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 tech