Rue

I will repeat again Chomsky in my opinion and that of many others is a deliberate anti-semite and says deliebrately anti-semitic things that he knows are hateful and incite hatred against ALL Jews. Bloody have a fun time trying to repudiate this full response to Chomsky's anti-semitism and association with neo Nazis: http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html Have fun with this site as well which goes to greatlengths to rebutt everything Chomsky has said about Jews: http://chomskywatch.blogspot.com/ Now if you go to the above site on the first page you can see an example of Chomsky getting caught misquoting and then trying to weasel his way out of what he said. Lol. You want to hero worship him. Be my guest. Here is an excerpt of what happens when he is caught misquoting from the above site which is full of many more examples: "Ironically I stumbled upon a similar quotation in which Chomsky attributes to Ben-Gurion which in actuality Ben-Gurion did not say. The quote comes from the afterward in his book Deterring Democracy. In it he states, “During the 1948 war, [ben-Gurion] held that ‘To the Arabs of the Land of Israel only one function remains -- to run away.’” Anyone familiar with the idea of transfer in Zionist thought knows that this quote comes from Ezra Danin not Ben-Gurion [1]. Once I found this quote I emailed Chomsky and asked him what his sources were, he replied: I don't know what you are looking at, but I've repeatedly cited the source in print, from the first time I mentioned it: Yossi Beilin, Mehiro shel Ihud (Revivim, 1985). Can add the page reference if you like. This is the standard scholarly source, in fact the only source for Israeli cabinet records from 67-77, the period he covers. Even though the quote as Chomsky wrote it in the original himself attributes it to the War of Independence that would be 1948 which is not anywhere remotely near the time period of 67-77, I still decided to shoot an email down to Yossi Beilin and see if the quotation actually exists in his work. As I expected it doesn’t. So much for Chomsky’s scholarly pretensions. [1] Ilan Pappe no friend of Zionism and a Chomsky confidant writes, “Ezra Danin's words to Ben Gurion: 'The Arabs of the Land of Israel, they have but one task left - to run away'.” UPDATE: Chomsky has written me back stating the following: It's you, not me, who says that B-G "uttered those words." What I wrote -- as you repeat -- is that he held that view, as discussed in the source I cited. I'll grant you one thing, though. I should have realized that people who are really desperate to defend their own crimes would find some way of misreading something if they can, and should have spelled it out more explicitly. The irony should be apparent here."

Nicky you write very well and are idealistic and I admire both and its harder to argue your position that my American friend Bush's. To be honest with you I am with the old grump Bush on this one but I respect what you said and who knows maybe it is possible the next regime opens up a bit to the West. Time will tell. Yes come change has to come gradually and not with a sledgehammer. You make eloquent sense but from a purely crude and practical perspective do North Koreans have any time to slowly change or will they all starve to death first? Sometimes unfortunately wide spread starvation triggers violent change. That is always a possibility in North Korea.

First off excellent rebuttal. Enjoyed it. Thank you. When I say failed academic I mean failed when he went outside his area of academic expertise and began engaging in revisionist history. In regards to his work as a linguist, in his area of academic expertise, no he is not a failed academic but we are clearly talking only in the context of my criticism of his revisionist history editorialization and in particular his revisionism of Jewish history. In regards to his political ideology I would myself define him as a Stalinist. I don't think that is an unfair label. I personally disagree with his political views on world conspiracy, the U.S., and the current economic problems. I agree putting a label on his politics gets dangerous because all of us when you think of it are all over the place with ideology. Bloody be fair though. Chomsky has been caught time and time again passing off his political or history views as academic ones trying to pass him off as an academic expert in those fields and that is why he has been called out. He makes sure when he expresses his history or political views to trot out all his non related academic credentials. If you would like I can begin quoting my four university degrees in these debates.

No don't misunderstand me. It sounds disparaging not meant to be. Actually I strongly agree with what you said Bob. When I say reluctant I mean in the sense we as a Jewish collective have been forced to fight for our existence including wars and when I use the word "reluctant" I actually use it in the way Moishe Dayan once did when he described himself as a reluctant warrior. What I mean is you and I didn't set out to want to kill people. We didn't set out to force ourselves on people. Sorry it could have come across clearer. I am trying to enunciate a certain kind of Zionism and I guess I could do a hell of a better job at it I must say. I would never be reluctant to be proud to share the Jewish collective and all its richness. I mean I am reluctant to have to go to war over it and have to defend it by war. The war part. Much of our history is about having to defend our existence in wars. I don't embrace war. Its a necessity thrust on us by destiny but I note Israeli soldiers if I must stereotype them after meeting so many of them is that they are reluctant-they don't brag about what they have to do. They go about their job with as little fanfare as possible and often with gritted teeth wishing there was another way. I think this stereotype of the IDF deliberately being abusive is far from the soldiers I know and how many of them placed themselves in danger because they did not want Palestinian civilians hurt. I wish people would see the humane part to both Israelis AND Palestinians and realize the average of both don't sit around wanting to kill each other, they are caught in a spiral beyond their control. But enough with my opinions. I was just expressing discussion. My personal views when all is said and done are just one example of the vast range of Zionist opinions. I just want people to see Zionists like you and I are not robots who think exactly the same way. We are tied by our collective but each of us has our own way of expressing what being Jewish means to us and we don't necessarily have to agree to share it. Also as part of that ideology if you were Israeli or older than me and had lived through any war, people would see I would openly defer to you on certain things out of respect. I do not talk this way to Israelis (if I know they are) or Palestinians or former Israelis because anyone in the military I do not express an opinion to unless they first ask because I believe I have to show respect that they lived what I now only talk about. If I sounded presumptious before I did not mean to be to you. I am just debating. I also never presume to discuss anyone's personal religious views. I just respect them and only challenge them if I think they misrepresent someone else's opinion not their own.

Here is an example of the false quotes Bloody asked me for with Chomsky: http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky

I was asked by bloody to give examples of Chomsky's false quotes. I will not of course take the bait and have him switch the focus away from the actual issue and that is when Chomsky vetures forth outside his academic area of expertise, linguistics and becomes a political activist he no longer is an academic and violates basic rules of acadamia and I will give examples starting with: http://alekboyd.blogspot.com/2009/01/noam-chomsky-fails-academic-standards.html http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Manufacturing+dissent%3a+Noam+Chomsky+and+the+crisis+of+the+Western...-a0127013020 Now since Bloody you saw fit to name call a critic of Chomsky then let's of course provide criticism of Chomsky from that critic and others in regards to his comments on Israel and let people decide not you or me whether they line up on his political opinions about Israel and the holocaust: http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/04-issue/bogdanor-4.htm http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol.html

Bloody you stated: "Linguistics (and, very occasionally, mathematics and philosophy) are the only areas of academia to which he has applied himself. He does not teach poly sci, he does not teach international relations, he does not teach his political writings at all." If you want to deny he has passed himself off as an academic expert on Jewish History, Israel, and Zionism and that is why he gets criticized play that with someone else. Also save your personal opinions of David Horowitz for someone else it was not germaine nor is it germaine to my criticisms of Chomsky or Finklestein or Sands or any other revisionist historian whether they be Jewish or non Jewish, neo Nazi, anti-Zionist or what-ever. You stated: "Do you have a good, credible source for these misdemeanors?" then you stated: "But it's unfair for me to ask for an expansive treatise from you...so can you concentrate on what exactly are the "false quotes" he uses?" Lol you are already trying to control the very info you asked for right after you asked it. You stated: "You only perceive this because of your sensitivities." what sensitivities. If you are going to make allegations, spell it out. Don't couch your words. Be specific. What sensitivities? Are you referring to my nasal congestion? You stated: "He gets the same criticism about his remarks about the United States." Ooopsy didn't you just get finished lecturing me he only engages in academic discourse about linguistics? Say now what part of the subject matter in this following remark by you is limited to academic discourse on linguistic development? "t one time, he was simultaneously disallowed into Argentina because his writings were "revolutionary"...and also not allowed into the Soviet Union, because his writings were "anti-revolutionary." You then made this statement: "So everybody thinks the awful Chomsky is picking on them. A delusional criticism." Your above comment is illogical. You did not establish everyone criticizes Chomsky's writings just the specific vague references you mentioned. Even then if we are to take them at face value, they don't demonstrate those specific critics found him awful, they simply disagreed with his opinions. It is illogical for you to infer or assume because someone disagrees with some of his opinions they "think he is awful". That I would suggest is an assumption you project onto who you think are his critics because you mix people disagreeing with someone's opinion with feelings as to the person. The two are not the same. Your "delusional criticism" comment is just name calling. The fact that someone disagrees with what he says does not make them any more delusional then you are for accusing them of being delusional or clearly not knowing the difference between disagreeing with someone's opinions and not liking them as a person. You stated: "At any rate, he focusses far more on the U.S. than he does on Israel. Far more. No comparison." Again that is not germaine to our discussions. I was and am criticizing his comments about Israel, Zionism and Jewish history not what he says about the U.S. try stick to the issue we are discussing. You are all over the place raising issues that are not germaine to what is being criticized and throwing them in as if they are relevant. Whether he's more focused on the U.S. then Israel does not determine whether the things he does say when discussing Jewish history, Zionism or Israel are credible or not. You stated: "I'm far from convinced that he isn't too harsh about Israel. He might well be too harsh." I do not define the validity or credibility of people's statements as to whether they are "too harsh" you do. My criticism goes not to whether he chooses to criticize Israel or even dislike it-whether he is as you say "harsh" or not "harsh" is not the issue and never was. Who he chooses to critcize whether its the US or Israel is not the issue. What he chooses to say is. You stated: "I don't believe he is a psychologist, though linguistics is sometimes part of that field." To be specific his Master's thesis was on the Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. He received his B.A., M.A. and Ph.d degrees from the University of Pennsylvania in linguistics and was a linguistics professor and specialist in linguistics. He is not a psychologist he is a liguist however his learning development theories about linguistics are not a basis of development psychology or cognitive sciences or cognitive psychology. You stated: "At any rate, he still works very heavily in his chosen field of Linguistics, even at his advanced age." And what I have stated is I criticize his comments outside his academic field on Jewish history, Zionism and Israel and as you have demonstrated and acknowledged the contraversy of what he has said is related to his comments on things outside his academic area of expertise. As for you stating I am making things up as I go along you have made several personal remarks attributing motives or actions to me and I choose to ignore them as they are without basis and personal in nature and not germaine to the issues we are discussing. Your attempts to draw me into name calling will not work,s so t rying to bait me with unspecified allegations such as accusing me of " presenting presenting sheer invention as fact are of course ignored. Either give a specific example of what I said and why it was invented or get back to the issues. Your name calling only serves to show you try shift attention away from the issues. You stated: "Why you mistake "sophisticated analysis" for "personal assumptions" is anyone's guess; I can't figure it out." Well then try figure it out by looking at the context in which you presented it and next time rather than throw out such a vague description define it specifically if you don't want me to read it into the context of what you stated before and after it. Can you do that? Do you even know what you mean by "sophisticated analysis" other than you agree with Chomsky's non academic method of taking historic events out of their actual context, isolating them, and editorializing on them as to what he thinks they mean? Do you mean the manner in which he editorializes and assumes what the motives and intent of certain people were? Do you even read what he writes? You stated" "In order to make "a report [on] what happened as best they can", historians are forced to undertake sophisticated analysis...because the plain facts, the real truth, are not always clear and unambiguous. In fact, they rarely are." Historians do not claim to know what "real truth" is. "Real truth" does not exist to a historian. That is your subjective projection and it is one that is necessarily illogical. The plain facts are all an historian is intended to report and when they can't document them they have no license to editorialize and create facts and when they offer theories, they clearly indicate they are theories and not facts and those theories presented are enunciated conditionally not absolutely. Those are the basic rules of historic academia. The fact you throw out the phrase "real t ruth" shows the context of what you think is sophisticated analysis-Chomsky's subjective opinion. History is not a faith doctrine where dogma is preached. You stated: "Youa sked meDo you think an historian needs merely to read a copy of the NYTimes from the mid-sixties to understand the Gulf of Tonkin incident? No...because "plain reporting" on this and other incidents was directly opposed to the truth." I never asked you the above question and never would because it has nothing to do with the the academic area or exercise of history and what you are in fact referring to is political editorialization or commentary. You stted: "Again, I am talking about an attempt at objective analysis. " No as you have now shown repeatedly above, you are talking about subjective editorialization. You stated: "Historians, including excellent and eminent ones, disagree vociferously on lots of matters. You cannot dispute this. Keep trying; but you know this is full of shit." I have never suggested historians do not disagree with their theories. What I have stated is that when they state their theories they make clear they are just that and that is why they come into dispute. No one disputes Canada was founded in 1867. That is a fact. What might be disputed was the motives behind why John A. MacDonald passed certain policies in 1867. Yes historians engage in editorialization but what I have stated and you clearly do not understand is they follow a protocol when they editorialize so they do not mix up or claim their theories as "real truths" as you claim they do. You stated" "You think all historians--or all "good" ones--are in lockstep agreement?" Again your question shows you do not understand the point I made and continue to make and no the credibility of one's comments are not determined by whether others agree or disagree with them, they depend on the merit of their contents. Many people agree on opinions that contain no credibility. It is illogical to suggest credibility is determined by popularity or lack of resistance. You stated: "I was about to accuse you of illiteracy...but rather, I think you are being deliberately obtuse, deliberately dishonest." Again you engage in personal attacks. Its not germaine to the issues being discussed and is ignored. Finally your comments on the historian you claim supports Finklestein speak for themselves. You attempted to suggest his comment that you referred to means he agrees with everything Finklestein says and does. This is of course not true. You tried to give Finklestein a general credibility endorsement from the historian you quoted. That is how it was taken out of context. The historian you quoted never endorsed all the opinions of Finklestein, only some of them.

I took your comment out of its actual context. I had to read it twice to see your point. I originally was going to respond with another line of remarks. I also am here to say I also believe I took something Bob said out of context which I want to apologize for. I also want to say I have not read a thing from Bob that says he supports oppression of anyone. Bob's arguement that anti-Zionism is necessarily anti-semitism is also an intellectual one not and does not necessarily assume the anti-semitism is intentional or deliberate or meant to be hateful. Sometimes it is somes it is not, sometimes it does not exist at all. It depends on the context of the words being referenced. I mist confess I very rarely see someone able to argue against Zionism as a political concept without engaging in anti-semitic assumptions or mistaken assumptions as to Jewish culture, history and/or religion. The reason for that often is because non Jews and for that matter many Jews too, do not understand the definition of what is a Jew and misrepresent it. The definition of a Jew is a very complex one and can't be easily referenced as it has many concepts, variables and is forever changing even as we speak. So often, many of the assumptions made about Zionism to argue against it can in fact be based on false assumptions about Judaism the religion or the Jewish culture and not actual Zionist ideology in which case they can become anti-semitic in reference. In fairness to Bob I understand his position and it is often advanced believe it or not by Christian fundamentalist Zionists not just certain Jewish Zionists. I should not have assumed he was making a negative generalization. I engaged in the very criticism I applied to him. So I apologize. Its a complex issue. I am like many a person who loaths engaging in total generalizations. I did it and it took me awhile to pick it up. All my comments are meant to generate discussion not lecture Bob or anyone else. I read back my words and they sound like lectures. I just mean to provide feedback to all even the ones I scold-its just friendly debate. However I argue again, it is possible to believe ALL states should not be religious in nature. A person who advances that consistent arguement and does not simply select out Israel but criticizes every state for the exact same reason including Christian states and Muslim ones, and argues seperation of state from religion and refrains from any other discussions but sticks to that seperation of state from religion arguement would not be anti-semitic. I have never once meant an anti-semite who wasn't anti-Israel. I can think of anti-Zionists who hate all religious states equally and do not single out the Jewish religion or Israel in their discussions but say it about all peoples and their religions equally. Those people I am reluctant to call anti-semites. I think the are anti organized religion but I am not sure if I would want to say anything else and truthfully in an ideal world I would have loved to see no need for any religious state but just everyone living with respect for one anothers religions or values in all kinds of states. This is why I say I am a reluctant Zionist. I come about the ideology through an existential struggle to survive not based on religion. Me myself, I am uncomfortable with all organized religions equally. I am more comfortable with a Spinoza like concept of God. However I feel I have an existential obligation to be a Jew and I do enjoy the Kaballa, and certain Judaic principles and beliefs and I feel as Jewish as say Orthodox Jews who I respect but could not pray like. I respect Muslims or Christians but could not pray like them either. I prefer private meditation. That is all though just personal opinions and I would like to think I can be deferential and respectful of religious people and limit my discomfort to people who use their religion to hate others and nothing else.

Bloody I will respond to your comments. You asked me; "Chomsky is a "failed academic"? ...Wow. Perhaps you might do a tiny bit of research on the field of Linguistics, and discover Chomsky's position in the 20th century roster. I"ll give you a hint: he's at the very top." Let me give you a hint bloody. I do have a Master's in Applied Psychology. I am well aware of his theories on linguistic development. You assumed I have suggested in that area of academia he is a failure I did not say that. What I do say and argue however is that when homsky moved out of his area of expertise and began engaging in alleged academic discussion about Israel he became a complete and utter failure and it is well documented. Why? No not just because he is anti-Zionist but because of such failures as: 1-being caught using false references, false foot-notes, false quotes; 2-removing quotes from their actual context and then misrepresenting them to suggest they meant something else; 3-stating subjective opinion as fact; 4-making generalizations and assumptions as if they were facts that could not be repudiated; 5- repeating the subjective opinions of others as facts; 6-making negative generalizations about all Jews, all Zionists, all Israelis. He has tried to pass himself off as an authority on Jewish history and Zionism, he is neither. In fact he has made so many errors in his representations as to Zionism and Jewish history as to have rendered himself ridiculous and it is precisely why no credible history faculty will align themselves with him or appreciate him referring to himself as a new historian. He is not. He is a psychologist with a specialist in linguistic development who long ago stopped working in his actual area of academic expertise. You stated: "The study of History is not a simple matter of reportage. It involves sophisticated analysis; and all historians engage in what others could refer to as "revisionism," since historians argue incessantly with one another. That's as it should be." Bull. There is a strict code legitimate historians follow and they would probably take umbrage to your attempt to speak on their behalf and try rationalize for phonies like Chomsky or Finklestein who violate the basic precepts of history and try CHANGE history. In a nut shell, true historians report what happened as best they can without injecting their "sophisticated analysis" they try keep their own personal assumptions or inferences out of it as much as they can. This buzz word you use "sophisticated analysis" is nothing more then editorialization or imposing subjective opinions-historians try follow as much as possible a methodology of objective analysis not subjective editorialization. I defer to some others on this forum who are in fact historians to explain to you why revisionists are the scurge of the historic community. They make a mockery of the hard, time consuming and at times pain staking and tedious research a historian must do to put together missing pieces of time and information. You stated: "And by the way, the eminent historian, the late Raul Hilberg, who is more or less single-handedly responsible for inventing the very field of Holocaust Studies, said that he agreed with Finkelstein on some key points, and that history would vindicate his opinion." And? What was your point. Read the above and this comment you made in follow up: "So now you're agoing after the "revisionist" Hilberg as well?" Your comment is illogical as is your inference and its actually a classic technique both Finklestein and Chomsky use which has rendered them both farsical. No the fact that Raul Hilberg agrees with certain things Finklestein said does not mean he agrees with all of them. You deliberately took his quote out of context to suggest he approves everything Finklestein has said and condones his engaging in revisionism. He never said any such thing. No sorry to burst your bubble but I do not disagree with everything Finklestein says or even Chinsky has said. What does that suddenly mean I agree when they engage in revisionism or editorialization of history to fit their subjective opinions and their removing of quotes out of context as you have done or engaging in snap shot distortion, i.e., removing an event from its historical sequence, isolating its cause and effect and giving it a new meaning? Of course not. You are well aware Raul Hilberg has offered much criticism of chomsky, finklestein and other new historians no different than I and conventional historians have.

Bud I will now respond to some of your remarks I place in quotations: " i don't give a shit whether you're jewish, bob is jewish, naomi is jewish or anyone else is jewish. i do care when anyone, whether they're jewish/muslim/christian/athiest/etc., uses their ideology to try to excuse violating human rights." Read the two sentences. You do care and you are suggesting Jews excuse violating human rights when they are Zionists. That is what I am challenging-you making my religion an issue and making stereotype assumptions that if I am a jew and a Zionist I excuse the violation of human rights. I also challenged Naomi Glover because she played the Jew card and threw it out to suggest if a Jew is anti Israel it has more credibility. No its not relevant and stop singling my religion out or assuming because I am a Jew and a Zionist you know how I think or what I believe about human rights. That is what I am challenging. You stated: "zionism does not equal being jewish." That is your opinion. Stop lecturing me on what it means for me or others to be Jews. Preface your comment by stating in your personal opinion Zionism does not necessarily equate with certain Jews defining their identity. Stop engaging in absolute statements as to how Jews should think. Jews like me who are Zionist happen to believe are being Jewish is a collective concept that can only fully come into existence when we express it through universal sufferage. You keep making sweeping statements about Zionism because you haven't a clue what it means for a Jew to feel like one and assume we should all think like you. Stop pointing your finger at me and telling me what it is to be a Jew. You stated: "zionism is an ideology that comes in different shapes and form." well at least you acknowledge that. Zionism is a pluralistic concept. It continues to evolve and mutate as does the way in which Jews define ourselves. It is not a static definition because the concept of the religion of Judaism and are collective identity was never designed to be static, it was designed to be open ended and subject to continual change. You think and probably unintentionally like a typical Western Christian. You speak in absolute dogmatic terms like a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. Jews do not conceptualize in that matter. Our concepts are fluid. They remain open ended and subject to infinite debate. They do not begin and end as much Muslim and Christian dogma does and which clearly is manifested in the way you describe the Jewish collective and how you think we think. You stated: "there was a struggle between different groups in the early part of the last century and the really crappy racist one, that has no problem crushing other people's human rights is now controlling israel's path." That is a ridiculously simple description and it shows you take a complex concept and try reduce it to simplistic black and white definitions which you now try impose on others. No it is not that simple. To start with the Zionism that came out of Europe was non religious. It came out of the Bund-labour unions. It was for the most part a socialist concept and had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with Jews obtaining universal sufferage. It was heavily influenced by Ashkenazi Jews. It was not a product if Mizrahi/Tsfardic/Oriental Jews of the Muslim world. It was based on reacting to thousands of years of anti-semitic governments, slaughters and decrees in the Christian world. In the Muslim world, the Jews their experienced dhimmitude a form of apartheid that at times was violent and condoned slaughter but for the most part ghettoized Jews as inferior second class citizens and isolated them but did not openly slaughter them. The Felashie Jews of Ethiopia for the most part were discriminated against sometimes violently sometimes non violently and they had their own unique collective experience. The Indian Jews of the large community in Bombay were relatively well off in a pluralistic society where the Hindus never harmed them. The experience of the Jewish collective that started Zionism mostly came from Europe. It then mutated because of the Nazis and their exporting of Hitlerian anti-semitism through the Mufti of Jerusalem through the Arab world and Nazi styled regimes in Iraq, Egypt and Syria as well as the Palestinian National movement started by the Mufti. All this Zionism was existential in nature. It dealt with the survival of Jews in the face of governments trying to wipe Jews out. It was not religious in nature-the concept of God became very abstract if not absent and the concept of continuing to live became a pragmatic existential struggle of the here and now. Religious Zionism as expressed by the settlers on the West Bank and through Rabbia Kahane extremist followers and then the kache party has always been a highly vocal but fringe extreme group. The vast majority of Hews are not religious Zionists. They don't quote the Bible or refer to the Bible or even worship in synagogues. They see their existence as a day to day struggle. Now this mythical racist Zionism you talk of is an absolute and complete crock. Its a word created by non Jews who do not understand the Jewish identity and how it is defined or the difference between Judaism and Zionism and fuse the two. Zionism was never racist. It never defined Jews as a race. The collective it describes Jews as can't be racial-Jews come from all kinds of "races". More to the point the definition of jew by Zionists was never made finite-it was left open ended to develop. To this day Zionists struggle with how to define it but for you to say its racist is a crock. It does not define Jews superior to anyone on the contrary it is precisely because it is not racist Jews come in every colour of skin and racial feature and it allows its non Jews to elect people to the knesset have their own court systems, vote, own land and enjoy the highest standard of living of all Muslims in the Middle East. In short it gives all the rights to its non Jews, Jews have never been allowed in the apartheid discriminatory world of Sharia law dhimmitude still practiced in all Arab Leeague nations. You want to talk discriminatory go find out why Jews are treated as inferiors in the Middle East outside Israel and what it means. You stated: "zionism is wrong. why? because in order to achieve it, another people's human rights must be crushed." Sheer nonsense. That is your assumption. It is an illogical one that assumes a Jew can not be a Jewish national without discriminating against a non Jew. Such b.s. Why don't you find out what Zionism states and how it enforces human rights and just how many human rights organizations play a dramatic role in Israel defending Muslims while in the Muslim world Jews and Christians, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans and others have their human rights violated daily. Save the propoganda and sweeping assumptions for someone else. Israel is not a perfect nation. No. But it certainly has a far better human rights record with its minorities then Jews were ever treated in Europe or the Middle East. As for your comments on Ben Gurion and Rabin I have no idea what you were referring to. Come back if you have specifics. If you want to lift quotes out of context I can do the same. Also do me a favour before you assume Zionism can do nothing but violate human rights, explain then how it is acceptable for their to be Sharia law nations, Christian nations, and nations with institutionalization of Hinduism and Buddism. Do explain the double standard. Tell me when you shut down the Vatian, these sharia law nations, and of course rid the United Kingdom of any reference to the Church of England. Do let me know when you have told Mexico, and all the South American nations to cut out all their institutional references to Catholicism with their states. Your double standard of course is quite something.

I think so, but on the other hand any army without food collapses. How much food North Korea has to feed its troops during a war remains the question. It all comes down to the amount of food supplies they have to feed their army. You can have huge amounts of people in your army but they need to be fed. Would China be able to feed them? China has their own food shortages.

I agree with you. I think to be blunt China doesn't give a rat's asp about anyone and its foreign policy is pragmatic. That explains why it has no disconnect looking the other way propping Sundan's genocide government or getting into bed with Iran while at the same time engaging in a ruthless internal war to kill its own Muslim fundamentalists. I agree. I think North Korea was a Soviet Stalinist construct set up to counter the US and the Russsians to this day find it an important counter-measure to the American-Taiwan-Japan-South Korea alliance which is also in all intensive purposes welcomed India into it and although small nations, population wise, Australia and New Zealand-as well at the current time the Phillippines and Indonesia are pretty much aligned up in that constellation economically. Russia is not happy with Japan and seeks a way to offset American influence and distract Japan which it still feuds with over a ridiculous island war. The last thing China wants is a collapsed nation next door flooding it with refugees and then becoming an American zone of influence right on its border.

Stalinist time warp. One of the last vestiges of Stalinism and its remained around as long as it has because in short, North Korea had and has no natural resources of interest to anyone. If it had huge lithium deposits like Afganistan or was strategically placed to facilitate an oil pipeline like Afghanistan or had huge oil deposits like Iraq, it would have much more people concerned. I will also say this and I am serious about it, I also think if it was a caucasian European country with the sheer number of starving people that are present in North Korea now, the West would react differently. I am not suggesting the West is deliberately racist but the fact is when non white people starve-they do not solicit the same reaction as white people and I think that is human nature-the closer people look to us and live to us, the more we care-the further away they live and the more different they look, the less we care. I think that is human nature-we see more wars fought between people of different races then between the same race. Now when I use the word race, I use the old subjective appearance construct because I appreciate biologically it has been disproven. I also refer to the studies of Konrad Lorenz and others who noticed it was harder for someone to kill someone who looks more like them or reminds them of someone in their family. From a distance, the North Korean can look like a demon-a strange creature that takes on almost surrealistic characteristics particularly when they goose step and march and engage in their propoganda marches and mass population displays. I think that fuels part of the disconnect between the West and North Korea and its far different way of doing things than we do. Now that is a half-asped attempt. I appreciate there are far more complex theories as well. I am just trying to throw some at you for the sake of conversation and feed back.

In the event of reunification South Korea would bare the brunt of the cost just as Germany did. If North Korea collapsed there would be a huge influx of refugees trying to get into China and South Korea for food in the short term and then migration to the South as happened between East and West Germany. Now I am not saying the Korean and German models are identical but they are similiar enough to have provided a valuable precedent to deal with the huge adjustment problems that would ensue. I think if anything the US might get stuck as they usually are with certain costs but I think in this case China, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea will have no choice but to also step in to prevent instability in the region if for no other reason hundreds of thousands if not millions of displaced refugees would have severe ripple effects for them all. Now does the military complex in North Korea collapse? Is it fragile? North Korea is a lot like Albania was before it collapsed. It manages to keep itself pretty much a closed shop. There is poor intelligence as to the internal heirarchy of Generals in its military and the role they might play when Kim dies. Whether they prop his son as was done in Syria with Assad Jr. using him like they use Assad Jr. as a prop to keep everyone happy while others run the show, or whether this fat boy has any real power remains to be seen. Their could be a coups d'etats or internal power struggle between generals but how would anyone know? I think China has the immediate and very real problem on its hands of realizing if the regime continues as is, they can not hold back the number of food refugees pushing into China. There's just too many of them now to shoot or send back. I personally think Kim is trying to get more foreign aid through beligerent displays since the tactic has worked in the past, in particular food. He in the past has been given great amounts of food to go quiet and that food pretty much feeds the armed forces. From what info comes out of North Korea their ability to feed themselves has collapsed yet again. There's a limit until the hunger is so disconnected from the day to day propoganda and rhetoric that people just can't take it any more and flee or die trying. I don't think its geographically impossible to land occupy North Korea. Its too big. I doubt the Americans or South Koreans want that. I doubt South Korea even wants to absord North Korea and the huge strain it will place on its economy.

Well Toad brother I want to add to what you stated because I understand what you are trying to state and which to acknowledge it through further clarification. For example, I consider myself a Zionist and I argue there should be a freeze on continued settlements on the West Bank and I would argue many Zionists and Israelis would argue that. I would contend the above opinion in itself is not anti-Zionist, just a political opinion. I would argue we need more context to determine if its anti anything. If for example you went on to say you believe in the above because you don't think Israel has a legitimate right to exist as a Jewish state, then yes I would say you were an anti-Zionist. If you went on to say you believe in the above because Jews are evil and think they are better than Palestinians and want to wipe them all out, then I would say that is an anti-semitic remark. If you stated the above and made a comment that all Israelis are savages and inconsiderate then I would argue that is an anti-Israeli comment. The context of your comment I would argue gives it, its meaning. I believe it is possible to argue against certain Israeli policies and still be a Zionist or for that matter not be either a pro or anti Zionist. Just to label you anti Zionist for the above comment alone is for me pointless name calling. Of course within Israel there is great debate between Israels as to the future of the West Bank. Of course there are many discussions within the Jewish community both in Israel and the diaspora as to the future of the West Bank and all of Israel. There is a huge range of beliefs within both the Zionist and non Zionist Jewish communities just as there would be in the non Jewish world. I am loath to steretype or label anyone and I confess labelling people has come back to bite me in my Zionist bum many a time. I might challenge you depending on the context of your words but I am loath to quickly label you and I think challenging Israeli state policies is part of the democratic political process. I do though myself when talking Middle East politics and realize I am speaking to an Israeli or Palestinian defer to them and change my tone. I am reluctant to speak in any way they may construe as telling them what they should do. They both get enough of that from all sides. The respect I show Israelis is because I believe their living in Israel is keeping me alive. The respect I show Palestinians is because I believe they genuinely did not ask for the mess they live in now and as a Zionist I was taught they have a right to live in peace and be respected and Israel was not created to harm them. The first people to generously donate land to Zionists who came to Israel were Palestinian Muslims. People forget that. They forget the animosity and trials and tribulations came about as a result of foreign colonial elements injected to divide and conquer both Muslims and Jews. The first thing colonial powers do is to pit one indigenous tribe against the other. It destabilizes the area and gives the colonial power the excuse to step in and oversee. We saw it in Africa, Asia and then the Middle East as the preferred method of operation for setting up colonial puppet states. Ironically people forget modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq were created as colonial puppet states but Israel was not and this is precisely why it was supported by the Soviets not British and French or ex German Nazis during the war of independence who all sided with the Arab League of Nations in their bid to wipe Israel out. It was in fact Stalin releasing thousands of Jews from Russia, and the state of Czechoslovakia that supported Israel and who stated they were in fact finding the colonialist puppets of Britain, France and the ex German Nazi regime. Israel would not have come into existence without the Soviets sending them manpower and Czech military assistance and not to mention Elenor Roosevelt single handedly taking on the entire UN as well as US State Department, its then Joint Chiefs of Staff and Truman who did not want to support Israel. Israel would also have not survived if it wasn't for an assortment of World War Two vets who volunteered to go to Israel and many of those were gentiles not just Jews. It was the British who led the Arab League armies and flew the Egyptian Air Force in the War of Independence and it was the ex Nazis who ran Egypt, Syria and Iraq's armies.

Bob to clarify, I believe and I state this as a Jew, Zionist and first and foremost Canadian it is quite possible for someone to be anti Zionist or be critical of specific Israeli state policies and not necessarily intend to be anti-semitic. I am not comfortable with the automatic inference that if one is anti-Zionist they are necessarily anti-semitic. I think it is quite possible to keep the two distinct. I lol, have rarely seen it done, but I think its quite possible and we need to look at the full context of what is said for its meaning. I believe Finklestein and Chomsky are blatant anti-semites not because they are anti Zionist but because they deliberately choose to insult all Jews and raise negative stereotypes against Jews and openly insult Jews assigning us negative false beliefs. I consider Finklestein and Chomsky deliberately hateful in their comments. Their words speak for themselves. There is also a reason both of them are failed academics and had to go outside their actual disciplines. Neither when discussing Israel follows standard academic protocol. They have been caught plagerizing, misquoting and they engage in the lowest level of discourse, and that is to take events out of context and then attach their subjective opinions onto those events to explain why they happened, ignoring the actual context in which they happened. Its a fool's game and it plays t people who do not understand contextual reference or why standard conventional historians do not invent meanings to events merely document the cause and effect of them and report them without injecting their own political biases. This is why they call themselves revisionist historians. They had to create a new name for their exercise since historians don't revise history but discipline themselves to simply report it. The cause and effect or sequential movement of events is what the historian lays out. What Finklestein and Chomsky do is to ignore the sequence, lift out an event, ignore the events that happened before and after it, and then engage in snap shot analysis-looking at it as an isolated phenomena. They then editorialize and pass off their subjective theories or opinions as facts.

I read these words to mean you were asking me to make a negative generalization about gentiles: "...but for those anti-Zionist Jews who try to leverage their last names as a way to increase their credibility on issues relating to Israel, I wonder if I could distinguish you from the Goyim without knowing your last names. More than likely, these anti-Zionists are indistinguishable from the Goyim. It's sad, but true. " If I misunderstood the meaning of the above and you were not making a negative comment about gentiles I apologize Bob. I thought it was a sweeping bite at gentiles. Bob where I am coming from is not to accuse you of anything you did not say and so if I have I apologize. I am just trying to be consistent and say most of this on this board gentile or Jew, whatever we are, we pretty much agree-its not rocket science that we all want to be treated without being defined in negative stereotypes. Its why I have been barking a lot on this thread. I hate it when people put labels on me or anyone else. We all deserve to be judged on the merits of our statements and not someone's preconceived notions of what our identity makes us. Sorry if I misunderstood what you said.

Bob you have read my words. You know what kind of Jew I am. I am not religious in the traditional sense. I tried going to a synagogue and found organized religion full of two faced insincere people including the Rabbia. I make no claims to being politically appropriate. I am blunt and to the point. I have had heated discussions and mounted challenges to people on this board with many who I like. The regulars on this forum no where I stand. I make no apologies for supporting Israel's right to exist but I do not hate Goyim nor will I engage in hateful stereotypes against them and challenge you for doing the same. We Jews I believe need to reach out to non Jews. I have had much guidance from native Canadian elders and Buddists and Taoists and many other peoples that have helped me become a better Jew. My vision of Zionism is the one born of existential despair-it was born out of necessity to prevent extinction. It was not envisioned to be used to hate Arab peoples, gentiles or anyone. So no Bob, don't ask me to lump all goyim in a nasty category. Many Jews and goyim who criticize Israel do so with good intentions and good faith. Friends do that not just enemies. I am not so insecure nor is Israel and Israelis so insecure they can not handle criticism of Israeli state policies. The country has a volatile press that each day challenges the government. The country is full of political parties and their representatives who openly debate and question the government's policies. There are as you are well aware hundreds of civil rights and human rights groups in Israel. Israel is a boiling brew of criticism because that is our way. We are a people born to debate and continuously question and never stop questioning. The Talmud was designed so we would constantly question and never be satisified with answers and constantly seek to challenge and reform them. I openly welcome any criticism of Israeli state policies. I am not afraid of it. I am also not afraid of someone engaging me in religious debate questioning certain religious doctrine or asking me how the God of the Old Testament appears so unforgiving and angry. How else will people reach out to us if they can not question and engage us? My battle is against anyone, jew or non Jew who stereotypes another with negative generalizations. It is wrong when people do it to Jews. Its wrong when we Jews engage ourselves in anti-semitism as well. But it is also wrong for you and I to make sweeping generalizations of distrust towards non Jews. The world I was born in is a world of co-existence and mutual respect. It is a world of nations among nations. It is a world where each individual has the potential to heal or injure the world through their actions. No I will not be party to insulting and making sweeping negative generalizations about goyim. Israel vividly remembers the righteous gentiles. Included in that salute is a salute to righteous Muslims. Israel was not founded to hate other people-it was founded to assure we did not become extinct and offer a refuge for victims of the holocaust, dhimmitude and thousands of years of persecution. It was not created to justify hating anyone or defining ourselves as superior or better than anyone else or to create an isolationist ghetto either. Yes I have read the doctrine of Zionism. Sorry but it did not tell us to go out and hate goyim or disrespect anyone. I make no claims to being a righteous Jew or a good Jew. I am a rude, impatient, blunt shmuck. But one thing I know is that it is the Jew in me that taught me I am a child of the universe, a child of a reality where there are many visions of possibility not just mine and where the expression of life and hope can be found not just in my people's shared history, but in the history of others. None of us is an island. We can not hide in a shell and see the external outside our own reality as hostile and ever hope to grow and evolve and become better for having done that. That is what I think. Bud can say I blow hot air. But it is a sincere hot air and one that many share.

Bud here you want to lecture me on who an appropriate Jew is...now its my turn.....here read... http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/16/the-pathology-of-jewish-anti-semitism/ Once again Bud, before you presume to tell me who is good for me and who should be my leader, keep something in mind, me, not you, decides whose opinions I agree with, and there being jewish or gentile means f..ck all to me, their merit and the content of their words is what matters to me.

In regards to 1, you engage in stereotypes against Jews and suggest the fact that I am Jewish and support the right of my people to universal sufferage means I justify Israel violating human rights. Those of us who support Israel's right to exist also criticize certain of its policies and we do not need you to lecture us on when and what we should criticize. Your need to continually lecture only continues to evidence your patronizing approach to Jews or anyone who does no agree with you. You lump us all in the great unwashed savage category. Read back your patronizing comment. No human should violate another human's rights if they can help it. Being jewish is irrelevant to that equation. In regards to 2, the religion of anti-Zionists is irrelevant unless they try expolit their identity to imply automatic credibility because of it. The fact an anti-Zionist Jewish does not give them instant credibility and where you get off patronizing me or anyone else let alone Jews and tell us who you think an appropriate Jew is, is the height of absurdity. Once again you not I raise their Jewishness to try suggest they are superior to me because they are anti-Zionist and I am Zionist and because we are both Jews, the one who is against having a collective identity must automatically assumed to be superior. Spit it out Bud. Chomsky and Finklestein are good Jews. I am a bad one. They know their place, I do not. Everyone on this board gentile or Jew, white or black, women or men, gay or straight has a right to their opinion and no I do not need you to lecture me on whether I am a politically acceptable Jew to you. There are many of us who support Israel's right to exist and do not need you to lecture us on human rights, or what is appropriate. You know nothing about me, what I witnessed in the Middle East, what groups I have been involved in and how I choose to express my collective identity. Don't presume to know what I or anyone else believes. I have had the fortune to have learned from native Canadian elders, Shaman, Bahaiis, Hindus, Muslims, Unitarians, Christians, Taoists, Buddists, Jews, Wiccans, Jains, humanist atheists and people of many disciplines and approaches to life and will continue to do so. You know nothing of the Zionism I believe in and how it was taught to me or how it interacts with the collective cultural identities of others. Don't presume to tell me who is my leader and who has credibility for me or any other Jew or non Jew.

Thank you for the kind words.

There you go again presuming to know how I think and imposing black and white patronizing assumptions on those who disagree with you. get this clear Bud, the fact I am a Zionist does not mean I give unreserved support for all Israeli state policies. You know nothing about me or the millions of Jews, some Israeli, some who live in the diaspora who support the right of Israel to exist and what our opinions are. You assume its black and white, and if we are Zionist, we automatically side with all Israeli policies. Well take your assumptions once again and dance with them. The fact I believe Jews have the right to universal sufferage does not cloud my judgement. My contempt for people like you though, who lump people into simplistic categories does. That I openly admit.

Can't resist the need to lecture and patronize....no Bud, I am not your Jewboy. Save the patronizing tone for someone else. I am not interested in joining your golf club or be told what part of the beach to stand on. Don't lecture me on what the cost of Jewish independence is or what the cost of self-determination to Jews has been. You are way out of line presuming you can point your patronizing finger. Unless your blood line is free of any wrong doing and is comes from pure angels who never harmed anyone take that righteous presumption that sounds distinctly like a pretentious leftist I know what is good for everyone tone of command and restrain it. Self-determination shouln't come at the cost of violating international law and human rights? Really. Will you make the same patronizing speech to Hamas, Hezbollah, Intifada, the PFLP, Iran, Syria, Farah Hawks, Al Quaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, on and on? Or do you have selective bias as to who you save such lectures for. Are you suggesting Israel has acted in a vacuum and simply set out to do what it did for no reason other then a bunch of Jews woke up one morning and said, hey let's go start a country so we can violate some human rights. Say now, I know. When the holocaust transpired and millions of Jews had no where to go, they should have just gone poof right Bud because I mean after all, The Mufti of Jerusalem said its not fair they go to Palestine. The 900,000 expelled from Arab League Nations of which 700,000 were forced to flee to Israel with nothing....poof begone to them...you know why Bud...because using your logic, the Arab world felt it wasn't fair they move to Israel. Violate human rights? Right only Israel has. The Arab League never violated any international laws or human rights. None. Zero. Neither did your ancestors. You are clean as a whistle. You were born to lecture the Jew as to what the price of their freedom is-you just can't shrug off the need to dictate to Jews and lecture us-old habits die hard-the dang jew does not know the price of freedom and his place. Right Bud?

Bud I stated: "I don't need to shove it down anyone's throat nor will I. It is what I am. It is simply who I am. Don't ever presume to tell me who I am again." The above refers to me needing to tell people I am a Jew and preface my opinions by using my Jewish identity as an automatic pretext that because I am a Jew it makes my opinions more valid when I criticize Israel. Then I stated: "No I do not make the ridiculous comments these youths made. I expect them to lose their temper and have tantrums. I expect them to do that because that is what some of our people do. They are afraid to be Zionists and admit they have a distinct identity and they believe if they scream about how bad Zionism is, they will suddenly no longer be seen as Jews and be assimilated and accepted." There is no contradiction in what I said you of course however do not understand what it is to be a Zionist or what Zionism is so to you this would appear to be a contradiction. Zionism refers to the collective term Jew. It is a collective term for many components that go into our collective identity. What I am criticizing are Jews who are afraid to think of themselves as a collective with a right to universal sufferage NOT criticizing them for not going around prefacing their remarks for negating their collective identity of being Jewish by saying they hate Israel. You clearly did not get it. Let me put it in the simple black and white terms you understand. A secure Jew neither needs shove their Jewish identity down anyone's face when expressing an opinion nor do they need to openly have tantrums degrading Jews who see themselves as having a right to be collectively recognized. There is a manner in which to discuss such identity issues and acting like baboons in public is not the way to do it. You think Bob is an extremist? He let you off easy. Wait. You think I am done? You think I will sit passively by while you dictate to me what is an acceptable jewish opinion and what isn't and who should speak for me and who I should consider brave or appropriate. I have news for you, whether I am a Jew or a gentile, black or white, female or male, Christian or Hindu, what-ever you and Naomi and your band of politially appropriate extremists do not speak for me or any one else but yourselves. heh. seriously. you are a walking contradiction.

I just finished a post going off on a poster I resent because he makes a point of telling everyone he is Jewish and then spends most of his threads engaging in negative generalizations about all Muslims. Now I am going to spend this response going off on you for the exact same reason. Where do you get off telling this Jew the phrase "OUR Young Jewish...leaders leaders.." Who the f..ck said they were MY leaders? Don't come on this forum and engage in stereotypes about Jews thinking because you are one you can pull that stunt. You don't speak for me or any other Jew and neither did those youth. They spoke for their own opinions thank you very much and no I do not give a sh..t what they think but yes you get on my nerves because of your Jew baiting. JBG may be to the right and you the left but you both exploit the Jewish identity to promote your own version of politics and try give yourselves credibility for what you say by tying it to your identity of being a Jew and I call you both out on it. They are not my leaders. They are not my anything. Neither are you. You don't speak for me or any Jew other then yourself as do they. Some of us are anti Israel, some us like me are Zionist. Some of us have JBG's views some of them have your views, and some of them have mine. Stop lumping me in a Jew stereotype. Your being a Jew does not give your opinions any more added importance then it does anyone else. If someone wants to be anti-Israeli and they are not Jewish their opinions are no less valid than yours simply because you are a Jew who is anti Israeli. That is a crock. Likewise JBG by continually referring to himself as a Jew in his posts does not gain some brownie point when he criticizes Muslims by tying it to terrorist Muslims who attack Israel. Terrorist Muslims no more represent all Muslims then either of you do we Jews. Your religion is not germaine to the issues you spout. You chose to blur the Jew/Israel line not I. You brought up their religion not I and that is a crock. Don;t engage in crass tokenism with Jews because that is what you do. You have something to say Naomi say it but don't toss in the jew like you did. Don't use my identity when it is irrelevant. In fact what you said is down right patronizing and insulting to Jews let alone anyone with any intelligence. Now you want this Jew's opinion? This Jew is a Zionist. This Jew says I have no problem if somneone wants to criticize Israel state policies. This Jew says I will challenge such criticism if it brings in negative generalizations about all Jews or blurs the criticism against Israel state policies with criticisms directed at any or all Jews. I criticize you the exact same way I would a gentile for doing the same thing. Take your leftist stereotypes and try put them in some other Jew's face. I am a Zionist. I believe Jews have a right to universal sufferage and no I do not agree with everything Netanyahu stands for. My bias is well known to readers on this forum. I am a proud Canadian jew and proud to be Canadian and am loyal to Canada first. Then my political sympathies are with Labour Zionism and Kadima not Likud. No I do not go in public and scream at Netanyahu. No I do not make the ridiculous comments these youths made. I expect them to lose their temper and have tantrums. I expect them to do that because that is what some of our people do. They are afraid to be Zionists and admit they have a distinct identity and they believe if they scream about how bad Zionism is, they will suddenly no longer be seen as Jews and be assimilated and accepted. All you have done is show the exact opposite. You have shown by parading about your need to point out to everyone you are a Jew and I am a Jew and the baboons having a tantrum that they were Jews, that you need to compensate for feeling insecure about being a Jew by screaming about it. I don't need to shove it down anyone's throat nor will I. It is what I am. It is simply who I am. Don't ever presume to tell me who I am again.