Hi, BAC. Good day to you.

I think a pretty good gauge as to whether someone is merely trying to be fair-minded and whether someone is an anti-semite hiding behind anti-Israel rhetoric is two-fold.

1. Does the person realize there are two sides to the story or are they intentionally vilifying Israel while absolving the Palestinians from acts of terror; for Arafat's failure to negotiate seriously; and other failures on the part of the Palestinian (including the robbery of the foreign aid we gave them by the Arafats); and

2. Do the plans for resolution proffered by the party in question take into account the need for Israel to have, at the end of any resolution, secure borders and a country which retains its Jewish character while the Palestinians have their own country over which they can exercise dominion and control.

As for your objection to the term "anti-semetic", I suppose we could call it Jew-hating, instead, but that seems to be self-evident. My own opinion is that Israel has, certainly, been less than perfect, particularly under certain times during the leadership of Arial Sharon, but that doesn't make them villians and terrorists who blow up babies in carriages the good guys.

I have no idea how you tell the difference but I do it by the things they post here. For example one poster may visit a thread on the israeli palestinian conflict and complain about some aspect of israeli government policy - like failure to crack down on orthodox extremeists who harass arab citizens of Israel. That poster would certainly have a legitimate point and there is no reason to believe them to be an anti semite.

On the other hand another poster may interject the jewish problem into every thread he visits. Like one about possible republican candidates for president for instance. That poster may write that jews secretly control the media or the banks or the US government. They may hint at a worldwide jewish conspiracy. The fact that this poster will also criticize the Israeli government does not hide the fact that they are in fac tan antisemite.

It certainly is mindlessly illogical. If you see someone behaving that way you should confront them.
The term predates the foundation of the modern state of Israel by almost 100 years and was coined in response to the racist writings of Prussian "aryan superiority" proponents. It was made popular by a german writer in the late 19th century who was actually advocating hatred of jews. So I don't think the word has anything at all to do with "disguising israeli misdeeds". But I won't make any judgement about your own motives for mischaracterizing the word this way.This is indeed good. I didn't realize it was news.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master, who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

My sister .. it is always good to speak to you.

This makes them evil .. not the Isreali people, but most certainly the Israeli government ...

excerpt --

IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon
IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon - Haaretz - Israel News

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war.

The cluster rounds which don't detonate on impact, believed by the United Nations to be around 40% of those fired by the IDF in Lebanon, remain on the ground as unexploded munitions, effectively littering the landscape with thousands of land mines which will continue to claim victims long after the war has ended.

According to the commander, in order to compensate for the inaccuracy of the rockets and the inability to strike individual targets precisely, units would "flood" the battlefield with munitions, accounting for the littered and explosive landscape of post-war Lebanon.
----------------------

Although there are many sources for this, I posted the Israeli account.

The Isreali government dropped a million cluster bombs in the final days of the war while negotiations were on-going. Cluster bombs don't kill "terrorissts" they kill civilians and children. This is one of many reprehensible acts by the Isreali government which seems to be killing just for the sake of killing.

No nation on earth is in violation of more UN Resolutions than Israel and they have a record of atrocity after atrocity that goes unpunished. In my opinion, as is the majority opinion of most of the world, isreal is the most dangerous nation on the planet.

I will never forget this ...





It is incumbent on those who support Israel to speak out against Israeli horrors.

I am not nor have I ever been anti-Jew and I share the perspective of a group that I have interacted with many times, "Jews for Justice"
Jews for Justice

Thank you, my friend. It is always good to speak with you, too.

I understand your persepective, certainly. And Lebanon didn't go well from any perspective. However, I look at it a different way. Perhaps I am correct in my view, perhaps not, but while I have certain leanings on this issue, I don't think I'm unreasonable in those leanings.

Imagine, if you will, that a terrorist organization had insinuated itself into Canada and that organization had entrenched itself on our northern border and began firing missiles into Michegan while at the same time, prohibiting civilians from leaving the area in which they were entrenched so they could, as cowardly terrorists like to do, hide behind civilians so there will be a (justifiable) world outcry over the civilian deaths. Under such circumstances, regardless of casualties, I can't imagine that anyone would criticize us for defending our citizens by trying to take out the positions of the terrorist group.

What I believe is that the world asks from Israel a standard of behavior which it does not ask of any other country.

As for Jews for Justice, there is much that is good in their philosophy. I wouldn't call it self-hating, but I would say that like any other situation in which people forget about the dangers of not responding appropriately to violence, it is well-meaning, but, perhaps not realistic.

FWIW, I would have supported their position, too, before I actually saw the country and stood at the borders. Before I walked in too many places which had been attacked by terrorists.

Should the settlements properly be disbanded? Yes. Absolutely. Though if you stand on the Golan Heights, at the Syrian bunkers, you can understand why Israel might not want Palestinian settlements there, either, since the are the high ground which gives bunkered snipers a clear shot into Israel.

Should houses be bulldozed in the Palestinian territories? No. It's proven ineffective at rooting out or discouraging terrorists and has been a strategic and public relations nightmare, not to mention it being the kind of thing that breeds opposition and anger.

But should Israel, without even thinking about it, respond appropriately to attacks on its soil? Yes.

About no other country that was formed by colonialism and defensive war, do we ask the question, "do they have a right to exist?" That very question belies a bias not seen in the treatment of any other nation.

When I see people talk about Israeli treatment of Arabs and how terrible it is that Israel is a "jewish" country, I have to ask myself why those people are untroubled by the inability of a jew to enter into the Arab countries which have been overrun by theocrats and west-hating radicals. But there's no outcry that jews were run out of Iran, Syria and other nations.

Yet still there is hatred of the jewish state. My feeling? Regardless of the history, and it is checkered, both sides have to end up with what they need. And one has to ask what is it that each side wants. Israel wants a secure jewish state (where, btw, it's Arab citizens have more rights and a higher standard of living than the citizens of any of the Arab nations) with secure borders. Many of the Palestinians want a state of their own, under their own control and they should have that.

However, one can't ignore that fact that the stated goal of the palestinians, by way of their charter, is the destruction of Israel. Arafat refused to remove those words despite repeated agreements that he do so. I'd have to check to see if it's still part of the charter.

It's a quandry, for sure. But it certainly isn't one sided.

BlackAsCoal;
It's certainly needed. Failure to address the problem has caused this spreading conflict, dubbed the 'war on terror', which is affecting everybody.
It has become a major problem because the Zionists continue, with American backing, to do what they do in the face of worldwide condemnation .

Zionism is a flawed ideology, an attempt to manifest a spiritual concept as a physical reality. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, except that they've tried to manifest it all over somebody else.

Voting for Uncle Rudi will make it a subject of conversation though. Lol.

I have much respect for your perspective, thank you.

The problem with the scenario you poised is that it is the arab people who had a nation plopped down in the midst of their lands. It wasn't the arabs who persecuted the jews during WWII, it was the europeans where a large percentage of those who occupy the land come from.

We can both differ on perspectives, but Israel is losing the war of minds and there is no security in what the Isreali government is doing. There can be no peace until Israel recognizes the limits of military power which has never brought them security and it never will.

The arab world is getting stronger and they will possess nuclear weapons just like everybody else. Israel has no little to no natural resoiurces and the US cannot take care of them forever. Right now the Israelis are asking for a bigger share of US taxpayer dollars which I believe should not be given to them.

As long as those who support Israel trun a blind eye to their atrocities, there is only one inevitable end.

I understand what you're saying. My problem is that I don't see it as addressing the difference in the way Israel is treated than any other country. And Jews had a history of 6,000 years in Israel. The land was shared and had nebulous ownership, in any event. Was the way it was done damaging? Absolutely. But the UN drew countries where they didn't exist all over the middle east after WWII, to reward the loyal and punish those that had supported the Nazis. It may have been wrong, but it certainly wasn't only done with respect to Israel. Israel didn't attack the Palestinians. They would have gladly shared the mandate. The Palestinians said they wanted to drive the jews into the sea and Israel was then attacked seriatim by it's neighbors.

But again, that's water under the bridge and my feeling is that the children of Abraham have to settle their differences in a way that leaves both parties with what they deserve... their own countries.

I don't agree that Israel should be condemned for it's "atrocities" when no such condemnation is made of terrorists. I'm not going to apologize for that because I do believe I am being fair when I say there are no saints here. But I certainly don't think terrorists should be rewarded by the destruction of the state of Israel.

A question... what resolution do you think there should be here?

timj219,

It is indeed news .. even in Israel

(Jewish) Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran
"Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran - Forward.com"

But what is even more encouraging is news like this ...

Jewish coalition calls for open debate on Palestine
Jewish coalition calls for open debate on Palestine - National - smh.com.au

excerpt --

A COALITION of prominent Australian Jews, including the philosopher Peter Singer, publisher Louise Adler and Robert Richter, QC, has sparked a furore in the Jewish community by announcing it will challenge what it sees as extreme pro-Israeli bias among Jews in Australia.

The group, Independent Australian Jewish Voices, has been criticised by some Jewish authorities for calling for more open debate on Israeli's treatment of Palestinians.

The organisation yesterday launched an online campaign to have "alternative voices" heard in the media. One organiser claimed many Australian Jews were "basically brainwashed" into unthinking support for Israeli government policy towards Palestine.

The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, a major think tank, said the group was dangerous and unrepresentative.
-----------------------------

What's "dangerous and unrepresentive" about open dialouge?

The danger is in the truth.

The fact that more and more are calling for dialouge on Israel brings hope.

I can't speak to the other "voices", but I can speak to Mr. Singer. He is the author of the book Animal Liberation where he states that it is acceptable for activists to lie in support of their agenda because it is for the "greater good". He also rejects "speciesism" and believes a fish is a pig is a dog is a boy and that humans should have no greater "rights" than animals by virtue of having been born human.

He might not be the best person to speak with regard to any cause I can think of.

Apologies, he just particularly sticks in my craw, having had some experience with a group of PETA extremists who took his admonition that lying was acceptable, as gospel.

Make no mistake my sister .. I don't think you have to apologize for anything. Your honesty in debate, which you always give, is all that I can ask for.

The American Indians lived on this land long before whites arrived. Does that give them claim to this land now that would be recognized by anybody?

As far as Israel being treated differently, it has gotten away with literal murder and gone unpunished. Bush attacked Iraq because of so-called violations of UN Resolutions, but Israel is in violation of more than any nation in UN history. Why the special treatment?

I don't believe that "terrorists" .. which demands definition .. should be rewarded for destroying Israel either, but they are calling for the destruction because of the plight of the palestinian people.

I'm not sure resolutions are required. Isreal doesn't respect international rule of law anyway.

I'd suggest pulling the plug on US TAXPAYER dollars to Israel. I'd suggest strict sanctions.

There is only one road to peace my sister.

BackStreet Girl,

By Way of Deception, Thou Shall Wage War -- Creed of the Mossad, Israeli Intelligence.

I am grateful for your honesty as well. But we will have to disagree on this. Perhaps I have a more vested interest in the outcome. I don't know. But I see sanctioning Israel, without sanctioning the palestinians to be punitive and a choosing of sides.

I think both sides have a right to self-determination. If the desired end of the "road to peace" is the destruction of Israel, then I'm afraid sometimes peace isn't the desired course, though I'd love to say otherwise.

Touche!

although one expects organizations like the Mossad, or CIA or M-5 to use a bit of deception. lol.. but animal activists?

As long as there are people like you on the other side of this debate there will always be hope.

We want the same outcomes, just differ on the path to getting there.

Always hold out hope for peace or it can never be realized. The solution will come from people, not politicians.

Hey .. maybe you and I can show them how it's done .. debate from different perspectives but with resoect and civility.

That would be cool.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if that was how problems were solved? The world would certainly be a better place.

And yes, it would be very cool!