Israel's government is turning into a settlement

[Bob]

I don't even know why I waste time with you. I ignored most of your previous post because it was mostly irrelevant and nonsensical. It's quite rich for you to be telling me about anti-Semitism and how you see it as "overblown".

Edited January 18, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

I don't even know why I waste time with you. I ignored most of your previous post because it was mostly irrelevant and nonsensical. It's quite rich for you to be telling me about anti-Semitism and how you see it as "overblown".

Please, do me a favour and educate me about what--specifically what--was nonsensical about my post.

As to "irrelevant"--it was about anti-semitism, Bob, a topic you raised. Now, I understand that totalitarians accept no less than 100% agreement. We have a few knuckledragging reactionaries here who would no doubt enjoy being your dewy-eyed acolytes; Being Jew-haters, they think everyone else is too, just as you do. As for the rest of us...well, buncha anti-semites, no doubt.

And likely you are too!...so deep is the institutional rot.

What is "rich" is for someone who claims all criticisms of Israel's behaviour denotes anti-semitism--as morally dank and corrupt (and doctrinally obedient) a claim as one could make about a country's military actions--to pretend to moral sanctimony.

Edited January 18, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

What is "rich" is for someone who claims all criticisms of Israel's behaviour denotes anti-semitism...

I didn't say that.

[bloodyminded]

I didn't say that.

Ah...you were only defending the ignorant, benighted, servile-to-the-state morons who do.

Not to mention the North American goy who make the same arguments (so who have far less excuse than do Israelis) proving a stupidity almost too profound to contemplate.

So...you don't think that the majority of critics of Israel's military behaviour are anti-semites?

Edited January 18, 2011 by bloodyminded

[dre]

Ah...you were only defending the ignorant, benighted, servile-to-the-state morons who do.

Not to mention the North American goy who make the same arguments (so who have far less excuse than do Israelis) proving a stupidity almost too profound to contemplate.

So...you don't think that the majority of critics of Israel's military behaviour are anti-semites?

That guy plays the race card, and victim card, and the race victim card in literally every argument hes ever participated in. If he acts reasonable for even a second hes just trying to con you.

[bloodyminded]

That guy plays the race card, and victim card, and the race victim card in literally every argument hes ever participated in. If he acts reasonable for even a second hes just trying to con you.

Yes, I'm beginning to see that. His apparently reasonable stance (which I see did seem almost a 180 degree turnaround, in retrospect) prompted me to write a long and relatively carefully-thought-out post, which I hoped would be fodder for further discussion.

If I had known I was debating a fanatic unable to even nod towards another point of view, or take it on intelligently, I wouldn't have wasted my time. I mean, who bothers to write long and careful posts for Saipan? Different powers of articulation aside, it's about the same quality "argument."

[Bonam]

Actually, you entered my mind after I wrote it, and so I can offer the caveat that your concern is certainly real enough. Overblown, in my opinion, but your point still stands.

However, the label is overused; I think more and more people are beginning to recognize this. I have been personally deemed an anti-semite, and for as little as making the remarks you and I were discussing earlier; that is, when I mention U.S. influence on Israel, some piker is going to contort him or herself, performing remarkable and convoluted mental gymnastics to assert that, ultimately, such a remark has a basis in age-old anti-semitism.

The reason that criticism of Israel can often seem biased to those who support Israel or have some stake in Israel is because the critics tend to fixate on Israel while ignoring or paying much less attention to far far more atrocious events. An obvious example is the UN. The UN has issued far more resolutions condemning Israel than any other entity. But why? Are Israel's actions really so much more terrible, more worthy of condemnation, than those of any number of African and Asian countries where real genocides have occurred? Where human rights are violated far beyond what any could claim happens in Gaza or the West Bank? Why then do major organizations like the UN focus so heavily on Israel?

This kind of fixation, of overwhelming criticism despite the objective smallness of any violations in Israel in comparison to dozens of other cases, makes many Israelis and their supporters reflexively suspicious of the motives of their critics. Combine that with the fact that among the many critics of Israel, particularly in the Arab world, a significant number really do hold antisemitic views, and it is not hard to see why the antisemite label gets bandied about.

Now, I do agree, some posters here do overuse it. Some posters that are critical of some of Israel's actions, such as yourself, are clearly not antisemites, and calling you that only does a dis-service to proponents of Israel. But then we have certain other posters who really do seem antisemitic. Oleg, for example, has regularly posted views that are perfect examples of stereotypical classical antisemitism, though he throws these views about aimlessly, much like his similar perspectives on gays and atheists. Then we have people like dub/naomi/bud (all very likely the same person), who cloaks his arguments in the veneer of being devoted to "international law" and is careful not to make any overtly antisemitic statements, yet whose fixation with Israel belies a specific agenda (much like for example charter.rights tries to talk in terms of the charter and various treaties but really is some sort of native supremacist).

If I say I think the 2008 attack on Gaza was unjustified, again, I am clearly a raving anti-semite.

Not necessarily, but it does make you wrong. You can debate the details of the operation, whether certain specific aspects of it were handled correctly or incorrectly, whether some weapons or tactics should or should not have been used, whether it was perhaps too broad in scope, but to say that no attack should have happened at all is my view an untenable position. Israel had to respond to the provocations: the rocket attacks as well as the continued imprisonment and maltreatment of its captured soldier. To say that the operation as a whole was unjustified is to say that Israel has no right to defend itself. And, Israel being the only Jewish state, saying that Israel cannot defend itself implies that Jews do not have the right to self-determination as a people. Such a position, while it could perhaps sometimes arise from other considerations as well (general pacifism, non-statism, desire for world rather than national government, sincere disbelief that any of the stated provocations actually occurred, etc) arises most commonly out of nothing other than antisemitism, or at least out of a preference for the rights of Arabs over the rights of Jews.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Bonam

[dre]

The reason that criticism of Israel can often seem biased to those who support Israel or have some stake in Israel is because the critics tend to fixate on Israel while ignoring or paying much less attention to far far more atrocious events. An obvious example is the UN. The UN has issued far more resolutions condemning Israel than any other entity. But why? Are Israel's actions really so much more terrible, more worthy of condemnation, than those of any number of African and Asian countries where real genocides have occurred? Where human rights are violated far beyond what any could claim happens in Gaza or the West Bank? Why then do major organizations like the UN focus so heavily on Israel?

This kind of fixation, of overwhelming criticism despite the objective smallness of any violations in Israel in comparison to dozens of other cases, makes many Israelis and their supporters reflexively suspicious of the motives of their critics. Combine that with the fact that among the many critics of Israel, particularly in the Arab world, a significant number really do hold antisemitic views, and it is not hard to see why the antisemite label gets bandied about.

Now, I do agree, some posters here do overuse it. Some posters that are critical of some of Israel's actions, such as yourself, are clearly not antisemites, and calling you that only does a dis-service to proponents of Israel. But then we have certain other posters who really do seem antisemitic. Oleg, for example, has regularly posted views that are perfect examples of stereotypical classical antisemitism, though he throws these views about aimlessly, much like his similar perspectives on gays and atheists. Then we have people like dub/naomi/bud (all very likely the same person), who cloaks his arguments in the veneer of being devoted to "international law" and is careful not to make any overtly antisemitic statements, yet whose fixation with Israel belies a specific agenda (much like for example charter.rights tries to talk in terms of the charter and various treaties but really is some sort of native supremacist).

Not necessarily, but it does make you wrong. You can debate the details of the operation, whether certain specific aspects of it were handled correctly or incorrectly, whether some weapons or tactics should or should not have been used, whether it was perhaps too broad in scope, but to say that no attack should have happened at all is my view an untenable position. Israel had to respond to the provocations: the rocket attacks as well as the continued imprisonment and maltreatment of its captured soldier. To say that the operation as a whole was unjustified is to say that Israel has no right to defend itself. And, Israel being the only Jewish state, saying that Israel cannot defend itself implies that Jews do not have the right to self-determination as a people. Such a position, while it could perhaps sometimes arise from other considerations as well (general pacifism, non-statism, desire for world rather than national government, sincere disbelief that any of the stated provocations actually occurred, etc) arises most commonly out of nothing other than antisemitism, or at least out of a preference for the rights of Arabs over the rights of Jews.

The reason that criticism of Israel can often seem biased to those who support Israel or have some stake in Israel is because the critics tend to fixate on Israel while ignoring or paying much less attention to far far more atrocious events. An obvious example is the UN. The UN has issued far more resolutions condemning Israel than any other entity. But why? Are Israel's actions really so much more terrible, more worthy of condemnation, than those of any number of African and Asian countries where real genocides have occurred? Where human rights are violated far beyond what any could claim happens in Gaza or the West Bank? Why then do major organizations like the UN focus so heavily on Israel?

First of all stop acting like this kind of thing is common place. We have millions of people in this case living under a brutal military occupation for 50 years, and one that has the potential to turn into a regional conflict that would have some pretty big ramifications on the west. It absolutely SHOULD be a focal point.

African and Asian countries where real genocides have occurred

First of all the system of international laws that the UN is part of is reluctant to wade into internal matters because thats not its origional mandate. It deals mostly with international conflict as opposed to internal political struggles, violence, and so on. Im not sure its GOOD that it works that way, but thats the way it works. When a country violates international law and siezes land/resources that it has no legal right to theres more chance that multilateral institutions will get involved. You could make the same argument about Saddams invasion of Kuwait... and intervention of the west in that case. It wasnt the biggest humanitarian disaster around EITHER, but it was an event that fell plainly under the mandate of multilateral institutions.

Secondly, the UN is very interested in the middle east conflict because they were part of it. They are the body responsible for the partition plan, from which Israel derived statehood.

So the focus is valid and completely justified, and in fact situations like this are the exact reason the UN was created. It falls squarely and completely within their mandate.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Secondly, the UN is very interested in the middle east conflict because they were part of it. They are the body responsible for the partition plan, from which Israel derived statehood.

Ergo, Israel has more "international" legitimacy than either Canada or the United States with respect to soverienty and occupied "indigenous" land. Palestine is not a sovereign state.

So the focus is valid and completely justified, and in fact situations like this are the exact reason the UN was created. It falls squarely and completely within their mandate.

So what have they done lately?

[dre]

Ergo, Israel has more "international" legitimacy than either Canada or the United States with respect to soverienty and occupied "indigenous" land. Palestine is not a sovereign state.

So what have they done lately?

NOTHING!!! Which makes Bonhams claims that they pick on Israel even more strange. They have given them a COMPLETELY AND TOTAL PASS.

[bush_cheney2004]

NOTHING!!! Which makes Bonhams claims that they pick on Israel even more strange. They have given them a COMPLETELY AND TOTAL PASS.

What would you expect the UN to do except submit resolutions for veto by the UK/USA? Israel is a sovereign state with the means to defend its own interests and project power in the region. The UN is impotent in the face of this reality.

[Bonam]

NOTHING!!! Which makes Bonhams claims that they pick on Israel even more strange. They have given them a COMPLETELY AND TOTAL PASS.

Lies. The UN general assembly has done as much as it can possibly do, which is to pass vast numbers of resolutions against Israel, more than against any other nation.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Bonam

[Bob]

It's pretty sad how dre tries to explain the reason for the UN's virtually singular focus on Israel as the result of legitimate international interests. The obvious truth is that the UN is a soapbox upon which Arab and Muslim interests are given a loudspeaker through which to project their perspectives of reality. A seat is given to the USA as well as to Rwanda. Another pair of seats includes Canada and Qatar. Get my drift? It's a silly system where illegitimate voices are given legitimacy. Moreover, many countries align themselves with the Arab League countries for other political reasons. The UN's seemingly singular focus on Israel is entirely a function of the massive global Muslim population and the Muslim world's virtual uniform perspective of Israel - it is an illegitimate country. I don't want to delve into the details, but beyond the obsession with Israel at the UN, the criticism's of Israel are almost exclusively unjustifiable.

Rather than acknowledge the truth, dre prefers to give false justifications.

One more thing, and the most offensive statement so far in this thread, is the suggestion that somehow the UN gave Israel to the Jewish people via the Partition Plan of 1947. Although important, the 1947 Partition Plan is just a part in a much larger story that is the birth of Israel. It's a story about the Jewish people and our struggle. It's a story about emancipation from persecution and genocide and a dream to secure true independence in this world and have our voices heard. You think a little fucking document built this country? Did that document get shot at and murdered in anti-Semitic pogroms in the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate in the decades leading up to 1948? Did that document fight, bleed, and die in 1948, 1954, 1967, 1973, or 1982? It always drives me nuts when I read verminous filth suggesting that somehow the world "gave" us our own land. The UN's recognition of Jewish independence via the 1947 Partition Plan was just that - a recognition. Jewish statehood was already here, and there was no stopping us.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Bob

[jbg]

You think a little fucking document built this country? Did that document get shot at and murdered in anti-Semitic pogroms in the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate in the decades leading up to 1948? Did that document fight, bleed, and die in 1948, 1954, 1967, 1973, or 1982? It always drives me nuts when I read verminous filth suggesting that somehow the world "gave" us our own land. The UN's recognition of Jewish independence via the 1947 Partition Plan was just that - a recognition. Jewish statehood was already here, and there was no stopping us.

Aside from the unfortunate use of an expletive, that is the most beautiful explanation I have read about Eretz Y'srael's creation.

[Rue]

wrong. i support the existence of the israeli state.

fight for what? stealing land? i do not support anyone, jewish or not jewish, who tries to steal another person's land.

i love rights, especially human rights. this is why i don't support expansionism and theft of another group's land. i don't care what religion they follow.

you have a habit of lying and trying to defame people with those lies. you're a weak person.

Let's slow down. I may disagree with some of your views, but let's just slow down. You said nothing anti-semitic and the personal attacks against your motives for your opinions are uncalled for. You can criticize Israeli politics for heaven's sake. That doesn't make you an anti-semite or even anti Israeli. What the heck is going on here.

I detest your simplistic generalizations and accusations but they do not make you anti-semitic per se. In fact people like you are never intentionally anti-semitic and that is what worries me the most, your lack of insight as to how some of the stuff you say makes sweeping negative generalizations against an entire nation. However making sweeping negative generalizations about your motives in return isn't right either nor is your accusation of another poster being a liar, etc.

Come on knock it off everyone and let' stick to the issues.

I respect your right to your opinions even though I think you are ovestating them and engaging in irrational assumptions but I see no reason to attack you as a person or accuse you of hating me because I am a Jew.

I regret you personally have to defend yourself.

Sheesh. Disagree with Israeli government policies. Its your right to and no I won't assume you hate me because I am a Jew or a Zionist.

Look I am a grouch on this forum. I can't stand knee jerk anti-Israeli critics but I also think its b.s. to accuse someone of being an anti-semite merely because they criticize Israel or quote an Israeli newspaper known for its anti-Israeli government views.

You were making politically bias or partisan anti-Israeli statements. Its par for the course. This is a political debate forum.

Enough with the attacks on you or others as a person.

Debate the positions.

Lol. I need to practice what I preach too.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Rue

[bloodyminded]

Now, I do agree, some posters here do overuse it. Some posters that are critical of some of Israel's actions, such as yourself, are clearly not antisemites, and calling you that only does a dis-service to proponents of Israel. But then we have certain other posters who really do seem antisemitic.

I'm not only talking about posters. I'm talking about politicians; and about Abe Foxman of the ADL, who uses it very cynically. About Elie Wiesel. It's rampant.

I disagree with your implication that its used in any sincere (if misguided) way. It's wilfully dishonest, serving the same use as politically correct attacks generally. ("You disagree with me? You're a racist!" and so on.)

People who overuse it are doing a disservice to the very cause they claim to be upholding.

Because they're fucking assholes. Period.

Oleg, for example, has regularly posted views that are perfect examples of stereotypical classical antisemitism, though he throws these views about aimlessly, much like his similar perspectives on gays and atheists.

I've noticed this about old Oleg, yes.

Then we have people like dub/naomi/bud (all very likely the same person), who cloaks his arguments in the veneer of being devoted to "international law" and is careful not to make any overtly antisemitic statements, yet whose fixation with Israel belies a specific agenda

I'm no so sure; at any rate, I think the accusers are the ones who should be cautious. That some anti-semitism might be difficult to prove absolutely is the problem of the accusers...not of those being accused.

We had a fellow here who denied the Holocaust, spoke of the usual banking/Hollywood/Communist New World order absurdities. So, I had no compunction about labelling him an anti-semite. He obviously was one.

But the onus should be high. Not just for a person who seems primarily focussed on the behaviour of a country.

Not necessarily, but it does make you wrong.

About Gaza? Not at all. I was being gentle.

You can debate the details of the operation, whether certain specific aspects of it were handled correctly or incorrectly, whether some weapons or tactics should or should not have been used, whether it was perhaps too broad in scope, but to say that no attack should have happened at all is my view an untenable position. Israel had to respond to the provocations: the rocket attacks as well as the continued imprisonment and maltreatment of its captured soldier. To say that the operation as a whole was unjustified is to say that Israel has no right to defend itself. And, Israel being the only Jewish state, saying that Israel cannot defend itself implies that Jews do not have the right to self-determination as a people. Such a position, while it could perhaps sometimes arise from other considerations as well (general pacifism, non-statism, desire for world rather than national government, sincere disbelief that any of the stated provocations actually occurred, etc) arises most commonly out of nothing other than antisemitism, or at least out of a preference for the rights of Arabs over the rights of Jews.

This all raises my orginal point quite well. Gaza was an unjustified action by Israel, it was a murderous war. So anyone who supports it is supporting a murderous and unjustified war.

Now, were I to sink to the exceedingly low standards here, it would taken as a given that all the supporters are anti-Arab racists.

That's literally the stance, in reverse. There's no distinction.

And yet you might note that I (and to my knowledge, no one else here) IS using that kind of unfair, ugly method of trying to close down debate.

Edited January 19, 2011 by bloodyminded

[dre]

The whole "anti-semite" accusation in response to critisism is really no different than calling those critical of Iran anti-islamic bigots, or calling those critical of North Korea anti-asian.

Its nothing but a shameless playing of the victim card.

[bloodyminded]

Shameless...yep, that's the word for it.

[Bob]

This all raises my orginal point quite well. Gaza was an unjustified action by Israel, it was a murderous war. So anyone who supports it is supporting a murderous and unjustified war.

Now, were I to sink to the exceedingly low standards here, it would taken as a given that all the supporters are anti-Arab racists.

That's literally the stance, in reverse. There's no distinction.

And yet you might note that I (and to my knowledge, no one else here) IS using that kind of unfair, ugly method of trying to close down debate.

You're utilizing moral relativism, by implying that both Israel and Hamas and its terrorist affiliates are equal in their conduct. You take the simplistic and flawed approach by describing Cast Least as "murderous and unjustified", using harsh terms to describe Israel's legitimate self-defense operations. Certainly when you bring up Cast Lead, you drop all the relevant context that gives people a true picture of events - years of rocket fire, weapons smuggling, bomb planting near the border, shootings, and other terrorist activities.

Now to address dre's comment regarding what he seems to think is unfair or excessive labelling of Israel's opponents as anti-Semitic, you're building a strawman. Nowhere did anyone ever say that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. That's a claim you and others make in order to deny the role anti-Semitism plays in criticism of Israel and the threat it poses to the safety of the Jewish people. Whether or not you acknowledge it, anti-Semitism is a massive part of the anti-Israel crew. Certain types of criticisms can be accurately described as anti-Semitism, whether or not the person advancing these criticisms realizes it. People can be ignorantly racist. Denying Jewish independence via statehood or rejecting Zionism is anti-Semitic. I'll repeat myself one last time in order to be extremely clear - not all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic. I never said that, and neither did anyone else in here. That's a strawman argument you created in order to deflect; it was your failed attempt at an artful dodge. When delving deeper, though, to core issues, often the loudest and harshest critics of Israel will naturally expose their anti-Semitic foundations.

[Bob]

Aside from the unfortunate use of an expletive, that is the most beautiful explanation I have read about Eretz Y'srael's creation.

Thanks for the kind words. The story of Israel really is a beautiful story of a struggle from freedom and self-determination. Nothing was given to us. It was all blood, sweat, and tears. It was particularly reprehensible for dre to suggest that somehow Israel is some sort of gift from the Goyim. Excuse the expletive, but I find statements such as dre's particularly reprehensible - and I've heard that kinda crap many, many, many times.

[GostHacked]

Thanks for the kind words. The story of Israel really is a beautiful story of a struggle from freedom and self-determination. Nothing was given to us. It was all blood, sweat, and tears. It was particularly reprehensible for dre to suggest that somehow Israel is some sort of gift from the Goyim. Excuse the expletive, but I find statements such as dre's particularly reprehensible - and I've heard that kinda crap many, many, many times.

So without items like the Balfour Declaration the creation of Israel would not have been created. Essentially the British helped to facilitate the existence of Israel in some fashion.

[Bob]

So without items like the Balfour Declaration the creation of Israel would not have been created. Essentially the British helped to facilitate the existence of Israel in some fashion.

Listen, I was learning about the Balfour Declaration when I was in primary school. Please don't assume to be in a position where you think your Wikipedia-skills outperform me. I am well-aware of the Balfour Declaration and other political niceties extended to the Jewish people from the British at the time. What you need to understand, however, is that the Balfour Declaration was entirely the result of Jewish grassroots lobbying movement to get some recognition from others towards our struggle for emancipation from the domination of others. The Balfour Declaration was not some gift, which is what you seem to be impying. Besides that, there were many much more significant moves from the British that worked against the Zionist liberation movement - including but not limited to restrictions on immigration and proclamations contrary to the Balfour Declaration to appease the Muslims. Again, you're giving a simplistic view of history because all you've done is skim a few Wikipedia articles.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Bob

[bud]

at the expense of another long-winded post, here we go:

Let's slow down. I may disagree with some of your views, but let's just slow down. You said nothing anti-semitic and the personal attacks against your motives for your opinions are uncalled for. You can criticize Israeli politics for heaven's sake. That doesn't make you an anti-semite or even anti Israeli. What the heck is going on here.

I detest your simplistic generalizations and accusations but they do not make you anti-semitic per se. In fact people like you are never intentionally anti-semitic and that is what worries me the most, your lack of insight as to how some of the stuff you say makes sweeping negative generalizations against an entire nation. However making sweeping negative generalizations about your motives in return isn't right either nor is your accusation of another poster being a liar, etc.

Come on knock it off everyone and let' stick to the issues.

I respect your right to your opinions even though I think you are ovestating them and engaging in irrational assumptions but I see no reason to attack you as a person or accuse you of hating me because I am a Jew.

I regret you personally have to defend yourself.

Sheesh. Disagree with Israeli government policies. Its your right to and no I won't assume you hate me because I am a Jew or a Zionist.

Look I am a grouch on this forum. I can't stand knee jerk anti-Israeli critics but I also think its b.s. to accuse someone of being an anti-semite merely because they criticize Israel or quote an Israeli newspaper known for its anti-Israeli government views.

You were making politically bias or partisan anti-Israeli statements. Its par for the course. This is a political debate forum.

Enough with the attacks on you or others as a person.

Debate the positions.

Lol. I need to practice what I preach too.

err.. i guess thanks for acknowledging that criticism of israel is not anti-semitism. but then you go on to say the following:

In fact people like you are never intentionally anti-semitic and that is what worries me the most

so now you're saying that i am not intentionally anti-semitic? heh. most of your posts follow the same routine. you try to come off as the level-headed, balanced debater who acknowledges all wrongs, but then you're not really who you think you are. not on this selfish issue (although, i must give you points for another post where you've criticized the local radical leftist lawyer, jbg, for his continues racist and bigot comments towards muslims). why you are not balanced in your criticism? because you sneak in sentences like, which ultimately sends the same message that the type of person you say you are not:

"not intentionally anti-semitic"

or

"Me I see two sets of people who were displaced through no fault of either, surrounded by a bunch of corupt, self-serving sharia law nations"

again and again, you say you do, but you fail to acknowledge and confront the mistakes that israel has made. you try to equate the palestinians' victimization to that of israelis' and blame everything that has happened to them on 'the corrupt, self-serving sharia law nations'.

you say that you're not here to judge because everyone is different, but then you continuously throw in sweeping remarks.

i'm sure you have good intentions and you truly are feeling frustrated that people don't see things like you do. but if you, for once, stopped patting yourself on the back because 'you get it and we don't' and looked at your own comments as compared to the rules of good, balanced debating that you keep laying out for us, you'd also notice the hypocrisy that appear in each of your posts.

not everything is black and white, but some things are. for example, terrorism against civilians committed by palestinian militants and by the israeli army. or the systematic land grab that continues on by israel. yes, gosthacked is correct to say that israel continues to expand its borders. he's not talking about the population, he's talking about the government funded and backed illegal settlements that fall outside of the state of israel's borders. you say you acknowledge and criticize israel, yet you fail to acknowledge one of the biggest obstacles that we have going towards a real and just peace, which is the expanding illegal settlements.

give us statistics, numbers and facts, instead of your opinions which you feel should not be contested because you have deemed yourself as the fair and balanced zionist.

[bloodyminded]

You're utilizing moral relativism, by implying that both Israel and Hamas and its terrorist affiliates are equal in their conduct. You take the simplistic and flawed approach by describing Cast Least as "murderous and unjustified", using harsh terms to describe Israel's legitimate self-defense operations. Certainly when you bring up Cast Lead, you drop all the relevant context that gives people a true picture of events - years of rocket fire, weapons smuggling, bomb planting near the border, shootings, and other terrorist activities.

Now to address dre's comment regarding what he seems to think is unfair or excessive labelling of Israel's opponents as anti-Semitic, you're building a strawman. Nowhere did anyone ever say that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. That's a claim you and others make in order to deny the role anti-Semitism plays in criticism of Israel and the threat it poses to the safety of the Jewish people. Whether or not you acknowledge it, anti-Semitism is a massive part of the anti-Israel crew. Certain types of criticisms can be accurately described as anti-Semitism, whether or not the person advancing these criticisms realizes it. People can be ignorantly racist. Denying Jewish independence via statehood or rejecting Zionism is anti-Semitic. I'll repeat myself one last time in order to be extremely clear - not all criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic. I never said that, and neither did anyone else in here. That's a strawman argument you created in order to deflect; it was your failed attempt at an artful dodge. When delving deeper, though, to core issues, often the loudest and harshest critics of Israel will naturally expose their anti-Semitic foundations.

While I agree that you have conceded--albeit always with reluctance and caveats galore--that "not everyone who criticizes Israel is anti-semitic," you have also told me, directly, that "most" critics are. When asked where you get this startling information, you talk about the vast reading and years of careful study you've done on this matter. But pointing out that you've done a lot of research is not evidence of your conclusions; it's evidence that you're telling us you've done a lot of research. You'll forgive anyone, I hope, for not taking this "evidence" as particularly compelling. Even if you cite opinion in response, you're--to continue with the tautology, though this time in a reasonable sense--only citing opinion in response.

And I'm certainly not saying there's no anti-semitism. I'm saying there's plenty of anti-semitism. But each case must be judged on its own merits, not squeezed into some overarching anti-semitism box, especially since no one agrees on how big the box is.

As always, with acusations of bigotry, the onus is on the accuser, not those being accused. That anti-semitism is not always going to be easy to spot or articulate is a problem for the accusers, not those who might be labelled as such under some conveniently scattergun appraoch.

This approach is called "the shotgun blast in the dark": it may hit its target, but it hits everyone else as well.

At any rate, you fall back into the same problems while talking about Cast Lead. Since it's a given--to you--that the operation was necessary for self-defense, anyone who therefore thinks it wrong is opposed to Israeli self-defense. Such tautological arguments, which are unanswerable precisely because they're unfair and unreasonable, disallows any debate by definition. To disagree with official State pronouncement bespeaks anti-semitism.

And this leads to another, ongoing issue. Because Israel is a Jewish state, it is sometimes felt that criticism of the state must be criticism of Jews; and the conclusion from such a formulation is an obvious one. Again, this allows a convenient debating position: we are led to believe that there is one state, and only one, of which all criticism is instantly suspect...with allowances made for certain people, say, myself, based solely on the magnanimity of those calling "anti-semitism."

Why I am one of the lucky few determined to be "probably not an anti-semite" remains pretty unclear to me. It's not my friendly way of posting, so perhaps I've made my point clear enough to allow me at least this much leeway, I don't know. But I disagree that I'm a rarity, and find it improbable that I'm one of a very few "good lefties."

[Rue]

Bud I will respond keeping in mind I am more long winded:

You asked me what I meant by this comment I said about you:

"In fact people like you are never intentionally anti-semitic and that is what worries me the most."

First off my comments to JB are on an entirely different issue and no never once have I referred to myself as anything but a bias Zionist. Never hid it. Its obvious. My biases are worn out in the open. I have been on the forum long enough for most people to know where I come from.

What I mean by the above is precisely that. You for example accuse Israel of engaging in ethnic cleansing because it wants a sovereign state for Jews. I find that unintentional anti-semitism. I do not think you hate Jews. In fact I think you are probably someone who means no disrespect to anyone. What I do get worried about though is, I believe from reading your comments, you do not believe Jews are a people who have a right to live as a collective and express ourselves through universal sufferage. That to me is anti-semitic in the sense that it is something Muslims have (many sharia law Muslim states) and Christians have and yet you refer to as ethnic cleansing when Jews try achieve it.

If Israel was truly interested in ethnic cleansing Arabic would not be an official language of its government, the law would not enshrine property rights to Muslim Jews which have been upheld and it would not allow Muslims to be elected in its knesset. It wouldn;t have ceded East Jerusalem municipal laws to Muslims. It would not exercise restraint over the Muslim refusal to allow Christians and Jews to pray on the Mount.

It would have thrown out all Muslims from Israel and prohibit them from living in Israel as Arab League states did to Jews and it would practice dhimmitude against Muslims as they do to Jews in Muslim countries.

I fail to understand how states enshrine Christian religion into their state institutions or Muslim states but when Jews do it, suddenly its unfair. That is a double standard against Jews. However I do not classify that double standard you engage in on the same level as I would if you engaged in the blood libel or made comments such as I control the banks or Hollywood or the Congress etc. I think there are degrees of anti-semitism and some are limited to only specific double standards and are not deliberately meant to insult or hurt and to me they are harder to deal with.

Blatant hatred in the open is easy to deal with. Subtle discrimination is much harder especially when it is coined pretexting it as defending the rights of Palestinians. Puttingd own the right of Jews to have a state and collective identity will not and does not

empower Palestinians it simply exploits their suffering to try disenfranchise Israelis.

This is why I phrase the debate as I did saying BOTH peoples have the right to the same thing and its not a black and white all or nothing and either Palestinians have a state or Jews do but not both. I do not see them as diametrically opposed but as mutually inclusive and possible. I was taught as a Zionist and very much as a Zionist that a key and central

belief in Zionism is the respect and peaceful co-existence with the other peoples of the Middle East and that includes not just Muslims, but Christians, Druze, Berbers, Kurds, Assyrians, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, Beduins and that there are many different peoples all

with existential ties to the area.

Now you want to call out what I say as being inconsistent take the words, paraphrase them and state why and I will respond.

Show me their inconsistency and I will try respond. Simply make ambiguous references and I can't.

You stated:

"not everything is black and white, but some things are.." then interestingly you went on to give examples of what you think are black and white, i.e. terrorism against civilians".

Its actually an interesting statement because in fact both Hamas and Hezbollah defend what they do my posing their terrorism as not being terrorism, i.e., by saying its not black and white and when I and others argue what they do is terrorism we are told its not black and white so with due respect you waffle around if we can use that word as much as you think I do with my positions. In fact I have said repeatedly I force myself to see more than black or white and to try find a middle position for every extreme and I continue to do so and so sometimes I come out on one side, and sometimes on another and that in itself does not make me a hypocrite just a moderate who does not maintain one rigid inflexible view point.

Let us also get this clear to your statement about illegal settlements. I have stated repeatedly on this forum that I believe settlement expansion is an obstacle to peace and it should be frozen. I have also said it was a mistake to even create the freeze in the first place as I believe it is now being deliberately used as a red herring by Abbas to avoid

peace talks and its been a valuable opportunity for him to have to do nothing but stall since he has no mandate to negotiate and hangs by his skin.

You also said, give us statistics, numbers and facts. I have many times in the past to back up my points. Many. However I do not have to in every single post and certainly you do not. Hold yourself to the same standard you hold me and I will respond accordingly. Give me a specific fact or statistic instead of your subjective opinion and I will respond the same way. Throw out a subjective opinion and most times all I can do is respond to what you said.

When I initiate new positions not already stated before I do back them up with stats. Just rread back my old posts.

You stated:

"you feel should not be contested because you have deemed yourself as the fair and balanced zionist."

With do respect ask me how I feel, don't tell me. Its kind of silly to tell me how I feel.

I have never on this forum deemed myself fair and balanced nor have I patted myself on the back. Lol. Be serious. Stick to the issues and don't make personal comments that project feelings, emotions and motives on to me. Stick to my words. If you have questions about them ask. Don't assume you know how I feel. You don't.

Only Paris Hilton truly knows how I feel..and Lindsay Lohan...terrors the 2 of them. I am still limping.