Is Any Criticism of Israel

[Black Dog]

SCRIBBLETT:

Many on the left seem to take a perverse delight in regurgitating lies and crap regarding Israel e.g. protocols of Zion; zionist or jewish conspiracy etc. etc.

When Israel defends itself from Hezbollah et al, Rabble, Daily Kos or others call the Isralis Nazis committing genocide against Lebanon - no mention that Hezbollah and Hamas wants Israeli wiped off the map.

The new anti-semitism manifests itself through the couched language of antiZionism and desperate concern for Palestinian rights, while ignoring Hamas and PLO stated intentions and terrorism.

There is surely a difference between criticism and demonization. I'll believe it is the former when the left challenge anti-semitism within the PLO or Hamas (and others), and, takes the terrorists and would be suicide bombers to task at the same time. While they are at it, they could ask the terrorist org. how many of their people they could feed for every $15,000. Kassam rockets they continually lob into Israel.

I'm gonna say that you don't actually spend much time in progressive/left circles./ I used to be a frequent rabble.ca poster and in all my tume there I never once read anyone cite the "Protocols", or in anyway express support or approval of Hamas or Hizbullah methods or goals. Now, I'm sure such people exist, but they are most certainly a fringe minority. So to tar the "left" with that bruish is as unfair and inaccurate as equating every Christian with Eric Rudolph. If you are going to make such broad generalizations, you'd better back them up.

Argus:

sometimes those criticisms ignore the reasons for those policies and actions - as in criticising the wall, but not saying a word about the violence and attacks which inspired its construction.

More often than not, criticisms of Israel take those reasons into account, but reject them. For example, most criticisms of the wall I've seen are not criticisms of the wall as a mechanism of self-defense per se, but that the wall is cover for Israeli land grabs.

[Catchme]

Again, you never provided examples requested.

Again people are choosing to see that voicing criticism of Israel's actions as anti-semitism, when it is not. Every country who has the current availability of nuclear should be indeed watched closely for actions and criticized when they are considering the use of nukes against another nation.

Those Jews who are stepping forward and criticizing Israel, are not anti-semetic, they are concerned that their voices are being expropriated by Israel, wrongly. They understand and know that Israel is not faultless in all of this. And they know that saying such things are NOT anti-semetic but righteous comcern.

Funny how some appear to be "pro-life" but expound upon the needed destruction of Muslims.

I'm not scouring the internet looking for 'examples' funny how some are pro-choice and don't expound upon the needed destruction of Muslims. Some do see the need for destroying radical terrorist organizations.

There is no needed destruction of Muslims, all Muslims are not terrorists anymore than all Christians are fundamentalists raving about nuking Iran and the ME.

[margrace]

I think if you went out into the hinterland and talked to people you would find that, as it always has been, anti semitism is alive and well. Its just politically correct just now to talk out of the other side of our mouths. The churches have always promoted anit semitism, eg the Jews killed Jesus.

[scribblet]

I don't save everything I read nor keep a library.

An increased supply of hate creating stories about Israel from various sources and the willingness of people to listen to such hatred fosters anti semitism..The impact of these stories comes from repetition not truth.

These type of stories and misrepresentation of history help to discredit Israel and benefit the anti semites. Hatred relies on people accepting, rather such hate or misinformation. Maybe we should call this misinformation 'Protocols of the Left wing Yuppies' or whatever.

Anti-semites and racists will promote 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' to claim that the world is run by the Jews and their 'Zionist Occupational Gov.'

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/...le.asp?ID=21758 this article explains a lot

http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/goodman2.pdf

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/index.htm

On Israel and Peace: The Ugly Truth I've always found this "settlement" issue a sick joke. Like everything else we have one rule for Israel and no rules for Islamic terror states, Islamic fascists, and their followers. In 1948 650,000 Arabs fled what is called Israel today under orders of their leaders to make killing Jews easier. They also warned those Arabs that sought protection from or sided with the Jews a similar promise of death. Some Arabs, such as the Druze, sided with the Jews and are Israeli citizens today and fight in the army.

Since 1948 850,000+ Jews were stripped of their property and expelled from surrounding Islamic fascist states. Nobody is advocating they be allowed to "return" to their homes or be paid for their stolen property. It's also funny (sick) that nobody complains about the 650,000 "Palestinians" that were expelled from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War (for treason) back to their "Palestinian" state of Jordan

[Figleaf]

I don't save everything I read nor keep a library.

An increased supply of hate creating stories about Israel from various sources and the willingness of people to listen to such hatred fosters anti semitism..

There's no doubt that anti-semitism has and continues to exist in various places and forms. Your contention that this forms some pattern on 'the left', however, remains totally unsupported.

Furthermore, it is unclear what you characterize as 'untrue'. I suspect there are several historical facts about the conflict that you would actually not acknowledge and you likely give prominence to other data points that don't actually make a difference in the overall analysis of the conflict.

Moreover, characterizing criticism of Israel as somehow constructively 'anti-semitic' remains a problematic slippery slope.

[scribblet]

Moreover, characterizing criticism of Israel as somehow constructively 'anti-semitic' remains a problematic slippery slope.

I agree, there is legitimate criticism of Israel which is not anti-semitic, but it is pervasive and I quoteP:

Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-semitic in their effect if not their intent.

Lawrence Summers, 17 September 2002

[Figleaf]

Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-semitic in their effect if not their intent.

Lawrence Summers, 17 September 2002

But where is there any evidence of this? What view specifically is now found among 'progressive intellectual communities' that is demonstrably anti-semitic?

We continually hear this complaint, but when challenged, no content or examples ever seem to be forthcoming.

[Black Dog]

'sfunny: in trying to demonstrate the left's widespread antipathy towards Jews, scriblett has succeeded only in showing how thouroughly the discourse on the subject has been dominated and shaped by pro-Israeli interests. The Mearsheimer/Walt controversy is prime example. Pro-Israeli types (like the unhinged David Horowitz) would have us accept, prima facie, that Mearsheimer and Walt are card carrying members in good standing of the left with little in the way of evidence for that save their status as academics. Thus we see the perfect circle: leftists criticize Israel: therefore anyone who criticizes Israel is a leftist. As for Mearsheimer/Walt, their paper is problematic not because it is anti-semetic, but because it is thin on evidence. Kinda like the accussations of anti-semitism afgainst them.

It's also interesting that scribblett complains about the "misrepresentation of history" which is code for "challenging the official (pro-Israel) version of history." A good example of this is the calim that we must accept the absurd-on-its-face idea that hundreds of thousands of Arabs picked up and left en masse from their homes on orders from some shadowy authority. No evidence is given, of course, nor is the fact that that story has long been disproved (see Benny Morris's 1988 book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949).

In short, the paucity of evidence here should tell us something about the claims of widespread leftist anti-semitism.

[Figleaf]

As for Mearsheimer/Walt, their paper is problematic not becaus eit is anti-semetic, but becaus eit is thin on evidence.

Speaking of thin, did you read the drivellous screed against them that scriblett linked to? A load of empty-headed vituperance if ever there was.

[Black Dog]

Speaking of thin, did you read the drivellous screed against them that scriblett linked to? A load of empty-headed vituperance if ever there was.

I did, and it was just as I'd expect from one of D-Ho's flying monkeys.

Upon fiurther consideration, though, I think the question isn't "who on the left is anti-semetic" but rather "who is the left?"

I like this from Matt Tabibi, one of my favorite writers:

Let's get this straight: there are no "leftists" in modern-day America. Or, rather, there about ten of them, and you can find absolutely every single one of them at the next antiwar or anti-anything protest in Washington; they all fit in one section of the park behind the White House, where you can find pretty much all of them passing out small stacks of socialist fliers, mainly to each other. These socialists are committed, dedicated, utterly serious political activists, which makes them absolutely atypical Americans, which is why there are so few of them.

The rest of the ... "leftists" are mostly cautious consumers who watch a lot of Netflix movies, have maybe read Love in the Time of Cholera once or twice, and whose most aggressive step in the direction of socialism is a vote in favor of increased school spending. They might drive a foreign car, or willingly see a movie with subtitles. If that makes them "leftists," what word are we going to use for real leftists?

[jbg]

Since 1948 850,000+ Jews were stripped of their property and expelled from surrounding Islamic fascist states. Nobody is advocating they be allowed to "return" to their homes or be paid for their stolen property. It's also funny (sick) that nobody complains about the 650,000 "Palestinians" that were expelled from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War (for treason) back to their "Palestinian" state of Jordan

Maybe we should start suicide bombing to get our Bagdad homes back.

[BubberMiley]

But it's no secret that Israel's strongest opponents reside on the left side of the spectrum.

All those people living on kibbutzim will be fascinated by your facile, internet-forum-generated stereotypes. The neo-nazis will just be confused.

[Catchme]

But it's no secret that Israel's strongest opponents reside on the left side of the spectrum.

All those people living on kibbutzim will be fascinated by your facile, internet-forum-generated stereotypes. The neo-nazis will just be confused.

**snerk**

[Black Dog]

Since 1948 850,000+ Jews were stripped of their property and expelled from surrounding Islamic fascist states. Nobody is advocating they be allowed to "return" to their homes or be paid for their stolen property.

I have.

anyone forcibly removed from territory they were in lawful posession of is entitled to compensation for their loss.

[Catchme]

Moreover, characterizing criticism of Israel as somehow constructively 'anti-semitic' remains a problematic slippery slope.

I agree, there is legitimate criticism of Israel which is not anti-semitic, but it is pervasive and I quoteP:

Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-semitic in their effect if not their intent.

Lawrence Summers, 17 September 2002

Of course there is criticism and it is not anti-Israel in the manner which it is being suggested by yourself, and Mr Summers. The criticism orginates and is strongest coming from within Israel itself and with good reason.

Since the 1980s, Israel’s academia has been engaged in and torn by a debate on Zionist history in general and on the chronicles of the 1948 war in particular...The debate is generated by Israeli scholars who challenge the official Israeli historical version of Zionism’s origins and the birth of Israel. Theirs is a non-Zionist narrative of history and this is its main importance.

Similarly, the Palestinian community in Israel, the Israeli Arabs as they are known today, began to demand a re-reading of one of the ugliest chapters in the state’s history. In the wake of the 1948 war, the Palestinian population that remained under Israeli rule was placed under a severe and brutal military regime for nearly two decades (1948-1966). This minority was robbed of every human and civil right and maltreated by local military governors. Awareness of this has cast a shadow over the collective memory of the Israeli left, which was accustomed to reminiscing about the little and beautiful state of pre-1967 Israel.

Israelis who challenged the official version of Israel’s birth and its early years as a young state shared a common experience—their accounts were excluded from the historical Zionist narrative or distorted in the way Israeli history was taught in high schools and universities. They maintain that their history has been at best obfuscated or at worst totally erased from the Israeli national ethos, an ethos reflected in official state ceremonies, canonical literature, poetry and the media.

http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=1

[Figleaf]

Since 1948 850,000+ Jews were stripped of their property and expelled from surrounding Islamic fascist states. Nobody is advocating they be allowed to "return" to their homes or be paid for their stolen property.

I have.

And I'll add my voice too. Anyone unjustly deprived of their rights or property should have it restored.

That said, the actions of corrupt Arab regimes against their domestic populations have no bearing on the rights and wrongs of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestinians had no say in the choices of those states, so it's a 100% pure red-herring when Israel's apologists raise the issue in that context.

[Catchme]

You are absolutely correct figleaf, good post!

[gc1765]

I personally side with Israel on most issues, I think that a democratic nation has every right to defend itself against terrorist aggressors. But for example, I was uncomfortable with Israel's scale in their attacks against Lebanon... I found them unreasonable, untargetted and generally didn't do much at all to secure their State.

Does that make me anti-Semetic? Absolutely not. It's a fair criticism of a policy created by someone. Who that person is, doesn't matter.

I agree.

[scribblet]

As for Mearsheimer/Walt, their paper is problematic not becaus eit is anti-semetic, but becaus eit is thin on evidence.

Speaking of thin, did you read the drivellous screed against them that scriblett linked to? A load of empty-headed vituperance if ever there was.

pot - black or more than likely anything you disagree with is 'vituperance'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3586543.stm

Anti-Semitism 'on rise in Europe'

Desecration at a London synagogue

Attacks against synagogues have been documented

Attacks against Jews in Europe have sharply increased, says a report by a European anti-racism watchdog.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3502019.stm

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm

he increasing frequency and severity of anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe, has compelled the international community to focus on anti-Semitism with renewed vigor

[Figleaf]

pot - black ...

How so?

Also, what do your cites there have to do with the topic of whether criticism = anti-semitism?

Anti-semitism is certainly out there, but lumping something that isn't anti-semitism with things that are only serves to muddy the waters and make it harder to address the real problem.

Consider: an average uniformed person reads that incidents of anti-semtism are on the rise. If he or she interprets that as vandalism against synagogues or attacks on jewish people, he or she will quite rightly be appalled and may act against it. On the other hand, if he or she is led to interpret it as an increase in op-ed peices critical of Israel, will he or she be so moved? I doubt it.

Israel's apologists do Judaism no good by diffusing the concept of anti-semitism to include bona fide critics.

[Black Dog]

Anti-Semitism 'on rise in Europe'

Desecration at a London synagogue

Attacks against synagogues have been documented

Attacks against Jews in Europe have sharply increased, says a report by a European anti-racism watchdog.

Scriblett: why or how is "the left" responsible for these deplorable actions?

[madmax]

It's not neccessarily a solely leftist view, I afterall tend to agree. But it's no secret that Israel's strongest opponents reside on the left side of the spectrum.

How do you figure this?

[madmax]

Maybe we should start suicide bombing to get our Bagdad homes back.

You could, and there are many groups whom lost homes in Iraq. But there is a real claim for those whom choose to follow through. Right now, I don't think anyone wants there home in Bagdad and real estate is probably pretty cheap.

That said, when trying to get back land and country.

This method was effective for the Jewish people.

In February of 1944, under the new leadership of Menachem Begin, who would later become prime minister of Israel, Irgun resumed hostilities against the British authorities. The purpose of these attacks was to increase the cost of British mandatory rule and influence British public opinion so as to encourage British withdrawal. It included attacks on prominent symbols of the British administration, including the British military, police, and civil headquarters at the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946 which killed 91 people and the British prison in Acre. Although these attacks were largely successful, several Irgun operatives were captured, convicted, and hanged. Refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the British courts, those accused refused to defend themselves. The Irgun leadership ultimately responded to these executions by hanging two British sergeants, which effectively brought the executions to an end.

[Figleaf]

In February of 1944, under the new leadership of Menachem Begin, who would later become prime minister of Israel, Irgun resumed hostilities against the British authorities. The purpose of these attacks was to increase the cost of British mandatory rule and influence British public opinion so as to encourage British withdrawal. It included attacks on prominent symbols of the British administration, including the British military, police, and civil headquarters at the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946 which killed 91 people and the British prison in Acre. Although these attacks were largely successful, several Irgun operatives were captured, convicted, and hanged. Refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the British courts, those accused refused to defend themselves. The Irgun leadership ultimately responded to these executions by hanging two British sergeants, which effectively brought the executions to an end.

Ironically, it sounds like Irgun's methods are the model for present Palestinian militants' practices.

[jbg]

In February of 1944, under the new leadership of Menachem Begin, who would later become prime minister of Israel, Irgun resumed hostilities against the British authorities. The purpose of these attacks was to increase the cost of British mandatory rule and influence British public opinion so as to encourage British withdrawal. It included attacks on prominent symbols of the British administration, including the British military, police, and civil headquarters at the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946 which killed 91 people and the British prison in Acre. Although these attacks were largely successful, several Irgun operatives were captured, convicted, and hanged. Refusing to accept the jurisdiction of the British courts, those accused refused to defend themselves. The Irgun leadership ultimately responded to these executions by hanging two British sergeants, which effectively brought the executions to an end.

Ironically, it sounds like Irgun's methods are the model for present Palestinian militants' practices.

What this excerpt doesn't tell is that the Irgun warned of the King David Hotel attack beforehand and the Brits wouldn't "lower" themselves to listening to th ewarning. The result was tragic. Also, the King David Hotel was a military target, not a falafel stand.