Bob

Aside from Hilberg, who can't be put in the same category as blatantly anti-Israel folks like Finkelstein, Avnery, and Chomsky, they are all fringe Jews. I'm not familiar with Hilberg's positions on the Israeli-Arab conflict, but I'm quite certain they are not in line with the fringe opinions of the other three Jews in your basket. They are most certainly fringe Jews with respect to their positions on the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Having a connection to Judaism doesn't inherently make someone knowledgeable about anti-semitism and Israeli issues. What is true, however, is that NOT being Jewish and not having a stake in these issues makes one much less likely (due to a lack of motivation) to do the research necessary to understand them. Plain and simple. Finkelstein being the son of Holocaust survivors doesn't give him carte-blanche to advance his anti-Israel positions and paint the Arabs as victims.

Even growing up in Canada I've been assaulted three times by other students in high school because I was Jewish. Guess what? The attackers were always Muslims. That's just one anecdote, but please spare me your assertion that anti-semitism isn't alive and well. It's right here in this very forum masking itself in the form of criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism.

Why is this surprising? We've got a huge Arab and Muslim population, and it's growing - we know that they hate Israel, by and large. Furthermore, we know Canada is very left-leaning ideologically, and this is also reflected in our media. I don't know which came first, media bias or public opinion (obviously they each influence the other), but in Canada I see equality on the anti-Israel bias is between media reporting and public opinion. In other words, Canadian media and Canadian public opinion are predominantly anti-Israel and predominantly ignorant. The vast majority of comments I read on the CBC website (to say nothing of the articles, themselves), for example, are virulently anti-Israel, anti-semitic, and full of ignorance.

So you list fringe Jews (Finkelstein being an atheist and a communist) to add Jew-credibility to your false assertion that I'm using the term "anti-semitic" inappropriately? With all due respect, I'm quite sure I have a much better radar for anti-semitism than you, and it's quite clear what you seek to defend all criticism of Israel, no matter how absurd and blatantly anti-semitic. When the violent agitators on the Mavi Marmara prayed together as they psyched themselves up before "battling the Jews", you didn't see anti-semitism. When the message to the Israeli navy was "go back to Auschwitz" and "remember 9/11", you didn't see anti-semitism. When terrorists who openly state their hatred of Jews are celebrated and defended by "peace activists", you don't see anti-semitism. I know what these "peace groups" are all about. I know they are opposed to Jewish self-determination (inseparable from a Jewish state). I've been to anti-Israel rallies and seen the hateful rhetoric that is the norm, not the exception. I see the anti-semitism all over the internet, and not just on openly anti-semitic websites. Like I said, you're so ignorant and hate-filled you're beyond help. You refuse to see the things the way they are in order to maintain your dishonesty.

Ok, so rockets weren't fired into Israel from Gaza, threatening Israeli lives and property, prior to Operation Cast Lead? Gotcha. Again, Hamas and Gazans aren't responsible for the rockets fired into Israel pre-Cast Lead (forget about the kidnapping and murder attempts at border crossing, and shootings from the border), but only Israel is responsible for the conflict. Gotcha. The reasons for going to war aren't that complicated, and I don't care what you think Israel said or didn't say. Gaza is a threat to Israeli security, whether or not you want to acknowledge this. Putting aside Hamas' own proclamations promising the murder of more Israelis via terrorism, we can examine their actions - kidnappings, murders, shooting, and rockets. Not to mention their ongoing acquisition of arms and other tools of terror. In your sick and twisted world, Israel must wait until its citizens are murdered before it is allowed to act - even when the intention of its enemy are clear to see. And even then, when Israel does defend itself in retaliation as well as preventatively, it is "disproportional" because the body count isn't even between terrorists and Jews. Sir, you are too ignorant and hate-filled. I can't help you. Have a nice life.

In naomiglover's angry and unemployed world, she'd advocate taking ownership of media outlets because there are too many Jews running the show! Can't let the Jews make too much money, now... Let's put a quota on Jewish enrolment in universities, while we're at it - they are overrepresented in universities, proportional to their population! If we have too many Jews in universities, they'll end up influencing academia in a pro-Israel manner, just as they've done to media and politics!

Yes yes, of course there is no overlap between the anti-semitism of the Islamic and Arabic worlds and their animosity towards Israel. Certainly no connection whatsoever. Jews weren't being murdered before 1967 in Israel and pre-Israel Palestine because they were Jewish, all the hostilities began AFTER 1967 as a legitimate resistance to occupation. Case closed.

Spare me your feigned outrage. Anti-semitism means nothing to you. Your family wasn't prevented from living in certain communities, entering most universities, or barred from any professions because they were Jewish. Your family didn't get incarcerated because they were seen as disloyal because of their Jewishness of Zionistic leanings. Your family didn't have its possessions and property taken from them because they were Jewish. None of your family was murdered in the Holocaust for being Jewish. None of your family has been injured or murdered in Israel because they were Jewish. Anti-semitism means nothing to you - stop pretending the term is trivialized when it was trivial for you to begin with. To you, anti-semitism has been and always will be words on a page, and have no meaning. Get off your soapbox, you're fooling nobody.

Every time I start typing out a response, I remember what a deceitful and hate-filled person I'm dealing with - naomiglover. You're too ignorant and ideological to be helped. I'm quite sure you've passed the point of no return and will forever be the way that you are.

Read the very first paragraph to see the bias of the entire paper... Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters. In other words, there's no historical context provided to the Israeli-Arab conflict. It's summed up being a sixty-year occupation, with no reference to important years prior to '67 and ongoing incitement and propagandization of the Muslims and Arabs within their own countries - virulently anti-semitic and anti-Western. Israel's occupation of Palestinians is the primary driver of Arab discontent. There is no questioning of disturbing it is that Muslims around the world are murdering people while claiming at least partial justification through the Israeli-Arab conflict. The rest of the article, all garbage, seeks to suggest that Canada acquiesce to Arab and Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel by lessening or withdrawing support for Israel. This is pure realpolitik in action, throw the Jew down the well as he's a liability given widespread Arab and Muslim hatred of him and his country. There is supreme ignorance from this professor suggesting that foreign policy is shaped by Congress, which is in turn influenced by the Jewish Lobby. Forget about the fact that foreign policy is almost exclusively the job of the executive. This article plays on the lies that the Jewish Lobby in the USA actually has a heavy influence on the shaping of foreign policy in America, contrary to popular opinion. The reality is that the pro-Israel lobby in the USA is a reflection of popular opinion, as it's an entirely grassroots movement. Here's a lie straight out of the Israel Lobby - A particular triumph for the American lobby was the defeat in 1984 of Charles Percy, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As Tom Dine, executive director of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs committee) — the predominant US-Israel lobby -boasted to a Toronto audience, “All the Jews in America … gathered to - defeat Percy. And the American politicians got the message.” (8) This suggests that AIPAC caused the political downfall of Percy, and uses an AIPAC boast as "evidence". Of course a lobby will boast of its "power" in order to garner more support and elevate its reputation. Nevermind any other political factors that led to his defeat in 1984. Nevermind either that Percy himself stated that he did not lose due to any of AIPAC's involvement in the campaign (basically running ads against him and lobbying the Jewish and pro-Israel constituency). It is just such a ridiculous piece of "evidence", and it's the only proof that Walt and Mearsheimer provide in their book with respect to pro-Israel lobby influence on elections. Do I really need to explain how ridiculous it is to suggest that the Canadian Jewish community has more influence over the shaping of foreign policy than the PM himself? Talk about the typical anti-semitic line-of-thinking questioning the loyalty of Jews. Wow. I could go on and trash every single paragraph in this article, but I'll stop there.

Again with the "power of the weak" argument. Hamas and Gaza cannot be held responsible for the rocket attacks since apparently they were executed by non-Hamas organizations. Since it's a broken and inept government, they're absolved of responsibility for the terrorist attacks into Israel via rockets. So if we follow this logic and accept the supposition that Hamas isn't responsible for the rockets (because either Hamas didn't fire the rockets themselves or didn't offer support for their firings), then Israel now has no right to defend itself by engaging in military action to destroy the infrastructure of terrorism. Bascially, Israel's hands are tied, and, at best, it must trust Hamas to deal with this internal problem on its own (an organization that vigilantly advocates terrorism and rejects Israel's legitimacy). Do I even need to mention how outrageous your side-note of no Israelis being killed is? What you're suggesting is that until Israelis are killed, Israel has no right to defend itself. Israel doesn't need to wait for its people to be murdered before we can defend ourselves.

I don't get that impression, at all. Look, Israel bashers and anti-semites hate me, and I hate them ten times back - I'm not trying to make excuses for this silly lady. It seems quite clear that she doesn't know the first thing about Israel outside of briefing she's had with anti-Israel extremist groups (i.e. the organizers of the DBS rally she's taking part is). We can't know for certain, but my instincts tell me you're wrong and that this lady is wholly ignorant about Israeli history.

You can't separate the formation of the state of Israel from saving Jews from persecution, as you're trying to do. Persecution of Jews leads to the Zionist movement. One precedes the other. Look, let's not pretend you know anything about Zionism beyond five minutes of using Google to peruse anti-semitic websites. You're clearly on an anti-semitic and anti-Zionist rant. Spare me the false quotes from anti-semitic websites. You are a really fucked up person. Ben-Gurion never said such a thing. Keep spewing your anti-semitism from behind the security of your computer.

Israel needs to replace Mark Regev. It shouldn't be hard for him to wreck these loaded questions and false allegations from ignorant journalists, yet he seems to be more concerned about being polite and hospitable. He doesn't even seem to have a good grasp of the facts...

You are such a despicable liar. Did you ever consider that Zionism was born as a reaction to the realities of anti-semitism? Herzl himself predicated that something terrible would happen to the Jes of Europe, and indeed, the Holocaust took place. If Herzl said that (which I doubt), it's only in reference to anti-semitism being the motivator for the Zionist cause. How can you not know that Zionism was a reaction to anti-semitism? You're suggesting that Zionist tried to encourage anti-semitism? To encourage the further restrictions on Jewish freedoms, and abuse and mass murder of us? You really are a fucked up person to suggest that Zionism promoted anti-semitism. This is straight up lied from anti-semitic propaganda playbooks. Absolutely sickening. It's a lie to suggest that many Jews are anti-Zionist. If you attack Zionism, you're attacking the overwhelming majority of Jews. Your anti-semitism couldn't be more blatant if you tried. It's easy to say despicable things like that behind the computer screen, obviously.

So basically, Israel is between a rock and a hard place. It has a priority - security of its citizens. This is an immediate need, and cannot be compromised in some gambling attempt at a social experiment. Do you suppose that Israel should not blockade an openly hostile (not just words, but actions - MURDERS of Israelis) territory because it might make the population more angry and hate-filled than it already is? Israel must choose between a hate-filled group of people sworn to its destruction and a REALLY ANGRY hate-filled group of people sworn to its destruction? What a wonderful choice to make.

If you're anti-Zionist, you're anti-semitic. End of story.

The anti-Israel fringe group opposed to the state of Israel based on their flawed religious principles are the most minuscule fringe of Jewish society. There are most definitely not "a lot" of them. They are definitely anti-semitic. Did you seriously just compare the cohesiveness of "whites" to the cohesiveness of worldwide Jewry? The claims and legitimacy of a "white" country to a Jewish country? Another ridiculous statement from dre...

242 is subjective. How to implement its tenets is up for debate. If you want to claim that Israel didn't fulfill its obligations of 242, then you need to mention that the PLO never ceased terrorism or incitement. The USA vetoing anti-semitic resolutions is irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't even matter, anyways, very little of this legalistic mumbo-jumbo means anythings, and it certainly doesn't support the Palestinian cause - they're broken every commitment they ever made, both public and private, bilateral and multilateral. At the end of the day, the rejection of Arabs and Muslims to Jewish self-determination is the primary driver of this conflict. The conflict didn't start in '67, and it certainly won't end upon a relinquishing of Israeli territory to its enemies whoa re sworn to its destruction. You can't sign a piece of paper in a room in NYC promising to recognize Israel based on impossible preconditions and then teach children in Ramallah that the Holocaust is a fraud - and expect to be seen a true advocate for peace.

What I said was that I believe the majority of activists on the flotilla, and the types of people that take part in those things, are anti-semitic. I stand by that position, as that's what I've seen. I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find even one "activist" on the "Freedom Flotilla" that doesn't blame Israel entirely for the situation in Gaza and the broader Israel-Arab conflict. Don't pretend that people who take part in this kinda thing are often virulently anti-Israel and anti-semitic (a la Helen Thomas).

One more point - Jews are a multi-ethnic and multi-racial group of people. We've got Jews from Russia, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Belgium, France, Ethiopia, Spain, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, India Canada, the USA, etc, etc... We're a very diverse group of people and we've even had our own share of discrimination between us (prejudice against Ethiopians in Israel, for example). Being Jewish is much more cultural than it is racial or ethnic. It's a cultural tie that unites us, so it's simply dishonest to suggest that Israel is a racially or ethnically uniform country. We're bound by culture.

I've heard (and made) all of those arguments before. To be anti-nationalist is absolutely to be anti-semitic, whether or not you realize it. As much as you like to think that only individuals have rights, it doesn't make it true. The world is composed of various groups, united and cohesive in different degrees and in different ways. Humanity doesn't begin and end with the individual. There is such a thing as the collective, whether or not you accept this. The collective has rights as well as responsibilities. When blacks were enslaved in the USA, there was a collective. This experience has shaped a cohesiveness among much of the black community in the USA - there is very real element of group-awareness, there. Sometimes this group-awareness mobilizes, justifiably, towards statehood in a mission to protect itself and advance its desires. Let's examine the roots of anti-nationalist (anti-identity) perspectives. It's a typical communist/leftist line-of-thinking. Those who are anti-nationalist believe that issues of collective identity are the primary drivers of conflict and strife - if we can all drop our identities (religious, cultural, what-have-you) then all social barriers will be alleviated and we'll all be united as human beings. All social tension will be waived and we'll all be equal, unaffiliated humans. On an elementary and ignorant level, this is appealing. World peace, ho! Unfortunately, this line of thinking is ridiculous. By natural extension, this line of thinking is anti-identity, and naturally anti-semitic. It's anti-difference. It views differences between cultures as an affront to unity. It naturally leads to hatred of different cultures, and of ANY culture - as the goal is a culture-free society where there are no ethnic/cultural/religious lines of difference between people. National identity can and often is a force for good, though. Anti-nationalists ignore this. A sense of collective identity motivates and mobilizes people to behave altruistically - to believe in a responsibility to something beyond yourself (contrary to your assertion that only individuals have rights, which by natural extension means only individuals have responsibilities, only to themselves and for themselves). If you have no identity, or a weak identity, you won't be able to take on large collective projects. Whether it's the establishment of a country and way of life, defending oneself from threats, public service to make things better, etc. There's the way you wish things were and then there's the way things are - people with a strong sense of identity (religious, cultural, what have you) are much more likely organize community events, contribute to charities, and do other things to improve the world. The vast majority of the world's charities are cultural/religious. Unicef and Doctors Without Borders are non-affiliated charity programs that I can think of off the top of my head, but the vast majority of charitable work is strongly connected to one's identity and a belief in the well-being of the collective. United Way, as an example, was founded by Christian churches (also early on it received contributions from the Jewish community). I don't need to give many examples, I'm sure it's obvious that the vast majority of charity and outreach is performed by organizations with strong cultural ties. When was the last world atheist congress charitable dinner? An identity and nationalistic movement can also be largely defined by its political values. In Israel, Zionism is staunchly democratic. This is not a value that can be compromised on. In some ways, this can be a liability - as Arabs are full citizens in Israel (and they're generally not loyal to Israel's Jewish identity, and don't fulfill the national service that others fulfill, Jews and non-Jews alike). In Israel there is a strong free press and strong free market, as well as socialist principles with respect to health care and military service (as examples). There realities are largely motivated by Israel's national pride and sense of identity. Israel's own creation is an amazing story of pioneers who believed in something beyond themselves, and it is literally a beacon of freedom and liberalism in a sea of despotism and tyranny. Preservation and enrichment of a particular identity is also an objective of a nation-state. Clearly you do not care about the preservation of Jewish identity and culture, this is true for the vast majority of non-Jews. It's understandable. Why would you care? You wouldn't care if Judaism was merely a factoid in your local museum. Many Jews, including myself, do care about preserving our culture (which is admittedly ambiguous and abstract in many ways). This preservation can justify certain limitations on the rights of minorities in the nation-state, which I'm sure you find abhorrent. Take the Law of Return, for example (a beautiful thing!) which allows any Jew (with some exceptions) to come to Israel and become a citizen. Clearly this is a special permission only granted to Jews, even though non-Jews comprise about 25% of Israel's population. Discrimination to you, self-preservation to us. This is a perfectly acceptable law, to any reasonable person. It should be noted that many countries have similar laws allowing repatriation of those abroad who are a part of the nation. Do I even need to mention that for all your whining about "the individual", much of the world continues to view us as a collective group of undesirables? Go to any YouTube video regarding Israel or Jews and you'll see venomous anti-semitism (usually from screen-names like 'ahmed1992'). As much as you may want to view the world as all individuals, the world continues to see us as an undesirable minority to be liquidated. Did the Holocaust look at us as individuals? What about our Dhimmi status in the Ottoman Empire? Even when we tried to integrate and assimilate, we were still oppressed. It wasn't long ago that our rights AS A GROUP were denied to us as Jews. They still are denied to us in contemporary criticism of Israel's self-defense and of its Jewish character. Our identity is was holds us together, and is part of the social glue that's helped us survive and persevere through centuries of persecutions. There's the world the way you wish it was (no identities), and then the world the way it is. We want to be Jews, and the world has consistently let us down, to put it lightly: pogroms murdering thousands of us, expelling us from Spain, restricting where we could live, study, and work, genocide murdering half of us, dhimmi status among Muslim majorities, and constant attacks on our country. We can talk about dropping the nation state when the world no longer treats us as an inferior nation, ok? As much as you want to believe it, we're NOT all alike. Arabs (at least in the Middle East), on the whole, do not share liberal values which are prevalent in Israel. They are therefore incompatible with the social fabric of Israel - one of pluralism, diversity, and broad economic, social, and religious freedoms. If this is the case, how can you be opposed to states with a sense of national identity when this national identity is the one thing that protects us from being overrun by tyranny? Of course there are exceptions among Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, but these do not override the broader trends. The Star Trek world may be nice on TV, but it's far from reality.

There's a Jewish identity which precedes Israeli identity. Perhaps you're forgotten that.

The PLO never recognized Israel. You're still lying and not acknowledging the subjectivity of 242. The PLO charter was never adjusted to remove clauses that reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state or endorsing terrorism, contrary to the promises laid out in a letter from Arafat to Rabin in your link. Hamas has stated in a couple of interviews that it would offer a truce based on unacceptable conditions (a warped interpretation of 242), primarily demanding the ethnic cleansing of half-a-million Jews from Judea/Samaria and EJ. Of course Hamas knows this is impossible. In many more interviews and public pronouncements Hamas has called for Israel's destruction - you conveniently ignore these statements - and their actions.. Only an idiot would see Hamas' actions as not being completely in line with their violent promises. Israel will not allow its enemies to gain more territory in order to continue their agenda of murder and terrorism that they embarked on in the late 19th century. They must be kept as far away from Israeli population centres as possible. "Land for peace" is a fallacy. The conflict is ideological, not territorial. Keep the lies coming, naomiglover. For you to even suggest that Palestinians want peace, while Israel wants conflict is BEYOND absurd. How can you look at yourself in the mirror? Is your family disgusted with your hate and lies? It is shocking to me how pathological your lies are.