Comments: HaCohen On Foxman On Anti-Semitism

It's a pickle, that's for sure. Now, where's the ham?

Posted by James at February 17, 2009 11:08 AM

Its never REALLY about the fucking pickle, Man.

Posted by Mike Meyer at February 17, 2009 11:39 AM

I don't want a pickle, I just want to ride on my motorcycle.

It will be interesting to see how the the boycott campaign plays out: http://usacbi.wordpress.com

I'm curious as to how much ammo is left in the "anti-semite" clip. I'm cautiously hopeful.

Posted by Pulaski at February 17, 2009 11:51 AM

Anti-Meism has been on the rise ever since I murdered those nuns. Why oh why am I so persecuted?

Posted by AlanSmithee at February 17, 2009 12:00 PM

The logic almost hurts.

Posted by dapajoe at February 17, 2009 01:11 PM

You pose a false dichotomy when you imply the the alternative to the notion that every criticism of Israel is antisemitic, is that no criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

The holding of Israel to a different standard than, say, its Arab neighbors, in order to condemn it is clearly antisemitic in origin. The kneejerk response of American neocons should not blind you to the fact that many criticisms of Israel are thinly disguised attacks on Jews.

Posted by Green Eagle at February 17, 2009 05:24 PM

If there are many, it should be easy for you to provide a few examples. From sources that are not too obscure, please.

Posted by abb1 at February 17, 2009 05:31 PM

"The holding of Israel to a different standard than, say, its Arab neighbors, in order to condemn it is clearly antisemitic in origin".
This would be true if it were happening and happening to the Arabs' favour. But it is not (at last).

Posted by James at February 17, 2009 05:34 PM

When I was a child, growing up in Israel, my (orthodox) father actually stated that the people scheduling good movies for screening on the (Israeli, Jewish-state-run) channel for Friday night - when observant Jews won't use electricity - were anti-Semites.

That pretty much put the whole "who is an anti-Semite" thing into perspective for me. An anti-Semite is someone who irritates a Jew.

That makes me HORRIBLY anti-Semitic. I'm not even Jewish anymore. What an irritant!

Posted by Dena Shunra at February 17, 2009 06:00 PM

""The holding of Israel to a different standard than, say, its Arab neighbors, in order to condemn it is clearly antisemitic in origin".
This would be true if it were happening and happening to the Arabs' favour. But it is not (at last)."

Have you shown equal concern for the tens of thousands of Islamicists killed by the Egyptian government? Or the hundred thousand or more killed by the successive governments of Algeria? How about the two million non-Islamic people slaughtered by the Islamic government of Sudan in its decades-long campaign of religious cleansing?
Can you compare for me the Israeli attitude toward Jerusalem with the Saudis, who will execute any non-Muslim who dares to enter Mecca or Medina? Can you comment on the admittedly poor treatment of Arab Israelis, versus the treatment of Jews in Saudi Arabia (whoops- they aren't allowed there at all, are they?) or Pakistan, or Egypt? What is Hamas' official position toward Jews, compared with Israel's official position toward Muslims? How many Jews sit in the parliaments of any other Mideastern countries?

You know the answers to these questions; your willful avoidance of the truth makes you a racist bigot, whether you care to admit it or not.

Posted by Green Eagle at February 17, 2009 06:42 PM

The holding of Israel to a different standard than, say, its Arab neighbors, in order to condemn it is clearly antisemitic in origin

*sigh*

No, it isn't. Unfair, hyperbolic, pre-judged, rude, irrational, Nazi-comparing, tactless or just plain weird criticism of the state of Israel is not antisemitism nor "clearly Anti-Semitic in origin". Hating Jews as a group, for whatever bizarre reasons, is antisemitism. What you're talking about, at best, is anti-Israelism.

There may be some antisemitically motivated criticism of Israel but you demonstrate that origin by demonstrating the antisemitism not by alleging the criticism is invalid.

But then I'm not entirely certain why holding Israel to a higher standard is impermissable in any way - isn't it "the only democracy in the Middle east" after all?

Posted by RobWeaver at February 17, 2009 06:53 PM

Have you shown equal concern for blah blah blah

Interesting you focus on Arab states. No criticism for Burma? America's genocidal history in Africa, Latin America and South East Asia? That narco-fascist Uribe? America's pal Islam Karimov? Et cetera? I wonder why you have that focus? You know, that racial focus.

Posted by RobWeaver at February 17, 2009 07:01 PM

Iran constitutionally has a Jewish and a Christian member of its parliament to represent those minority populations.

Posted by Seth at February 17, 2009 07:35 PM

RobWeaver-I think it makes perfect sense to compare Israel with Arab or Muslim states on the question of human rights abuses. What's the big deal about that? Seems obvious to me.

However, you kind of made his point about all the countries that are so much worse than Israel. Indeed I wonder why so much of the world's left is so frothily convinced that Israel represents most of the evil on Earth today.

Posted by Seth at February 17, 2009 07:43 PM

Israel is the most racist country in the world and a lot of it's defenders are closeted racists. -But NOT because they are Jewish.

all this happened before, with Jewish people not even involved.

For example, the "manifest destiny" movement in US history. Those people convinced themselves God wanted them (the white Americans) to have all the land all the way to the Pacific ocean.

At the time critics existed and pointed out 'manifest destiny' was racist. But this had little effect on events: the racists had their way; they collectively killed and stole land from the native Americans until their group stretched from "sea to shining sea"

Sound familiar?

People who call themselves "zionists" typically do not know about "manifest destiny", despite the deep similarities. Somehow, not knowing allows them to convince themselves that Israel is being picked on because of the Jewish race/religion, when that is not what is happening.

==>seriously, Green Eagle, you need to get over yourself! Virtually no critic today of Israel cares about your religion or race. We don't care that you are Jewish! (I am assuming you are). It is Zionism we are mad about.

And btw, Palestinians are people, too. Just like you.

Posted by Henry at February 17, 2009 08:33 PM

Americans preaching against human rights abuse, all the while opperating GITMO, funny.

Posted by Mike Meyer at February 17, 2009 08:34 PM

you kind of made his point about all the countries that are so much worse than Israel

Yeah, here's a thought, y'all - I borrow it from the Buddhists. Get a little cylinder, perhaps attached to a thread or sash so you can spin it with your fingers. Hell, a proper prayer wheel sized one is fine if you like to be flamboyant. Then write on it "In condemning this atrocity I also equally condemn every evil thing done by every evil person ever." Then when you intend to speak out about something you can spin the wheel so you don't have to get the adolescent "Oh, you criticize X but you won't criticize Y!" response from the sort of twits who think that's a substantive argument. Or if you do get that response you can say "Yeah, I did. Didn't you see me spin the fucking wheel?!"

------

I was merely pointing out, Jon, how amusing it was for a dude who just called someone a racist bigot to be so extraordinarily obsessed with the crimes of Arabs, particularly when they have, as an alternative, not-so-much-of-a-giveaway option, Seth's cunning plan of mentioning, like, everyone.

OK, so a little sneery...

Posted by RobWeaver at February 17, 2009 10:31 PM

"You know the answers to these questions; your willful avoidance of the truth makes you a racist bigot, whether you care to admit it or not."

It was the ham, wasn't it? I shouldn't have mentioned the ham.
Sorry. I'm very sorry. I'm so .......

Posted by James at February 18, 2009 04:53 AM

Rob is correct; surely denying the Sudan government's god-given right to defend itself against the rebels must be a form of bigotry, plain and simple. Look at some of the Sudan's neighbors; Israel, for example: 60 years of ethnic cleansing, 40 years of military occupation, millions of people living in refugees camps for generations, endless chain of massacres, assassinations, plunder, kidnappings, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, you name it. Why would any objective observer even mention Sudan?

Posted by abb1 at February 18, 2009 05:13 AM

But it's true what Green Eagle said. There are plenty of awful regimes in the region. There are all sorts of examples of one religious group killing off another group. How are Christians doing in Iraq these days? I mean the ones not wearing American uniforms.

Hamas waged a war with the intended purpose of causing a reaction. It was Hamas' intention that shooting rockets from civilian targets within Gaza was going to cause civilian casualties when the inevitable Israeli reaction occurred. You either have to believe that Hamas wanted what happened or they are all incredibly stupid. Roll the cameras.

Hamas, who assassinated and tortured their political opposition. Hamas, who puts its population in jeopardy by waging a war it can't win and that can only cause more misery for its people.

So we have a fascist clique engaging in a no-win war basing its actions on a reactionary religion. That religion is incredibly sexist, crushes individuality, is exploited for all sorts of political violence and is heavily stirred into a broth served up by its leaders that calls for the extermination of Jews.

Sounds like something any progressive can get behind.

Now it's true that because Europeans got into a frenzy of genocide culminating in the forties that Jews stole a country sixty years ago. If you examine the religious reasons behind our country's foundation you'll find even thinner reeds to grasp. And a lot more ethnic cleansing.

And lookie, lookie at all the intelligentsia who embrace the Palestinian "cause". I'm sure all the white American folk at this blog are packing their bags and readying their return to Europe so that Native Americans can reclaim their land.

If you keep starting barfights with a bigger guy, eventually you own your broken nose.

Israel isn't going anywhere. Hamas can't exist without keeping Gaza in a state of war and violence. Get used to it. Don't get repetitive stress wringing your hands. See you in a decade.

Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 18, 2009 10:35 AM

By the way, Abe Foxman's group ran an off-the-shelf domestic spying op for the government against plenty Bay Area progressive groups back in the late 80s, early 90s, including my union, so I have no love for the man or his tactics. Please don't confuse my distaste for Hamas with any love for Foxman.

Two things can be equally true: Foxman is an asshole and Hamas wanted the latest invasion. And the third thing: a lot of progressives can get onboard against Israel without noticing who's on their boat with them.

Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 18, 2009 11:07 AM

...a lot of progressives can get onboard against Israel...

I'm genuinely curious: is it difficult to understand the reasons for that? And on the flip side, what is it that makes you—and others here who are solid on so many other issues—feel you should defend Israel?

Posted by John Caruso at February 18, 2009 11:36 AM

Hamas is a resistance movement, Bob. A resistance movement with a just cause. If it is, indeed, a sexist organization, surely it's completely beside the point. I doubt Belarus partisans circa 1943 were particularly nice people either.

Posted by abb1 at February 18, 2009 11:59 AM

MIDDLEAST a world governed by assholes armed by "made in USA". (a land once flowing with milk and honey now clogged with cluster bombs and 'willy pete')
One may well side with the Israelis and blame Hamas or vice versa. In the end YOU are the REAL problem, with YOUR dollars and YOUR guns and YOUR lies.

Posted by Mike Meyer at February 18, 2009 12:03 PM

abb1: Bob's sort of right though: Hamas doesn't just want Israel to back off, they want it gone period. They also are against all Jews internationally too.

Posted by Jenny at February 18, 2009 01:49 PM

So Hamas is a resistance movement with a just cause, to overthrow the government of Israel. It tortures and assassinates political opponents within Gaza, but we'll overlook that because it's a just cause. Does it allow all manner or worship or the right to not believe in Allah or any other religion? Never mind, it's a just cause.

In order to "overthrow" Israel it allows rockets to be fired into Israel, which strengthens the right-wing in Israel and creates support with Israelis to do something about this. These military targets are within the civilian population, a violation of the Geneva Convention if I recall correctly, which puts its own citizens in jeopardy. And for what military gain?

If I may be so crass, the latest war in Gaza was a publicity stunt, set up by Hamas in order to garner anti-Israel publicity around the world, and with which Israel complied enthusiastically which helped push the right-wing's political agenda within Israel.

There is no military value to shooting rockets into Israel. There is no way that Israel is going to give up. Its conventional military forces have no equal in the area, and their nuclear arms can and will flatten Islam in an endgame.

So why do they do it? To engender violence against the Palestinians in Gaza and thus organize and strengthen that organization against the Other.

So if we go with abb1 and say that partisans are often not nice people and we should overlook those things, then are Hamas effective? Yes, they are effective in getting their people killed, their buildings blown up and their sewers backed up.

I'm not defending Israel. I'm defending reality. I don't think that Israel should exist as a religious state. It does. Like most other countries around the world it was created by violence. Nevertheless, it's not going to be crushed by Hamas. And as a progressive it's embarrassing to see other progressives cuddling up to women-hating religious zealots who set up their own people to be killed in order to gain a little more political power.

Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 18, 2009 01:55 PM

On the PR level they do it to demonstrate that resistance is alive and that there will be no peace without justice. That's important.

But there is a strategic value in it as well. Zionism's main business is importing people susceptible to the Zionist idea from all over the world; these people are given the resources that belong to the Palestinians; without them there is no Zionist state, no need for resistance. With home-made rockets falling from the sky fewer people will immigrate. Some will emigrate. The economy will suffer, more emigrate. That is how Hamas might win.

Again, the (alleged) religious zealotry, alleged women-hatred, particular tactics they use, things they (allegedly) say - this is all beyond the point. Hamas is merely a reaction to something. If you don't like the symptom, stop doing whatever it is that's causing it.

Like most other countries around the world it was created by violence.

If that's your argument, then you really have no reason to complain about anything Hamas might be doing or saying. Or any other group for that matter. Countries are created by violence, and destroyed by violence. 6 million Jews were killed by violence 65 years ago. 4 million Vietnamese were killed by violence 40 years ago. I agree: looking from Alpha Centauri it's all the same; totally unremarkable. But then what do you care to comment on the details?

Posted by abb1 at February 18, 2009 03:00 PM

Abb1: Do you agree with Hamas ultimate goal though, the complete destruction of Israel no matter whether every Israeli agrees with their own government or not? I think you should look at this: http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2009/01/refusal.html

Posted by Jenny at February 18, 2009 05:00 PM

Abb1: Do you agree with Hamas ultimate goal though, the complete destruction of Israel no matter whether every Israeli agrees with their own government or not? I think you should look at this: http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2009/01/refusal.html

Posted by Jenny at February 18, 2009 05:01 PM

THINGS WE CAN LEARN FROM READING THE HAMAS CHARTER

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.
…the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day.
… and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement. (watch out, you guys in Spain- Israel first, you next)
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
With their money, (Jews) took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others.
(Jews) were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there
(Jews) formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies…
With their money (Jews) were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
(Jews) were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources.
(Jews) formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
…when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that "Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women."
The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion”…
* * * *
After reading these quotes from the Hamas charter, would you care to make your argument again that there is no overlap between anti-Israeli sentiment and antisemitism?

Posted by Green Eagle at February 18, 2009 05:05 PM

Jenny, like I said, I think Hamas is a symptom. It's a resistance movement that has emerged as a reaction to some serious villainy that's been going on in Palestine for quite some time now. Same is Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. If Israel behavior changes, Hamas will change as well, or it will become less and less relevant.

Besides, I don't even know what to make of your question. What does "the complete destruction of Israel" mean - Israel as a Zionist state? Yes, I definitely would like Israel to become a normal state. Are they against the name "Israel"? I don't really care about that. What's "the complete destruction"?

Posted by abb1 at February 18, 2009 05:31 PM

Abb1,

You ask Jenny, "What does "the complete destruction of Israel" mean..."

If I may take the liberty of quoting from my above post on the Hamas charter, "…the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day.
… and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."

THAT is what the complete destruction of Israel means. Jenny, I apologize for rushing in to answer in your place.

Posted by Green Eagle at February 18, 2009 06:31 PM

The above post contains so much cant and misinformation that it is hard to deal with. Let me just point out:

1. The Hamas charter says what it says. Your denials rely on ignoring the fact that Hamas has acted to further its stated goals throughout its existence. Further, what I quoted was in support of my suggestion that there is a decided link between much criticism of Israel and antisemitism. You ducked that issue completely.

2. 10,000 missiles and mortar shells is, in your opinion, not an act of aggression. I think most reasonable people might disagree with that.

Answer this: Do Jews have a right to self determination in their homeland? And, if you answer no, can you tell me what other ethnic group has no right to self-determination in its homeland.

Posted by Green Eagle at February 18, 2009 08:14 PM

Maybe Israel refused because they were frightened off by Hamas' charter? And nowadays, they're highly disorganized(battling with the fatah*, asking for a one-sided cease fire*,etc.). They also had a few flawed solutions such as requesting Israel to withdrawl to pre 67 borders which would erupt in a war all over again. I don't like what Israel is doing at all; they need to halt the settlements and unblock the borders to stop starvation. However, I doubt Hamas will ever want a united one state outcome, they want every Israeli gone period.

* http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230733155685&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

* See this: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200918155333111890.html

Posted by Jenny at February 18, 2009 08:24 PM

Let's not forget al-Andalus (Spain) which also must be restored to dar al-Islam.

But here is a nice pictoral of Sudanese refugees getting married in Israel. I guess they are not so racist that they won't admit black Christian refugees. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1065201.html

Posted by Seth at February 18, 2009 09:01 PM
(Arrgh! This post is to fix unclosed tags - dunno if it's necessary but just in case). Posted by RobWeaver at February 18, 2009 09:48 PM

Rob,

"...can you tell me what other ethnic group has no right to self-determination in its homeland.

Gee, that's a toughie."

This is disingenuous. You know that I am asking YOU to state what ethnic group besides Jews you believe has no right to self-determination. We both agree with the large majority of the Israeli people that the Palestinian people have a right to self determination.

And by the way, wait until the 10,000 missiles fall on you, and then see how you feel. You have still evaded the issue of Hamas' pursuit of an openly racist program.

P.S. I just want to say thanks to you and others for this continued, if heated conversation. I'm so used to comment threads being nothing but people airing their own opinions and ignoring everybody else, that I am very pleased to actually have some sort of discussion.

Posted by Green Eagle at February 18, 2009 10:29 PM

abb1: "On the PR level they do it to demonstrate that resistance is alive and that there will be no peace without justice. That's important."

This sounds eerily like the PR level that the Weathermen used when they were blowing up things in my youth. In case you weren't around then, they did nothing to end the Vietnam War and only brought discredit to the peace movement.

But if PR is important, we should expect lots more Palestinians to be killed in the foreseeable future. You shoot rockets at civilians in one country, expect a reaction from that country, no matter the importance of the symbolism.

So now that we know what's going to happen for the foreseeable future (Hamas getting more of their people killed and the Gazan infrastructure being further crushed all for the glorious symbolism of Qassam rockets possibly killing commuters standing at bus stops) then I guess we should parse our outrage against Israel so that it will last for a long time until the justice of killing all those Jews and pushing them into the sea comes to pass.

Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 18, 2009 10:39 PM

Israel's human rights record stinks, but no more so than any other European colonialist settler state--in fact, it's not as bad as some have been. It still stinks though and the smell has been there since the very beginning, not simply since 1967. And we support it and in the US one constantly hears pundits and politicians blabbing about its virtues, as though the fact that 19th century America was a democracy (by the standards of its time) somehow justified what it did to the Native Americans. So that's why I think it's appropriate to bash it harder in this country. When the US in particular stops being so ridiculously one-sided in Israel's favor, then it'll be appropriate to treat Israel as just another country in the Mideast with a crappy human rights record.

Hamas stinks too, though as the person quoted in the CJR points out, there's a history to this--Hamas is the sort of enemy a colonial state tends to get when it stomps on more rational opponents.

On the Israel/Arab atrocity comparison thing, the main reason I really like Robert Fisk is that he doesn't seem to pull punches. He'll tell you about the brutality of the Israelis, the various Palestinian factions, the Christian Phalangists, the Algerian government, the Iraqi government, the Turks, and so on without feeling the need to make excuses and he seems disgusted and sickened by all of it. And yet, weirdly enough, he's not popular with anyone in the US except us far lefties--he's not someone I ever see recommended by any Israel-defender. They hate him because he treats their favored government with the same degree of justified contempt that he dishes out to all the other thugs.

Posted by Donald Johnson at February 18, 2009 10:49 PM

Most Zionists are also anti-semitic. Look at the way they treat their fellow Semites the Arabs.

Honestly, irony just contacted me via my ouija board begging the Zionists to just stop already.

Posted by floopmeister at February 18, 2009 11:06 PM

""We both agree with the large majority of the Israeli people that the Palestinian people have a right to self determination."

I don't believe this. The underlying claim here is that we and the vast majority of Israelis are the good guys, desperately wanting a fair solution, and it's that evil Hamas that is standing in the way. One sees this a lot in the West and I think it just reflects the fact that we find Western forms of hypocrisy and doublethink more congenial than Hamas's crude hate speech, but the actions supported by those mainstream liberal Israelis are not that different from those supported by either the Israeli right or Hamas. I think there are a lot of Israelis who, like most Westerners, want to feel good about themselves, so they say they support the idea of a Palestinian state, if only they had a partner for peace and in the meantime the settlements just keep expanding. And Israel and the US oppose a Palestinian unity government in 2007 and try to topple Hamas and impose sanctions which hurt everyone in Gaza and then talk as though the rockets just come out of nowhere and cheer for the war on Gaza, which was one big massive war crime.

There's a small minority of Israelis who truly support peace, but I think the mainstream Israeli politicians deserve about the same level of trust one should give Hamas leaders.

Posted by Donald Johnson at February 18, 2009 11:17 PM

Can we just accept that "anti-Semitism" is a term of art meaning anti-Jewish prejudice? It grew out of a 19th century European environment of Jew hatred in which Jews were the only Semites within hating difference.

It is inexact, yes. But it is so unclever and sophomoric to keep pointing out that it should "really" include Arabs. Ok, point taken, whatever.

Posted by Seth at February 18, 2009 11:40 PM

You know that I am asking YOU to state what ethnic group besides Jews you believe has no right to self-determination.

Oh, OK. Catholics. The left-handed. Trekkies. People with an embarrassing middle name. You know - people who aren't a nationality. Like Jews.

Now, Israelis might have a right to self-determination, being in situ and all, in many cases having been so for a number of decades (or longer), though possibly that right is qualified by other circumstances. But Jews are not the same as Israelis and Israelis are not the same as Jews (and nowhere in that region is a "Jewish" homeland, despite what fairytales you might have heard). And you should avoid using the terms interchangeably.

Unless, that is, you want to give us a clue as to what you might mean by a Jewish right of self-determination, which I'd hazard to guess you equate with the "right" to keep Israel a Jewish state (also euphemistically known as "Israel's right to exist") never mind that as soon as you so insist you deny self-determination to a fifth of the population of Israel "proper", not to mention the few million suffering under Israeli military occupation.

And by the way, wait until the 10,000 missiles fall on you, and then see how you feel.

Oh my Lord! They all fell on the same Israeli? How is the poor fellow?

You have still evaded the issue of Hamas' pursuit of an openly racist program.

No, I haven't. I've pointed out it is irrelevant. You either have a legitimate intention to pursue a peaceful settlement or you wank on about the other side's rhetoric as an excuse not to. When the ceasefire was called, Hamas ceased firing missiles as promised, but Israel did not cease the siege as promised. Despite this Hamas maintained the ceasefire - while the Israeli government continued with its planning of the invasion - until the Israeli incursion on 4 November 2008. So, turning dispiritedly to the subject of actions rather than words, who has shown a real commitment to peace?

Aaaaaand - Israel is the aggressor. And, as a wise man once said, aggressors have no rights, only obligations.

I am very pleased to actually have some sort of discussion.

To be honest, I can't say I am. Think I'll bow out and go do something interesting.

Posted by RobWeaver at February 19, 2009 12:18 AM

In fact, I think a part of what the word "Jew" means, one of the characteristics of a "Jew" is being in diaspora.

People living in a geographic area have the right to self-determination. Everybody, including of course the Jews, has the right to self-determination as a part of their community, community defined by geography, not religion or culture or genetics.

Posted by abb1 at February 19, 2009 02:57 AM

They also had a few flawed solutions such as requesting Israel to withdrawl to pre 67 borders which would erupt in a war all over again.

How is this a flawed solution (assuming we are talking about two-state solutions here)? This is THE two-state solution, prescribed by international law, along with the return of the refugees.

Of course if withdrawal to the pre-67 borders seems unsatisfactory, Israel could consider the border from the original UN resolution, the 50/50 division, instead of 78/22. Perhaps that border, being, obviously, more equitable, would produce a more stable configuration?

Posted by abb1 at February 19, 2009 04:06 AM

Oh boy! Another rehash of "the Palestinian civilians deserved to be bombed because some Israeli schoolkid wet his pants at the totally ineffective fireworks Hamas fires at Israel." This isn't exactly news to anybody.

The eventual fate of the Jewish State of Israel is to be destroyed. It exists entirely dependent upon the sponsorship of the US and the US is dependent upon declining oil resources to extend it's power into the Middle East. Eventually, probably very soon, the American population will realize that Israeli partisians have corrupted their government and they will be purged as simply being too expensive. (Bernie Maddoff ring a bell?) Support for Israel will dry up and that will be that. There is no law of physics that says Israel gets to piss off all it's neighbors till the end of time. Israel is NOT a viable state. It will go. Google: "Israeli brain drain" and it's clear that the best and brightest in Israel are getting the hell out leaving no-nothing Likudniks to manage on their own.

Posted by Pangolin at February 19, 2009 07:32 AM

"The eventual fate of the Jewish State of Israel is to be destroyed" Hang on do you want a unified one state with Israelis and Palestinians or do you want all the jewish citizens sent away from Israel back to Europe?

"How is this a flawed solution (assuming we are talking about two-state solutions here)? This is THE two-state solution, prescribed by international law, along with the return of the refugees. "

Cite?

Posted by Jenny at February 19, 2009 02:01 PM

UN resolutions 194 and 242.

Posted by abb1 at February 19, 2009 02:12 PM

John Caruso asks, "Green Eagle: I'm curious what you consider to be the borders of this Jewish homeland you cite, and in particular whether it includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, or the ever-expanding territory grab that goes under the blanket designation of Jerusalem."

John,
First, let me say that, as a result of a job having nothing to do with religion, I have spent a fair amount of time in Jerusalem and the West Bank, so I am somewhat familiar with the conditions there.

In my opinion, the West Bank and Gaza are not and should not be part of Israel. The settlers there should be told that they are free to stay as long as they have some legal claim to their land, and they do not mind living in a state governed and policed by Palestinians.

I see nothing wrong with the capitol of that state being in East Jerusalem, although, if you are familiar with the geography of East Jerusalem, you might wonder how that would be practical. There are certain "settlements" which really are suburbs of Jerusalem. I don't know how to deal with some of these, except on an individual, non-ideological basis (if such a thing is even conceivable).

Now, on to RobWeaver. Rob, left handed people (of which I am one- you should see my 1966 left handed Stratocaster) and Trekkies are not ethnic groups, as you well know. This kind of response suggests that you have no interest in real discussion, and are hiding your irrational and, in the end, hateful views behind a cloud of obfuscation.

"You have still evaded the issue of Hamas' pursuit of an openly racist program.

No, I haven't. I've pointed out it is irrelevant. You either have a legitimate intention to pursue a peaceful settlement or you wank on about the other side's rhetoric as an excuse not to."

Rob, firstly, open racism is never irrelevant. Secondly, I hate to keep returning to this, but those 10,000 missiles are not rhetoric. Once again, you are deeply disingenuous when you insist that undisguised intent and efforts to destroy Israel and all the Jews therein are just rhetoric.

Come on. Something led large parts of the left to lend support for decades to Yasir Arafat, who was nothing but a cheap dictator, and now many of these people support the racist religious fanatics in Hamas and Hezbollah despite these groups representing everything the left supposedly opposes. I think it's worth thinking about that.

Posted by Green Eagle at February 19, 2009 03:37 PM

What exactly is an "ethnic group"?

You and I belong to the same "ethnic group", and yet I would really prefer to have as much space between us as possible.

Your program sounds w-a-y more racist, fanatical and dangerous to me than anything a bunch of Palestinian farmers kicked out of their villages could come up with.

Posted by abb1 at February 19, 2009 04:16 PM

abb1: The reason the 67 borders changed was because the Arabic conturies basically wanted control and in the end, the land Israel gained from that war was granted back to Arabic control. Hamas,no matter how much it claims it's fighting for Palestine, wants control and know what? So does Israel. I don't like either and also don't think a one state solution will ever come to pass. I now bow out of this conversation. Take care.

Posted by Jenny at February 19, 2009 04:57 PM

Yeah, you certainly should bow out, because you don't make any sense and have no idea what you're talking about. Good bye.

Posted by abb1 at February 19, 2009 05:47 PM

Robweaver is more or less pointing out that several Jewish voices have opined that Israel may be a few ingredients short of a cake. How does the increasingly aged, immigrant population of Israel face down the increasingly young, angry population of of Gaza, the West Bank and Southern Lebanon? Israel cannot pacify the Palestinians without years of underwhelming response to provocation.

The energy equations that prop up this whole state of affairs are changing for the worse and Arab populations are going to be pained and angry. There were food riots in Egypt last summer. Where will Egypt and Jordan channel angry, restive populations energies? One guess.

Posted by Pangolin at February 20, 2009 02:54 AM