I think it is fair to argue that the AJC is effectively anti-Semitic.

Are anti-Zionists actually anti-Semites? Possibly. The real issue is whether Zionist policies are the policies of a particular political group or the policies of the Jewish people. There are serious problems with identifying Zionism with the Jews. For example, there have always been millions of committed supporters of Zionism who were not Jews, from Arthur James Balfour to the messianic fundamentalist Christians and George W Bush. And there have always been millions of anti-Zionist Jews from Edwin Samuel Montagu (who characterized Zionism as ‘anti-Semitic’) to Noam Chomsky.

The establishment of Israel in 1947 was based on two assumptions: 1) Given the extermination policies of the Nazi regimes and the complicity of most other major countries, or at least their reluctance to oppose these policies and rescue its victims, there was reasonable ground for many Jews to believe that they could only rely on themselves for their safety, and therefore they needed a State, with Jewish control of its police and armed forces. 2) Separation of Jews from non-Jewish Palestinians would reduce friction between Arabs and Jews and enable them to live as peaceful neighbors.

Both of these assumptions have been completely discredited by subsequent history. Jews are probably safer in every country of the world than in Israel, except for Israel’s Arab neighbors, and there is no evidence of a revival of anti-Semitic violence in other countries. Instead of Israeli Jews supporting and protecting American Jews, for example, the years since 1947 have consistently seen American Jews supporting and protecting the Israelis. And it hardly needs to be pointed out that the existence of the Israeli state has not reduced friction between Arabs and Jews or enabled them to live as peaceful neighbors.

It is in this context that we must view various statements from mid-eastern officials about ‘destroying’ Israel, ‘erasing Israel from the map,’ and so on. These statements are invariably interpreted by Western (and Israeli) spokesmen and media to advocate a Nazi-like extermination of Israeli Jews. But the statements literally mean reversing the 1947 establishment of the Israeli state, a declaration of illegitimacy of the Zionist government entity, which would not in itself require harming a single hair of a single Jewish head. I have no special knowledge of the hidden motives of these anti-Zionist officials, but it is significant that they do not give the slogans of certain low-level anti-Semites of the area, ‘death to the Jews.’

The worldwide revulsion from recent Israeli actions is not based on the Semitic heritage of Israeli government officials (which is shared by their Arab neighbors) or their religious beliefs, but rather on their actual Zionist policies. Non-Jewish Zionists, such as George W Bush, are not, on that account, absolved from blame for supporting the savagery of the Israeli government.

Of course, there are definite anti-Semites in the world who are intelligent enough to disguise their anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism, just as there are millionaires who disguise their greed with philanthropy. But one cannot judge the worth of a political orientation by the imagined hidden motives of a few of its adherents. We must judge any politics by its actual operation in the world.

Who are responsible for the violent, savage, racist policies of the Zionist Israeli state? From my experience, large numbers of American and Israeli Jews are as horrified as the rest of the world at recent Israeli atrocities. It is precisely these people who give the lie to the identification of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Zionism has made no significant contribution to the safety of the Jewish people, who have been consistently better off since 1947 in the secular, non-Jewish states of Western Europe and America. Zionism has, on the other hand, undeniably inflamed opposition and hatred in the rest of Palestine and in the other countries of the Middle East and their sympathizers. Recently, Israeli Zionism has inspired unparalleled revulsion and opposition throughout the civilized world.

Indeed, if in 1947 a malignant genius had devised a plan to isolate the Jews and spread anti-Semitism throughout the world, he could scarcely have invented a better device than Zionist Israel.

To what extent should we blame Jews living in Israel for the criminal policies of the Israeli government? To the extent they support these policies and can influence them. The extent to which Jews should not be held responsible for Zionist crimes is the extent to which Jews oppose them. The anti-Semites are those, such as the AJC, who claim that ‘the Jewish people’ support Israeli atrocities against Palestinians and Lebanese. This is a slander against an entire people. Edwin Samuel Montagu was right: Zionism is anti-Semitic.

Peter Miller

I wasn't able to access the article on the AJC website. Anyone have better luck?

You don't have to go the AJC website... Follow the link to the NY Times article and it would appear they have given the AJC FREE ADVERTISING? and linked the essay from there.

We are on that slippery slope, and it looks like it will be hard to turn around. The Jewish nationalists, no... Jewish supremacists, want like nationalists, supremacists always do the primitive tribalism that pure ethnic definition brings. Well, in the end,Jews like me will be defined by them as anti-semitic and they will be the intolerant bigots and right wing protofascists they so earnestly emulate.

Talk about hysterical. Paula Zahn had a report and panel discussion on 9/11 conspiracists who believe that the Israeli Mossad was involved in 9/11 and the thesis of Paula's report and her panel's take was that this was an antisemitic attack on all Jews. Ergo, the bin Laden version is an attack on all Muslims.

Wonders if the Mossad conspiracy theorists and al-Qaeda propagandists might mutually annihilate one another, in a matter-antimatter sense. If we could harness the semiticons emitted by this reaction, it could become a source of free energy, end the West's dependence on oil, and thus stabilize the Middle East.

But the Bush Administration wants control of US science policy...I guess that dog won't hunt.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Maybe this will signal the beginning of American Jews' long overdue involvement in trying to rescue Israel from its own brutally distorted self-image, and equally, its neo-con American "friends."

It's certainly going to be a big job.

The American Jewish Committee takes in big bucks! I looked at the AJC's 2004 990 and revenue was $41.7 million, net of a $2.8 million loss on sale of investments. Net assets were $82.2 million.

As far as Mr. Rosenfeld's essay goes, it seems like a lot of claptrap to me. Interspersed with some legitimate criticism of Israel's critics was every inflammatory, half-baked idea about Jews ever written.

Mr. Rosenfeld would have every Jew in the world thinking that the second Holocaust was just around the corner. I'd like to know how he comes up with some of his numbers. The last poll I read had favorable opinion in Europe on Jews in general up and favorable opinion on Israel down.

LOL - I read once that Ariel Sharon jacked up the "new wave" of French anti-semitism a few years ago to convince French Jews to emigrate to Israel. Imagine if that were true?

Me, I think Israel's biggest problem is corruption but I seem to be alone in that point of view. When gangsters try to blow up other gangsters with car bombs on city streets in broad daylight, you have a problem with organized crime whether you admit it or not.

1. what's the difference between "false" and "misleading" ?
2. Of course, you don't have to be anti-Semitic to criticize Israel, a lot of people criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, but you can easily tell if the criticism is based on animal hatred of Jews. The are several people active here like this.
BTW, I don't have a problem with mild form of anti-semitism, and all other isms.
We Jews should not demand that all humankind love us and should not look for a traces of anti-semitism, otherwise we'll detect a lot of false alarms.

Oh. Poor little Israel, that couldn't defend itself without control of Arab lands in 1967, and the mean Arabs ran all over Israel and destroyed the Israeli Jews.

No? Well, let's see. You did have the Arab lands during the Yom Kippur War, and things got a little rough there.

Without looking it up, I'm trying to remember the last large air combat with Syria. 80-something Syrian planes shot down with no Israeli losses?

Call it 80-0. Now, turn to nuclear weapons. Depends on whose estimate you take, but somewhere between 200 and 400 Israeli warheads. How many Arab ones, and exactly how are the occupied territories protecting you from nuclear annihilation by the Arabs?

Several posters have bewailed how Israel was going to be annihilated with single-round GRAD rockets from Hizbollah, 20 kilograms of warhead at a time. In defiance of the agreement under which they were sold to Israel by the US, Israel responded to many of those single rockets with a volley of six M26 rockets from the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. Each of those rockets delivers 644 cluster bombs, with an estimated 10 to 25 percent not going off and effectively becoming antipersonnel mines.

Incidentally, the US and Israel are jointly working on the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser system, which, along with the Oerlikon gun-based system being developed by Israel, can shoot down limited numbers of artillery rockets -- and by military standards, the insurgents have fired limited numbers at Israel. That GRAD rocket fired from a single ramp was designed, by the Soviets, to fire 40 rockets each from 18 truck-mounted launchers, drive like hell to get out of retaliatory range, reload, and fire again. That, or the MLRS I mentioned, is heavy fire -- and it can't annihilate even a small country.

Hey, knock yourself out if you want to be a single race state, but don't expect other countries to enforce it for you. I don't expect the United States to ensure that Thailand remains a Thai Buddhist state, even though they are having a problem with Muslim terrorists. I don't expect the United States to ensure that Ireland remains an Irish state.

Let me not use code words. I have no special like or dislike for Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state, but I don't want to spend one American life to keep it Jewish, unless Israel does a few things -- like not using American-supplied military equipment in a manner you agreed not to do, because that manner of use is too dangerous to civilians. Another thing I want to see is Israel ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a declaratory power, which means admitting to having nuclear weapons.

I have no problem with Israel keeping military surveillance posts in the occupied territories, and controlling their external movement, until the Palestinian Authority accepts the right of Israel to exist. The settlements, however, have to go.

I accept the right of Israel to exist, as I do the right of any legitimate country to exist. I do not, however, hold that there is an American guarantee that Israel continue to exist as a Jewish state, at least for the Jews that accept Israel as their government. Somehow, I just suspect poor little Israel can manage to defend itself from total destruction.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, I remember ducking and covering under my desk, wondering what that was going to do 20 miles from New York. Try having tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed your way, and tell me about the threat of annihilation. I've been threatened with annihilation, in a very real sense. Israel has not, other than perhaps in the continuation of certain political positions.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

. . . you can easily tell if the criticism is based on animal hatred of Jews.

Like pornography you know it when you see it.

Be careful not to point out that if these illegal settlements weren't there, there would be no need to illegally build a barrier stealing even MORE land from the Palestinians.  That is likely to be viewed as antisemitic.

"Let me not use code words."
I didn't mean you.

Here's my humble reply:

1. One of the first things you do is introduce the role of conservative Christianity into the mix. I read the entire article to which you refer--all 22 pages of it, and there is not one single mention of Christianity or evangelicalism. Obviousily this is YOUR personal axe to grind, not the American Jewish Committee's!" Perhaps YOU have a personal hatred of Christians as well as Zionist Jews?

2. You point out that there have been many Anti-Zionist Jews throughout history, so why should the American Jewish Committee make such a big deal that today's progressive Jews are suddenly, rabidly turning against their fellow Israel brothers and sisters?

But what you don't mention is that while historically some Jews were indeed opposed to Zionism, they were not in any way, shape or form SUPPORTIVE of Israel's sworn enemies as many of the extreme leftist, progressive Jews in America and Europe today are!!!

3. While the anti-Zionist Jews of the past might have been opposed to Jews returning to our ancient homeland, they were nothing like today's hard-left progressive, anti-Zionists that actually support Israel's enemies--Hamas, Hezbullah, the PFLP, al-Aqsa, Iran, Syria, Al-Queda, et-al, etc! Do you support these enemies of Zionism? Please tell us the truth?

4. Given the fact that such meglomaniacs like Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah with nearly 500,000 troops and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with more than 14 MILLION troops (and nukes closely on the horizon) have sworn they will never rest until Israel and all Jews are "wiped off the face of the earth." I am shocked that American Jewish people like you are not more concerned. Or do you share their wishes that Israel be removed from the globe and, "every Jew be thrown into the sea." Your comments are totally in line with this thinking!

What's the deal? Is it some kind of self-hatred thing or what? We lost my mother's entire family to the holocaust. More than 130 family members. And for G-D's sake I am not willing to
risk anything like that to happen again. ARE YOU? And if so, WHY?

"Yes, I saw it in Avigdor Lieberman."
Israel National News reports that “Lieberman wishes to trade Israeli-Arab populated areas for Jewish areas of Judea and Samaria. Specifically, Lieberman would hand over the Um El-Fahm area of the southern Galilee, known as the Triangle, to foreign sovereignty".

I see. But the Israelis are the only people who need not move forward, even staying where they are, and wait for miracles for those surrounding them to change positions without incentives?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"You don't seem to have any comment."
Your position is quite reasonable. There are a few points that I will try to respond to.

Yes, They agreed to the Clinton plan in 2000, what else they can do?

Stop the settlements?

Linear logic.

First, of course only ignorant fools who are anti-muslim at the core would claim that the bin Laden attack on the WTC was the responsibility of all muslims or all arabs. That's a given. But does that mean that the arguments about Israeli responsibility for the WTC were not anti-Jewish? Does that mean that all of the rumors about Jews (not zionists or Israelis)not reporting to work that day were really just an assault on Mossad and had nothing to do with anti-Jewish sentiment?

I lost two friends on 9/11 (both of whom happened to be Jewish), and it was really sad to watch one of their daughters get bat mitzvahed in October of 2001, just weeks after she last saw her Daddy. And it angered me and many more strident in my community to read the allegations that Jews stayed home when the Towers fell.

So, Karen, I'm not sure what your point is.
Maybe some sophisticates who spread the rumors about Mossad don't hate all Jews, but so the hell what. But is your point that you cannot appreciate the significance of MJ's post unless you fully discount the possibility that anti-semetism still exists, period?

MJ has raised another interesting issue, and I have begun to read this AJC article and so far I'm not comfortable with it. But that doesn't mean anti-Jewish sentiment doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that it wasn't grossly displayed with respect to 9/11, and it also doesn't mean that anyone who blames 9/11 on all muslims isn't a compelete and utter jerk.

Life is not so linear.

I think leftists were generally sympathetic to Israel and Zionism before 1967, seeing them both as essential to protect the lives and rights of an oppressed minority. Once the occupation and settlement policy began, though, Israel began to look too much like a colonial power, and leftists began to question their support. Israel's militarism (including the adoption of nuclear weapons and its growing relationships with the US military establishment)also made liberals uncomfortable. And then there was the weakening of Israel's socialist idealism.

Anti-Semitism may indeed be a factor in some leftists' dislike of Israel--particularly when that dislike takes on a hysterical dimension. But for most leftists, there are many reasons unrelated to anti-Semitism that motivate their criticism of Israel. And increasingly, those who deny the possibility of these sound reasons for opposing Israel's policies--reasons consistent with liberal ideals--sound as hysterical as the anti-Semites. Tribal emotions have long ago overwhelmed reason in this debate.

Yeah, the AJC has big bucks. This so-called charity pays its rightwing top guy, David Harris, $450,000 a year. What a racket.

Guys like this DAG are infinitely more of a threat to Israel than the leftists he is so worried about.

The DAGs of the world are responsible for a status quo in which Israel faces danger and threats from all sides. And why because these armchair soldiers would rather see thousands of Israeli kids die than have Israel take the actions it needs to to secure itself.

They can scream, whine and wet their pants all they want. But the Arab world (most importantly the Palestinians) have repeatedly offered peace and security in exchange for an end of the occupation. And by occupation, they mean the West Bank.

During the last 3 years of the Oslo agreement, when the CIA monitored Israeli-PLO security cooperation, 6 Israeli civilians died in acts of terror compared to a thousand after Oslo's collapse. Bibi Netanyahu himself thanked Arafat for stopping the terror.

The two sides were on the brink of an agreement which did not occur because Arafat chickened out and Barak refused to table a plan that would have allowed the Pals a contiguous state.

But they came close enough that there is little doubt that peace would have been achieved if Barak had not been defeated by Sharon and Clinton replaced by Bush.

There are plenty of people whose ideas would lead to the extinction of Israel. The ones on the left prattle but have no influence. But the ones on the right, the Daniel Greenbaums and Davai's etc, have seen the policies they support implemented.

They and their ilk are responsible for so much suffering by Israelis. And, believe me, they won't quit until they get what they want: a world without Israel. They will be ecstatic. They can blame the leftists and "self-hating Jews" forever.

These are the enemies of Israel: those who sit in Brooklyn urging 19 year old Israelis to fight
and die in a war that can so easily be ended. They are the true self-hating Jews.

MJ,

The attack on liberal critics of Israel comes at the same time that the AJC, and other Jewish organizations, are embracing far right Christians who support Israel, some of whom might be characterized as less than friendly to Jews.... A new paradigm has been born. Right-wing Christians who "support" Israel.

Where is your evidence that the AJCommittee is embracing far right Christians?

Anti-Semiticism is becoming worse than it has been in decades. The angry mockery of those that point out anti-semiticism doesn't help. In Europe, hating Jews is not as hidden as it once was. If you need to see some examples of Jew haters on the left, look at the disgusting remarks against Joe Lieberman on the Daily Kos last year.

If you don't toe the line on the redeployment and you are a jew, look out!

Thank you. I appreciate that, as I attempt to get awake enough to inhale coffee.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Surely it seems, though, that "anti-semitism" is losing any conceptual content it might have had. This is dangerous. I used to think that "anti-semitism" was a useful description for the invidious, entrenched and somewhat reflective prejudice against Jews in many places. The Polish academics who could deny Alfred Tarski (née Teitelbaum) a chair were typical. Some such prejudice still exists today surely, and it's certainly a shame of the Arab world that the Protocols bs still circulates so freely around it.

I don't quite understand how a Jew can be a "anti-semite" in the first place. But now it's even used to mark a political position. As MJR notes (striking example about the Socialist Bund), we are at a fundamental derangement of meaning.

What can I say? You had to see the Paula Zahn report last night. The one guy who was interviewed for the taped portion was on screen for less than 20 seconds total so I have no idea what his evidence is but he said "Mossad," not "Jews." Then they interviewed a former NYC police officer who is Jewish who lost his son in 9/11 and that was a much longer, fuller interview and turned the whole thing into being about the canard that no Jews were killed on 9/11.

Howard and davai,

If I may interject.  The quickest way to drift emotionally from discourse to polemic is to lose sight of the clear difference between true criticism, which by its nature should be constructive, and defamation.  Criticism of Israeli policies is significantly different from discrimination against the Jewish people's right to its own national identity and self-determination. 

We enter the overall territory of extreme prejudice - and of antisemitism in particular - when we place a discriminatory burden on Jews to defend the existence of the state of Israel itself and the national identity at the core of it.  The Israeli electorate, its leaders, and the supporters of Israel should always be as prepared to defend or condemn the policies of the Israeli government as the leaders, citizens and supporters of any nation should.  At the risk of provoking an invocation of Clemenceau, and unless one is a truly committed anarchist, then to place that burden solely upon the Jews amounts to a bogus anarchy-in-a-hurry whereby the Jews are pushed to lead the march to autodisposession of their national rights.

Yes, there are the same reasons, that Germans, Serbs, Cyprus Greeks, Muslims from India and Hindu from Pakistan, Jews from Arab Countries, and other 100s millions people are not considered "displaced people" with a home and citizenship in the countries their grand-grand-parents grandparents or parents lived.

The difference is that these people you mentioned are not currently stateless pariahs with no hope and no future. The Palestinians are in no man's land. They are not considered Israeli citizens, but neither do they have state sovereignty of their own. This is an intolerable situation. Either Israel must formally annex the West Bank and Gaza and give everyone living there Israeli citizenship, or it must cede the West Bank and Gaza to create a viable, contiguous, sovereign Palestinian state and get rid of all the settlements and other impositions. The status quo is unacceptable; it is getting people killed on a daily basis. I doubt Israel wants to be a Muslim-majority state, so the second option listed above is really the only viable one.

If the Mossad wanted to create a false flag operation, they would MAKE SURE there were Jews in the buildings just to give it more credibility.

That being said, we do know that governments - including the US - have at least considered launching domestic terrorist inicidents in order to justify attacking other countries. This is simply an empirical fact. See Operation Northwoods. We also now know that there was no second attack in the Gulf of Tonkin.

We also know that the FBI could have stopped the first WTC bombing but mysteriously refused to do so - thanks to the FBI informer Emad Salem who was smart enough to record his conversations with his FBI handers.

We also have a whole list of instances when the 9-11 incident could have been stopped - but wasn't because of "bunglings" of a various variety for example unexplained failures to follow up on warnings from FBI agents in Phoenix.

Again, all of these are empirical facts. Not consipiracy theories. Reach your own conclusions.

Good 4 A Merica,

Can we think of any reason why Israelis might object to admitting that Palestinians are "displaced people" with a home in Israel and, therefore, rightfully, Israeli citizens?

First we must accept the fact that Israelis object to admiting that Palestinians are displaced people.  Considering the Israeli negotiations to implement Palestinian national independence, it would appear that this is not so.  I have seen no reasonably mainstream Israeli opinion objecting to displaced Palestinians finding citizenship in Palestine when its idependence is established.

There's also a corollary:

Israeli's "Right to Exist" is equivalent to a "Right to Make Palestinians Not Exist" since otherwise there could be no Zionism and there could be no Jewish Homeland when the Palestinians inconveniently continue to live on the land.

the Jewish people's right to its own national identity and self-determination....involves the denial of Palestinian national identity and self-determination.

MJ, I agree that the extemists, who might also be in Brooklyn, on the left who "prattle" against Israel have little influence because prattling on the computer remains nothing more.

On a domestic level, I will say extremist prattling against Israel by Jews or non-Jews makes it more difficult to preserve any kind of domestic coalition between Jews and non-Jews on the left. I know your stats on the Presidential elections and I cite them often to Jews who ask me how I can remain a Democrat, but I think the "prattlers" may at some point do their part to cause a schism between Jewish and non-Jewish progressives. And that's a concern to this Jewish lefty with a life's worth of commitment to the American labor movement.

Having said that, I am in no way excusing anyone who blanches at the slightest criticism of Israeli policy and screams anti-semite. I agree that those folks are no help to Israel.

What complete and utter rubbish!

Last I checked no one invaded Germany and drove out the Germans into refugee camps, flattened their homes and villages, and built settlements on them and then claimed that "Germans" don't really exist and they should all just go live somewhere else.

And incidentally, Jews have been living in Arab countries far longer than they have been living in Israel.

=== The establishment of Israel in 1947 was based on two assumptions: 1) Given the extermination policies of the Nazi regimes and the complicity of most other major countries, or at least their reluctance to oppose these policies and rescue its victims, there was reasonable ground for many Jews to believe that they could only rely on themselves for their safety, and therefore they needed a State, with Jewish control of its police and armed forces. [...]

Both of these assumptions have been completely discredited by subsequent history. Jews are probably safer in every country of the world than in Israel, except for Israel’s Arab neighbors, and there is no evidence of a revival of anti-Semitic violence in other countries. ===

In fairness, that isn't necessarily true. As I am not Jewish I hear random bits of low-level anti-semitism all the time. And if I _were_ Jewish I would personally be quite concerned that recent trends in world history could be heading in a direction that would lead to new pogroms and/or extermination programs.

It is however not clear to me that the extreme politics of present-day Israel is a solution to this concern.

sPh

Only warmongers insist that Jewish and Arab national rights are mutually exclusive in former British Mandatory Palestine. 

Evacuate and destroy the old. They don't serve any obvious military or security purpose, and I'm perfectly willing, under the current danger, for Israel to have military posts inside the territories.

No, peace won't happen overnight. Each time either side removes something provocative to the other, it takes away a little propaganda for the extremists on the other side. That propaganda is most dangerous when it encourages recruiting. If the occupied territories are like many others, a significant part of the population doesn't care about politics, but a minority with guns is creating the bulk of the problem. Rock-throwing is quite different from rocket-throwing.

I'm not proposing a hudna, but a ceasefire never hurts -- and I doubt intelligence gathering on either side would be stopped even by such a temporary truce.

A two-state solution does make sense. When you speak of a Palestinian right of return, I assume you mean to a one-state Israel. If a Zionist faction wants to keep a single state, then it is their problem to maintain uniqueness for Zionist Jews (i.e., not all Jews are Zionist nor feel the State of Israel represents them).
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I am reminded of Bui Diem, Ambassador to the US during the Vietnam War: "Dignity; it is more important to us than your freedom." Deciding national dignity is a critical role means giving up other things.

If Israel wants dignity, fine, but let it be responsible for it. This particular thread helped me crystallize a thought: it is unreasonable of Israel to expect the United States to support policies that would violate US antidiscrimination laws. While the US has its problems with legal and illegal immigration, the idea of assimilation is still basic to the culture. I believe the mixing bowl, rather than the salad bowl with multicultural separation of the vegetables of garnishes, is the right model, unless there is a magnificent salad dressing that all believe complements everyone...I mean, every vegetable.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Northern Observer,

We do not ask the Jewish state to behave with less rights than other states and peoples. In fact our whole concern is that Israel behaves outside the norms that the civilized nations of the World subscribe to.

Then my comment obviously does not relate to you.

What does that mean?

Are you saying you're thinking about aligning with the Republican Party yourself or what?

Howard,

...it is unreasonable of Israel to expect the United States to support policies that would violate US antidiscrimination laws.

And yet we routinely sustain alliances and trade agreements with nations having policies that violate US labor, environmental, and civil rights laws.  Doesn't make it right.  But why discriminate against Israel?

At least!

Because Israel appears to want military guarantees that the United States will help it enforce these policies against all threats, national or non-national. Remove the pressures for not criticizing Israeli tactics or weapons use, and crank down the rhetoric that the US must attack Iran for Israel's security, and Israel has a much better case for being treated as other countries that discriminate.

Ratifying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as a declaratory power, and getting involved in arms control would also help a lot. Remember, Pakistan had military sales stopped for a number of years over its nuclear program.

Use of US weapons in violation of the conditions of sale, and indeed of US military doctrine that has led the US to retire the particular ammunition in question, is not something that most discriminating countries do with impunity. The drumroll that the US must attack Iranian nuclear facilities, without reasonable proof (i.e., not loudmouth threats) they are developing weapons, is an issue principally of concern to Israel. Iran has no delivery systems that can threaten the US -- and no, for a variety of reasons, I do not believe they will supply nuclear weapons to terrorists.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

And you recommend this position?  I take it you are admitting that Israel is a racist state?

Please explain.

AJC is a mental descendant of CheKa(Extra-ordinary Commission [on Internal Security], ancestor of KGB).

According to NYT, they "castigated ... Richard Cohen of Washington Post."

I really took exception to lies, perhaps unwitting, that Cohen used to justify the behavior of Israel military in Lebanon (like hugely inflated figure of victims of the past Hezbollah attacks). I cannot imagine Cohen criticising Israel outside "approved framework", like that Israel should not loose the perception of high moral ground (assuming that Israel indeed does have this high moral ground but at occasion, like when it flattens neighborhoods in Beirut, it is insensitive to the issue of perception). Plus, Cohen is kind of progressive (not in the sense "somewhat to the left of traditional liberal").

So, once true opponents of Communists are wiped out, CheKa starts to decimate the ranks of the party.

Apologies; mixed up my Semitic languages. I meant hudna, an Arabic word often translated "truce" but having much more of a context of "temporary cease-fire; the war will continue."

Calling Ireland "an Irish state", with no insistence it is the representatives of all who wear the Green, is OK. Now, should it include those who wear the Orange, but have been resident in the North for generations? Indeed, does the "Irish State" include Northern Ireland?

Irish vs. Hibernian is less important to me than "an" versus "the". For example, one could have a Catholic "Hibernian", born in Belfast, who considers himself a loyal British subject.

For the record, I have an atheist friend, born in Ballymena, who explains atheism, in the Northern Ireland context, makes one a logical Protestant. He is of Scots ancestry. What is Albert's relationship to "an/the" Irish state, especially as a naturalized American citizen?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Last I checked no one invaded Germany and drove out the Germans into refugee camps, flattened their homes and villages,"

Check again. Huge chunks of pre-1937 Germany was taken from Germany and Germans were kicked out in refugee camps.
You might also check Serb refugee problem.

The death of a Jewish policeman on 9/11 proves nothing to serious conspiracy theorists (which I am not). Committed conspiracy theorists believe that the Israelis knew about the attacks beforehand, not Jews in general.

A informed conspiracy theorist knows that an Israeli shipping company moved out of the WTC two weeks before 9/11 to Norfolk and then moved back to NYC a couple of years later. The Israeli shipping company was hit with a whopping fine from the Treasury Department in either 2002 or 2003 for illegal trading with Cuba, thereby lending credence to the argument that the shipping company was up to no good in the first place. (All true, btw.)

A committed conspiracy theorist will always drag out the case of the Urban Moving Company and its five Israeli employees who cheered the WTC collapse from a vantage point in NJ. The five Israelis were held in custody for a couple of months by the US government and then released without explanation. The owner of the moving company, Dominic Suter, left the US on, I think, 9/14/01 for Israel. (Again, all true.)

If you are interested, I can walk you through the "Israeli spies posing as peddlers of art" theory which has enough basis in fact to appear credible to any number of conspiracy theorists.

"The difference is that these people you mentioned are not currently stateless pariahs with no hope and no future"

Why ? Why everybody settled down?
I've asked people on this list, what prevents Gaza from becaming next Singapure? There are so much money are available to help them to build a great future for them and their children?
The only answer is that they, Palestinians must live in misery so they can be used by Jew haters as a tool to destroy Israel.
This is the diffence between misery of Palestinians and
much better lives of all other 100s millions refugees after WWW2.

OK see, you don't know what time zone I live in, and instead of worrying about my sleeping patterns, why not FOR ONCE try to actually deal with the CONTENT of my posts? If you can? LOL!

Hardly. It's not about me Karen! Hee. My concern is about the potential dismantling of an historic and vital domestic coalition. I also understand the notion that the coalition can't depend on falsehoods, e.g. I am not claiming that the coalition's preservation depends upon a "squeaky clean" position on Israel at the expense of ignoring reality.

No ethnic cleansing following ca. 1948, i.e. the creation of Israel and the partition of India was internationally approved. Turkish Cyprus remains international pariah. Serbs expelled from Croatia and Kosovo come closest to the "approved ethnic cleansing", although I am pretty sure that Greek-Orthodox countries did not share that attitude (mind you, Croatia was not subjected to sanctions but it was not admitted to EU either).

I guess that it should be easy to argue that there are a lot of events in 1940s that are hard to un-do, but which should not be repeated. For that reason, I would not try to undo ethnic cleansing of 1940s, but the further we are from 1950, the less justification for such behavior. It is definitely in the category "everybody does it".

could one attribute the dislike of Joe Lieberman to his enthusiastic support of the most unpopular policy of Bush Administration, occupation of Iraq?

To have controlled experiment, is there another Jewish US Senator subjected to similar derision? Are there any other Jewish US Senators that could make the comparison possible?

Israel is also sovereign state where its citizens speak a Jewish languag BECAUSE THEY KILLED AND DROVE OUT ALL THE NON-JEWs.

I know its such a minor detail, really. Not worth mentioning at all...

Sheesh.

By the way, all this talk about maintaining a "national character" should give any Jew the heebie jeebies. We've all see where that sort of thing inevitably ends up.

No, sorry, settlement activity has actually INCREASED .

Who is "seeking to destroy" whom?

Why should the Palestinians "just move on" but not the Israelis? Care to explain that, in detail?

No surprise here. "If it ain't Philadelphia, it must be the ocean."

Nu? There are Jewish, Zionist and Israeli warmongers. There are Arab, Palestinian, right wing and left wing warmongers.

Fortunately, there are also Jews, Zionists and Israelis, and Arabs, Palestinians, and other global citizenes working for a peaceful productive resolution to the conflict. You should consider working with us and not against us.

Personally, I've always thought it was risky for the Jews to place too much reliance on support from Evangelical Christians. Heaven forbid, if they think the end is near, the Evangelicals will demand that the Israelis either convert to Christianity or die.

The headline M.J. Rosenberg used for his comment is unfortunate because it is antithetical to his argument.

American Jewish Committee Report Goes After Liberal Anti-Semites

The AJC did not go after liberal anti-semites it attacked liberals whose views it disagrees with and smeared them with a despicable accusation of anti-semitism.

Joe Lieberman would generate similar views if he practiced Dionysian Jansenism or Transcendental Masturbation.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Actually, he is more likely to be considered either a Protestent Atheist or a Catholic Atheist rather than just a Protestent. Usually this will depend on one's parents' heritage, as well as the company one keeps. Having lived in Belfast for a year, this is something I can attest to. It is usually lighthearted and joked about over pints. But every once in a while a true bigot will drift toward seriousness when addressing this issue. Less of a laugh when you're confronted in the street.

Not much point in arguing with Hass. He/she is always right. He/she always wants the last word. And he/she doesn't sleep.

Good 4 A Merica,

(take American Indians who have special tribal government rights BEYOND their citizenship rights).

Until Israel deals with the real problem (colonial power/stolen land/aboriginals) they will remain a racist nation and should be an outcast among nations. 

So you are saying that Israel should wipe out its "aboriginals" like you did in the USA, before awarding the survivors "special tribal rights."  And Israel is supposed to be the "racist state"? 

(Aside:  Hey hass, it's fun to argue this way.  Thanks for being such an effective role model.)

That is something I could see in the interest of the US to protect, which would likely be logistical and technical rather than troop. If, for example, MTHEL or the Israeli anti-rocket/mortar Oerlikon gun system were available, the financial costs of such weapons would be irrelevant if they helped provide appreciable security. Suicide bombers are, of course, more of a challenge, but US technical assistance for checkpoints -- no more delay than at a (grumble) US airport -- would be a possibility.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It's not a question of "safety" and other creature comforts. It is a matter of national dignity, without which UnaHomer's family and other stateless peoples were and continue to be rendered superfluous in the area of genuine human rights protections.

Do you think Jews in the United States lack dignity and human rights protections? It strikes me that there are many more peoples and nations in the world than there are states. Are those who lack states of their own doomed to be an inferior second order status - a collection of superfluous peoples without dignity? And is the fact that they lack a state a violation of their national rights? Is the global community coming up short on the score of national rights because it fails to provide a state for each nation?

A little off topic, but I was delighted to hear today from an Apache friend (Neoboho knows him as well), who has been in the VA hospital for quite a while. He's a retired Special Forces soldier, and let no one question that he's a citizen in every possible way.

Someone did, thinking a guy in a wheelchair, putting gas in his car, was an easy target. When healthy, Mike benchpresses 275 daily. I am told that it wasn't overly difficult to detach the gas nozzle from his assailant -- it wasn't just verbal abuse.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

We lost my mother's entire family to the holocaust. More than 130 family members. And for G-D's sake I am not willing to risk anything like that to happen again.

Howard:

I enjoy reading your posts and I am very impressed with what appears to be your technical expertise and your firm understanding of International law. I do have two questions for you based on what you have written.

First, you seem to place tremendous significance on the fact that there is no formal treaty between Israel and the United States. Why is that so significant? I think you have suggested, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that absent such a treaty, Israel and its supporters have no right to expect any military guarantees from the U.S. But I don't see American policy to be that, if Israel is at war in the future with one or more of its neighbors, then the U.S. will necessarily get involved.

Are you speaking of military aid and not direct military intervention? If that's the case, why is there a need for a treaty? I guess what I don't understand is why conditional military aid cannot be effected through legislation.

Secondly, as I understand things, Israel's nuclear capability is de facto official for decades now. I'm not trying justify it but it is a condition that has been a known quantity for years. In terms of the American approach to Israel, and with respect to the prospects for a workable two-state solution, why is Israel's formal acknowledgement of its nuclear capability so critical in your view? Now, maybe this is a giant leap I'm making, but I don't think Israel's neighbors, including Iran, genuinely fear a nuclear attack from Israel. I guess if you disagree with me on that front, then I would understand your more acute concern about Israel's nuclear capability on its face. But, even then, why would Israel's formal acknowledgement about possessing these weapons make its neighbors feel or be more secure than they are now, when Israel's nuclear capability is an open secret?

I hope I made sense lol. Thanks for your attention.

Bruce

geopolitical point of origin

1. On a thread about antisemitism, it is hard not to use the word "Jew."

2. No one here or anywhere else supposes that antisemitism is totally absent, but that doesn't justify claims of antisemitism when asking questions about racial tests for citizenship in Israel.

3. Choose a group, any group. Find some members who are genuine members. See if they have ever experienced any slurs against themselves for being a member of that group. When you find one with no slurs, please pose HERE:

                                                          |

                                                         \ /

For the record, and not that this will change anyone's mind about anything, but Good for America's point about the generations reminds me of the fabulous experience I had last time I was in Israel in 2005. My mother's family tree indicated that my great-great-great-great grandfather lived in Safed until his death in the 1860s. I contacted this guy from the Safed Foundation, who has spent years cataloguing the ancient Jewish Cemetary in Safed. Lo and behold, we found the grave in excellent condition, and the photos we took have been shared with family descendants in Israel, the U.S. and as far away as Australia.

For what it's worth I thought it would be nice to add a little commercial interlude. :-)

"I guess that it should be easy to argue that there are a lot of events in 1940s that are hard to un-do, but which should not be repeated. For that reason, I would not try to undo ethnic cleansing of 1940s, but the further we are from 1950, the less justification for such behavior. It is definitely in the category "everybody does it".

Great, we are the same page. However, Serbs were kicked out of Kossovo and Croatia in the last 10 15 years.

Glad you think it's fun. To me it's like being nibbled to death by ducks!

Nice to agree with you Mrs. Pantsreppon.

Not to be insensitive, but whas your "great-great-great-great grandfather's" descendants forced out of Safed, or did they leave of their own accord?

No ethnic cleansing following ca. 1948, i.e. the creation of Israel ...oh wait, that's a rhetorical joke isn't it?

Nevermind the continued Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land and demolition of homes.

Nevermind the policy the "Judiazation" of Jerusalem

Nevermind the "security barrier's" intrusion on Palestinian lands...

No. Presto! Poof! All of that is gone! Never happened. And now, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

Yes and a Serb was on trial in the Hague Tribunal. When will an Israeli be there?

Your example of the comment from the Daily Kos sounds more like someone was being sarcastic about anti-semites. I doubt if anyone there seriously considers Jewish participation in the civil rights movement to be Jewish propaganda.

I'd like to see the remark about Lieberman's wife on Huffington post in its entirety. The Huffington Post is generally very careful about criticism of Jews and Israel. Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com was barred after his criticism of Israeli spying in the US.

The Huffington Post, however, had no problemn with posting Alan Dershowitz's insulting rules about how to talk about Jews and Israel. Dershowitz, if you don't know it, considers criticism of Israel to be valid only if it is similar to criticism of Israel rendered by "leading" Israeli dissidents. Dershowitz inconveniently omits to name any Israeli dissidents that he considers to be "leading".

I mentioned Senator Schumer in contrast to Senator Lieberman because Schumer is Jewish and a staunch supporter of Israel yet he seems to escape the "Israel, right or wrong" stigma attached to Lieberman.

If I only knew how to rate posts, this would be a "5"

Incidentally, many a Zionist specifically cite the genocide of the American Indians as a justification for their own genocide of Palestinians. In fact, this is a common theme. Even seen it repeated here on TMP. Benny Morris explicitly resorts to it in his interview with Ari Shavit.

But the argument has a blow-back. By comparing Israel's treatment of Palestinans to the US's treatment of Indians, you're in fact admitting to carrying out a genocide.

I'm much more interested in Lieberman's wife's LOBBYING exploits rather than her name, I think her name is lovely.

Smoke & mirrors, smoke and mirrors.

"Why should the Palestinians "just move on" but not the Israelis? Care to explain that, in detail?"

Because they lost. When you lose you lose something.
Overall, Israel is doing great, most likely the chip in your computer that you use to spill hatred for Israel and Jews was designed in Israel.
Because people like you, Palestinians live in denial, dreams and misery forced on them, while being used by people who don't care about them at all.
Instead, they could accept reality, get the best deal they can
(like Clinton's plan in 2000) get help while still there is an interest to help them and join global world and start build bright future for their children, like millions immigrants including Muslims are building for their children in US.

But. in 2000, they didn't take a deal, started another war, and they lost again. Obviously, because they lost, they might not even get that deal. But they still should settle for the best deal they can get now.

I don't understand the point of your #3. Are you saying Jews should get used to slurs because everybody receives them? I don't get what you mean.

Yes. Funny, that. 20% are left as second-class citizens. Haven't gotten around to them yet, have you. Don't worry. Uncle Avigdor is here to help out.

Howard,

I don't think you really answered the question. First, it was about Jews already in the United States, not immigration.

What difference does it make? Limiting our examples to the US is false choice anyway.  The fact remains that Jews were existentially threatened and there was no where to run, and just because there were Jews living relatively comfortably in the US didn't keep 1/3 of the world Jewish population from being murdered in Europe.

I literally don't understand your response to the second quote. Reading it one way, it would seem that the Palestinians are such a people. Even though their sense of national identity is recent, it is real.

No kidding.  How many times and how many ways can I put it before you get it?  Jewish and Arab national rights in former British Mandatatory Palestine are not mutually exclusive.  War is a fucking drag.  I wish and work for the day that Jews and Arabs enjoy their national self-determination, side by side in Israel and Palestine, respectively.  The complete vision.  Trading goods and services, their respective national futbol teams competing in each others' stadiums, their bands and DJs touring each others' clubs in each others' cities and beyond.

Oy. ;-)

There are plenty of people whose ideas would lead to the extinction of Israel.

Does this mean that if one subscribes to the idea that Israel was illegitimately formed by displacing the Palestinians from their land that one is ultimately anti-Semitic? As I recall, M.J., you came to the tpmCafe doing exactly what you are castigating the AJC for and actually defending DAG’s slurs. I’m not trying to rehash all of that and I’m glad you’re taking people to task for throwing the anti-Semite charge around, but I wonder if you are just over promoting a softened Zionism with the many “pro-Israeli progressives vs. hard-liners” posts. Whatever a commenter’s loyalty to or position on Israel, others may question a state’s legitimacy (perceiving Israel as taking Palestine and oppressing Palestinians) without being racist (anti-Semitic). Of course, there is the attempt to both inflame and suppress debate when (not if) the anti-Semite card is played in these threads. BTW, did anyone see the documentary on the new anti-Semitism hosted by Judy Woodruff on PBS a week or two ago? Talk about agit-prop!

I occasionally read these arguments and sometimes chime in, but I wonder if any minds are ever changed or enlightened. Just glancing at the headlines, I see reports that Congress ginning up for a showdown over war powers with Bush, Libby’s lawyers allowed to question Miller about her other sources, beheading plot foiled in Britain, and Germany issued arrest warrants for CIA operatives who abducted German national. Surely there are important political items to discuss. While I think the Palestine/Israel problem is important because of the impact on the Middle East and the Lobby and Neocon influence on U.S. foreign policy, the Zionist question shouldn’t dominate the front page here at TPM (TPMJ?) day after day.

Well, if we're talking about conspiracies, lets cite sources and not "I remember".

How about the fact that an instant messaging company was warned about 9-11 minutes before it happened. Read up on it in the Ha'aretz article

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

What does it mean? I dunno.

Then there's the case of the five dancing Israelis.

These are just unanswered questions. I'm not going to jump to a conclusion, either way. I'm certainly not going to categorically accept or deny anything.

Actually I was trying to send a friendly love tap to Hass since we bicker so much on here. Guess it didn't work.

I will say that, even though all kinds of things are theoretically possible, and even though I believe that a healthy bit of mistrust of our government is essential, and even though Israel may have engaged in clandestine activities framing others in conjunction with Britain and/or France, I still think it's looney, at best, and unmentionable at worst, to believe that Mossad could have been responsible for 9/11.

But, Karen, I have to say I'm surprised and disappointed in what you just posted. I thought we were engaging in a good discussion. Your suggestion that I believe that anyone who is critical of Israel or U.S. policy towards Israel must also believe that Jews were involved in 9/11 is not only wrong, but also as silly and curious as believing that Jews, Israel, or Mossad may have been involved in 9/11.

By the way, my son keeps insisting to me that I'm nuts for believing the official account of 9/11. So Karen, sans the Mossad component, you and Hass are in good company as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone else have any stuff to share on what the conspiratorialists have come up with about Israeli involvement in 9/11, or anyone else want to corroborate the possibilities about Israel's role in 9/11, as set forth by our fellow posters? It's kind of compelling and certainly an education I think.

People have gone after Schumer, too, for his support of the Iraq War.

Schumer wouldn't meet with Cindy Sheehan but his spokesperson said that Schumer believed the Iraq War was "good for America" and Cindy said that must mean Schumer thinks it was good that her son died.

A commenter I remember said he had confronted Schumer personally about his support for the Iraq War and Schumer answered that he, Schumer, had protest the Vietnam war and then the commenter said that was because Schumer himself didn't want to go to Vietnam but how come Schumer's daughters hadn't enlisted in the National Guard or the Army?

I love you too Hass baby. You're my guy (or lady)! One of these days I'm gonna make you smile, I just know it!

I think he was joking.

I suppose it would have been clearer had he employed the quotation-marks-of-derision:

American Jewish Committee Report Goes After Liberal "Anti-Semites"

At least I hope he was joking.

Oy yourself! You just said I misunderstood your "at least" and there you go turning it around at something to be "disappointed" in me over. If what I thought you meant by "at least" wasn't what you meant, then . . . ?? This is like having an argument over promises of combined shipping charges with someone on ebay.

Lots of possibilities for 9/11 but for whatever reason your mind is made up. I had a coworker who was a devout Catholic and she was so upset about the possibility of the Shroud of Turin getting carbon dated. I certainly wouldn't argue with her but it seemed like something you'd really, really want to know for sure if you could.

My position is that one should be able to say anything about the State of Israel and its origins without being called anti-semitic. The point at which one crosses over is to call for the physical destruction of Israel i.e. the slaughter of its people.
I do not believe that hoping Israel eventually becomes a binational or multinational state or whatever else it might evolve into without violence is anti-semitic.
I myself am a Zionist. I believe that history has taught that there must be a place in the world where Jews exercise sovereignty. That place is Israel, not including the territories which will compose a Palestinian state.

I know what you meant. But I think she was just doing the usual straw man stuff: People who think the Israeli Mossad may have been involved are saying no Jews were killed on 9/11.

The same way they keep telling us that Ahmadinejad wants to "wipe Israel off the map" like he means "kill all the Israelis" even though plenty of Americans saw the 60 Minutes interview where he explained the remark. The Soviet Union has been wiped off the map and the Russians are still there.

Seriously, I take my son very seriously. He's far smarter than his Dad and he tells him so all the time!

Howard,

But aren't we still talking about the overall difference between national dignity and individual safety?  If Jewish identity contains all the legitimate national components as language, culture, legal and ethical codes, shared history and a peculiar calendar, then why limit all Jews everywhere to indulging and preserving these qualities and attributes only in the socio-political environment of the US?  Why even put that responsibility on the US?  Jews have established their national self-determination in Israel, have cultivated significant commerce with Europe, and individual Jews now have a broader choice than simply assimilating in one culture, or living Jewishly underground (at best) in another.

"Uncle Avigdor is here to help out."
Whatever you say my friend, what's the 20% between friends.
For the rest of us, Uncle Avigdor propose making Israel smaller
and give part of Galilee to the future Palestinian state.

Corrected Link to Lavon Affair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

I don't know how I ended up linking back to tpm.

Don't build new settlemens, finish fence as close as possible or inside of Green line, prevent as much as possible, "low-level terror", practice as low key control as possible in West Bank, using low key covert operations and informants take out terrorist leaders, restore as much as possible normacy in the West Bank, remove checkpoints, because they should not be needed as much when the fence is finished and wait until Palestinian leaders will be ready to settle for two state solution.

Of course you don't want to fight with me.

What you said was: "Well I will say that at least you disagree with those folks who said that all the Jews did not report to work that day because they were told to stay home as part of the grand conspiracy." And at issue to me was what you mean by "at least." Still don't know what you meant; I've never seen anyone say that all the Jews were part of a grand conspiracy or all the Jews didn't report to work.

The "at least" meant: well at least you're not as nutty as those who say that the Jews were told to stay home. . .it was a playful poke Karen, and nothing more.

And, seriously, you're like into this 9/11 alternative theory stuff that includes Mossad as a possible participant or cause, and you have never heard the component of that theory that Jewish WTC workers were told to stay home on 9/11? Really?

Yes, again read their columns, listen to senators Barbara Boxer
or Russ Feingold, or MJ, to Josh Marshall ........

LOL -  Good stuff, isn't it? Let me point out that the "five dancing Israelis" are the five Israeli employees of Urban Moving that I mentioned.

You must know that Benjamin Netanyahu's intemperate remark on 9/11 -  "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)" lends a tremendous amount of support to the theory that the five dancing Israelis were celebrating 9/11 because the attacks were in Israel's best interest.

As an aside, have you noticed that Netanyahu generates a level of public animosity unmatched by even Ariel Sharon? I was taken aback when Drudge fingered Netanyahu for having advance knowledge of the London subway bombings.

Getting back to generally accepted 9/11 theories, there's the one about the Israeli firm, ICTS, headquartered in the Netherlands. ICTS's US subsidiary, Huntleigh USA provided security for Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11 (and might be doing so now) and everyone knows ICTS is staffed by former members of the Israeli military and intelligence services.

Ezra Harel who I think is or was chairman of the ICTS board was picked up for questioning by Israeli investigators for unknown reasons a couple of years ago which lends credence to the idea that even the Israelis have a problem with whatever ICTS is up to.

An updated version of ICTS's role in 9/11 can be found here. This particular conspiracy theory encompasses Ehud Olmert's involvement in a 1996 Likud fundraising scandal. Olmert's co-defendant, Menahem Atzmon, subsequently went on to co-found ICTS.

The Israeli art student spy ring story in unique in that Fox News supposedly did a four-part series on the ring circa December 2001. I say supposedly because I never verified whether there was such a four-part Fox News story aired. No one ever claimed, as far as I know, that the Israelis selling art as a ploy to spy on the US ever had anything to do with 9/11.   

Antiwar.com has a collection of "documents" on the Israeli art spy ring including a purported DEA report on the spy ring which is more than a hundred pages long. The "report" provides names and other details about some of the Israelis picked up for questioning.   

I skimmed through the report out of curiosity and noticed that one of the Israeli art students supposedly picked up for questioning had a brother in Tamarac FL who was an art dealer. The odd thing is that there was such a business in Tamarac at the time but the name of the art dealer in the report was changed from something-vich to something-vitz. Mr. Something-vich, art dealer, appears to have dropped off the face of the earth sometime in mid-2003. 

Why someone went to a lot of trouble to create a DEA report or even change the names in a DEA report has always intrigued me.

That's it from me on 9/11 and other conspiracy theories involving Israelis today.

No, I never heard that. Can you give me a link? Any link to someone who thinks that? Its a straw man.

I don't know what it has to do with the Mossad. You don't really think you know anything about what the Mossad is up to. Or the CIA or any covert operation.

Before that happens, only a tiny percentage of your generation of American Jews will "return" to Israel and then only a tinier percentage of the next generation and so on. Maybe not even 1% of current American Jews will repatriate themselves in Israel.

I see - so all the Palestinians collectively lost all their rights because supposedly "they" all had the temerity to, what? Be arab?? and so Israel can go ahead and kill and expell them. Lovely. Thanks for admitting to your racism.

I'm sure the welfare of the Palestinians is at the forefront of your concerns.

Number of problems with this analysis.

First, the Palestinian Right of Return is not "immigration" - it is enrished by international law as a right to all refugees.

Second, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinans continues to this day. It hasn't stopped. It is an on-going atrocity, funded in large part by the US, both directly and indirectly.

Why even put that responsibility on the US?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

MJ,

I think this brings together a number of the issues you've been raising the past few weeks regarding open and honest debate about the mid-east and the counterproductive tendency of some to want to suppress any thoughts or comments they believe to be insufficiently pro-Israel. It's too bad these folks can't see how shrill and even hysterical they come off to the vast majority of people for whom the question of Israel is secondary at best. It really hurts Israel's political position with the American public to label any criticism (legitimate or not) of Israeli government policies/actions as anti-Semitic.

You may well be right, I don't know. I don't think I understand what your projections have to do with my concern for the preservation of a progressive coalition in this country.

Oh I get it the swastikas are a botched joke. That always makes people feel better.

hass,

I was addressing the argument "everybody does it but only Israel is castigated". Therefore I tried to list all cases that could fall under "everybody does it". It is worth to note that Croatia was pressured to give up its war criminals and it is skipped over in the queue for EU membership, so the ethnic cleansing was not exactly unnoticed. Myammar expelled Muslim Arakanese at some point, but it remains a pariah state.

We are a small community here, so we do not have to repeat all arguments all the time. New arguments are possible.

davai, to give him credit, engaged the argument. You seem to overlook where it was going.

I hear this remark a lot. The theory goes if a large number of people on the left do something stupid, the response from a Liberal is "How can you paint all liberals with such a broad brush?" or "The right does it too", but they don't follow it up with, "Yes, that is wrong".

I am concerned that it is tolerated or there is seeming indifference to slurs by many. Consider this your opportunity to prove that you are not in that group, by condemning slurs and attacks on Jews and against Lieberman. If I agree and say there are Republicans that have made slurs before, does that take away the sting of the liberal that used the slur.

As you can see even here, a lot of people trying to excuse it all away. Apparently I am concerned and others are not.

We hear this last week about Jimmy Carter during his administration complaining that the Holocaust memorial council had "too many Jews". That would concern me if I heard Gerald Ford said that, but Carter is still alive and trying to move the political debate. So it really concerns me. But again, there is a lot of explaining away. I don't get it.

Where did you get the idea that the organizers support Hezbollah? I was at the rally and the only references to Israel were scattered signs opposing the occupation and a speaker or two who called on folks to attend an anti-occupation rally. Hezbollah? I don't think so.

Don't be so sure.

I think this is a move that will backfire. I read it, as I read the hysterical reactions to the Carter book, as panic. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end of the hegemony of the Israel Lobby in American Judaism.

No, they aren't uniquely Lebanese, but that is where they are most evident at present, and where Israel has most helped them recruit. I maintain that they focus on the region of the Middle East.

The link doesn't work.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

What has been said about Krugman and Blumenthal?

The fact remains that Jews were existentially threatened and there was no where to run, and just because there were Jews living relatively comfortably in the US didn't keep 1/3 of the world Jewish population from being murdered in Europe.

Yes but that's different question, the question of safety. You said in the previous post that it wasn't a question of safety, but a question of dignity and human rights protection. So my question is do you think Jews have achieved dignity in the United States, and that their human rights are protected here. And if so, doesn't that argue that the possession of a state is not a necessary condition for a people or nation to possess dignity and to have their human rights protected?

As you know, I'm somewhat skeptical of the notion of "national rights", but granting the existence of such rights for the sake of argument, I'm trying to get at what these rights consist in and entail. And again I ask, are those peoples or nations that do not possess a state suffering a violation of their national rights?

it is unreasonable of Israel to expect the United States to support policies that would violate US antidiscrimination laws.

Interesting thought, Howard. I am reminded how, in an earlier era, some black leaders would at the drop of a hat, in stentorian tones, denounce anything that they considered to be against the interests of black people as "racism".

While, no doubt, many things that were done and continue to be done to black people ARE, in fact, motivated by racism, it is possible to paint this theme with a brush too broad, and this was more common in the past than it is now. There's a phrase for this, of course: "playing the race card".

It seems to me that the "new definition" of antisemitism is pretty much of a piece with "playing the race card" and people are learning modes of thought that will help them deal with accusations that they feel, and may, in fact be, unjust.

The AJC needs to think hard about that.

Yes, the Christian Zionists are big supporters of Israel and its right to exist. But only until next Tuesday. That's when the rapture comes and Jesus returns to send all the Jews to hell for killing him and then failing to convert.

"My position is that one should be able to say anything about the State of Israel and its origins without being called anti-semitic. The point at which one crosses over is to call for the physical destruction of Israel i.e. the slaughter of its people."--M.J. Rosenberg

If you mean, Mr. Rosenberg, to take an example of "saying anything" that I should not label as anti-semitic someone who says "the Jews of Europe got what was coming to them for killing our Lord, and the UN owed those Christ-killers nothing in 1948", then your remark is breathtakingly daft. If, however, you mean that someone should be able to criticize the policies of the government of Israel without being labeled anti-semitic, I agree with you.

Interestingly enough, so does David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, as the Times article states. But you don't mention that in your piece.

I become more than a bit irritated with policymakers whose children are, for some reason, assumed under an obligation to enlist in the military.

If it's passed notice, we have a volunteer military, very much to the preference of the people in it. I hear again and again, from soldier friends, how reassuring it is to know that the people to either side basically want to be there.

Not everyone is cut out for, or interested in, military service. Schumer's daughter might also be opposed to the war her father supported; it is not unheard of, I am told, to have children disagree with their parents.

At the highest levels, there can be security problems; military units are really not organized to have Secret Service details. Still, there are situations such as with Dwight Eisenhower and his son, John, both career officers. At the time of Korea, John was serving in the Pacific, and Dwight said he would withdraw from the election if his son was captured during it. John convinced his father that he would not allow himself to be captured alive, and that he wanted to be in Korea. That's a bit much for an 18-year-old.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

(I liked your comment about the Soviet Union)

Israel can't sign the NPT as a nuclear power - unless it disarms. The NPT specifically limited the number of member states who are nuclear armed to the original 6. No more can be added.

There has long been a discussion about a formal defense treaty between the US and Israel. Lots of people have objected to it, including lots of Israelis who worry that such a treaty would limit Israeli military options.

See, effectively, Israel already has all the benefits of US military assistance, and so why would it want enter into an arrangement that could create limits on it?

Naw, I think the corner was Clark & Diversey.

Go Bears!

I suspect that the signatories might just consider revisions to get significant arsenals under control, especially when the countries involved did major autonomous development.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Try this link for the Global Exchange hezbollah link
Link
Here

This phrase that became all the rage "after" Hezbollah attacked and kidnapped the Israelis sounds like a description of a badmitten match. If Hezbollah doesn't want a 10 to 1 or 100 to 1 or whatever response, then don't attack Israel. I guess Desert Storm was disproportional since we had a better military and used more bombs on them than they did on us.

If someone attacks the US with brass knuckles, we use a knife, if they use a knife, we use a gun, if they put one of our people in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue.

Iran sent an army of terrorists to sit on the edge of their border sworn to kill them all. As soon as they arrived, they killed the French, the Americans, the Israelis, other muslims, the car bombed in France, planes, assassinations.

What if Israel camped at the
edge of Iran's border and started lobbing missiles, you think these anti-war groups would be talking about disproportional force when Iran bombed them into the sand.

You described in detail how the terrorists, like Mafia thugs, can intimidate civilians into complicity with an act of terror resulting in the destruction of their home. If an American helps the mafia with a crime, they are punished. Here is a link on the use of human shields by these terrorists:
Link

Here

I used the term holy land as a geographic term, so as not to use the phrase Israel or Palestine and confuse the message of the statement. If the concept of something holy or god or whatever is offensive to you, we can agree to call it the disputed regions of the Levant, if you find that acceptable.

Where to start?

Have you heard that Gypsies, gays, and merely disabled people might have had unpleasant experiences in the Holocaust?  No?  There is your problem, too much navel gazing.

Now that we have brought you up to the news of 1945, perhaps we might bring you up the the news of a 5 year old.  The fact that you think something is significant, when you cannot even convince your other rabidly insane screamers it is important, does NOT make it important.

Just thought I would let you know. 

If Hezbollah doesn't want a 10 to 1 or 100 to 1 or whatever response, then don't attack Israel. I guess Desert Storm was disproportional since we had a better military and used more bombs on them than they did on us.

If someone attacks the US with brass knuckles, we use a knife, if they use a knife, we use a gun, if they put one of our people in the hospital, we put one of theirs in the morgue.

What if Israel camped at the edge of Iran's border and started lobbing missiles, you think these anti-war groups would be talking about disproportional force when Iran bombed them into the sand

I used the term holy land as a geographic term, so as not to use the phrase Israel or Palestine and confuse the message of the statement. If the concept of something holy or god or whatever is offensive to you, we can agree to call it the disputed regions of the Levant, if you find that acceptable.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Actually, we are doing what we can to get rid of the jerk.

"So, perhaps you should rethink that answer."

Sure, who knows what might happen in the future.
But for now, Leaders of Palestinians can choose that their people live in misery or settle for the best deal they can get today.

I wrote about this paper on my website, Jewschool.com, when it was first published a month ago, and was subsequently featured on WBAI for my remarks. I recommend reading both my response and listening to my WBAI interview for a thorough assessment of what's wrong with this paper, both factually and theoretically speaking.

It seems to me that Davai has summarized quite succinctly Israel's current policy. Keep the Palestinians in misery until they settle for the best deal Israel will give them. But what is that "best deal"? With the increase in settlements, I no longer believe a true two-state solution is possible. There's just not enough contiguous land available anymore for a viable state--and I don't see the Israelis withdrawing from the ever-growing West Bank settlements. That won't be part of any deal they offer. So what does this mean? Bantustans? Partial integration into Israel, but as non-citizens without full rights? Expulsion or extermination? Or are the Israelis just hoping that they can grind the Palestinians down decade after decade until they have no choice but to leave or starve?--expulsion, but a passive type that allows for "plausible denial" of any crime against humanity. I don't know. But the situation for the Palestinians seems very bleak to me without some massive and unforeseen change in the current balance.

The question for Americans (both Jewish and non-Jewish) is now a moral one: Are we comfortable with what we are about to let happen to the Palestinians?

Howard,

Hizbollah does not seem in the business, as are some other terror groups, of attacks on people or locations outside its general area.

Hold the phone...

BBC, Oct. 25, 2006:

The Iranian government and Lebanese militia group Hezbollah have been formally charged over the 1994 bombing of a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires.

AP, Oct. 26, 2006:

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Prosecutors asked a federal judge yesterday to order the arrest of former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center that killed scores of people.

The decision to attack the center “was undertaken in 1993 by the highest authorities of the then-government of Iran,” prosecutor Alberto Nisman said at a news conference.

He said the actual attack was entrusted to the Lebanon-based group Hezbollah.

Among those Nisman said were involved was a top Hezbollah figure, Imad Fayez Mugniyah.

"But what is that "best deal"?

Palestinians were offered a very good deal in 2000 by Clinton
but Arafat rejected that deal.

"Are we comfortable with what we are about to let happen to the Palestinians"

No I'm not. It's not good for Palestinians, it's not good for
Israel. It's only good for Jew haters who preserve Palestinians as a tool of Israel destruction.
I just don't agree that this happens TO Palestinians.
It's what Palestinians leaders do to their people.

"Near as I can tell it now means suggesting Israel respect its neighbors right to exist and that it treat its neighbors as it would have the neighbors treat it. Am I right, is that the new definition of anti-semitic. "

No it's not. Israel should respect its neighbors right to exist and should treat its neighbors as it would have the neighbors treat it.