post is dodging the real issue: This article made unfair generalizations about both Jews and Westerners.

[GabysPoppy]

80. Please cut & paste what you consider a generalization

That is a fair enough request since you have made the charge twice so far.

So let's stick to the "real issue" as you put it.

[Darranar]

81. Please see DrDon's post #74...

the one I originally responded to.

[GabysPoppy]

89. So then you are in agreement with the article except for that paragraph.

That's good to know.

[Darranar]

92. I never said that.

n/t

[drdon326]

91. I must say, Darranar....

i'm a little disappointed you didnt like the article.
I was hoping it hit home with you.

I apologize.

d

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. Focusing on YOUR post

You were the one that would prefer peace over the future of Israel. So, by that defintion, an ethnically cleansed but peaceful Israel is OK by you no matter which group cleanses the other, right?

And, trust me, there are NO refuges around the world for Jews EXCEPT Israel. Without a nation, policies can change and Jews can be kicked out or demonized just like the have been in the past.

[Darranar]

93. Ethnically cleansed?

Why does a one-state solution mean ethnic cleansing of the Israelis?

The USA seems a pretty good refuge, IMO. Except for Muslims.

[rini]

94. Tis is what it means.

Even you must see what an anti-semitic site this is:

http://abbc.com/resistance/massacr.htm

[Darranar]

95. Yes, "even I" can see what an anti-semitic site that is...

Now please explain what that has to do with the topic at hand.

[rini]

149. The topic is anti-semitism and anti-zionism are in the same family

[Darranar]

189. That's junk.

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. Look to the rest of the Arab world

What does that tell you about Jews flourishing in an Arab state? The one-state solution creates an ARAB state, not a Jewish homeland.

The USA is a good refuge...today. That could change tomorrow. France was a nice refuge until the Germans.

[Darranar]

98. So any state with an Arab/Muslim majority will be a racist one...

thanks for the enlightening view.

Why, exactly?

[GabysPoppy]

99. So your point is this

A state comprised of a Muslim majority will be a safe haven for Jewish people.

Of course past and current history doesn't affect that judgement in anyway.

Just call me crazy for begging to differ with you.

[Darranar]

100. Not my point at all...

my point is that a one-state solution will not result in the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the new state.

[GabysPoppy]

101. And your example is what?

What part of history defends this position?

[Darranar]

102. We seem to have strayed off from my original point here...

which is that:

If the two-state solution does not lead to peace in the region, and the one-state solution does, then I would support the one-state solution. Ethnic cleansing is not peace.

Israel as it is now certainly does not seem to have brought peace to the region. When one thing doesn't work, try another.

[GabysPoppy]

103. I'm sorry I asked

I should have known better

[Darranar]

104. There is no historical precendent for such a thing...

because it has never been tried in the form advocated by many here and in other places.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

160. No historical precedent?

sounds like a good reason to give it a try

[Darranar]

190. What do you advocate?

If a two-state solution crumbles into war, what do you support? More war?

[bluesoul]

191. Duh

Obviously...

[The Magistrate]

192. Unfortunately, Mr. Darranar

Should a situation where each people had a state were to crumble into war, there would seem little practical alternative but to let war have its chance to settle the matter.

If people are not willing to live at peace, nothing can make them do so, and if they are resolved on war, an attempt to force them to live together will only aggravate the difficulty.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

105. and you KNOW this because...

your balls are crystal?...

[Darranar]

107. And how do you know the opposite?

It has yet to be tried - anywhere. And because it hasn't been, you can't say that it won't work.

My statement should have read: "A one-state solution would not neccesarily result in ethnic cleansing of the Israelis." Surety is such matters is foolishness. Typing quivkly is prone to error, and not simply of the technical kind.

[drdon326]

108. Would YOU......

be willing to move to....oh say...saudi arabia or
syria as a TEST CASE and let us know how it goes??

If it works out, I'll believe you.

I'm soooo sure you'll be welcome there.

[Darranar]

110. Completely different situations...

you make the assumption that because some places with a Muslim majority are racist that all are or all will be. That theory is severely flawed.

The one-state solution advocated by some here includes a consitution guaranteeing equal rights for all. Additionally, has there ever been a strong Jewish community in either state? There will be in a single state in Israel/Palestine.

[GabysPoppy]

112. Maybe you might like to clarify something.

"you make the assumption that because some places with a Muslim majority are racist that all are or all will be. That theory is severely flawed."

Please name one place that proves your theory.

[Darranar]

113. What theory?

That a one-state solution will not neccesarily result in ethnic cleansing?

[GabysPoppy]

115. Yes, that theory

[Darranar]

116. So you're saying...

A one state solution in Israel/Palestine will no matter what result in ethnic cleansing of the israelis?

[GabysPoppy]

118. My question was for you to provide an example of YOUR theory

"There will be in a single state in Israel/Palestine."

Remember these are your words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=26003#26275


Here is the link to your theory.

So I am not saying anything, you sir are the one saying things.

[Darranar]

119. So you think that the second...

a single state is founded, the Jewish community in Israel will cease to exist?

[GabysPoppy]

120. You insist in answering a question

with a question.

If you wish an answer to one of your questions, don't you think a reply to my question might be the way to get one? Otherwise one has to think you don't intend to ever give an answer.

If I am incorrect, you just have to answer the question. If I am correct you will have another question. I really think it's a waste of bandwidth which the administrators have to pay for, for this foolishness to continue with you.

[Darranar]

122. Wait!

You're claiming that 5+ milion humans can suddenly cease to exist.

You wish for me to prove that there will be a Jewish community is a single state. Of course there will, at least at the onset, unless you believe that 5+ million people can suddenly cease to exist!

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

124. You asked me to back up the claim...

that there would be a Jewish community in a single state. I explained to you logically why it would be so, at least at the onset.

I'll even rephrase it, if you want:

There is currently a Jewish community in Israel.

If Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza all joined as one state with completely equal rights for all, and the Palestinians were granted the right of return as part of the solution, those 5+ million Jews would still remain at the nset of the state, BEFORE whatever ethnic cleansing might take place. Sicne they will have a presence, they will have political and economic power to a consderable degree.

Now do you understand?

[The Magistrate]

125. It Does Seem To Me, Mr. Darranar

That certainly if a "single state" is imposed as a solution any time in the near future, without a substantial period of peace, measured in generations, having passed before its implementation, whichever community is in the majority will work to disfavor the other. It does not seem to me, in the near term, a formula for peace, but for state persecution.

The nearest thing to example from history is the unhappy history of the Lebanon, and that offers no encouragement whatever.

[Darranar]

188. Thta is always a possibility...

but I think it is far from a certainty.

I see no large possibility of there being a large majority of Palestinans or Israelis is a one-state solution is implemented. Working against a large portion of a nation's population as the world watches is not something easy to do to a large extent.

[drdon326]

114. I NEVER made that assumption.

but you can pioneer a new type of state in saudi arabia.

UNTIL then i dont think you should sacrifice israel for
your social experiment.


so move there and let us know how it goes.

[Darranar]

117. MY social experiment?

I don't support the one-state solution, I support the two-state solution. But if the two-state solution doesn't work, I'm perfectly willing to support a trial of the one-state solution.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

161. Huh?

Did anyone else here get whiplash just from reading that?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

166. a "trial" of the one-state solution?...

so like if the trial does not work out, do you like just call a re-do?...

[drdon326]

167. Mind-numbing , isnt it.

.

[Saudade]

262. Wrong Again

"What does that tell you about Jews flourishing in an Arab state? The one-state solution creates an ARAB state, not a Jewish homeland."

This is ridiculous. There are many very powerful people in the Israeli government who advocate a one-state solution, ethnically cleansed of arabs.

National Religious Party leader (and Sharon cabinet member) Effie Eitam, for example, advocates a one state solution:

The Washington Post, 7 April 2002


JERUSALEM –– Tugging his beard or adjusting his skull cap, Effie Eitam, an ultranationalist slated to join Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Cabinet, speaks unabashedly of his controversial dream: One day the more than 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip will move to Jordan.

Palestinians say Eitam's dream is just that – a fantasy with no basis in reality. The Palestinians see the West Bank and Gaza as their future state, and say millions of additional Palestinians now in exile have their own dream of returning to the region.

Any attempt to drive the Palestinians out would surely draw a fierce response from the Palestinians as well as international condemnation.

Sitting in his modest office in an old Arab-style building in Jerusalem, Eitam gave his reasoning for attempting to push the Palestinians out.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

_______________________

Needless to say, the one-state solution advocated by Eitam and many others would not be a democracy.

A democratic one-state solution would destroy what MuddleoftheRoad calls "the jewish homeland." MuddleoftheRoad cannot tolerate the idea of democracy in the middle east.

[Muddleoftheroad]

267. Democracy

Israel has democracy now. Yes some oppose it. Some oppose it here as well.

Just because there are some misguided or outright stupid or evil people who advocate an ethnically cleansed one-state solution ON EITHER side, does not make it right.

I agree that, "the one-state solution advocated by Eitam" would be wrong. I oppose it. I support a state for the Palestinians as well. I do not support the destruction of the Jewish homeland. And, btw, it's not just what I CALL the Jewish homeland. It IS the Jewish homeland.

[Saudade]

272. Sharon

I believe that Eitam is Sharon's id. Eitam says what Sharon believes and wants but doesn't dare to say.

[Muddleoftheroad]

274. I believe otherwise

I believe that, once the Palestinian people reject terrorism, that there will be a peace treaty and a Palestinian state.

[Saudade]

282. Perhaps

Perhaps you disagree with my assessment because you don't know much about Ariel Sharon.

As Israeli Foreign Minister, in 1998, days before he was scheduled to negotiate with the Palestinians over the final status of the occupied territories, Sharon "urged Jewish settlers to seize more land in the occupied West Bank," the BBC reported. He declared that Israelis "should enlarge existing settlements because everything they did not occupy would revert to Palestinian control." In a speech to one of Israel's far-right parties, Sharon exhorted his audience to seize the time: "Everyone should take action, should run, should grab more hills," he told the political gathering. "We'll expand the area. Whatever is seized will be ours. Whatever isn't seized will end up in their hands. That's the way it will be...That's what must be done now."

"Our forefathers did not come here in order to build a democracy but to build a Jewish state," said Sharon in answer to his liberal critics .

As Begin's minister of agriculture, Sharon's plan was to "Judaize the Galilee" – driving out the Arab Israelis, whom he denounced as "foreigners" – and his scheme to colonize the Sinai. As Flore de Preneuf pointed out in Salon (http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/17/sharon/index.html),

"More than any other politician, Sharon has been the engine behind Israel's thinly disguised annexation policy. Whatever ministerial portfolio fell into his hands, Sharon made sure to direct massive state funds toward building houses, roads and water pipes that would consolidate Israel's grip in the occupied territories. Not for nothing have Israelis nicknamed Sharon 'the bulldozer.'"

When Sharon invaded Lebanon in 1982, his far-reaching goal was to "reorganize" the Middle East.

This grand Plan was never concealed by him. On the contrary: in a lecture held in the Military Academy for High Commanders in February 1982, he presented this in detail to an audience of high rank officers. The plan was called "Operation Pines". Part of the plan was the establishment of a Palestinian state carved out of the Kingdom of Jordan, the deportation of the Palestinian refugees from South Lebanon to North Jordan, and the "encouragement" of the emigration of the Palestinian population from the "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip" to this newly established Palestinian State. In this way Sharon meant to give the Palestinians a sovereign state -- and to accomplish the dream of a "Greater Israel".

During the last twenty years, Sharon has used all the governmental positions to which he has been appointed for the systematic creation of "facts" all over the West Bank (and to some extent in the Gaza strip) to prevent any possibility of a viable Palestinian sovereignty. All during this period, he has spread Jewish settlements among the Palestinian towns and villages, in a well-planned way, to split up the Palestinian territories in order to prevent any continuity between the slices. At present, the number of settlers and the deployment of the settlements may be enough to realize this dream.

The conclusion Sharon drew from the failure of his megalomaniac plan in the Lebanon war was -- or so it seems -- that such a far-reaching program can be achieved only if supported by an overwhelming majority of the Jewish public in Israel. This is what makes the "Unity Government" so important for him. He understands that only in this way can he promote his strategic plan: expelling -- all or most -- of the Palestinian people east of the River Jordan.


http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d0416jp.htm

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."
Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

[Violet_Crumble]

129. Wrong...

And, trust me, there are NO refuges around the world for Jews EXCEPT Israel.

Sorry, I'd prefer not to trust you if the alternative is having to believe this sort of complete nonsense. I can think of quite a few nations that would take in refugees, no matter who or what they are...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

130. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Just like last time.

[Violet_Crumble]

131. The Holocaust was the last time people have sought refuge???

I assume that's the last time yr referring to? If it is, yr wrong yet again, because Australia at least raised its immigration quotas to take in European Jews. But as people are prone to seek refuge not just when genocide is happening, but things like persecution, economic problems in the country they're fleeing from, etc, I'd say for sure the Holocaust wasn't the last time people have sought refuge. In the case of Australia, it's given refuge over the past couple of years to East Timorese and Kosovans, so unless you can provide some rational argument as to why Jews would be refused refuge if they needed it, yr opinion is really quite nonsensical...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

138. Not exactly true

The Holocaust was the last time Jews sought refuge in huge numbers and they were disregarded even in the U.S. Yes, there have been refugees since and some have found homes and others have not. But the Jewish people have no reason to believe that they would be taken in just like THEIR last time.

[Violet_Crumble]

141. How huge do these numbers have to be for it to be seeking refuge?

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Israel was a refuge only when it was for a HUGE number of Jews. What does the number of people seeking refuge have at all to do with what was being discussed....

And I see you totally ignored the point I made about Australia. And you really should control yr habit of saying you *know* what the Jewish people think. They're like every other group of people who have a wide range of thoughts on everything. I get really uncomfortable when someone claims the Jewish people all think the same way...

Violet...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

162. Muddle, you are correct in assuming that...

even though Australia raised it's immigration quotas to take in European Jews, many Jewish people think it is preferable to have Israel around just in case room is ever needed for the extra 6 million that don't make it into Australia...

[Violet_Crumble]

200. It'd help if you actually read what Muddle had argued...

Which was: 'And, trust me, there are NO refuges around the world for Jews EXCEPT Israel.'

The argument wasn't whether or not Israel should exist, but whether the above comment was correct, which it wasn't. I don't know where you've come up with six million, but as I pointed out to Muddle, people seeking refuge are still seeking refuge regardless of whether it's 6 thousand or 6 million. The idea of millions of people seeking refuge at the same time in the same country is getting into the realms of silliness, though....

Hey, if you feel the urge to respond, try and surprise me by doing it without the personal attacks and insults :)

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

210. The statement stands

Despite your one-Aussie crusade against anything I now post, the statement stands.

Israel remains the lone reliable refuge for the Jewish people and, as such, is the lone refuge. Other nations have turned their backs on Jewish people before and may well again. The one nation that won't is Israel.

Your idea that millions might want to seek refuge at the same time is indeed silliness. After all, that never happens...

* Except in Africa, where human tides ebb and flow with war.
* Except in the Balkans where war chased an endless stream of people from their homes.

and, most noteably, except in Europe where not that long ago millions of Jews were butchered.

Never again.

[bluesoul]

211. Well

They weren't the only ones butchered in high sky numbers and in Europe Muslims were one of the latest victims of genocide attempts (Bosnia) by non-Muslims. So...

[Muddleoftheroad]

218. You have a point?

No, the Hitler machine butchered many millions, but targeted the Jewish people as their top choice.

And yes, there are refugees around the world. Most can find homes somewhere, but the Jewish people have not always been very lucky in this regard. Now they always have an option. No more will ships of Jewish refugees have no place they can land.

[Violet_Crumble]

228. Yr statement was incorrect...

There are other countries that have and would provide refuge for Jewish people, because those countries don't give a shit whether someone's Jewish or not. Trotting out the same old worn out talking points after they've been refuted doesn't achieve anything to further yr argument....

Okay, name me one time when MILLIONS of people have tried to seek refuge in another country to escape persecution. I hope yr not going to be predictable and drag out the Holocaust, because millions never did try to seek refuge in another country, because they were either trying to get out of occupied Europe where the Nazis wouldn't allow them to leave, or were hoping that things wouldn't get worse than they already had and by the time they got to trying to flee it was too late....

In my opinion the Never Again line would come across a bit more genuinelly if it was a Never Again about all people, no matter what religion, ethnicity or cultural group they are. Past US Presidents have been fond of using it, including Clinton, who sat back and did nothing even though he was fully aware that it was happening again in Rwanda...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

241. Refuge

Refuge is a safe haven. If you provide refuge for 100 people, that is all you are doing. If you provide refuge for a people, you provide refuge for all of them, not a few.

There is only one such place on earth for the Jewish people. It's Israel.

Whether NATIONS give a shit about people's religions tends to change over time. Look at France. There was a time when Jewish people felt safe there, then WWII happened. America's own attitudes to Judaism and race have changed over time as well.

OK, persecution. I think about a million people fled mainland China to Taiwan. How's that for starters? I could ask the Magistrate how many fled the Balkans during the endless warring there, but a quick look at Sarajevo population stats would prove a massive outflow of refugees.

As for the Holocaust, perhaps millions would have fled if they had anywhere to go. Instead, those that did flee were often turned away, like in the case of the S.S. St. Louis which the U.S. would not allow to dock.

I am all for Never Again meaning no genocide ever again. But, in the meantime, it has an original meaning which I take quite personally. It means Never Again will the Jewish people be victims of a genocide.

[bluesoul]

244. Me too

And I also hope that the Palestinians will NEVER again be driven from their homes and their land stolen..

[Violet_Crumble]

255. A few problems there...

What you originally said was: 'And, trust me, there are NO refuges around the world for Jews EXCEPT Israel.'

You said nothing about an entire people having to move en-masse to another country being what you meant by refuge. I mentioned the East Timorese earlier. The entire population of East Timor was not evacuated to Darwin, but to claim that Australia didn't provide the people that were evacuated with a safe haven and a refuge is totally incorrect. And when large numbers of a people are evacuated, then logically they end up being sent to a variety of countries. Explain to me why they must all be sent to only one country and why the thought that they might actually want to return to their homes eventually hasn't crossed yr mind?

Israel is the only place on earth for the Jewish people? I suspect that some Jews who live quite happily in the US and quite understandably identify as Americans might strongly disagree with you on that one...

Seriously, if the day came when American-Jews had to flee the US because of persecution, they'd be one among many minority groups having to do so, and the whole concept of democracy and freedom would be down the toilet big-time. And being Jewish isn't a religious thing. Some atheists and agnostics are Jewish...

Got a credible link to support any claim that millions of people have tried to find refuge in another country due to persecution? Especially people fleeing the Balkans...

No, yr wrong. People didn't not flee because there was nowhere to go. As I pointed out, they either weren't allowed to leave occupied Europe or as tends to happen in cases like WWII and Bosnia, sat tight hoping that things would get better and couldn't bring themselves to face the reality that people who had been their neighbours and friends all their lives could turn on them and want them dead. That's an understandable human reaction to things that are totally horrific and incomprehensible. The action of the US towards European Jews in WWII was indefensible, btw...

In the meantime? I don't get what you meant by that, or why you started off so well in the first part of the sentence and then changed and focused solely on Never Again only applying to one group...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

257. Oh my God

Do you ever give up?

You seem determined to defend your national heritage against any concept that you might not step up and be counted if Israel were to fall.

Too bad. Israel is the only REFUGE for the Jewish people, not the only place. It would suck massively if the Jewish people in America and elsewhere all moved to Israel, though I would not blame them. You can choose to disagree about Israel's status as a refuge. I am sure not all Jewish people would as well. Some wish to believe that their current home will be different than pretty much all the other homes Jews have had for 2,000 years. That somehow this time will be different. I don't share their optimism.

There is no guarantee that if things turned bad for Jews in America, they would turn bad for other groups. Perhaps they might, maybe not at the same time. One never knows.

Again, what about Taiwan? As for the Balkans, I will defer to The Magistrate who has expertise in that area that I lack.

Yes, people WERE allowed to leave Europe and they did so by the thousands. But they needed connections, they needed places to go. Many did not have the money, the status or the friends to pull it off.

As for Never Again, I lack the ability to change the world. One could easily argue that the AIDS crisis in Africa is a form of genocide, but the world does not step to the plate to stop it. I can't stand up to defeat all of the ills of the world myself either, but I have chosen this one and I will continue in my defense of Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

271. Muddle, this is a forum...

Y'know, a place where people reply to posts and don't expect to see a 'Oh my god! don't you ever give up?' reply. If you have a problem with getting replies to yr posts, then my suggestion is to stop replying to the replies. Easy as that...

Reality, Muddle. Israel is no more likely to fall than any other western-styled democracy. I've got no idea why you've suddenly decided to go on about my national heritage. What has that got to do with anything? If you want to try to refute what I said about the East Timorese, go for yr life...

What about Taiwan and the Balkans? I asked you to provide a credible link to support yr claims. I'm still waiting...

You claimed that millions of European Jews were trying to get into other countries, not just thousands. If you knew anything about Europe during WWII you'd know that the majority of Jews who wanted to leave weren't allowed to...

None of us can change the world, but to use that as an excuse why Never Again should only be applied to one group is so wrong. Never Again applies to all genocide, no matter what group it's been or being carried out on...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

273. Yes it's a forum

Not a two-way discussion, which seems to be what you seek.

Israel is more likely to fall into crisis than other Western democracies. It is surrounded by enemies, has a small population and few resources. That's NOT a recipe for success. Will that mean it fails or simply because a third-world nation, I can't say.

You were the one who mentioned Australia several times. I finally addressed it.

Do you dispute that a million mainland Chinese went to Taiwan fleeing Mao Tse Tung (or however the hell we spell his name these days)? If you dispute that, I'll provide a link. As for the Balkans, I have already said I will defer to The Magistrate on numbers there.

One of the reasons European Jews weren't allowed to leave is the lack of a destination. Many Jews fled various stops along the way for Hitler's war express, but few had any place to go to and were eventually rounded up. Had they had a place, they would have been channeled there.

Again, for yet another post, I said I would like to see Never Again applied to all genocide, but I doubt it will be so. In the meantime, I make it my business that the Jewish people don't suffer a SECOND genocide.

[rini]

299. Not people in general

Jews in particular.

[drdon326]

300. Did you ever feel....

like the obvious is intentionally ignorned by some
people??





NEVER AGAIN.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

301. Perhaps

the people to whom you refer have placed 'the obvious' on ignore; there is an 'ignore' button here at DU, right?

[Muddleoftheroad]

137. I don't really care if you trust me or not

Even the U.S. might balk at taking in 5 million Jews who didn't wish to be conquered. What about the other, non-American Jews who might wish to leave their current nations. Like those Jews in France who dislike the rising tide of anti-Semtism?

No, the Jewish people HAVE a refuge and it is Israel and they aren't giving it up.

[Violet_Crumble]

143. That's good, because I don't...

Who said anything about taking in 5 million Jews who don't wish to be conquered? Can you show me where the real threat is to Israels existance is? What about non-American Jews who might wish to leave their current nations? Are you saying that places like the US, Australia, Canada, the UK etc aren't desirable destinations for those who choose to leave their current nations because they want a change of scenery?

I think you've got no idea at all about what refuge actually means, Muddle....

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

169. Are you reading the thread?

We've talked about an ethnically cleansed Israel. That would mean over 5 million Jews homeless (though I imagine many might just be dead).

The threat to Israel's existence is the 55-year-old war between Israel and the Arab world. These days, the threat expands into their UN proxies among the oil-needy nations.

And while Australia, the UK and the US might CURRENTLY be OK destinations for some people who might want to relocate, none of those areas is prepared to handled a tide of 5 million Israeli Jews should that nation fall.

And that is preciasely why the nation will NOT fall. It simply can't. They have nowhere else to go.

As for refuge, I have a pretty damn good idea thank you.

[Jim Sagle]

171. Thank you, Muddle. You have summarized the situation very well.

:yourock:

[bluesoul]

172. The situation

ain't nuthin but shit ;)

[Jim Sagle]

175. At last we agree, Dr. Moriarty.

[Violet_Crumble]

204. Sure am...

You made this claim: 'And, trust me, there are NO refuges around the world for Jews EXCEPT Israel.' which was untrue....

The threat to Israel's existence is the 55-year-old war between Israel and the Arab world.

You said yrself further down in this thread that Israel wasn't under threat or else you'd be trying to join the IDF. Now yr saying Israel is under threat?

And while Australia, the UK and the US might CURRENTLY be OK destinations for some people who might want to relocate, none of those areas is prepared to handled a tide of 5 million Israeli Jews should that nation fall.

Why are you now changing what you originally said? You said: ''And, trust me, there are NO refuges around the world for Jews EXCEPT Israel.' You said nothing about Israel falling (which is getting into the realm of silly fantasies), nor about any country having to take in 5 million Israeli Jews at one go. You also said that there were no refuges for Jews. You didn't mention anything about some being okay as destinations. btw, what about the remaining Israelis should Israel fall? They're invisible or something?


Violet...

[bluesoul]

205. Funny

And he also said that Israel is at peace with Jordan, Egypt and all other countries except for the Palestinians. Now suddenly those countries are a threat? Someone can't get to decide which is which. When it suits you, you say something, when it doesn't you say the opposite :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

208. WTF

Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt. But you don't consider the massive rise in Muslim fundamentalism in Egypt to be a threat? Even the Egyptian leadership does.

My point, which you so willingly obscure, was that Israel has shown a willingness to make peace with its enemies. That's a policy the Palestinians might well emulate.

[bluesoul]

78. Things worth fighting for

Muddle you would fight for Israel? Like go join the IDF? Just wondering...

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. If they were really threatened

Yes I would, though I doubt they would have me because of my eyesight.

[Violet_Crumble]

132. So you don't think Israel is really threatened?

It's just that you constantly use the excuse that Israel is fighting for its survival to justify what is done to the Palestinians. To be fighting for its survival a state must have to be really threatened, and it's not the perceived threat that Sharon and his cronies have tried their hardest to peddle as a real threat...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

134. Not with imminent demise TODAY

But that could well change. Instead Israel faces the chipping away that inevitably happens to a nation surrounded by enemies.

The latter does lead to the former however. So a fight for survival is still taking place.

[Violet_Crumble]

144. Then what yr saying is there is no threat...

There's only a perceived threat which is played on by the Right to gain and keep government. You can't have it both ways. Either there is a threat or there isn't. If there isn't, or if there's claims it MAY happen in the future, then there's no fight for survival until that threat is real. And for the zillionth time, Israel is at peace with Jordan and Egypt, so this 'Israel is surrounded by enemies' line is old and inaccurate...


Violet...

[drdon326]

135. Ohhhh......VC??

WHICH part of the article did you disagree with??

[Violet_Crumble]

145. I didn't waste my time reading it...

After all, you told us not to ;)

Anyway, I had a choice tonight between having to read the National Security Strategy of the United States of America (aka the Bush Doctrine) and choosing to read yet another offering from you trolled straight from LGF. Seeing both seemed to be equally long, and if I wanted to read the usual low-quality crap posted over at LGF I'd be over there and not here, I chose the former out of necessity. Hope yr not too disappointed....

Violet...

[drdon326]

148. It figures.....

i would ask you to read it.......but when you think about it,

whats the use? :shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

150. There's no use...

Because I'd say no for exactly the reasons I pointed out to you. You'd rather me waste time reading some crap you've pulled from LGF instead of reading something I have to read before an exam? Sorry, but in the importance ratings, you come in way below my studies. Plus, I find it an exercise in futility to try to engage you in constructive discussion, as I've learnt after finding you don't respond to questions you get asked in other threads...


Violet...

[bluesoul]

151. More RW BS

What more of the LGF quotes? Some never cease to amaze me...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

163. How can this be?

If several of you don't even read the article that generated all these responses, it would seem you are reacting from gut-level prejudices. Why not just read the article before responding to it?

[Violet_Crumble]

207. I'd say...

..it's because I haven't responded to the article. I tend not to do that with articles I haven't read, and I respond to posts from people who may have originally responded to the article but have moved on to more general discussion about the conflict. Fasten yr seatbelt for a bumpy ride as you get used to DU. You'll grow used to our Jim responding to articles without reading them and directly commenting on an article with his 'this ain't nuthin' but shit' stock-standard response. Don't go too hard on him. I suspet he thinks he's being a great advocate of whatever he thinks it is that he's 'defending' ;)

Violet....

[Jim Sagle]

174. Actually it's the COVER ARTICLE IN THIS WEEK'S US NEWS & WORLD REPORT!!!!!

But of course you would come along with some lame accusation - just as sure as God made little green footballs.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

177. Well, although it's certainly not a publication

I would point to when citing a progressive source, however, it is one read by many democrats as well as one that does qualify as quite a mainstream USA periodical.

[bluesoul]

178. Turning right

Yeah and mainstream has become mostly slanted to the right. Which is the most sad part of it..

[ForestsBeatBushes]

183. You're right about that!

That reminds me of something like the the center is liberal and the right is center; so, what really is the right? KKK? BushCo? Like, the old Chinese proverb, I'm afraid we are 'living in INTERESTING times'.

[Violet_Crumble]

212. Yr saying don doesn't pull stuff from LGF???

See, saying that he does isn't lame nor an accusation. It's a fact and it's one I've never seen him deny....

Violet...

[bluesoul]

221. LGF

and Fox&Corkum

[edzontar]

185. I believe that anti-Semitism is a real and present danger

In the Middle East, in Europe, and in America.

But I still oppose Sharon and the occupation.

I see no contradiction here.

The existence of the one does not justify the other.

It may help EXPLAIN it....I'll admit that.

[Jim Sagle]

111. Zuckerman nails it again!

The Zucker Man, doin' the best he can...to make the world a better place. :yourock:

[bluesoul]

146. Aha

Just like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and the likes are doing to make it a better place, right?

[GabysPoppy]

152. Public Service Announcement (sarcasm intended)

The Above listed article's origination is US News and Report.

But wait, hasn't someone said that it was found on Little Green Footballs? That obviously means that the content should be discarded as that site is so tilted to one side of the issue. Now that we have been so informed that anything from that hideous site should not be looked at or considered "worthy" of recognition, I feel I am obligated to list other links on that site. Who knows, other "non-progressive" sites might slip in to this forum.

I then proceeded to "google" and locate this dangerous site and guess what? The link to US News and Report is indeed listed and sure enough when the link is brought up, the above article is right there. The posters to I/P no longer should read the article anymore.

While there I thought it might be important for the forum to list some of the other sources too. We should all be aware of these other obviously "biased" web sites linked from Little Green Footballs.

So as a PSA, the following sources found on LGF are listed below.



ABC News
Arts & Letters Daily
The Asia Times
The Atlantic
BBC
CAMERA
CBS News
Chicago Tribune
City Journal
CNN
Christian Science Monitor
C-SPAN
DAFKA
DEBKAfile
Dhimmi Watch
Drudge Report
Foreign Affairs Magazine
The Forward
FOX News
FrontPage
Google News
The Guardian
Ha'aretz
Honest Reporting
IMRA
The Independent
Israel Insider
Israel National News
Jerusalem Newswire
Jerusalem Post
Jerusalem Post Radio
Jerusalem Report
Jewish World Review
Jihad Watch
LA Examiner
LA Times
London Times
MEMRI
MSNBC News
Nando Times
National Post
National Review
New Republic
Newsisfree
New York Times
New York Sun
NPR
The Onion
OpinionJournal
Daniel Pipes
Dennis Prager
Slate
Smarter Times
Mark Steyn Online
Straits Times
Stratfor
Sydney Morning Herald
The Telegraph
TIME
The Times of India
Town Hall
UPI
US News & World Report
USA Today
Washington Post
Washington Times
The Weekly Standard
Wired
Yahoo

So that I am not accused of "Cherry Picking" (which I am sure would never happen), EVERY single one has been listed. Now if anyone's favorite site is listed, I apologize beforehand. But then I wouldn't expect a real "progressive" to read The Guardian or the NY Times or the Washington Post anyway. And how could they be a real "Progressive" if they follow CSPAN or the BBC?

So we all owe a big thank you to DrDon for posting this article whether or not he "trolled" that site or not. How else would we have ever found all the above mentioned "non-progressive" sites if it hadn't been brought to our attention.

[bluesoul]

153. LGF

What do those links tell me, that LGF is a progressive/liberal site (rather then a RW one) that contains no racism, hatred and anti-Muslim agenda? Oh please...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

154. what it might tell you is that...

you need to focus more on the points presented in an article, rather than on whether or not LGF has a link to the article (independent articles are being posted on DU, not excerpts from the LGF discussion board)...

[Jim Sagle]

179. Shhhhhh!!!!!!! Don't tell him THAT! His HEAD might EXPLODE!!!!!!

[bluesoul]

182. Head exploding

No my head would explode if I read daily some of the stuff that is posted on FR. But to have to read some of it on DU, now that's a funny thing.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

201. No, you don't have to read any of it on DU or

anywhere else...you are choosing to be here. Learn to take responsibility.

[Violet_Crumble]

291. I see...

So obviously you'd not have any problems if someone were to post articles that were to appear on an anti-semitic site and you knew the person was getting the articles from that site on a regular basis? That wouldn't set off any alarm bells for you? It would me. (and note: no-one has ever disputed that the articles themselves aren't credible, so you appear to be arguing against a claim that's never been made). See, the problem is with sites like LGF and other hate sites that they take articles from credible mainstream sources in a selective way that supports their own hatred of Arabs, Jews, or whatever group they've got a gripe with. Me, I'd be wondering why anyone at DU would be hanging out at any site that promotes hatred of a group of people and pulling articles from that site and not getting articles the way other people do, which is by finding the actual credible articles at their original credible source..

Violet...