No, anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism

[Resistance]

Brian Klug - The Guardian

What is anti-semitism? Although the word only goes back to the 1870s, anti-semitism is an old European fantasy about Jews. The composer Richard Wagner exemplified it when he said: "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it." An anti-semite sees Jews this way: they are an alien presence, a parasite that preys on humanity and seeks to dominate the world. Across the globe, their hidden hand controls the banks, the markets and the media. Even governments are under their sway. And when revolutions occur or nations go to war, it is the Jews - clever, ruthless and cohesive - who invariably pull the strings and reap the rewards.

When this fantasy is projected on to Israel because it is a Jewish state, then anti-Zionism is anti-semitic. And when zealous critics of Israel, without themselves being anti-semitic, carelessly use language, such as "Jewish influence", that conjures up this fantasy, they are fuelling an anti-semitic current in the wider culture.

But Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is no fantasy. Nor is the spread of Jewish settlements in these territories. Nor the unequal treatment of Jewish colonisers and Palestinian inhabitants. Nor the institutionalised discrimination against Israeli Arab citizens in various spheres of life. These are realities. It is one thing to oppose Israel or Zionism on the basis of an anti-semitic fantasy; quite another to do so on the basis of reality. The latter is not anti-semitism.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter political struggle. The issues are complex, passions are inflamed, and the suffering is great. In such circumstances, people on both sides are liable to be partisan and to "cross the line from fair to foul". When people who side with Israel cross that line, they are not necessarily anti-Muslim. And when others cross the line on behalf of the Palestinian cause, this does not make them anti-Jewish. It cuts both ways.

[mmm]

1. Exactly right!

Americans better learn what the rest of the world has known for
decades.

[Resistance]

118. won't happen

not with the elite news we're being fed

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Two points

One, the definition that "anti-semitism is an old European fantasy about Jews," is a lie. The very wording implies strongly that this is an almost out-of-date concept. Anti-Semitism has been going on for 2,000 years and continues to thrive in Europe and flourish in the Arab world.

As for anti-Zionism, it is clearly anti-Semitic. The concept of Zionism is to support Israel as the homeland for the Jews. To be against that is indeed anti-Semitic.

[Resistance]

3. if only things were that simple

First, take a look at the first paragraph of the article:

From the beginning, political Zionism was a controversial movement even among Jews. So strong was the opposition of German orthodox and reform rabbis to the Zionist idea in the name of Judaism that Theodor Herzl changed the venue of the First Zionist Congress in 1897 from Munich to Basle in Switzerland.

So much for your argument that anti-Zionism is "clearly anti-Semitic".

Anti-Zionists are opposed to Israel's terrorism and theft of land. There is nothing anti-Semitic about that whatsoever.

[mobuto]

7. Actually, Zionism is very distinct

from Judaism as a religion. Its only recently that religious fanatics have attempted to hijack Zionism as a vehicle to advance their messianic fervor - and that's where you get this lunatic view of Eretz Yisroel and rebuilding the Temple and watching out for a Red Heiffer and all that bullshit. What Zionism really is, is a left-wing collectivist response to the oppression that Jews as an ethnic group have come to face, at some point, everywhere in the world. The traditional zionists were and are, as died-in-the-wool socialists, very much anti-clerical.

You might be interested to note, on an aside, that in 1948, Israel's closest ally was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR was the first country to formally recognize Israel (the United States had informally recognized the country two days earlier), and shipped in massive amounts of weapons which the Israelis then used to defeat the Arab invasion.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[MikeGalos]

121. They never did

Of course, you can make up whatever you want and accuse people of it but with the usual lack of any historical basis for these claims, most people will just recognize it as creating a false-history to back up a false claim with the goal of defeating any attempt at truth.

Kind of like redefining terms again. Gee, there seems to be a theme here:

Don't like what Zionist means - change the definition to hide the truth

Don't like what actually happened - change history to hide the truth.

Guess Newspeak is the official language of PA Supporters.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Today, right now

Anti-Zionism means the destruction of Israel and is clearly anti-Semitic.

[Darranar]

12. How is a one state solution anti-semitic?

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. It destroys Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people

Duh.

And, based on the behavior of the other Arab nations, it's a fairly safe bet to assume Jews will not be welcome in a majority Arab nation.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. But Israeli extremists support a one-state solution...

Bunch of anti-semites!

Duh....

Based on the international interest in resolving the I/P conflict, what is a safe bet is that a future Palestinian state will be one that's democratic and where it's more important that people are treated equally, rather than what religion or ethnic group they are.

It's pretty clear that Arabs aren't welcome in a majority Jewish state. If they were, there wouldn't be the obsession with ensuring that as few of them as possible obtain Israeli citizenship...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Not exactly true

The wacko Israeli extremists in that case support transfer which is equally wrong.

Ah yes, a Palestinian democracy. Easy to have one where religion isn't important if anyone who's Jewish or even cooperates with Jews gets killed.

Funny, all those Arabs who get to vote in Israel or serve in the Knesset.

[Darranar]

21. So?

How is believing that the implementation of Zionism was poor and therefore some of the mistakes need to be rectified anti-semitic?

How is believing that the best solution respecting the human rights of both sides would be a one-state solution anti-semitic?

The basic concept of anti-Zionism is that Zionism has caused much harm, and that stopping it at this point will prevent more harm then good. Whether or not you agree is another matter, but it is not anti-semitic. That is not to say that there are not some that are both anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist, but their existence does not make every anti-Zionist an anti-Semite.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Ah, ever the optimist

The implementation of Zionism has happened. Israel is that implementation. To change it now will result in the destruction of the Jewish homeland. That seems like pretty easily an arguable bad thing. Especially, if you look at the treatment of Jews in the neighboring Arab countries. (Well, a few of them still have Jews. The rest kicked them out and don't allow them back in.)

The problem with you is that you genuinely think a binational state would "respect the human rights of both sides." It wouldn't. And Israelis and Jews around the world know this. They know what happens to Jews in Arab nations or even in the West Bank and Gaza.

They won't take the chance that they will lose another six million people.

The reality of the situation -- what would happen to Israel's 5 million plus Jews -- is what makes this anti-Semitic.

[Darranar]

24. I never said it was a good idea...

I simply said that the idea was not inherently anti-semitic.

I also have serious trouble believing that with the international community watching and with the large numbers of Jews who will no doubt be within the state, ethnic cleansing will occur. However, whether or not it will occur, the idea is still not anti-semitic. Foolishness is not racism.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Cause and effect

If you take an action and the likely result is the death or transfer of 5 million-plus Jews, I can safely argue that is anti-Semitic.

As for the, "international community," they stood idly by and watched the Holocaust. They stood idly by and watch the Arab nations attack 600,000 Jews with little likelihood the Jews would win. And this, only a few years AFTER the Holocaust.

I have no faith in your "international community."

[Darranar]

26. That is not the 'likely result'...

and it still does not make the action anti-Semitic.

A likely result of Zionism was the devestation and displacement of the Palestinians - and as we have seen, that has happened. Does that make Zionism racism?

Do you really think that a one state solution would lack international oversight, especially since it, along with most other peace agreements, would almost certainly have that requirement in the text of the treaty?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. International oversight?

What is that?

Did it prevent the killing fields of Cambodia? No.
Did it prevent massive ethnic slaughter in Eastern Europe? Well, sort of, eventually.
Did it prevent the people of Tibet from losing their country? No.
Did it prevent millions from dying from starvation in Africa? No.
Did it prevent millions from dying from AIDS in Africa? No.

International oversight is a bogus concept, though "oversight" is indeed the correct word.

If someone takes an action that they know will likely cause the death or transfer of 5 million people of one group, it certainly IS anti-that group.

Actually, the likely result of creating Israel, was the almost immediate destruction of the new state.

[Darranar]

31. You're comparing apples to oranges...

because the Middle East is, and has been, a major strategic interest for a large number of states, the international community pays more attention to it.

And if you think no one is doing anything to help the AIDS victims in Africa and the starvation in Africa, you need to spend some time on the UN website.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. The world focuses on everything

It doesn't mean they do anything.

Sure, wow, the UN is really stopping AIDS. If I recall correctly, we had 3 million new cases in Africa this year.

[Darranar]

33. Yes...

Partition was nothing, the Road Map was nothing, Israeli/Egyptian peace was nothing, Israeli/Jordanian peace was nothing, Taba was nothing...

The international community has been highly involved in this from the start.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Not always highly involved

The international community set up a nation that was instantly at war. They did little.

That same nation has been in how many wars now? The international community does little.

Yes, sometimes peace efforts have helped in some way, but a rapid response is almost never at hand.

[Darranar]

35. Oh, you mean constant cease-fire efforts...

are little?

You are assuming that only military action is something.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. The UN is lame

It just is. I didn't design it so and I have strong doubts it can be fixed. Look at Africa if you have any doubts about what they have accomplished.

[Resistance]

27. Ah

so now what you have faith in is Israeli tanks and gunfire murdering Palestinian children, Israeli bulldozers destroying Palestinian homes, and Israeli helicopters slamming missiles into crowds of civilians. (while the "international community" stands idly by)

What a great way to fight for justice.

[brainshrub]

38. Let me get this straight:

Your fear is that a one-state solution, where Jews are a minority, would lead to the eventual whole-sale death & transfer of Jewish people in Israel?

[Jack Rabbit]

39. More logical fallacies, Muddle

In this case, your arguing a slippery slope. Your idea that a bi-national state, even a democratic bi-national state, will lead to a second Holocaust is akin to objecting to gay marriage on the grounds that it will lead to the destruction of the traditional family.

In any case, I don't think the single-state bi-national and democratic solution is worth much time discussing. It has too little support among Israelis. It's not going to happen.

[bluesoul]

40. I guess the problem is that even two separates states is

a problem for some.

[Jack Rabbit]

41. The problem with that is simple to see

If one opposes a bi-national democratic state and a two-state solution, it pretty well leaves the debate to Benny Elon and Sheikh Yassin.

Can you say zero-sum game? The only peace that leads to is the peace of the grave. The only question is: for whom?

[Resistance]

43. As long as the planners are safe and secure

what does it matter

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Sometimes when you stand on the slope

And you realized you have slipped a long way, it IS a slippery slope. Jews are not welcome in the many countries of the Arab world, what makes you assume they would be welcome as soon as their were minorities in a binational state?

As for the last statement, I agree. It won't happen and we can argue how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pin next.

[cprise]

122. So Jews would be like Native Americans?

I think its safe to assume that won't happen.

There's nothing preventing a single-state solution from constitutionally guaranteeing that Jews are welcome in Israel. This is different than the apartheid BS that the state must ensure an appropriate level of Jewishness.

[LeahMira]

42. Then maybe the problem is one of definition...

Anti-Zionists are opposed to Israel's terrorism and theft of land. There is nothing anti-Semitic about that whatsoever.


Zionism is not a term that is limited to a particular time or chain of events. Check out this site and find information about what Zionism means to the Jewish People: http://www.azm.org/jprog.html

It seems to me as if you are opposed to specific policies that have no direct relationship to Zionism.

As to your statements about terrorism and theft of land... there has been no "theft" of land. Israel was attacked several different times throughout its short history as a nation, beginning the day after the world community recognized it as a sovereign nation. When peace with its former attackers eventually became a possibility, Israel willingly returned land over which it had taken control in battles. Israel remains ready to return the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians as soon as peace becomes a viable possibility.

It is really sad that terrorist groups like Hamas are getting themselves involved. It seems to me that the Palestinian people are more than willing to come to some peace agreement and to recognize the sovereignty of the State of Israel in exchange for a recognition for the sovereignty of the State of Palestine. Anytime an agreement seems likely, though, Hamas or one of the other terrorist groups attacks Israel. Of course Israel is not going to come to any sort of peace agreement with anyone while its citizens are under attack.

But that has nothing directly to do with Zionism. Even back in the 1951 statement, Zionists said nothing specific about the boundaries of the State, etc. Zionism is simply a statement about the right of the Jewish People to have a homeland of their own in which their culture and traditions may flourish freely.

If you can't get yourself to support the idea that the Jewish People have a right to their own land in the same way as Germans have a right to their own land or English have a right to theirs, then you would be denying the Jewish People something which all other peoples of the world should enjoy. That would seem to me to be anti-Jewish.

[Resistance]

123. well

first of all, you're just wrong to say that there's been no "theft" of land - of course there has been theft of land; how do you think Israel got started in the first place? By massacring thousands, destroying entire villages, and kicking the natives out. That is theft.

You say that of course Israel won't agree on a peace deal while its citizens are under attack, well how about acknowledging that Palestinian citizens are also under attack? The IDF targets them on a regular basis.

You started off correctly, by saying that what I oppose are specific policies - murdering civilians, demolishing homes, stealing land, murdering peace activists, etc. The Zionist ideal is a noble one; I don't have a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is the ethnic cleansing that has (and still is) taking place in order to get that specific piece of land which most Zionists want to have.

Are you for or against ethnic cleansing, LeahMira?

[MikeGalos]

125. Israel got started in the first place

by purchasing tracts of land from the landowners using funds raised by people all around the world through the Jewish National Fund.

Most of the land was purchased was owned by absentee landlords living in the Ottoman Empire and Cairo. Land purchases of land owned by people actually living on the land were discouraged to avoid displacing Arab residents and in those cases a premium was paid over the retail value of the land.

That you didn't even know that speaks volumes of your choice of sources of "information"

[Resistance]

126. neato

and American conquerors "purchased" land from Native Americans too. We all recognize the ethnic cleansing back then, so what's the problem with recognizing it in Israel today? Nobody defends the theft and the massacres of Native Americans, so why defend the theft and massacres of Palestinians?

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Resistance]

128. so you defend theft of land and massacres of Palestinians?

I'm trying to understand why you justify it all the time, thanks.

[MikeGalos]

129. Cite your sources

both for theft of land, for massacres of Palestinians (well, by King Hussein but no others), and for my defending these.

[Resistance]

130. you're funny

"cite your sources" as if there is no theft of land and never been any massacres of Palestinians

:crazy:

[MikeGalos]

132. Precisely

Please state when there was "theft of land" or "massacres" or retract your claim.

You may believe they occurred. That is common error spread through such wonderfully staged lies as the "Jenin Massacre" that so many believed last year until the truth came out but, please, do your own homework before making claims you can't back up.

[bemildred]

14. That is simply ridiculous.

It is perfectly possible to oppose the creation of a
nation-state as a solution to persecution of the Jews
because one thinks it is a bad idea or because the current
implementation sucks, without in any way disliking Jews, or
Israelis, and there are many of us who do.

[Resistance]

45. furthermore

we may as well start arguing that anti-Jihadism = anti-Arabism. After all, "jihad" is only about the return of Palestinians to their homeland, y'know, and if you're against that, then surely you are an anti-Arab!

[bemildred]

49. Actually that isn't what jihad is about at all,

but even Muslims seem to disagree about it at times,
and I get your point. Something like anti-islamism
is anti-arabism seems a closer analogy, but it won't
stand up to close examination, as is true of all such
analogies.

[pistoff democrat]

53. This is the 2nd post showing you and I

might actually be able to bring some sort of balance on this forum.

The vitriol is terribly upsetting. :puke:

Would you please take the time to PM me? I would be most appreciative.

:thumbsup:

[bemildred]

54. Done.

[Gimel]

64. Impossible because

There is a Jewish state. To oppose "the creation" means to oppose the existence means to oppose the Jews who live there and the majority Jewish government that runs it. That's why anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Turning back the calendar to a pre-Jewish state is turning it back to a Holocaust.

[bemildred]

65. Babble.

You can babble such words all day long but it does
not make them so. There certainly are people who
question the current state of Israel and yet who are
not haters of Jews.

[MikeGalos]

66. Perhaps

you can give an example of someone who:

A) Believes that Israel should be dismantled
B) Does not oppose all nationalist claims. i.e. Does not believe that, say, the UK, France, or Egypt should be dismantled.
C) Thus believes that Jews should live as a minority everywhere
D) Does not hate Jews

If they don't meet A or D, they don't meet your criteria

If they don't meet B but do meet A, they are singling out the Jewish state for unique negative treatment, and singling out one ethnic group for negative treatment for no other reason is, by definition, bigotry against that group. In the case of Jews, we call that anti-Semitism.

If they say A and not C, they haven't given any thought to their statements and aren't worth listening to.

Now, if they meet A and B, they are radical anti-nationalists and while they hold a fringe political view, their views are, at least consistant. Note, however, that they'd also be equally opposed to a Palestinian state.

[bemildred]

67. That is ...

A.) Ridiculous
B.) Not what I said

[MikeGalos]

72. In what way

Please, feel free to explain how it is different.

Or how whoever you were thinking of meets those criteria.

Or, most likely, how those criteria, logical as they are, don't have to apply to whoever you were thinking of for whatever reason.

[bemildred]

73. That is it ridiculous is my opinion.

That it is not what I said you may see for yourself.

[MikeGalos]

75. So

you either can't or won't explain how it is different?

Please do so or retract your statements that they ARE different.

[bemildred]

77. Won't actually.

I intend to stick to my subject.

[MikeGalos]

80. Please do so, then

Your original claim was:

There certainly are people who question the current state of Israel and yet who are not haters of Jews.

I asked for examples. Please provide some. (And note that in the context of the conversation, it was the existance of the state of Israel that was in question not policies of the Israeli government so please don't change the subject).

[bemildred]

81. Please see post #76

[MikeGalos]

85. See Post 82

[MikeGalos]

133. Still waiting

for an actual explanation rather than just a "no it isn't" Monty Pythonesque refutation.

[bemildred]

134. I do appreciate your patience here. Just give me a bit longer. nt

[bemildred]

68. Are you aware that there are people who question

the goodness of nationalism and the notion of the
nation-state in general? Or is that outside your
World view?

[MikeGalos]

70. In the VERY POST of mine you are answering

I said:

Now, if they meet A and B, they are radical anti-nationalists and while they hold a fringe political view, their views are, at least consistant. Note, however, that they'd also be equally opposed to a Palestinian state.

or is reading the actual posts outside your World view?

[bemildred]

71. So you think that makes them anti-semitic?

[MikeGalos]

74. Reread

I didn't say it did. In fact, I said that NOT holding that view was a requirement. I also said that those opposing nationalism in general equally oppose a Palestinian state.

Really, it's a short post, it would make life easier if you'd just read it so I don't have to keep reiterating it over and over again.

[bemildred]

76. Well, that was the issue.

Whether one could question the current state of Israel
without being anti-semitic. Your "radical anti-nationalists"
represent one counter example.

The large and varied selection of Jews who have issues with
the the Zionist cause or it's implementation would represent
some others. They have varied points of view on the matter,
but it seems a bit ridiculous to me to imply that they must
as a consequence hate all Jews because they are Jews, or the like.

Edit: spelling

[MikeGalos]

82. So, then,

you are in support of:

Radical anti-nationalists who oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state and/or radical religious fundamentalists who oppose secular states

Should we take all your posts, then, in that context?

Is it also safe to assume, then, that with the exception of pure one-world antinationalists and religious fundamentalists who don't believe in secular states, you agree that treating Israel differently from other states, or holding Israel to standards higher than other states, or calling for Israel to cease to exist as a Jewish national homeland is anti-Semitism?

If not, please explain in context not of religious fundamentalism or pure anti-nationalism.

[bemildred]

87. I have not supported anything of the sort.

I have supported the idea that anti-semitism is a distinct
thing from having reservations about the State of Israel.
I have said what I said, and nothing else. It is not safe
to assume anything.

[MikeGalos]

90. So you're not going to back up your claim

that such a person actually exists.

Instead you're going to change the subject.

[bemildred]

92. See post #14

[Gimel]

78. Question?

Can you question the existence of another nation? Certainly if I questioned the existence of Palestine, which is not yet a nation, I would be bombarded on this forum.

I would be branded as a racist for sure. Where is there justice and equality in the world? Indeed, it is very rare. When it occurs, other want to steal it.

[bemildred]

79. I don't know that one can question the existence of a nation,

in the original sense of a people, but one certainly may
question a nation-state, the fact is they come and go, and
one may question the abstract notion that it forms the best
arrangement for human governance. All empires, for instance,
are not nation-states, though they may grow out of them, and
some think them superior instruments for imposing political
order, our PNACers do for instance.

[MikeGalos]

83. Please do so, then.

Please tell us any other nation-state that is having it's right to exist called into question?

Or, for that matter, and to show the context of some claims of possible anti-Semitism, show us an example of:

A Moslem nation-state whose existence is questioned?
A Christian nation-state whose existence is questioned?
A Buddhist nation-state whose existence is questioned?
A Secular nation-state whose existence is questioned?

That the ONLY nation-state whose existence is questioned is the ONLY Jewish nation-state is, perhaps, coincidence but it is certainly a very suspicious coincidence.

[bluesoul]

84. Palestine is questioned

as are Palestinians as a nation by some...

[MikeGalos]

86. Are you claiming

that Palestine is a nation-state?

Well, then. We can all go home. The two-state solution has already been implemented.

Care to actually give a try at answering the question?

[bluesoul]

88. I just did

Anyway I see no sense in further debate here.

[MikeGalos]

93. Ah

As an FYI, here's the question that bluesoul is walking away from. I ask anyone to answer. If you can't, it may be worth thinking about this as a reason why those of us who support Israel's right to exist (a right granted to every other nation-state in the world) feel a little suspicious.

---

Please tell us any other nation-state that is having it's right to exist called into question?

Or, for that matter, and to show the context of some claims of possible anti-Semitism, show us an example of:

A Moslem nation-state whose existence is questioned?
A Christian nation-state whose existence is questioned?
A Buddhist nation-state whose existence is questioned?
A Secular nation-state whose existence is questioned?

That the ONLY nation-state whose existence is questioned is the ONLY Jewish nation-state is, perhaps, coincidence but it is certainly a very suspicious coincidence.

[bluesoul]

95. You may feel as suspicious as you want

Obviously you have a hard time with people not sharing your views. I do not question the existance of Israel. I also don't question the existance of Palestinians as a nation or their right to the land they live on (and the UN partition). But that doesn't mean I am ready to swallow the RW policy of people like Sharon... Maybe because I am a liberal...

[bemildred]

89. Chechnya, Tibet, Tamil Nadu, Aceh to name a few.

There are actually many. And one can find many more in
the past. You are right there is only one Jewish one.

[MikeGalos]

91. Really

Who here is calling for the elimination of Tibet?

I see lots of nation-states and former nation-states listed that people want to protect but not any that people are calling to eliminate.

Try again, and this time, perhaps you could answer the actual question...

[bemildred]

94. No one here.

You asked for nation-states whose existence was in question.
I provided some.

[Jim Sagle]

98. It's not a question of DISLIKING Jews. It's this question:

Do Jews have the same right as anyone else to self-determination?

It seems to me that a "No" answer IS inherently anti-Jewish.

[bemildred]

99. Certainly they do have the same right.

But, you must be aware that nations that have their
own state are in the minority? One may question the
specific case on practical grounds without questioning
the principle, and in fact many apply and few are chosen.

Do you have any idea how many repressed minorities there
are in the World that would like to have self-determination
and will not get it? That have been swallowed up by some
empire or another?

In the specific case, one may object to the present state of
Israel because of it's effects on the non-Jewish indigenous
peoples of the area without in any way objecting to the idea of
Jewish nationalism in general, or even a Jewish state approximately
where it is now. The problem is not that the Jewish state IS,
but what it has done and not done.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

101. opposing a solution is one thing (easy part)...

having a better (and accepted) solution is another (hard part)...

[bemildred]

107. Very true.

Talk is cheap. One might in this context say in a similar
way that it is one thing to have a right to self-determination
and another to have a plan and the competence to carry it out
successfully, to do a good job of self-determination rather than
making a big, violent mess of it. Some might argue that if one
is not up to doing a good job of it, it would be better to not
attempt it at all. A bad solution may be worse than none.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

110. not sure if you are referring to Israel only...

but, you may just as well be referring to Palestine...

[bemildred]

113. It has much wider application than that.

In the Palestinian case, I think the issue exists only
because Jewish nationalism exists, sort of a Newtonian
reaction to the displacement of some of the indigenous
peoples there. Those people have been there all along,
but they were part of the larger culture, not treated as
aliens, so nationalist sentiments did not come into play.

In the Jewish case, I'm simply trying to say that one has
a better shot at success if one takes responsibility for
the results of one's activities rather pretending that they
all originate in external forces that one cannot control.
That simply leaves one stuck and impotent.

The early Zionists saw perfectly clearly that there would be
Arab resistance when they were displaced by Jews and argued
a good deal about how it should be handled. On the evidence
of the present situation, one may easily argue that they could
have handled it better. Perhaps it's not too late to change?

One can certainly make the same argument about the Palestinians,
that they could have handled it better, and many do here, and
there is some merit in it, but they have much less power to
affect the course of events, hence it seems a bit futile, or
at least an inefficient approach, to ask them to fix the situation,
and that would be to assume in the first place that the Palestinian
leadership has some interest in fixing it, a subject that is hotly
disputed here.

[Jack Rabbit]

37. Even if your conclusions are correct, your reasoning is flawed

One, the definition that "anti-semitism is an old European fantasy about Jews," is a lie. The very wording implies strongly that this is an almost out-of-date concept. Anti-Semitism has been going on for 2,000 years and continues to thrive in Europe and flourish in the Arab world.

First, you criticize Mr. Klug's characterization of anti-Semitisim as "an old European fanctasy" "implies strongly that this is an almost out-of-date concept." Then you point out that anti-Semitism has been going on for 2000 years. Do you agree with Mr. Klug or don't you? Your objections seem to want it both ways.

As for anti-Zionism, it is clearly anti-Semitic.

That's simply begging the question. To make such an assertion is no more sound than to assert than Zionism is a form of racism. (In case anybody is wondering, I reject that propostion.)

[rman]

124. many jews disagree with you about zionism being anti-semitic

http://www.google.com/search?q=jews+against+zionism&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0

[drdon326]

4. Stop me before ......

i get accused of slander...although it would be hard
to slander this junk.

"When this fantasy is projected on to Israel because it is a Jewish state, then anti-Zionism is anti-semitic. And when zealous critics of Israel, without themselves being anti-semitic, carelessly use language, such as "Jewish influence", that conjures up this fantasy, they are fuelling an anti-semitic current in the wider culture. "

so first he says that anti-zionism CAN be anti-semitism.

Then he says when anti-semitic statements are made (instead of
anti-zionist statements) then these are just "careless" and they really dont mean to be anti-semitic. Nice way to excuse anti-semitism.

This author has gone to great lengths to prove that anti-zionism
isnt anti-semitism and proved just the opposite.I hope he received
alot of petro-dollars for this nonsense.

[Resistance]

6. you've misrepresented the author's points entirely

This is unfortunate.

[drdon326]

9. Resistance....

after reading this exercise in mental masturbation,
I'm *ALMOST* ready to beg you for one of your
commemorative ISM articles....ALMOST.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Resistance]

8. well

"Jews strap bombs to their children and send them to explode in Arab marketplaces, buses, restaurants?"

No, but the Israeli army does murder innocent civilians on a regular basis, which is justifiably viewed as 'terrorism' by the victims. Opposition to the terrorism which the IDF engages in is not anti-semitic.

When did the author mention that every bad thing is the fault of "evil swarthy Jews", by the way? I missed that part.

[mobuto]

10. I think you miss the point

while I have utter contempt for the suicide bombers, the Palestinian leadership, and more or less the entire culture that produces them, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that the current Israeli policy isn't working.

There is only one possible solution.

It involves two states, the abandonment of most of the settlements (to the extent that some on the border are not abandoned, they are exchanged for land in the Negev), the demilitarization of the Palestinian State, a defensive security barrier, and policing of the terms of this agreement by the armed forces of the United States of America. Nothing short of that will work to stop the violence, and Israel will destroy itself if it doesn't give up the territories. In as little as seven years, Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel and the territories combined. And that'll be the end of Zionism.

David Ben Gurion understood what needed to be done forty years ago.

Take your pretence that anti-Zionism isn't anti-semitism and stuff it where the angels fear to tread.

I don't think that's quite right. It is technically possible for one to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic. I know an Orthodox rebbi who is exactly that. What is tue, however, is that in many cases, especially in Germany and Eastern Europe, and especially in the Arab world and its diaspora, that the two can go hand-in-hand. There isn't much of a leap from one to the other, and while American fans of Palestinian "activists" are usually sophisticated enough to differentiate between the two, their counterparts elsewhere often aren't.

[drewb]

16. We had ONE count 'em ONE instance of an Arab suicide bombing in the U.S.

I'm not convinced that it really was Arabs....

[drdon326]

17. Bwahahaha.......

one suicide bombing= 2700+ dead.....nothing to see here
move along.

this should be good...who do YOU think did that??

hmmm???

[pistoff democrat]

58. I know the ringleader who

reappeared for 2001 was in prison, but the Arab bombing of the WTC in 1993 caused how many deaths...suicide or murders?

[Gimel]

18. Political argument

Policies differ from anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism rejects a homeland for the Jewish people, rejects the historical and spiritual relationship of the Jewish nation of people to the land of Israel. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and most experts agree on that.

Changing the rules does not change the facts.

[bluesoul]

19. What is then

denying the Palestinans their right to the land they live on? Anti-Arabism? Anti-Palestinianism?

[Gimel]

22. If there is

someday a Palestinian state, you could coin such a word (although your first attempt would be obviously wrong since there are already 35 Arab counties).

[pistoff democrat]

29. Yes, it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=35114&mesg_id=35114

[Jack Rabbit]

30. Disappointing article

One could probably present a reasonable case that anti-Zionism does not necessarily equate to anti-Semitism; however, Mr. Klug doesn't make that case. This article could use a little Socratic method.

Zionism and anti-Semitism are both loaded words. Even Israel can be a loaded word. By using the word Israel, does one mean the abstract concept of a Jewish homeland? or Israel, the nation that sits on the coast of the eastern Mediterranean, defined by her present borders? or Greater Israel, a nation that exists in the minds of the Israeli right wing that stretches from the Jordan River to the sea and must remain Jewish at all costs? Mr. Klug should be careful to define precisely what he means by such terms before he uses them. He does not.

Hoiw one defines Israel will color how one defines Zionism. In some places in the article seems to be using the term Israel to define the Jewish homeland in the abstract:

Ottolenghi contends that "Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are".

Then he uses that definition to criticize Israel in the second or third sense:

(Y)ou do not have to be an anti-semite to reject the belief that Jews constitute a separate nation in the modern sense of the word or that Israel is the Jewish nation state.

His definition of anti-Semitism is sound enough as far as it goes:

Although the word only goes back to the 1870s, anti-semitism is an old European fantasy about Jews. The composer Richard Wagner exemplified it when he said: "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it." An anti-semite sees Jews this way: they are an alien presence, a parasite that preys on humanity and seeks to dominate the world.

And he's certainly correct in saying:

When this fantasy is projected on to Israel because it is a Jewish state, then anti-Zionism is anti-semitic.

However, he then goes on to criticize the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. He rightly asserts that such criticism is legitimate. He then jumps to the conclusion that he has proven that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

The problem is that not only is criticism of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories not necessarily anti-Semitic, it isn't necessarily anti-Zionist. If one supports a two-state solution to the crisis, then one supports the existence of a Jewish state. If Zionism is the belief in and support for the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state, it is hard to see how supporting a two-state solution to the present conflict could be anti-Zionist.

If one embraces the single state solution as invisioned by the likes of Benny Elon and other members of the Israeli right wing, then support for a two-state solution could be considered anti-Semitic. So could support for a bi-national democratic state. People such as Elon view the sitution as a zero-sum game in which for one side to win, the other must lose; consequently, any concession to the Palestinians is a loss for Israeli Jews and Jews all over the world, and therefore both anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic. In this view, all criticism of Israel -- defined gernerally in the thrid sense above -- is both anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic. Indeed, to them, whatever is anti-Zionist is also anti-Semitic. However, Elon and his friends are rightwing morons, not reasonable human beings. Let us dismiss their case as irrelevant.

Mr. Klug might support the solution of a single state on the Levant that is both bi-national and democratic. In such a state, Jews will be assured of equal rights; this is something they did not enjoy during their centuries of residence in Europe. One could make a case that support for such a state, which could not be a Jewish state, is anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic.

However, support for this solution is not high among Israelis and, as a consequence, hardly seems worth discussing. Whatever merits it may have, it's not going to happen.

[number6]

46. agree..

anti-Zionism = anti-semitism.

I don't buy it. Zionism good or bad ?

that's another argument...

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Zionism

Since Zionism means supporting Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, I think Zionism is a good thing.

[number6]

48. Its also a question of how you support it.

taking other peoples land, or just building a homeland.

do you think most Zionists are good and a few bad, or
all Zionists are good no matter what ?

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Your questions

How do you propose handling a situation where two groups both claim the same land?

As for Zionists (and I am one), they are like every other group -- some good, some bad, most both.

[number6]

51. Its a difficult situation, with no easy answers

I doubt either side would like my solution.

I'd propose one secular state, yes I know that would
go over like a lead balloon .....
Certainly Islamic Fundamentalists wouldn't like it
Jews want a Jewish State...
or maybe a secular country made up of a Jewish state and a
Palestinian state,(province) equal rights and citzenship
for all.

[Resistance]

131. the thing is

there already is a single state. There's a single state already established with a huge ghetto they've created, and now need to take responsibility and do something about. The choice now is between Apartheid or true Democracy.

[pistoff democrat]

52. Are you aware of any history prior to 1967?

Just curious...really. ;-)

[number6]

55. yes

world history

Israel - Palestine ,.. read the encyclopedia ;-)

am I an expert on the middle east,? no

[pistoff democrat]

56. Well, that explains it all.

eom

[Jim Sagle]

57. Sometimes it isn't and sometimes it is. We all know it.

[Resistance]

59. Quite true

Let me ask you something else, Jim -- Do you think the 'anti-semitic card' is ever wrongfully played, in an intentional attempt at stifling legitimate criticism? In my view, this type of reaction only hurts everyone concerned.

[Jim Sagle]

60. Yes - it IS often played. And it IS quite damaging.

But I think the pre-emptive "they're going to accuse me of anti-semitism" card is often played as well.

[MikeGalos]

62. And, realistically

the pre-emptive "they're going to accuse me of anti-semitism" card is much less valid and much more disingenuous since:

We can all agree that there ARE some anti-Israel and "anti-Zionist" people who ARE anti-Semites even if we disagree on percentages

No sane person can agree with the converse proposed by this article and quite a few posters here throughout the years that because anti-Israel lobbiests who are not anti-Semites exist therefore being opposed to any Israeli government policy clears you of any possibility of anti-Semitism.

[Resistance]

63. how about

we stop comparing apples and oranges altogether?

[MikeGalos]

69. Who is?

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean?

[Resistance]

96. comparing "anti-Zionism" with "anti-semitism"

is comparing apples and oranges.

Just because I don't like apples doesn't mean I have anything against oranges.

[MikeGalos]

97. Well

it's more like apples and apple pie.

Since Zionism is the nationalist movement of the Jewish people to oppose Zionism is either to oppose nationalist movements in general (akin to disliking all fruit pies) or opposing nationalism only for Jews (only disliking Apple pie but liking every other fruit pie)

If somebody said they really like every kind of fruit pie except apple pie and really hate apple pie, it isn't unreasonable to question whether they dislike apples.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

100. that dog won't hunt

you make a basic logic error in your analogy

"Since Zionism is the nationalist movement of the Jewish people to oppose Zionism is either to oppose nationalist movements in general (akin to disliking all fruit pies) or opposing nationalism only for Jews (only disliking Apple pie but liking every other fruit pie)"

Your analogy sadly ignores what most pies are "mixed fruit". How about opposed to natialist movements based upon a single 'fruit'.

Back to the drawing board.

B

[MikeGalos]

102. The analogy may not hunt

but the point is still valid.

Most of the nation-states in the world are not "mixed fruit". Most are "single fruit" with very few exceptions.

Please let us know when you decide to call for the dissolution of, say, all those dozens of single fruit nation-states in the Arab world, then we can talk.

BTW: Israel has a more religiously diverse population than the US or any Arab state.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[MikeGalos]

112. No matter how you strain the analogy

If a person believes that nationalism is good except for Jewish nationalism, then that person is anti-Jewish.

Period.

No matter what type of pie is involved.

Now, if you want to talk about single flavor pies, please note the requirement of an Arab-Only State in the Palestinian Charter. Great diversity you're backing there...

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

114. No, Mike you are wrong - 2+2 does not = 5

up is down, black is white. The burden of proof is with you and your claim.

"If a person believes that nationalism is good except for Jewish nationalism, then that person is anti-Jewish.

Period.

No matter what type of pie is involved."

you tried to make your case and admitted it was faulty....but somehow you are correct? It's your faulty analogy, the strain is all yours.

"Now, if you want to talk about single flavor pies, please note the requirement of an Arab-Only State in the Palestinian Charter. Great diversity you're backing there..." Now you are back to the pies - guess what Mike, I don't back that either - see, I am the one being consistant. Your Jewish state is fine but point fingers at Palestinains...please.

Mike, you can be a nationalist based upon geography and not based upon a single race or religion - it's not rocket science.

If you are proud of the diversity of Israel, and you should be - ethnic diversity is a wonderful thing, why is more a terrible? Why play both sides of the fence?

The carcus is now starting to stink

B

[MikeGalos]

115. So you'll take a stand

and refuse to support the PA until they agree to allow Jewish settlers to stay as citizens of Palestine with full rights if they want to?

[MikeGalos]

116. In fact

you'll label them as a racist, apartheid group that should be boycotted and condemned by all nations?

(Or are the rules different only for "apple pie"?)

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[MikeGalos]

104. Not by any definition of the word

that hasn't been granted some wierd neologism by Israel bashers trying to rewrite the language to cover their logically falacious arguments.

I could claim that the word Palestinian also means "An Arab who tries to murder innocent Israelis" but that would be ludicrous and deceptive and designed to cause harm and pain. And I would be just as ludicrouse and insulting and deceptive in trying to manufacture such a biased meaning to a word. My only motive would be to keep discussion from having meaning, to bias the language of discussion and to censor my opponents by redefining the word to fit my and only my worldview.

Redefining Zionism to mean what you want it to mean is just such a case, is just as invalid and is just as mean-spirited and dishonest and intellectually false.

[Resistance]

105. wrong

let me ask you something: would you say you are against Palestinian Jihad?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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