MUCH different standards for bringing and trying libel and slander lawsuits; standards that, here, would never pass First Amendment muster.

Serious matters out of the way, MJ, fess up! What was your score? Do I (a half-Jew) have you beat?

Beat in what sense, Dell? I'm afraid the AJC will have to send me to re-education camp. I'll never tell my score!!!

JDLedell, but did you "pass."

Serious question suggested by this very humorous post and credit to Slate for getting on this: Where can one find AIPAC ratings of politicians?

Anti-semanticism.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Very funny MJ.

C'mon everyone, post your scores. I got a 13. Funny thing, the prize for that is two tickets to "My Name is Rachel Corrie," which... I actually did see.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

AIPAC Set theory approach to criticism of Israel:

Those forbidden to criticize Israel:

Arabs (you're not REALLY semites).
Palestinians (childish bias against occupiers).
Muslims (dismissed out of hand).
Christians (nobody's perfect!)
All non Abrahamic faiths (pagans? Uh uh).
"Self hating" Jews (seek therapy).
The Israeli left (childish bias against occupation).

Those allowed to criticize Israel:

The Israeli right ("Israeli policy is not beligerent enough!")

Seriously funny Slate quiz.

I have to admit that I don't get the point of Slate's piece, much more the humor.

For once we agree. Too close to reality to be funny. Jan Knaus

Bert Fields, Judith Reagan's attorney in the case resulting from her termination in the matter involving News Corp/Harper Collins and the aborted OJ Simpson project, has said that he would bring a cause of action based in part on a false claim of anti-semitism.

From the NY Times:

In an interview last week Ms. Regan’s lawyer, Bert Fields, said he was preparing to file a lawsuit for libel and wrongful termination against the News Corporation shortly after the New Year because of allegations that she had been fired after making anti-Semitic remarks during a heated phone conversation with a company lawyer.

“My present thought is that we would sue not just for breach of contract but for libel,” he said. “They issued false and defamatory statements about Judith. This has been terribly destructive to her career, and I think the damages could be huge.”

Obviously, any such cause of action would have to overcome the test set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan for libel suits brought by public figures. That is, a showing of actual malice, i.e,, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements at issue.

As I'm sure mjr will agree, most Jews (and those with a proper knowledge of Jewish history) generally know real anti-semitism when they hear/see it.
Unfortunately, many non-Jews do not have that instinct.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Very funny...but the idea that critics of Israel are "anti-semites" was never legitimate to begin with, so this is irrelevant.

However, on a more important note, I for one would be very interested to know how Mr Rosenberg and other Jewish liberals who claim are "lifelong Zionists" can reconcile Zionism with being a liberal, progressive etc.

See, Zionism means creating a homeland for Jews - a homeland in which Palestinians were already living on, from which they were ethnically cleansed in order to creat Israel. That is indisputable, and Israeli historians now acknowledge it. And the continued treatment of Palestinians in refugee camps meets the exact definition of genocide under Prevention and Punishment of Genocide Convention.

So, if you identify yourself as a Zionist, you are ipso facto identifying yourself as a supporter of that ethnic cleansing and continuing genocide of Palestinians. Period. There is no middle way. You can't have it both, just like you can't claim to be a non-racist KKK member. Too many Jewish liberals like Mr Rosenberg think they can stradle the fence, but in so doing, they're just lying to themselves while the genocide continues. Frankly, that's total dishonesty and complicity in genocide.

There is an enormous difference between "recognizing Israel's existence" and "recognizing Israel's 'right' to exist." From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified. For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the 'Nakba' - the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 - is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was "right" for the 'Nakba' to have happened would be something else entirely.

So, be honest and take a side. Do you support the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, or do you recognise their right of return and the illgitimacy of Zionism. And again no, you can't be a little bit pregnant, and you con't be a little bit Zionist. There's no middle way so don't resrt to weasel wiords. State your position. I dare you.

This is precisely what I'm talking about.

The post is anti-semitic, in my opinion, yet now somehow worthy of discussion.

When "Zionists support ethnic cleansing" and the idea that any Jew should ever consider "the Holocaust may have been morally justified" can be stated as a legitimate point, then we are getting dangerously close to crossing the line I mentioned earlier.

That post is hardly anti-Semitic. hass did not state "the Holocaust may have been morally justified", his point was that the Holocaust was of course NOT morally justified - and to the same degree and for the same reasons the Zionist genocide against Palestinians in not morally justified. Two wrongs don't make a right. An abused child who grows up to be a rapist to compensate does not get a free pass.

Danius:

You are correct that MJ made an analogy to pre-WWII Jewish anti-zionists and Jewish anti-Zionists of today. Although I recognize Israel's legitimacy and I am a zionist, I also recognize the legitimacy of anti-zionists who might also be Jewish.

I don't think, however, that it's an apples to apples comparison with respect to today's anti-zionists, who are largely motivated and influenced by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (not counting the ultra-orthodox anti-zionists), and the ideologically driven anti-zionists of yesterday, who were more a product of the emergence from centuries of an isolated shtetl-based Jewish existence into a more secular world with secular ideas about politics and social order, etc.

I think it's also fair to say that the anti-zionists from before WWII did not have the experience of the Holocaust or the subsequent establishment of Israel, and to the extent that they survived the Holocaust, I don't think most of the pre-war anti-zionists continued to pursue with vigor their pre-war anti-zionist positions.

Would we go to the mat, as we have for Israel, for Germany? Germany is at least as close an ally as Israel. Spain? Mexico? Hardly. Pointing this out does not make one an anti-semite. It does indicate you are trying to restore balance in American foreign policy.

ITA. America has no permanent ally's only permanent interests, when it comes to a balanced foreign policy.

The terms of legitimacy that my recognition of Israel is based on will not be recognized, I presume, by someone who does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel, particularly if the terms of legitimacy I posit are based on zionist ideology. I accept that.

But I think that, more importantly and certainly ultimately, Israel's legitimacy is justified by the decision made by the community of nations sixty years ago, that there should be a partition to allow for self-determination of both Jews and Arabs in what is now Israel. I understand that a war followed, and even if one accepts Hass' construction in full of what happened in that war and what it was all about, it would not change the fact that the decision of the international community remains valid and provides the ultimate and objective legitimacy of Israel.

That international decision is the root for what is now a recognition of a Palestinian people that is distinct from their Arab brothers and sisters in other Arab lands (which in large measure are also the geographic product of decisions made by the International community). And that recognition is the basis upon which I endorse a two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=268474

The ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians in the name of Zionism is now a historical fact. It has occurred and is the basis of the existence of Israel. You can't magically go back to a world where the two can somehow get along. Thus, you are not free to support Zionism whilst at the same time not support ethnic cleansing. This is binary choice, in which the options are mutually exclusive. Which side do you stand on.

hass,

Thus, you are not free to support Zionism whilst at the same time not support ethnic cleansing. This is binary choice, in which the options are mutually exclusive.

This statement can only be true if we accept a fundamentally nefarious foundation to Zionism; a primary goal of making Arabs' lives miserable, as opposed to establishing the same national rights and self-determination for the Jewish people as already established and accepted for Arab peoples.

By the way, Hass credits the Christian Science Monitor for the quotation in his post. I think it would have been both more accurate and appropriate to attribute the quote to John V. Whitbeck, who wrote an opinion column that was published in the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor describes Mr. Whitbeck as follows:

"John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer, is the author of, "The World According to Whitbeck." He has advised Palestinian officials in negotiations with Israel."

I'm not sure whether the Christian Science Monitor has or has not endorsed the views expressed by Mr. Whitbeck in his column.

P.S. I think, as a general rule, if people are going to quote sources for whatever reason, they should follow the example set by Zionista above in which he or she attributes his/her source both to author and publication.

I provided a link to the article where it was published. Stop evading the issue. Answer my question.

The historical facts speak for themselves. Zionists characterized the land as being empty, and to the extent that they recognized the existence of the "Arabs" living there, it was as savages who would be dominated and eventually transferred out. Do I need to requote Ahad Haam?

The very basis of Zionism is to create a Jewish homeland - you admit this. Well, the fact is that homeland was already full of Palestinians. From there, the laws of physics take over. Two bodies can't occupy the same space at the same time; you can't build a homeland on land on someone eles'e land while he's there.

But lets pretend that in some magic fairy land, ZIonism and the rights of Palestinians to continue to live in their own homes in peace were somehow compatible. Well, too bad because that's not what happened. The FACT is now that Zionism has been responsible for ethnic cleasing. THere's no way to go back in history. So you don't have a third option of pretending that Zionism and Palestinian rights are compatible. Thus, you are left with two choices. So, pick.

Thank you Zionista for expressing something this guy could never state with such clarity.

I do so respect your contributions on here and admire you even more to the extent that you have had the fortitude to post on here for months rather than weeks as in my case.
:)

That was actually not even my point - it was the point of the article in the CSM. Thanks for pointing out the point though!

hass,

If its some sort of accusation of antisemitism directed against me, don't flatter yourself.

Wouldn't dream of it.

hass,

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Israel(and not just the Occupied Territories) was obtained through ethnic cleasing, an idea that was inherent in the concept of Zionism.

There is a difference between simplistic agitprop and rigorous scholarship. 

The official Jewish purchasing institutions such as the Palestine Land Development Company and the Jewish National Fund favored the acquisition of land that could be easily settled by Jewish immigrants.  There was, therefore, a priority interest in purchasing land where tenant encumberances would be minimal or nonexistent.  The Land Transfer Amendment Ordinance [1921 -Z] required that provision of a maintenance area be made for a tenant in occupation.  A tenant not in occupation at the time of transfer was not legally entitled to a maintenance area.  Through intricate arrangements made between the Arab landlord and the Jewish purchaser, tenants in occupation were offered compensation prior to actual transfer  The Arab vendor, aware of the Jewish purchaser's preference to acquire land free of tenant occupants, made considerable efforts to persuade former tenants to accept monetary compensation.  Tenants who were often deeply indebted to their landlords or other moneylenders rarely had much choice but to succumb to finanical pressures.  Jewish purchasers wrote clauses into prelimanary sales agreements or purchase contracts that specifically stipulated that the land had to be delivered free of occupying tenants.  Even though the landlord might coerce his tenants into accepting monetary compensation when they did not do so voluntarily, the landlord sometimes insisted that the Jewish purchaser or purchasing organization be accountable for the actual disbursement of this compensation.  By so doing, the Arab landlord was able to maintain his physical distance from those tenants who undoubtedly loathed his actions, protect himself from incurring undue public disdain, and place the visible onus of unsavory responsibility upon the Jewish purchaser.  (Kenneth W. Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939, University of North Carolina Press, 1984; p. 52).

More evasion. Two states means not recognizing the rights of 900,000 ethically cleansed palestinians. THis isn't a baby you can cut in half. Even if the Palestinians ever get a state, it doesn't undo the ethnic cleasing, it doesn't undo what ZIonism stands for.

This statement can only be true if we accept a fundamentally nefarious foundation to Zionism; a primary goal of making Arabs' lives miserable, as opposed to establishing the same national rights and self-determination for the Jewish people as already established and accepted for Arab peoples.

This is a false argument. It is like saying just because you ran the red light and killed someone, because your intent was 'primarily' to go thru the intersection you cannot be held accountable for killing someone. That is completely  false. You are basically saying the ends justify the means, given that Zionism did not 'intend' to commit genocide to establish their 'primary goal' the fact that they did so should not be looked upon as the heinous immoral acts that they were. That is utter crap.

I understand the position you have taken and I understand the reasons you have chosen to view Israel as illegitimate. The question you posed to me was what I based my own view of Israel's legitimacy on and I do think I answered that question. I can't tell you what to believe and of course you have every right to deny legitimacy to the State of Israel. Nor do I question your right to challenge the propriety of decisions made by the fledgling United Nations sixty years ago.

hass,

THis isn't a baby you can cut in half.

LOL!  Babies one should never cut in half.  Properties are subdivided all the time.

You can't purchase sovereignty, and anyway this is irrelevant. They didn't limit themselves to purchases.THe fact that Zionists engaged in ethnic cleansing is no longer open to dispute. Stop trying to evade the issue and answer the question.

Properties are indeed subdivided but their previous residents are not raped, murdered, sent to refugee camps because they happen not to be Jewish. And that is indisputably exactly what happened, and is happening to Palestinians today.

So again, stop evading the issue. Do you endorse the ethinic cleasing that is and always was part and parcel of Zionism, or not? JUST BE HONEST AND ANSWER THE QUESTION.

So I'm glad we agree:
Zionism is racism.

"The arabs are ignored."
I'm sorry but logic not my feelings [your term], says you're a racist.
I'm out.

Who gets to determine what are discriminatory actions and speech anyway?  Who determines what is racist?  What is antisemitic?  Who gets to determine whether or not the Mars Company's ads for Snickers bars are gay-bashing?

Wordie,

...I would prefer to simply cease using these conversation-stopping terms (even in the case of "tendencies"), and reserve these labels for only for the most egregious examples.

What would be the point?  Antisemitism is real, and has a genuine definition apart from its most extreme manifestations like the Nazi final solution.  Denial of antisemitism appears to be as hysterical and desperate on the left as the denial of racism and homophobia are on the right.  Too bad I must be compelled to surrender my liberal credentials to say so.

The partition gave an amount of the land of Palestine to the Jews that was highly disproportionate to their numbers relative to the far larger Palestinian Arab population, and worse, the land that the Jews got was the better land.... They were asked to bear the burden of European evils for which they simply were not responsible. Is it "anti-Arabistic" to gloss over those losses?

What was lost was the Arab partition of Palestine.  Egypt administered a military occupation of Gaza in 1948 and Jordan annexed the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem in 1950.  The subdivision of real estate by UN partition accepted, the Arab establishment still chose war to get rid of Israel.  And now Zionism is supposed to be incurably genocidal because it upset Arab hegemony enough to go to war over?

hass,

Stop trying to evade the issue and answer the question.

Until you can establish your premise, I can only approach your "question" as the cynical rhetorical exercise it appears to be.

I am open to the possibility that the high command approved the attack on the USS Liberty, but tend to believe that it was overzealous mid-level Israeli naval personnel. Clearly, it was a coordinated attack, but at a level of coordination that could have been regional.

There's plenty of areas where the US screwed up. Ironically, the US had already decided that the essentially unarmed auxiliaries like the Liberty and Pueblo were too slow and unprotected for operations off North Vietnam. It is relatively little known that the US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident were operating what were coded DESOTO patrols. One ship in each pair had a communications/electronics intercept "van" parked on its deck. Had this been the kind of patrol used in 1967, or if the Liberty had visibly been escorted, either the Israelis could not have claimed misidentification, or they could have been fought off, certainly by two destroyers heavier than anything in the Israeli Navy. Also, the carrier force in the area could have been given clear orders certainly to have appropriately armed aircraft ready to launch, or even to have kept airborne over the patrol route.

Still heavily censored in the declassified NSA documents, there is a strong suggestion that a US submarine was at least coordinating with the Liberty, perhaps under the orders of a higher headquarters. A submarine could not have been much help against the kind of attack used.

Overall, I agree with your post. Israel is hardly a country that needs a nuclear umbrella from someone else.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I am emphatically not a Zionist, but I don't see the choice quite as binary as you put it. Now, I will agree that Israel has engaged in ethnic cleansing, and there have been deaths among Palestinians.

Yes, I know certain international agreements have a very broad definition of genocide, but I do not accept genocide as other than mass killing. You might actually get me to consider disproportionate military actions in Lebanon, with the effective creation of minefields in civilian areas. So far, I do not see anything on that scale in the Occupied Territories.

Personally, I will continue to reserve the term "genocide" to mass killings such as in Cambodia, Rwanda, or the Holocaust. Darfur is right on the edge. In the Balkans, there again are cases on the edge, but I find it useful to keep ethnic cleansing as the definition of a kind of crime against humanity that is distinct from industrialized killing, or the less technological but thorough slaughters in Africa.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Continuing the Woody Allen thread given what we know of Socrates' culture, Socrates also had twice the chance of getting a date on Saturday night.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"I submit that this statment has antisemitic tendencies (note, I am NOT accusing whiterosebuddy of antisemitism, but rather pointing out the antisemitic implications of wrb's statement).

I am totally confused by this statement, and ask for an elaboration! what do you mean my anti-semetic tendencies or anti-semitic implications? Is this a reworking or retooling of the anti-semitic canard? Surely there are "implications" to any type of speech or action, good and bad. The purported "implications" of speech or any action surely is not enough by itself to prohibit or limit that speech?

Ive seen such statements thrown around alot lately....and I am very confused as to their meaning or relative purpose.

Was this meant to imtimidate whiterosebuddy into silence? Its clear that to accuse him outright of Anti-semitism would be not only wrong, but very transparent as to the intentions of the accuser. So is "anti-semitic tendencies" or "anti-semitic implications" a new tool to be used to squash debate about this issue? Has recklessly accusing Isreal/zionist critics of outright Anti-semitism lost its bite or or perhaps legitimacy?

Thanks. There's a lot of throwing around of terms. "Genocide", to me, should be reserved for mass killings, even though some international documents have a much looser definition that gets into what I might call persecution, ethnic cleansing with relatively low fatalities, etc. Are the latter crimes against humanity? Of course!

In my mind, however, there is a qualitative as well as quantitative difference between such crimes, and murders in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

bslev:

Are you saying that the "better land" was given to the Jews by the international community as part of the partition? Assuming that was the case, are you saying that the war was prompted by this inequity, and therefore by extension, that had the partition been more equitable, then the attack on the Jewish population by the Arab population would not have been justified?

Of course I can't speak for Palestinians, but I meant the comment more in an "add insult to injury" sense. I had in mind the current situation as well, as water issues and the issue of arable land are now of great import. Clearly you are correct and the partition itself would have been the primary concern. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Before the partition, the British promised the land to both the Palestinian Arabs and the Jews. Is the reaction of either side so surprising when one considers that context?

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

"If so"

Better read a sentence carefully before telling that it is a fallacy.

Before the war, Warsaw Jews belonged to at least 10 different parties (at least 10 lists in elections for the Jewish Council of Warsaw), most non-Zionist (Zionist themselves were at least two parties, socialist and Zabotynski's followers, religious parties were non-Zionists, as well as Communist and the Bund, "mainstream socialist"). Ghetto uprising flared up when ca. 80-90% of ghetto residents were already transported to death camps, and the remaining few (still, tens of thousands) were disproportionately young men employed in few factories that employed Jews.

I presume that Zionist-nonZionist controversy was the last priority on the mind of insurgents.

After the war, some of the few survivors emigrated to Israel, and some not. It is very safe to say that some of the leaders of the ghetto uprising were non-Zionist.

My family tradition was Communist and Zabotynski was call "fascist". In the same time, for Polish Jewish Communists it was a bit hard to be anti-Semitic, especially after they were expelled, fired and blacklisted (although, except for the purge of 1967-68 the life was not that bad).

So let me ask a specific question: a Communist (former communist) describes ideological predecessors of Likud as fascists, and maintains good relationship with members of Israeli Labour Party. Was he "anti-Semitic"?

Before the massive spread of settlements in Palestinian territories, the phenomenon of Jews criticising Israeli policies was rather rare, as I recall. In my view, "anti-anti-Semitism" is used in the same way as anti-Semitism: there is a struggle if a nation should mean a culture open to a variety of ideas (and, somewhat accidentally, a variety of participants), or whether it should represent a unity of blood, language and land, cemented with religion, martial spirit and vigilance?

The opponents of purity are quite universally dubbed "Cosmopolitan", but other tags may include "Jew" (or "anti-Semite"), "revisionists and Zionists" (or, "the Left"), "secular humanist" etc. (Actually, "revisionists and Zionists" went down to the bin of history, as "heretics" did before, but I recall being in that category, now I am merely "Cosmopolitan" and "Left").

American Jewish Committee surely gives a good example of combative spirit and vigilance. Upon much though, Richard Cohen was classified as uncertain, cosmopolitan character (I wonder what his transgression was, but I presume that he had some un-enthusiastic utterance about settlements).

Could you be more specific? "Masada" link probably has no information about Abraham.

Curiously enough, while archaeologists did not find evidence of Exodus, Conquest and Abraham, they found a place-name from ca. 1500 B.C. "Jacob-el". So Jacob IS attested archaeologically.

Moreover, the fact that most probably, the story of conquest is bunk and Jews were as native as other Cana'anites (but inventing reasons to regard themselves as something better) does not undermine the Jewish connection to Palestine. A connection that was surprisingly persistent.

The COnvention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defines genocide. That's the operative definition. It applies quite well to Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

More historical musing here than specific analysis, but I wonder how much of the Palestinian flight was triggered by FUD from defeated Arab powers trying to justify how they had lost what they had predicted as a walkover?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Benny Morris was honest enough to say yes, he endorses ethnic cleansing and genocde in the name of creating Israel. Fine. See, however despicable he is for tht, at least he's honest. Now, your turn. DO you endorse the ethnic cleansing that happened to create Israel, or not?

It's my turn to be despicable.  This must be my lucky day!

. . . until 600 a.d. Or am I wrong?

More evasion - and a bad one too.

fyi just because you've cited an untrue syllogism doesn't mean that all syllogisms are necessarily incorrect.

How about this one:

Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Thus we have:

MJ (and you) declare yourself to be Zionists
ZIonism necessarily involves ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians.
Therefore you endorse/support the ethnic cleasing and genocide of Palestinians.

So stop evading and ANSWER THE QUESTION

Again, the fact is that the definition of genocide does not revolve around what you or I thinnk it SHOULD mean. The Convention defines it, and the definition applies. And even Israeli historians admit to ethnic cleansing - which is also really genocide. Seeking to destroy the Palestinians as a people and eradicating them as a people from their homes and lands is genocide.

Hass: Yes, some historians (my apologies for not now recalling which specific historians) believe that Arab fears of being killed in another massacre such as Deir Yassin were at least as much an impetus to those that fled as the radio announcements urging them to leave, the extent of which also are somewhat in dispute. In fact, there is at least one researcher, Erskine Childers, who after examining the record of the radio broadcasts at the time, has concluded that there were no Arab radio station broadcasts urging the Palestinians to leave at all; a review of all such monitored broadcasts shows they consistently urged them to stay.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

Some raise questions: (a) is Israel hold to a different standard than different countries, (b) if so, is it anti-Semitic.

I think that saying that creation of Israel was followed with ethnic cleansing is a factual statement and not a normative one.

I think that the position that Israel cannot morally keep the results of that cleansing is indeed holding Israel to a different standard. One can mention at least 20 million people moved against their will in that period. Is this an anti-Semitic position? Per se, not necessarily. I disagree with the supporters of gold standard without thinking that this is an evil position to take. I think that it would be a disaster to adopt gold standard, but, manifestly, the proponents do not think so. Not every difference of opinion implies evil or malice.

I think that ethnic cleansing is not a good idea and it is good that there is a serious attempt to avoid any new ethnic cleansing in the future. In that context, Israel should not even think about expanding settlements and develop strategy for genuine disengagement from West Bank and Gaza. This position places me in the "anti-Semitic Left" according to professional anti-anti-Semites.

Hass: but there are lots of definitions of genocide, just as there are many definitions of anti-Semitism, and definitions of both tend to vary in their broadness or all-inclusiveness.  Just as a too-broad definition of anti-Semitism tends to devalue a case of real anti-Semitism, so too does a too-broad definition of genocide risk devaluing those cases of mass slaughter, on a far greater scale than what has happened to the Palestinians, however horrible and inhumane, at the hands of the Israelis.

Your facts are nevertheless accurate. Why spend your time arguing semantics when you have so much factual information on your side?

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

I think you may have missed my edited clarification. But when you say this:

Antisemitic tendencies are as common and socio-politically ubiquitous as racist, egotistical, sexist and greedy tendencies.

...it appears to me that you've defined anti-Semitism so broadly as to be roughly equivalent to our human experience of the Other, which indeed, due to the physical limitations of having to live within our own skins, in many senses can never be overcome. A definition that broad certainly does result in one's seeing lots of anti-Semitism out there in the world, but is it accurate? Is it truly useful? Does labeling even a sincere attempt to communicate ideas which differ from one's own as evidence of anti-Semitic tendencies add or detract to the conversation? Does it contribute to our attempt to communicate and thus understand the other person's POV?

This in no way is intended to say that real anti-Semitism doesn't exist, but when one insists upon defining apples as oranges, it seems to me that the previous meaning of an orange subsequently ceases to make much sense.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

No, there may be a lot of definitions of genocide, but the definition of the convention is what counts, and is good enough. The WHOLE REASON why the Convention goes to the trouble of defining genocide is so that people don't suddenly start getting wishy-washy about it when its ther own ox that gets gored.

Period. End of story.

My buddies aren't people who endorse genocide just as they're not theives, mass murderers or child molestors.

Zionista: The Gorenberg article was excellent. I am not certain I entirely agree with the part of the article that you quoted, and it seems that Gorenberg recognizes that the characterization you cite does not at all apply to all those who are anti-Zionist, as he also says,

As for the specific psychology of the Jewish anti-Zionists, Rosenfeld's chosen quotations suggest it is based on fury that fate has linked them with Israel. This appears understandable; people are often uncomfortable with the collectives to which birth assigns them. A good many Jews -- indeed, many Israelis -- are uncomfortable with the notion that, through no personal choice, they might be identified with specific Israeli policies in the occupied territories.

Gorenberg also pointed out that this is something that occurs on both ends of the spectrum:

What Rosenfeld does not mention is that the Israeli right regularly relies on the same false dichotomy. Benny Morris writes that in the cabinet meeting before Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, prime minister Menachem Begin said that "the alternative to this is Treblinka," the Nazi death camp. For Begin, Yasser Arafat was Hitler. During the Israeli pullout from Gaza in 2005, some settlers wore Jewish stars designed to look like those worn by Jews during the Holocaust. For them, a government that evicted Jews was Nazi, even if it was Israeli.

Such rhetoric is painful -- and a distraction. I understand why it upsets Rosenfeld. But it leads him to focus on a radical fringe. By letting the fringe define what it means to be "progressive," he tars many other progressive Jews. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to believe that he does so unintentionally, through lack of precision.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

The second time I've posted this. Two is enough

Ilan Pappe: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Although I haven't yet read the book, it's been on my list for quite a while. I'm particularly heartened by the customer review section at Amazon, where there are many positive reviews of it (although the comments on the reviews are a different story!). I found this, in one of the reviews, interesting:

Between 30 March and 15 May 1948, i.e. before any Arab government intervened, Israeli forces seized 200 villages and expelled 250,000 Palestinians. The Israeli leadership stated, "The principal objective of the operation is the destruction of Arab villages ... the eviction of the villagers." On 9 April, Israeli forces massacred 93 people, including 30 babies, at Deir Yassin. In Haifa, the Israeli commander ordered, "Kill any Arab you encounter."

This all happened under British rule in Palestine, where Britain had 75,000 troops: Britain's Mandate did not end until 14 May. The Labour government connived at the Israeli onslaught, although the British state was legally obliged as the occupier (and also by UN resolution 181) to uphold law and order. Yet the Labour government announced that it would no longer be responsible for law and order and it withdrew all the British policemen. It also forbade the presence of any UN bodies, again breaching the terms of the UN resolution. The government ordered British forces to disarm the few Palestinians who had weapons, promising to protect them from Israeli attacks, then immediately reneged on this promise.

On 24 May 1948, Ben Gurion wrote, "We will establish a Christian state in Lebanon, the southern border of which will be the Litani River. We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight - we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during Biblical times." These ravings of an insane warmonger hardly betrayed any genuine fear of a `second holocaust'. The Palestinians were suffering massive expulsion, not trying to destroy the Jewish community.

Pappe summarises, "When it created its nation-state, the Zionist movement did not wage a war that `tragically but inevitably' led to the expulsion of `parts of' the indigenous population, but the other way round: the main goal was the ethnic cleansing of all of Palestine, which the movement coveted for its new state. A few weeks after the ethnic cleansing operations began, the neighbouring Arab states sent a small army - small in comparison to their overall military might - to try, in vain, to prevent the ethnic cleansing. The war with the regular Arab armies did not bring the ethnic cleansing operations to a halt until their successful completion in the autumn of 1948." 

I'm not however clear on why you posted the link to the book to me. I stated in the post that you responded to that I didn't necessarily agree in this case with some of what Gorenberg had stated, although in general, I think Gorenberg has written some excellent material on the conflict. Here's one you may find interesting:

Gershon Gorenberg: Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977

Gorenberg's conclusions may differ from your own, but, although I don't know you well, I think you are probably in agreement about many of the facts. 

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

The fall out from the Bar Kokhba rebellion in the mid 2nd century C.E. resulted in the end of the Jewish majority in the land of Israel, but a significant Jewish presence remained. The Islamic capture of Palestine did not result in the displacement of the Jewish population.

The only break occurred during the Crusades, when Christian massacres and expulsions drove the Jewish community out. However, Jews returned to Palestine with the Islamic reconquest. During the Ottoman era, signifcant Jewish populations existed in Jerusalem (where they were a plurality as of the 19th century) and the Galilee especially Safed.

The idea that there were no Jews in Palestine before the Zionist movement is as much a myth as the idea that there were no Arabs in Palestine at the time of Zionist immigration.

Anti-semanticism.

heh heh, Howard strikes again, good one. :)