Give Me Your Kidney »
By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:
(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.
(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.
(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.
(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.
(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.
(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:
(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.
(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.
(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.
(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.
(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.
(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.
(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.
Disclaimer:
--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.
--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.
--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.
--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.
Read and Post at your own risk.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:54 am
Michael,
Have you read the Economist’s very even-handed look at the Israel-Palestine situation?
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9225670
Are they anti-Semites for saying stuff like this?
May 31st, 2007 at 7:03 am
I agree that Israel will have to give up some lands. And no, that does not automatically make one an anti-semite. What makes these people anti-semites is that they boycott Israel, while ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are governed by a bunch of terrorists.
Chris, I wonder: how do you ignore that? How do people like you do that?
May 31st, 2007 at 7:13 am
Is there a reason you chose not to give the “disgusting, annoying, hypocritical little socialist anti-Semite” University lecturers position on this issue?
It seems, after reading the Guardian article below that you left out the:
“disgusting, annoying, hypocritical little socialist anti-Semite” Doctors; and,
“disgusting, annoying, hypocritical little socialist anti-Semite” Artists and filmmakers; and,
“disgusting, annoying, hypocritical little socialist anti-Semite” International architects;
etc. etc.
Damning the University Lecturers Unions position without actually showing readers what their position and motives are is, is a devious way to bring this issue to light. Something I would expect from O’Reilly not you, Michael.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:15 am
The real question is whether or not any of these organizations have offered anything approaching equal approbation for Palestinian suicide bombers and the organizations like Hamas that send them.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:23 am
Michael,
I agree that Hamas is an organization that is worthy of our contempt. But I cannot ignore that the rise of Hamas was a predictable result of the actions of the Israeli state.
Crushing moderate nationalistic Palestinian movements was the official policy of the Israeli government, couple that with the inhuman conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, and you have a recipe for violent radicalism.
It’s true what they say about actions creating reactions.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:30 am
I don’t think you can dismiss a peoples supporting a party that is an outgrowth of a terrorist organization without understanding the purpose of that organization. We call it terrorist, but that is just the tactic of a desperate, impoverished people who want to be free and, due to the tyranny of one group, have no other option. For example, if you asked Irish Catholics, very few I think would appreciate one calling Michael Collins a terrorist, he was a freedom fighter and terrorism was the tactic he used to gain his people that freedom.
It is easy for us, sitting all comfy in our peaceful ordered lives behind our computers, to dismiss the Palestinians and their leaders as just a bunch of wacko monstrous criminals whose only purpose is to do harm. We don’t have the benefit of poverty and the desperation of not knowing what will happen the next day, or even if food and/or water will be attainable. We have all these things, we have our independence so who are we to say the Palestinians must go on peacefully without complaint?
May 31st, 2007 at 7:32 am
Jim,
How many scholarly papers are there coming from the occupied territories?
When we criticize the actions of the U.S. government at Guantanamo Bay do we always need to make special note that we don’t like Bin Laden as well?
May 31st, 2007 at 7:36 am
Yeah, because Fatah was incredibly moderate, wasn’t and isn’t it?
Please.
Arafat, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize: one sad joke. Arafat was a terrorist.
Hamas and Fatah are both terrorist organizations.
Jim of course not because, as Chris wrote: “the rise of Hamas was a predictable result of the actions of the Israeli state.”
See, it’s all Israel’s fault anyway.
The mind of anti-Semites… so predictable.
Steve: so there are more British organizations, led by disgusting, annoying, hypocritical little socialist anti-Semites.
What’s your point?
They are all a bunch of sickening hypocrites, who should focus a bit more on what the Palestinians are doing. The Palestinians are not the victim here.
The Palestinians elected Hamas into office, before that they were glad to be ruled by a terrorist named Yasser Arafat. They broadcast shows with Mickey Mouse telling children to become martyrs. They have a death cult.
And then people boycott Israel?
Anti-Semitism that is all it is.
A modern version of “blame the Jew!”
May 31st, 2007 at 7:37 am
Ahh, I see. Blowing yourself up in the middle of a market in Tel Aviv is complaining.
Thanks for the explanation.
Israel does do some things wrong, Israel has to change some of her policies, but boycotting Israel cannot be justified.
These people should boycott their own country for invading Iraq.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:41 am
Michael,
Calm down and look at the facts, and try, for once, to put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian.
You’re in danger of pulling a “Dershowitz” here.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:44 am
What pressure is being put on Hamas to stop the suicide bombings, the lobbing of shells into Israel? Israel has been attacked by NATIONS in the middle east. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon.
Yet thru it all in some quarters it is solely, explicitly and without exception Israels fault for all the ills in the Middle East.
I’ll grant you its 50 percent their problem. You grant me its 50 percent Arabs and then perhaps we can talk. Until you grant me something or in this case Israel then whats the point of talking? You are demanding that which cannot be given.
Nations will defend themselves to the last breath of their being. It is called self preservation. Right or wrong it is what and who mankind is. Nations are run by mankind. Until you give Israel a reason to change they will not. Until we give Hamas and Palestinians a reason to change they will not. Puting pressure on one side or the other is a hopeless exercise in futility.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:49 am
Michael, it is a form of complaint. That is the entire point of it. No one is listening to their cries for help, so that is the tactic they use.
BTW, I do not think you should be throwing the anti-semitic label around. Argue why this boycott is wrong, in that it would be more effective to engage the Israeli university community with the rest of the world than disengage, but don’t call it an anti-semitic action. Too often I think people throw that at people any time they have a valid criticism of Israel. The criticism is directed at the state and its actions in oppressing a group of people, not at a group of people for being Jewish.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:50 am
Stealing Palestinian land and resources while terrorizing them daily does not constitute legitimate self-defense. Holding 10s of thousands of people in prison without trial for decades is not legitimate self-defense. Using cluster munitions on villages in Lebanon is not legitimate self-defense.
In fact all of these things have weakened Israel’s stature and defense by inciting retaliation. It’s like how invading Iraq has created more terrorism.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:56 am
Ashen,
Michael’s mind sees the next World War II everywhere. Every leader of a country we don’t like is the next Hitler. Anytime a country we don’t like gets a weapon, it’s a prelude to the next holocaust. All of this is a ridiculous simplification.
This projection of the past, a need to be fighting the good fight against a clearly evil enemy, distorts the debate about complex issues like Israel-Palestine, Iraq and Iran.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:00 am
Somebody,
I agree with you on all points except let me advance this idea and see what you think. I put the Palestinians as separate, in fact in the middle of this whole mess. On one side, Israel is taking advantage of them, denying them rights, taking their land etc. etc. On the other, anti-Israeli Arab nations are promising Palestinians help, and inciting them to violence, while actually not doing anything to actually help them. They are just an unfortunate pawn in the game played by these opponents.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:07 am
No one is listening to their cries for help? Are you kidding me? Do you actually read any newspapers? At all?
Sometimes that might be true, but very often it is not. Especially on the left, anti-Semitism is alive and well (though disguised as anti-”zionism”).
Chris: we get the point. You hate Israel. We realize that you are willing to defend terrorists, that you are willing to defend those who call on others to blow themselves up.
Nonsense (and the next world war II???? Don’t you mean, simply, World War III?).
And you see a Jewish boogieman everywhere.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:14 am
Michael,
Are you suggesting that if the Palestinians acted more like their nice Israeli neighbors in their concern with civilian casualties, and their methods (and targeting) became more specific, like Israeli long range artillery, everything would be O.K.?
May 31st, 2007 at 8:25 am
Michael,
There may be a few anti-semitic persons on the left, but not as many as you make there out to be. If you want to see where the true antisemitism is, you should look to the right. You know, in the US for example we have neo-nazi’s, white supremacists, and the KKK just to name a few of the nutjob groups.
It is more important, I think, to look at the actions of both Israeli’s and Palestinians and their situation. Both are equally inhuman in their actions towards each other, but there is a great difference. I can break it down to simply one side has all this modern equipment and uses that power to oppress a people. The other uses improvised weapons in order to fight back against the power crushing them under its foot.
When a suicide bomber attacks, if they destroy a building its something new, modern, safe and comfortable with all the luxuries the modern age can afford. When Israel attacks, they go in and bulldoze impoverished neighborhoods. Derelict houses of poor people that we would condemn in an instant because of their condition, but for many this is all that they have. It is, in essence, the story of David vs. Goliath … only this time, Israel is not David.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:33 am
Steve: well, I’m glad to see that you admit that you only see one possibility for the Palestinians: using violence.
Again nonsense. If the PA would actually invest in its people, the Palestinians wouldn’t be where they are right now. If the Palestinians would favor peace over terrorism, they would receive Euros every month.
Again, Israel has made mistakes and Israel has to change its policies (destroying the home of the family of a terrorist is unacceptable), but most of the fault lies, still, with the Palestinians themselves.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:34 am
I think the ban is stupid. The article states that many in union leadership and government(education) don’t support the ban. What about Israel’s ban on Palestianian students keeping them from medical studies? Both bans are a problem.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2091528,00.html
Israel urged to lift ban on Palestinian students
Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Wednesday May 30, 2007
May 31st, 2007 at 8:35 am
Michael,
I condemn and do hate the actions of the Israel government. But that’s not the same as hating all Jews or even the bulk of the Israeli people, who like most people of the world, just want to live in peace.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:37 am
Michael - In your diatribe against Hamas you completely miss the context of the situation. Palestinian nationalism and a yearning for their own state has existed since 1948. Yes, they made a mistake by listening to their Arab brothers that they could regain their homes in a war with Israel. For the period 1948 to 1967 they were under the domination of Jordan and Egypt. After 1967 Israel was the occupier. From 1967 to 1987 Israel totally ignored Palestinian aspirations and decided to occupy the land they conquered. Palestinians during that 20 year period tried discussion, pleading and all non-violent means to get recognition but were TOTALLY IGNORNED by Israel. Instead, Israel rapidly set up settlements throughout Gaza and the West Bank. In 1987 the first Infitada was essentially non-violent - mainly demonstrations but some rock throwing etc. Israel put down the rebellion and in effect said - no to a Palestinian state. Bush I after the first Gulf war pushed, via Madrid, a start to recognizing Palestinians with Oslo being the result.
My sister made Alyiah in 1966 and I was in Israel dozens of times during this period. I could travel the West Bank with ease and saw, with my relatives help how the settlements were being built everywhere there was an absence of Palestinians. From 1987 to 1997 settlement growth was choking the Palestinians as more and more restrictions were imposed on their movement. Of course, suicide bombers were both a cause and a result of the settlement activity.
During Oslo it was apparent to the Palestinians that Israel was going to settle on just about all of Area C, Bibi and Sharon made sure Jews grabbed all the hilltops they could.
I do NOT condone Hamas and their approach. However, until Camp David there never a serious offer of viable Palestinian statehood. Oslo was a joke and both sides freely violated the spirit and letter of the agreement. Unfortunately, what has permeated both sides is the idea that ther other only understands force. Palestinians don’t believe Israel will let them have a viable state unless forced to. They point to 33 years of effort from 1967 to 2000 as proof. Israelis believe Palestinians will only moderate their demands if FORCED to.
In over 35 trips to Israel in the past 41 years with over 3 dozen relatives now populating the West Bank, I think your comment that the Palestinians are “governed by a bunch of terrorists” to be simplistic, non-contextual and ill-informed. There is a history on both sides that cannot be ignored.
British Academics are free to push any cause they like. They do not have to take on ALL the world’s ills to avoid the hypocrite label. There is vaildity in their charges against Israel. They could make similar charges against dozens of countries. Right or wrong, Israel as a first world country is held to a much higher standard than third world arab and other countries.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:40 am
In fact how do people ignore the oppressive, terrorist states in the region and around the world which violate human rights on a daily basis, while boycotting the one country in the Middle East which is free, democratic and respects human rights? Considering such blatant hypocrisy, one cannot come to any other conclusion other than antisemitism. The British establishment is notoriously antisemitic. I’m sorry, but you cannot convince that there is justice in boycotting Israel while doing business with saudi arabia, China, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt etc. etc. etc.
ashen shard, Israel IS David, the entire arab-muslim world is Goliath. For that matter we can include Europe and most of the rest of the world as Goliath against Israel’s David.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:42 am
It would be interesting to speculate what this conversation would be like if things were opposite. You know, if instead of Israel there was a Palestinian State and the citizens of Israel were in the same position as the Palestinians are now. Would people be so quick to condemn these tactics if used by Israeli’s against the tyranny of the Palestinian state?
May 31st, 2007 at 8:44 am
Constant and indiscriminant accusations of “Anti-Semite†has devalued its meaning and turned off a lot of people whose natural empathy and support are with Israel and the Israeli people.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:44 am
Ashen: completely irrelevant comment, meant to insinuate that there might be more than meets the eye when one supports Israel in her struggle against radical Islam.
Laura: I agree completely with your comment.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:49 am
Michael,
You only find it irrelevant because it doesn’t fit in you world view of Israel can do no wrong and that all the problems are the fault of the poor Palestinians. In fact, if Israel would not have been so intent on grabbing land, the problem would not be as bad as it is now. Sure, there would still be violence. The excuse of self protection in occupying land is only a bunch of bull. If Israel were truly a good, humanitarian nation it would give equal rights to the Palestinian people. But it does not. It plays on the fears of its citizens to continue its reign of terror over the Palestinian people, and as long as that continues the violence will continue. You cannot expect an impoverished, abused people to sit back and take the abuse Israel piles on them in order to get a few Euros.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:51 am
Bulls**t. Did you know that the occupied territories are the responsibility of the country that occupies them? The United States is responsible for Iraq and the Israelis are responsible for the West Bank and Gaza.
Does a country that supports human rights imprison people without trial? How about torture? How about dropping cluster bombs on farming villages in Lebanon? How free are the Palestinians that have to have an ID card to cross highways that they aren’t allowed to use that the Israelis have built in their territory? Can the Palestinians vote in Israeli elections to help decide the leaders of the country that decides their fate?
The record is decidely against Israel as free, democratic and a supporter of human rights.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:53 am
And actually you didn’t read my comments very well, did you? Please read them again. After that, come back and we can have a discussion.
O please.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:56 am
Laura - Have you ever been to the West Bank? I have dozens of times - my relatives live there. I have personally witnessed some of the most outrageous treatment of Palestinians imaginable. Palestinians in the West bank have NO RIGHTS, much less human rights. The West Bank is a closed military zone and Palestinians resisting military arrest are shot, armed or unarmed. I personally witnessed a Palestinian man shot at a checkpoint after an IDF soldier pissed on his shoes and he tried to take a swing at the soldier. The soldier stepped back and blasted the unarmed man from 3 feet away. I have two nephews in the IDF, one in the Golani Brigade. The stories they tell of what they do would make your hair curl and your skin crawl.
Just try to remember that BOTH SIDES do wrong. The Palestinians are not the only ones with a callous indifference to human life.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:56 am
Michael, other than myself, every commenter here hates Israel. There’s a variety of views on all other issues by commenters here, but when it comes to Israel, there is universal revulsion.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:58 am
The plight of the Palestinians is basically a modern version of what happened to the Native Americans. The number parallels are astounding.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:59 am
^^^ *DING DING DING DING DING!!!*
May 31st, 2007 at 8:59 am
JDledell, I’ve heard palestinians themselves who have said they would rather be under Israeli rule than their own terrorist regime. It is hamas and the PA which violate palestinian human rights.
Nevertheless, your response doesn’t address the hypocrisy over the boycott issue.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:03 am
Laura,
Just because we criticize Israel doesn’t mean we hate Israel. Its the same as me criticizing my own government, doesn’t make me anti-American now does it?
We all believe that Israel has the right to exist, and we want it to continue to exist. To be consistent we must also believe in the right of a Palestinian state to exist, independent and free from the grip of any other state. As such, we do not support Israel in its actions towards the Palestinian people.
In a perfect world both states would have been created at the same time. This isn’t a perfect world, and the British, among other western nations, dropped their responsibility and now we have this mess.
I support and blame both sides equally, but there is a tendency to support Israel over the Palestinians and I try to balance it out. One cannot just condemn Palestinians for their tactics without understanding why.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:04 am
Chris, Jews are the native people of the region. It’s seems you need a history lesson. Jews preceded the arabs. Furthermore the palestinian population has increased since the so-called “occupation”, whereas, Amerca’s Indian population is virtually non-existent. Where is the parallel?
May 31st, 2007 at 9:04 am
Laura,
You’re a hypocrite until you list for me every single organization and person that you should oppose. Until that time, I don’t want to hear you complain or condemn anyone.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:06 am
I’ll complain and condemn anyone I damn well please, and I’ll continue to speak out against the hypocrisy, and yes, antisemitism of anti-Israel boycotters. I’d still like an answer as to why the countries that I listed aren’t being boycotted by these groups? Neither you nor anyone else can give me a logical explanation.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:10 am
AshenShard, in fact in 1947, the UN voted to partition palestine between Arab and Jewish states, and the arabs turned it down and instead attacked Israel. You and other critics don’t seem to understand that the arabs don’t want a two-state solution, they don’t believe a Israel should exist period. And anyway, an Arab state was already carved out of Palestine, that state is Jordan.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:11 am
Laura,
Maybe it’s because they will complain and condemn anyone they “damn well please.” You hypocrite.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:17 am
Laura,
I’m just speculating here, but I think it may be because Western universities have stronger ties with Israeli institutions. So, unlike the other nations, it would actually be something that was felt. I don’t think the majority of western institutions would back such a boycott though since it would hurt their own academic programs and integrity. Also, given the nature of most western academic institutions, such would also be counterproductive since I would think there are many Israeli academics who would understand the view of the Palestinians.
Also, using such a tactic on a country you listed would definitely be counter productive. In those countries we don’t want to block that important avenue of trying to influence their people with Western, democratic values. Doing so would just be a boycott of our own efforts.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Anti-Israel boycotts blind themselves to an important comparison — no matter how many complaints one can make about Israeli policy towards Palestinians (and I will concede there are legitimate complaints), the fact is that Israeli military doctrine tries to minimize civilian casualties while Palestinian Hamas military doctrine tries to maximize them.
In the last two years, more than 1,300 rockets from the Palestinian controlled Gaza strip have targeted civilian areas of southern Israel. Israeli responses hve been occasional and always very temporary. Yet the rain of rockets continues.
Anti-Israeli boycott supports just ignore these attacks. They don’t see to care at all.
When forced to choose between one side (Hamas) that has openly called for genocide and has intentionally targeted civilians for attack and another side (Israel) that has been at times abusive and militant but has done so with some modicum of restraint, well, I have no problem choosing to support Israel.
And if that means I am “pulling a Dershowitz”, I’m fine with that label. I read “The Case for Israel” and it seems a pretty good argument.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:25 am
Jason,
I guess you haven’t actually read casualty figures from the occupied territories and Lebanon.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:26 am
Give me a freaking break. Chris, you truly are an anti-Semite. Only anti-Semites can make such brutally dishonest remarks.
And who are you to tell a fellow commenter / reader to shut up? Who might you be?
You do not have the right to tell any other commenter to shut up. You’re not a contributor to TMV, nor are you an editor.
Laura is free to speak her mind, as long as she doesn’t break our guidelines, as are you.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:32 am
Michael,
Step out from behind your rage, and notice that my message to Laura was making a point about the absurdity of her charges of hypocrisy.
And you called me an anti-Semite, again. You apparently don’t have the spine to argue with me on the merits and facts so you hide behind ad hominem attacks.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:33 am
i’m finna BOLD what the folk over at po.com were talking ’bout…seems that none of y’all have gotten it:
Rafa wrote:
lateralus wrote:
How about this.
Why don’t both sides realize that they are both semites and let their children play in the water together at the beach?
THAT’s the problem, the ruling class in Israel don’t consider themselves as semites (they only use it for calling “antisemite†other people), they actually strongly reject their semitic legacy; the israeli ruling class consider itself as “european†only; they are actually racist in the same way as 19th century europeans were, and actually even anti-semitic.
A message from “kam300en†is very telling, he would like a 100% “askenazi†(that is, white skinned, west and central european people, of germanic and slavic ascent) Israel; for him the sefardi jews (that is, the semitic jews, the ones that lived around the Mediterranean sea for centuries, the ones that actually lived in Palestine and arabic countries) are just as innexistent as muslims and christians palestinians.
Probably the history of Israel would have been much different, much less bloody, much more peacefull, if the israeli leaders had been sefardi jews rather than askenazi; if the israeli leaders would had been jews speaking arabic and born in the area, rather than people born in Poland or Ukraine.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:34 am
That is because you are an anti-Semite (as in, anti-Jew).
May 31st, 2007 at 9:37 am
I have. But casualty figures are measurements of effectiveness, not intent. Civilian casualties are not always because they were intentionally targeted. Rather, as is in fact the case in Palestine and Lebanon, they are sometimes inevitable because forces from the other side have intentionally embedded themselves within a civilian population.
Your standard, Chris, gives Israel’s genocidal enemies attackers a win-win situation. If Israel does not respond to their attacks, the attacks can continue to escalate with impunity. If Israel does respond to attacks, it will be condemned and boycotted when Israel’s “atrocities” are advertised globally without, you know, actually mentioning the context.
Like I said, I don’t find Israel’s behavior pleasant all the time, but as a matter of comparison, its really pretty much a slam-dunk in Israel’s favor. The key issues are simple:
1) Hamas and Hezbollah have openly advocated genocide. Israel does not.
2) Hamas and Hezbollah intentionally target civilians. Israel tries to avoid them by using precision attacks whenever possible.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:40 am
Michael “Anti-Arab” van der Galien,
What have I said that’s anti-Jewish and not anti-Israeli government?
May 31st, 2007 at 9:40 am
How then do you explain:
May 31st, 2007 at 9:41 am
Jason Steck,
Who knew that cluster bombs were considered precision weapons?
May 31st, 2007 at 9:47 am
Michael - Back Off - You are abusing your priviledge as a leader and editor of this site. Calling people anti-semites because you don’t agree with them
is ridiculous. You are not Jewish so stick with the things you know and understand. My Jewish grandfather escaped nazi occupied France in 1944 and I grew up listening to his stories about REAL ANTI-SEMETISM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your unfounded accusations are as bad as anti-semetism. I wrote similar things as the posters you called anti-semites. I defy you to call me. a practicing Jew, an anti-semite!!!!!!!
May 31st, 2007 at 9:49 am
Well said Jason.
Chris: your condemnation of Israel is so irrational that there is no other possilbility.
And wait, doesn’t Ahmadinejad also says that he just ‘hates’ the Israeli government / the “zionist regime”?
“Anti-Arab” - nice try, that does not work very well with me though.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:53 am
Michael,
Your ranting about imaginary “anti-Semites” and refusal to reply to points being posed by others does nothing but show how thin skinned you are on this topic… It’s not very becoming.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:55 am
Chris,
Cluster bombs are not used in most Israeli operations. Their use is not a typical example. Hamas and Hezbollah’s targeting of civilians is typical and, indeed, overwhelmingly more common. There are literally thousands more such incidents then there are incidents of Israeli cluster bomb usage.
There is also a great deal of evidence that some of the casualty figures in Lebanon as a result of Israeli attacks were exaggerated by attempts to “stage” the scene by Hezbollah operatives. This happens ON TOP of the fact (that you continue to avoid responding to while you cherry-pick evidence) that Israel only attacks civilian areas AFTER its enemies have CHOSEN to embed themselves among civilians so that they can create a “win-win” situation where Israel has to choose between just absorbing attacks with no response or responding and getting condemned.
In short, Chris, I think you and others like the boycotters are being played. I won’t call you an “anti-Semite” because the question of whether or not you are being played is something that only you can know for sure. But I do feel quite secure in my comparative assessment of the situation. Israel is not flawless by any stretch, but it is far, far, FAR better than a group openly supporting genocide.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:57 am
Please replace last paragraph with this edit:
In short, Chris, I think you and others like the boycotters are being played. I won’t call you an “anti-Semite†because the question of whether or not you are being willingly played is something that only you can know for sure. But I do feel quite secure in my comparative assessment of the situation. Israel is not flawless by any stretch, but it is far, far, FAR better than a group openly supporting genocide.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:58 am
JDLedell: Chris defends Hamas et al., he excuses their terrorism and blames Israel.
Do you believe that it is all Israel’s fault and that Israel deserves the attacks?
“You too?” as someone famous once asked.
And I have been told about this as well, because my country was occupied by the Nazis. I am not abusing my privilidge, I am simply calling an anti-semite out for being anti-semitic. And if you say that you often say the same things anti-Semites say, well, I’d suggest you think about that for a while.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:00 am
I am less forgiving. I do believe that people like Chris are anti-Semites.
Stupid or anti-Semitic, tough choice huh Chris?
May 31st, 2007 at 10:01 am
Thanks J.G. Will remember that.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:02 am
Jason,
Unlike Michael, at least you’re actually engaging in a debate about the subject. I appreciate it, even if we don’t agree.
Maybe we can both agree that there has been enough evil visited on all sides by all sides.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:03 am
I repeat:
Michael “Anti-Arab†van der Galien,
What have I said that’s anti-Jewish and not anti-Israeli government?
May 31st, 2007 at 10:09 am
Here’s a link to the B’tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied TerritoriesStatistics Page
Maybe everyone ought to spend a little time on research over there… while cooling off.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:11 am
Thanks for the link Steve. Even if the statistics are anti-Semitic
May 31st, 2007 at 10:12 am
You either do not read my comments or wilfully misinterprete them. I already explained why I think you are an anti-Semite. Your condemnation of Israel is so thoroughly irrational… etc.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:13 am
So wait, Israel is responsible for the fact that Palestinian terrorists hide behind civilians (who support them)?
May 31st, 2007 at 10:18 am
Michael,
It would be suicide for them to create a standing army and military bases to operate out of. They would be bombed immediately.
Hamas and Hezbollah fit more closely the definition of a militia.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:20 am
Michael,
Check out this Salon article about the subject: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/28/hezbollah/
May 31st, 2007 at 10:24 am
Or of a “Terrorist organization”.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:26 am
condemning Israel for its human rights violations and its terrorizing of the Palestinian people is not irrational, nor is it anti-semitic.
The Palestinian peoples support for those who use terrorism as a tactic against occupying countries isn’t peculiar to their own people. As a parallel, would you condemn the support given by civilians to those who participated in guerrilla movements against German occupation during WWII?
In the end the tactics used by both Israel and the Palestinians are basically the same … their target is to terrorize the others civilian population. Of course it isn’t working, it just stirs the hatred on both sides.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:42 am
Damn this post went to hell VERY quick…*smh*
May 31st, 2007 at 10:43 am
“And if you say that you often say the same things anti-Semites say, well, I’d suggest you think about that for a while.”
Michael - This is a cheap shot. To insinuate I am an anti-semite is out of bounds. To my Jewish ears being called an anti-semite is the same as if you had called me the most vile name you could think of. That is DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR for an editor.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:44 am
Are you actually comparing the Israelites to Nazis?
May 31st, 2007 at 10:47 am
Did you read the comment in which one person actually compares Israel to Nazi Germany?
You say you could write what these people write?
And no, I am not saying you are an anti-Semite. I am saying that you should think a bit about what some of the people you defend actually say.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:51 am
Michael,
No, I’m not. I’m comparing Israeli occupation of Palestine to any occupation of one people by another people. I could use the British occupation of Ireland, India, and parts of Africa as an example. I could use US and French occupation of Vietnam as an example. I just chose that example because I figured for you it would have the most relevance.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:53 am
It is a disgusting, utterly disgusting comparison.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:54 am
Those who oppose Israel fall into one of three categories:
1) Ignorant (uninformed or misinformed and or lazy to become properly informed)
2) Stupid
3) Anti-Semitic Bigots
I prefer to believe that most critics of Israel fall into the “Ignorant” category.
Please go educate yourselves.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:56 am
Holly,
It’s nice to see that your authoritarian streak is alive and well.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:01 am
How is it disgusting, because you are unable to empathize with both sides of a conflict? Are you unable to see that the Palestinian people are reacting the same way to Israeli occupation as Europe did to Germany? I think you have to put aside the crimes committed by Nazi Germany, everything having to do with the Holocaust, and realize that the majority of the people occupied by German forces didn’t care about these crimes at the time, likely didn’t even know about them. They fought, and civilians protected them, because they were being occupied by a foreign power. This same reaction occurs throughout history. Look at Spain when Napoleon butted in and put his brother on the throne. I could go on with my examples, it is all the same and it is relevant.
Holly, we don’t oppose Israel. We criticize their tactics and their human rights abuses. We take into account that they are a nation, people just like anyone else. They don’t get a pass because they just happen to be Jewish and their people have gone through a lot of abuse and discrimination through the centuries.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:11 am
Ashen Shard, I could not have said it better myself.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:14 am
I’d just like to say, that as a graduate student in an American University, I have never heard of this group until now. They can’t be that main stream, at least not in the rational sciences.
I think Ashen’s poorly worded WWII comment basically brings up some of the issues Jason does in his post “What is al-Qaeda?” Are we to condemn any use of ‘terrorism’: guerrilla warfare, or intentionally targeting civilians (the second of which both sides seem guilty of in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict) or do we allow those tactics when they advance particular goals, such as defense against Nazism. I think if one take the later stance, they are in danger of sliding into moral stance based on a clash of cultures, not clearly defined, objective stances on right and wrong.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:15 am
Who put people against the wall if they didn’t agree with the government, who starved the people, who took millions away from their homes, to die in camps or to work in factories, who invaded and occupied sovereign nations, who… etc.
Again, it is a disgusting comparison and one I, as a Dutchman, find moral reprehensible.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:19 am
There are two kinds of people:
1) People who think there are two kinds of people; and,
2) People who don’t.
Holly,
Your list of ‘Those who oppose Israel’ shows ignorance of a different kind… willful ignorance.
This thread is not about supporting or opposing Israel, it’s about the tactics and human rights abuses Israel employs in theiur dealings with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
For you or Michael to imply that everyone concerned about Israel’s actions is an ‘anti-Semite’ only show how closed minded and ignorant you, not we, are.
I read you posts… you are not a stupid, person, so I can only assume you are being malicious intentionally.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:22 am
People seem to forget why Israel has “occupied” Palestinian land - it’s because the Palestinians along with Arab Armies have engaged in three wars of aggression in attempts to destroy Israel and commit genocide. The Arabs/Palestinians lost those wars and all but Egypt have refused to make peace. Israel won the wars and are it seems they are simply expected to return to the previous status quo. The Clinton deal was a tremendous opportunity for both sides - a great compromise that would have given the Palestinians 90% of what they wanted plus billions in aid from the US, yet Arafat rejected it.
The sad situation with the Palestinians is that Israel’s enemies in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon continue to use them as pawns. Palestinians have lived in Syria and Lebanon for 50 years, yet they and several generations of their offspring are denied any semblance of equality or representation to say nothing of citizenship. Is it any wonder that Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon - camps that have been around for DECADES, are now a hotbed of insurgent activity? The fact is that the Arab states have screwed the Palestinians just as much or more than Israel has.
It is not as long as one recognizes that Fatah and Hamas are organizations that have openly advocated the killing of civilians, have carried out such attacks, and in the case of Hamas, advocates the destruction of the Israeli state and genocide against the Jews that live there.
When people claim that the intentional murder of civilians is justified in response to the complex and long-standing dispute between Arabs, Palestinians and Israel, then what other conclusion is there? Israel is certainly not above criticism, but as Jason cogent argues, intent matters. If Israel had the same animosity and intent as Hamas, Israel would have run the Palestinians into the sea long ago.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:24 am
You’re right Michael… Israel is only guilty of 3 out of 5 of things you listed.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:26 am
Chris: sure, go ahead. Compare Israel to Nazi Germany, go ahead.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:29 am
Michael,
I do not mean to dismiss or downplay the crimes of the Nazi’s. My comparison is that of an occupied people only. The German government was not the government of the Netherlands, or any of the other nations it occupied. Same as the Israeli government is not the government of the Palestinians whom they occupy. Yet both saw fit to enforce that occupation, and as occupiers see fit to enforce their laws upon them. In essence, the Israeli military sees those Palestinian civilians who support militants, those who the Palestinians see as freedom fighters, the same as the German military saw those civilians in occupied Europe who supported those who fought against the occupying forces and were perceived by those civilians as freedom fighters.
If you don’t like that comparison, then please use an example of another occupation. Palestinians view the militants who fight against Israel as freedom fighters, and no matter what crimes they commit, how ugly their tactics, this must be understood as a struggle between an occupying power and those being occupied.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:29 am
I’m using your criteria!
May 31st, 2007 at 11:31 am
Who invaded whom? Israel did not invade Palestine in a war of aggression and genocide, so the example is completely bogus.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:34 am
The allies occupied Germany and Japan after WWII. Were the few that resisted such “occupation” justified in doing so? According to your argument, they were. The fact is that the occupation came about as a result of a war of aggression against Israel. It’s amazing that you cannot seem to discern the tremendous difference that makes between the two situations.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:47 am
[…] interaction with Israelis. The general issue of Israel versus Palestinians is being debated on a different thread on this site, but my focus here is a more narrow question: Is it appropriate for a union of teachers to censor […]
May 31st, 2007 at 11:47 am
Entropy,
No matter the pretext, Israel’s occupation of Palestine is in violation of international law. It has very few parallels with the allied occupation of Germany and Japan.
The allies were mostly concerned with getting Germany and Japan back on their feet so they could become bulwarks against the growing Soviet threat.
The Israelis, on the other hand, have done nothing to improve the lives of the Palestinians while they systematically steal their lands.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
[…] on others like you received yourself for karmic reprisal, because when you suffer greatly, why bother learning from it? Because otherwise, you are entitled to a life of guilt-free mistreatment of anyone who gets in the […]
May 31st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Wow, what a complete rewriting of history. The allies (which included the Soviets) occupied Germany because they had engaged in two wars of aggression against their neighbors. They were occupied with the intent to keep that from ever happening again. West Germany was reconstructed and allowed to have its own government well after the onset of the Cold War. The allies brutally repressed remaining German resistance.
Israel could have done the same thing - like the allies, they were invaded in wars of aggression on multiple occasions by its neighbors. The comparison of the Nazi occupation is therefore completely disingenuous. Maybe in Chris World all occupations are created equal - in the real world they are not.
In any event, you still excuse and therefore legitimize the strategies and policies of Hamas as valid and legitimate against “the occupation.” Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t think a strategy who’s goal is to kill civilians to compel an enemy to your bidding is ever justified. And make no mistake, that’s exactly what Hamas and, to a lesser extent, Fatah are all about. Their strategy is to keep murdering civilians until the Israeli’s capitulate.
In contrast, Israel could, should it desire, completely depopulate the occupied territories and could easily engage in a campaign of genocide similar to what it’s adversaries desire. But they don’t. If Hamas had a military capability equal to Israel’s do you really think they would act with the restraint Israel has? Of course not - it would be a modern pogrom with no quarter given.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Entropy,
I think the point he was making, even if they are justified in occupying that territory they are not taking the actions the same as we did. Sure, crush the militants, but don’t crush the people. If we had done the same thing in Germany or Japan instead of investing in their economic well being, we would have had the same problem the Israeli’s are facing with the Palestinian militants. What they are doing is just generating more militants.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pm
While this is obviously an extraordinarily sensitive topic, and I have no wish to throw bombs into the middle of the discussion in any way, I do have to wonder a few things.
Michael, where is the line drawn between freedom-fighter and terrorist? It seems fairly clear in your mind, so I direct that to you. Continuing that line of thought, is there ever a point where a freedom-fighter crosses the line into terrorism, or a terrorist into a freedom-fighter?
Second, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, how would the actions of Jewish groups like the Irgun be classified? Are they to be considered justified in attacking Arab and British interests because they served some “greater good”? Do they get a free pass for engaging in what we commonly refer to as terrorist activities because they were on the “right” side?
IMHO, this is a complicated problem, with roots that stretch back farther than most of us can comprehend. We’re certainly not going to iron out the differences between Jews and Arabs, or solve the situation in the Middle East, in a matter of years, or even decades. That doesn’t mean we don’t TRY, but we shouldn’t expect centuries of simmering anger and distrust on both sides to be set aside in a (relative) instant.
Furthermore, I find it truly insulting to see the tag “anti-semite” lobbed around as freely as you do Michael. I don’t wish to attack you personally, and hope I am not construed as doing so, but your only purpose in using that term can be to attempt to stifle debate over the behavior of the State of Israel, since, as you have shown, anyone who disagrees with you will have their argument branded “irrational” and then tagged an anti-semite. As has been pointed out - it is akin to calling a Democrat who questions the policy and direction of America as “anti-american”. Although I am American but not Jewish, I find both instances apalling.
If we (who I assume have little truly invested in this situation) can not discuss and debate the policy of one country or another without being branded as one of the most hateful discriminators possible, I see little hope for the general situation in the Middle East. Shouting down your opposition is no way to find a path forward.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
[…] interaction with Israelis. The general issue of Israel versus Palestinians is being debated on a different thread on this site, but my focus here is a more narrow question: Is it appropriate for a union of teachers to instruct […]
May 31st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Ashen,
That’s exactly the point I was making, thank you.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Unfortunately, this imposes a nearly impossible burden on Israel when the militants intentionally embed themselves among the people.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Ashen,
You are an Israel soldier facing these enemies who are shooting at you, what do you do? How do you “crush the militants” without “crushing the civilians” particularly when there are a bevy of people like you blame Israel for every civilian death.
http://www.likud.nl/human-shields.bmp
http://noisyroom.net/blog/l5.jpg
http://clarityandresolve.com/palHumanShields2.jpg
http://www.intelligence.org.il/sp/sib3_04/images/k_12l.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansarelies/PAL-UNAmbulance.jpg
And then there is the despicable indoctrination of youth:
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/boywithgun.jpg
Hamas uses civilians, particularly children, in most of its operations. Israel has plenty of opportunity to kill them, but more often than not does not because of the kids and other noncombatants. Of course, the attack that never happened never gets reported in the news, only the attack that results in innocent death because Hamas hides behind them and exploits their death for propaganda, which you seem to buy hook, line, and sinker.
In contrast to Israel, Hamas intentionally targets civilians 95% of the time. Why is the difference in tactics and intent so difficult for you to understand?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Ok Ashen, you’ve seen the pictures - here’s your gun - go “crush” those militants but you’d better not hurt any civilians.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/17/1255/
May 31st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Jason,
Well then it would be productive for the Israeli government to find a way to turn the Palestinian people against the militants. This I think can only be done economically. If actions are taken to improve the economy and the standard of living for the Palestinian people, then gradually they will turn away from the extremists.
And I’m not saying dump a lot of money on them like we did in South Vietnam. That really did nothing for the economy and was only an illusion of economic stability and prosperity. Something like the Marshall Plan is needed to invigorate the Palestinian economy in such a way that it will be able to eventually be weaned from being propped up by outside financial sources.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Ashen, I’m not arguing that current Israeli policy is good. I am only arguing that Israel is, by comparison, more worthy of support than groups that (1) intentionally target civilians thousands of times and (2) are openly committed to genocide against Israel.
Chris, I’ve read the Amnesty and HRW reports, but I have serious problems with their analysis for two major reasons. First, I don’t think either NGO has a good record of being consistent in the standards that they use. They tend to hold Israel accountable for actions that they don’t even comment about from Hezbollah or Hamas. Second, in order to be practical, standards for human rights obligations cannot impose a de facto suicide pact on one side. I don’t think the criticisms they level against Israel take note of Israel’s situation. They seem to condemn ALL POSSIBLE routes of stopping the rain of missiles. I just don’t think that kind of analysis should be taken seriously. No state can ever be expected to just sit there and do nothing while missiles rain down on their civilians.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Chris,
That HRW article is nice and all, but that’s Lebanon, not the occupied territories. Even so, did Hezbollah let HRW roam freely to examine all the evidence? Of course not. Was amnesty international there to witness that no civilians were around when the Katushyas were fired? Of course not. Was Israel criticized when it attacked those rockets and civilians casualties occured? Of course they were.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:13 pm
And what would that require? It would require a true Israeli invasion to gain complete and utter control of the territories so that a Marshall like plan could be implemented. Is this something you’d really support? Somehow I think not.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
On the Amnesty Internation, HW bias:
May 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Bravo and well said jweidner.
Until the fighting’s over there’s NO DIFFERENCE between freedom-fighters and terrorists except perspective. Then the losers are called “terrorists†and winners are called “freedom-fightersâ€â€¦ Now isn’t that easy?
For what it’s worth… The first freedom-fighter movie I ever saw was Walt Disney’s “The Sons of Liberty†but in Great Britain they thought it was about terrorists.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
“Anti-Semitism that is all it is.”
Palestinian’s are Semites….you are using a term that doesn’t have any place in this discussion, or are ignorant to history/culture of that region.
“A modern version of “blame the Jew!†”
Don’t consider any other circumstances that Israel (a country, not a religion) may have brought about by their own actions just keep to the script.
The old deflection tactic of saying everything is anti-semitism doesn’t play anymore Michael, Israel is a country and they are responsable for their own actions, nor do any countries/groups have to do business with them or be labeled anti-semitic for not doing so. Thats akin to blackmail by accusation that AIPAC and the Jewish Defense League has used for half a century, it’s over and seems many are tired and are calling the bluff on the blackmail.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
MVDG said:
“Disgusting, annoying, hypocritical little socialist anti-Semites.”
When a post contains a statementt like that, it condemns the following discussion to consist of attacks and counterattacks. This kind of over-the-top approach makes the job of those trying to support Israel much, much harder.
By demanding unquestioned allegiance and a correct (by your lights) view in every case, you push a lot of people into the other camp. Hurling insults left and right just pushes them further.
Israel has a serious image problem these days. There are complaints (seldom justified) that Israel’s concerns dominate US politics. You just gave those critics fresh ammunition, by demonstrating how intolerant and fanatical Israel’s supporters can be.
If you’re serious about supporting Israel, stop with the insults and tirades and examine the situation with a more open mind. The first rule of a boxer is to understand his opponent’s mind. It would help a lot if Palistinians were understood in a more sophisticated manner than just lableing them all ‘terrorists’ It might even lead to more sophisticated and more effective ways of dealing with them.
PS Unfortunately, I suspect that this situaion has been allowed to fester for too long, and the chances for resolution diminish with every day. This thread gives little in the way of hope .
May 31st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“useful idiots”
May 31st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
It’s sad to watch a comment thread on such a respectable blog to devolve into the ad-hominem attacks and fallacies of logic the way this one has. It would appear that when it comes to the Israel-Palestine situation, people are too emotionally invested in their point of view to engage in rational discourse.
Given how many things going wrong in our own country, I’m baffled by the amount of attention that this blog devotes to “pet issues” in the Middle East. This is a complicated issue that requires a certain amount of detachment to debate in a rational manner.
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer debates that are grounded in facts from which I can learn further about the issue at hand. I don’t think any of us do ourselves any favor when we hurl the word “anti-semitic” around at others (including fellow bloggers) without even bothering to define the word. It’s like branding people as “fascist” or “communist” around without bothering to define those terms.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Oh, and I don’t support this boycott against Israel any more that I supported Bill O’Reilly’s quirky boycott against France.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Plenty of us can distinguish the truth from the lies and slander behind Israel’s “serious image problem.”
May 31st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Obviously, but you won’t hear that from the Israel-haters (often also US-haters). You instead encounter the dishonesty that Israel is equally as bad as its evil enemies, or even that Israel is worse!
It’s amusing to speculate on what the reaction would be if Israel became the same as its enemies. What if Israel ceased to play fair, and deliberately inhibit itself when dealing with its enemies, and ceased to follow the laws of war in the battlefield and ceased to be democratic, modern, and peace-seeking? What if it started to arrange for not merely terrorists and complicit government officials, but anybody, to start being bombed en masse in markets and stores seemingly at random? What if it dumped chemicals on the Territories? What if it shot rockets and artillery with the deliberate intention of killing, maiming, and frightening people who intended them no harm, as its enemies have long done?
Would Israel-and-US-haters even understand the difference?
May 31st, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I have always advocated that when the Palestinians blow up a bus, build the Palestinians a school. When they lob rockets into Israel, build them a hospital. When they hurl insults give them aid and comfort.
The true enemy in all of this is not the Palestinian people but the leaders who are filled with hate. The Palestinian people are no different then most human beings.
Go directly to the people and bypass the leaders. Let the Palestinian people see who is feeding, clothing and giving them shelter and comfort.
Look at how popular Hezzbollah is in Southern Lebanon. Why? Because they are taking care of the people.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:31 pm
DLS-
You create more haters with every rant and tirade.
If you want to support Israel, demonstrate how to do it with reason and respect for others.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
NicR-
I agree, it is sad and perplexing.
There is something odd in my own experience that I don’t understand. I can talk more openly and rationally with my Israeli fiends living in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv than I can with anyone in the US. We agree a lot, but when we don’t, I’ve never once been called an ‘anti-semite’ or an Israel hater by an Israeli. Yet, my friends are the ones living under the pressure, every day
May 31st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
domajot,
I feel like I tried to do that way earlier in this thread, but such attempts mostly just get buried and lost when a threat erupts into flame wars. Unfortunately, in the blogosphere, flames can completely eclipse non-flames. The result is a perverse incentive towards flame tactics — it’s sometimes the only way to be sure that people will keep reading your arguments. :+)
May 31st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I sympathize with the idea, but taken literally this would seem to produce a perverse incentive to conduct more attacks in order to get more stuff. It reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where the boss announced a new policy to reward the programmers for finding bugs in their code and Wally walked away happily saying, “I’m going to code me a new minivan this afternoon.”
June 1st, 2007 at 4:51 am
Jason-
I recognize that you were trying to keep things on a reasonble track. It’s really quite upsetting to see how things degenerated. I think the whole topic was started on the wrong foot on this thread.
Of course, it’s not surprising that the comments produced no ideas about how to reduce tensions. The conflict is too big to be solved on a blog. It would be a sign of hope, thogh, if people could reach some understanding of the complexity instead of just jurling insults and accusations.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
[…] interaction with Israelis. The general issue of Israel versus Palestinians is being debated on a different thread on this site, but my focus here is a more narrow question: Is it appropriate for a union of teachers to censor […]