Did you know that by law the US guarantees Israel's oil supply - no matter what?

This "special arrangement" meant that the Racist Zionists could criminally invade and occupy 3 other countries back in 1967;

That quote alone nullifies your argument, get your facts right about who invaded what.

Gideon, if you had read the article, even the blurb, you'd realize this agreement only came about in 1975. Which using our brilliant math skills, is after the 1967 war.

The rest of your points are tangential to the article and are just your boilerplate, overreacting, criticisms of Israel and the United States that have been addressed literally hundreds of times elsewhere.

Keld, I wouldn't be surprised if America had similar MOU with any other nations which are in a similar situation. Considering that most oil on the world market is controlled by Arab nations which are not friendly to Israel and have cut off oil in the past (cf. 1973, which I'm sure caused this MOU to be drawn up) America has promised Israel that its essential oil needs will be provided essentially to keep Israel from having to ensure its oil supply in another way - war with oil-producing countries, should they choose to withhold oil again.

I want to know how it can possibly be racist if it's true. You sound just like people who say that anyone who criticizes George Bush is a traitor.

I would be very surprised. From the article:

... the U.S. government agreed to divert oil from the USA, even if this causes domestic shortages.

Just name one more nation that would get similar favours from the US.

Just name one more nation in similar circumstances: Israel promotes America's goals, both stated (Democracy) and unstated (consumerist capitalist) in a vast area which rejects those goals. Israel also is not liked by most suppliers of a certain resources, so America has promised to supply Israel with oil, no matter what, to maintain that country's stability.

But of course Israel just cut off power to Palestinians, as the fascsts they are.

And you're advocating cutting off power oil to Israel! Oh what a double standard.

How does criticism of a government, or governmental policy, translate into racism? If I don't like the policies of Hungary am I anti Catholic?

We also paid isreal 10 billion NOT to get involved in the first iraq war
As for oil we are reopening the pipeline from iraq to isreal for oil.
And isreal has always been able to get oil, it just costs a crap load, they are not hated by all their arab neighbours despite how the rhetoric is going in here, they actually have treaties with several of them, much of their oil these days come from egypt. And last we provide the oil because of the insanely powerful isreali lobby.

And people can pretend but no we dont have those kinds of agreements with anyone.. and as for democracy.. there are a lot of them and we dont have agreements with them liek this, nice thought but NO.

pipe line linkj i forgot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940250,00.html

Oh good lord, the lengths that you guys will go to.....

From an article that was a speculative one at best you draw these wonderfully conspiratorial conclusions...

As for the oil for Israel, you did not actually understand what was written I don't think. What is said is that the USA has in its strategic reserve (that is the underground storage for oil) oil for Israel. While it may have cost $3 billion to put in the ground, it is worth a lot more today, so we probably would make a profit on it by selling it to them in a crisis.

Logic, logic, logic.

@bigger: What are you referencing? I assume you are referencing my claim of anti-Semitism. I claim that there is a double standard - that Gazans must be guaranteed something (refined oil = gasoline) by Israel, but when the United States guarantees something (oil) to Israel, this is wrong. I claim that at the root of this double standard is a reflex action against Jews, that is, anti-Semitism

@Joules: No, Israel was not able to get oil during the 1979 Oil Crisis from the Iranian revolution. I don't see how it matters that this agreement exists if Israel gets oil from Egypt - the agreement does no harm if it isn't used. Plus, the Arab-Israeli situation is always volatile, so it doesn't hurt anyone to have an insurance policy. Yes, Israel has a powerful lobby. However, our Congress(wo)men and Senators are the ones making the final votes - if you don't like how they vote, vote them out of office. If you can't vote them out of office, I guess most Americans just don't have a problem with supporting Israel and the constitutionally-protected political speech of AIPAC.

It just seems like you want to circumvent the democratic process to achieve your anti-Israel ends. Which, I hope, isn't what you want to do.

Check out this Slate article about this very topic. It says that this MOU arose from Israel giving up the Sinai desert and accompanying oil fields for peace with Egypt. Therefore, it really is not a false dichotomy to ask: Would you rather Israel be at war with Egypt or have this MOU with the United States?

@bigger: What are you referencing? I assume you are referencing my claim of anti-Semitism. I claim that there is a double standard - that Gazans must be guaranteed something (refined oil = gasoline) by Israel, but when the United States guarantees something (oil) to Israel, this is wrong. I claim that at the root of this double standard is a reflex action against Jews, that is, anti-Semitism

That's exactly the point! Take a look at the columns of some of the more blatant racists here on NV-- it goes beyond legitimate criticism of a country's policies-- there is definitely an obsessional quality to the pattern of their seeds. The large number of posts bashing Israel (and the pretense that 'we're not against Jews...only against Zionism...nudge, nudge...wink wink :-).

Then...see how many seeds they've made (Or, more accurately, haven't made) re: Darfur...Iran...Zimbabwe...North Korea...Congo...Gaza...Cuba...China...Saudi Arabia...Myanmar! It seems like their obsession is "all Israel all the time'...and much of what they allege is inaccurate as well. Why the focus on Israel...and the almost total neglect of places like Darfur?

Something very suspicious in their claims of motives...

Britain's Anti-Semitic Turn. As they say, read the whole thing.

I'm American. I suspect most Americans would feel "America first" as most Israelis would rightfully feel "Israel first", Swedes would think "swedes first", etc.

Nothing wrong with that.

Just name one more nation in similar circumstances: Israel promotes America's goals, both stated (Democracy) and unstated (consumerist capitalist) in a vast area which rejects those goals.

This is so sad.

What business does Israel have "promoting America's goals" in a place 6,000 miles away from America? What right does America have to have "goals" in someone else's country? Which is what that "vast area which rejects those goals is" -- someone else's country. Can you help me understand this outrageousness?

You just basically said that you think it's a good thing for Israel to help America establish permanent bases in the middle east by squashing whoever gets in our way, and proceeding to help ourself to someone else's natural resources whether they like it or not. Because those are George Bush & the Neocons "goals" in said vast area. Congratulations. And you are the one calling other people fascists.

And get over this Democracy myth. Nobody believes that any more. I don't even think George Bush is still pimping that baloney -- and he was pimping it long after it was utterly discredited for the fraudulent excuse for war it was.

I'm interested in how you'd justify Israel's cutting off of oil to the Palestinians -- since you think it's such a barbaric notion for someone to suggest we do that to Israel. While you're discussing double standards, I figured it would be convenient for you to do that now.

@Prospero:

You just basically said that you think it's a good thing for Israel to help America establish permanent bases in the middle east by squashing whoever gets in our way, and proceeding to help ourself to someone else's natural resources whether they like it or not. Because those are George Bush & the Neocons "goals" in said vast area. Congratulations. And you are the one calling other people fascists.

No I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, please. Israel's existence benefits America because it provides an additional market for American goods, as well as an exporter of goods to America. More business, the better. Put simply, a free country (like Israel) is going to be far more productive and wealthy than a non-free country. (Syria, for instance). Israel is not, and should not be, conquering other areas for the purpose of turning them into capitalist nations. Last time I checked, Israel has been giving up land, in exchange for peace. (Never mind that land for peace only really worked once...)

And get over this Democracy myth. Nobody believes that any more. I don't even think George Bush is still pimping that baloney -- and he was pimping it long after it was utterly discredited for the fraudulent excuse for war it was.

Spreading Democracy is not a cause for war. Period. However, voluntarily establishing democratic nations in largely non-democratic areas is good - the democratic nations provide an exemplum in bono of the wealth and raised standards of living those living in a free, democratic nation enjoy. Unless you want people to live under dictatorships?

I'm interested in how you'd justify Israel's cutting off of oil to the Palestinians -- since you think it's such a barbaric notion for someone to suggest we do that to Israel. While you're discussing double standards, I figured it would be convenient for you to do that now.

Israel is cutting off oil to Gaza, except for essential needs. Those same essential needs for which the US would provide oil to Israel. I don't expect the United States to provide oil to Israel to fill Maya the highschooler's car to get him to the club, and just the same, I don't expect Israel to provide oil to Gaza to fill Muhammed the highschooler's car to get him to the club. Especially because the oil that would be provided to Gaza probably ends up driving rockets that kill old women in Sderot, Israel has a moral duty to her citizens to supply the minimum oil to Gaza to avoid a humanitarian crisis. See? I have one single standard, which I am applying to the situation. By the way, I would NOT support Israel's action if she cut off all oil to Gaza, stranding the firetrucks and ambulances.

Gideon, please don't be silly. If you want to make stuff up (unofficial MOU), go to digg. Otherwise, provide proof for your allegations.

Also, Moshe Dayan may have had designs on the Sinai and Lebanon. Israeli society clearly doesn't, or else they wouldn't have given up those areas in exchange for the promise of peace.

This is not an academic question as a Maori-speaking British clergyman claimed in the 19th century that New Zealand was the home to the 10 lost tribes.

Uhh... Great. If those Maoris can prove they are Jewish, then Israel will let them move to Israel. Otherwise... it doesn't matter. (Note that Israel has not invaded Ethiopia, Yemen, India or any other country where isolated pockets of Jews have been found)

(Note that Israel has not invaded Ethiopia, Yemen, India or any other country where isolated pockets of Jews have been found)

Actually there have been almost as many Jewish refugees from persecution in Arab lands as there have been "Palestinian" refugees...but you rarely hear about them. The reason being...Israel has taken them in, helped them settle in a democratic country. The Arab countries however, have not taken in the Pali refugees*-- they have deliberately kept them miserable...for ther sole purpose of propaganda.

(*exceptions: Jordan,which is a Palestinian majority country-- some people feel it should actually be ruled by the Palis--- and Iraq under Saddam)

Seems to me that the state government had all the fuel they needed, except it was sitting still, and no one was using it.
Minus the sarcasm I don't believe it's 100% the responsibility of the federal government to aid in situations like this. It's the states. It's how it's set in the constitution. Where does the involvement end? The federal government is supposed to remain outside the responsibilities of the state. I don't want to stray further but I did want to express my disagreement with that statement.

Ivy Mike, yes I agree it's the states responsibility as set up, but not as it's "taken down". FEMA was in place, yes, no?

No Allan and that is the point. FEMA will tell you that the first 72 hours are the most crucial in a disaster. There was virtually no hurricane damage in New Orleans as the hurricane passed to the east. Why were the City of NO and the state not on diligent alert regarding the levees that were leaking BEFORE the storm.

You can't abrogate the local's responsbility in that disaster.

I'm a general kind of guy. My only point was that we are moving toward more and more Federal control of everything. I wasn't abrogating the locals responsibility so much as pointing out Federal domination. Maybe NO wasn't the best example for this, but, it was Blackwater taking the guns away from citizens, not the city police... I hope, or else slam me again. I'm here to learn. : )

That's a very interesting assertion: that Israel outed the Lewinsky scandal. Do you want to prove that? If you're just making that up, it reeks of more harmful anti-Semitic rhetoric claiming that Jews control the world. Which is "hate speech". And if Keld doesn't want to appear to have a double standard, ought to delete it, as he did with Krishna's post.

What kind of reception does an "Aerial" Sharon get on FM? LOL, this must be the first time ever I've seen Clinton's impeachment blamed on the Jews but most of these clowns blame everything else on them so why not that?

Bach, I hate to break this to you but Israel is an ally of the United States isolated in a sea of largely unfriendly states. Why should anyone be taken aback by this? I'm sure that you're also aware that we were shipping goods and petrol to Great Britain before we entered WWII, right?

That's a very interesting assertion: that Israel outed the Lewinsky scandal. Do you want to prove that? If you're just making that up, it reeks of more harmful anti-Semitic rhetoric claiming that Jews control the world. Which is "hate speech". And if Keld doesn't want to appear to have a double standard, ought to delete it, as he did with Krishna's post.

Excuse me? just google it , its a very famous remark at the time and is well known, if you speak hebrew [i do] you can find it on hebrew forums.

I am sorry to break it to you, a friend does not spy or steal technology from its biggest ally, both of which Israel is guilty of, do no lecture me on Israel's value to us.

First as foremost as Americans our allegiance is to the this country, and too many of our young men and women have died fighting wars not thier own. Our blind support for the Israel has cost us dearly in terms of our sttgc. position in the ME and the wider world.

Americans of Jewish descent should be loyal to America, NOT Israel. Our policies have been hijacked by lobbyists who piant it [our foreign policy] in the color of thier ancestral flag rather than the stars and stripes.

No matter where your ancestry lies, if your american, your prime interest should be the preservation of the homeland.

I really wish it was possible to examine the relationship between Israel and the U.S., critically, without anyone deciding it's some kind of a conspiracy. Those of us who try to do it -- and believe me, there is much to examine critically -- always involve us defending ourselves from the charge of anti-Semitism. It's ridiculous. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or religion. It has to do with common sense, period.

American Jews themselves are extremely critical of Israel. Criticizing Israel is not criticizing the Jews. It's criticizing a country.

American Jews were against the invasion of Iraq in higher numbers than any other polled group in the run up to the war. American Jews vote Democratic by an astonishingly high percentage -- something like 85%. They don't like this situation any more than any other American does -- any informed American that is.

Israeli Jews have more freedom to criticize their country than Americans have to criticize Israel. Their press is far freer, and has far more integrity, than ours does. What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/ is a project of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). It's dedicated to "Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy." It's a very nice site. Not at all mean and spiteful, simply what it claims to be: a forum to expose the fact that, in this country, open debate on this issue is next to impossible.

Yes, Israel is a small country compassed round about by her enemies. And Israel has gone to a lot of trouble, for 60 years, to be sure that all her neighbors hate her guts. Israel hasn't tried to be friends with her Arab neighbors, Israel has spent the last 60 years squashing them with the overwhelming military force her big stupid friend, the U.S., has helped her acquire. If we could just state this glaringly obvious fact without you people coming out of the woodwork to tell us we're anti-Semites, maybe we could get to the bottom of what's wrong over there, and begin to figure out a way to solve it. As it is you are an enormous stumbling block to a solution. Why don't you stop doing that?

And as for the notion that poor little Israel needs our help, believe me, Israel doesn't need our help. Israel could take everybody over there out tomorrow. We need Israel's help, not the other way around. Israel should start sending our foreign aid checks, which amount to a full one-third of all foreign aid we send to everyone else in the world combined, back. The ridiculous amount of foreign aid we send them has made them healthy, wealthy, and militarily invincible. Among other things it has bought them universal healthcare -- can't afford it for ourselves. Israel is not only the 51st state, it gets bizarrely preferential treatment over the rest of us.

Maybe when every single American has enough to eat, a place to live, a rudimentary education, access to the best health care in the world and isn't in fear of his or her life from roving gangs of criminals or poisoned catfish from China, maybe then we can give Israel what's left of our GNP without anyone complaining about it. Until then the people in this country who go crazy when someone complains about this can just stop acting like we're persecuting Israel by pointing some of these things out.

And I have always wondered why, since nobody with any real credibility questions any more than we have undertaken this horrific middle eastern blunder largely on Israel's behalf, why Israel isn't helping us fight this war. You're all saying what a big ally Israel is. Any thoughts on why they stand quietly by while we're getting creamed?

Excellent post. I've often wondered why they aren't helping us in this war on terror myself.

"Jews" and Israeli Government are two different things. It is very disingenuous to say comments against Israel or its lobby in America are anti-semitic. Saying someone or something is anti-semitic just because they express an opinion different than yours is inflammatory and nonconstructive. If your criticize African Warlords and their child armies are you a Negro hating racist?

Prospero @ #6.4

Terrific comment. You really should post that as an article. No doubt you'd get abuse beyond reason, but then again it would prove the validity of your argument.

Excuse me? just google it , its a very famous remark at the time and is well known, if you speak hebrew [i do] you can find it on hebrew forums.

I don't deny that Ariel Sharon said that he would be very unhappy with Clinton if he pushed Oslo. However, I can find no proof that the direct result of Sharon's threat was the Lewinsky scandal. Even through google. If you can find me a legit source for this claim, I'll eat my hat.

So what if AIPAC lobbyists are very influential in DC? It's our elected representatives who are voting to support Israel. If you don't like it, vote against them. It sure seems that most Americans support Israel...

INH, I thought it was well known by now that Monica Lewinsky was in actuality a Mossad agent sent to catch Clinton in a "honey trap". I'll give Bach and his co-conspirators one thing, they're endlessly entertaining.

And you're advocating cutting off power oil to Israel! Oh what a double standard.

His racism on NV has been apparent for some time now....

I know. The more apparent it is, the better.

Clinton had to face an impeachment, though unsuccessful, not over any financial misuse but for lying about sexual conduct with Mon. L. . :-)

Do you really believe that the "Jewish lobby" was behind the push to impeach Clinton?

What kind of reception does an "Aerial" Sharon get on FM? LOL, this must be the first time ever I've seen Clinton's impeachment blamed on the Jews but most of these clowns blame everything else on them so why not that?

Bach, I hate to break this to you but Israel is an ally of the United States isolated in a sea of largely unfriendly states. Why should anyone be taken aback by this? I'm sure that you're also aware that we were shipping goods and petrol to Great Britain before we entered WWII, right?

I would imagine that, at the time, there were people writing things about the huge power of 'the British Lobby'..and how they were controlling the U.S.

But the fact remains...we do tend to support our allies.

I still see no proof of Sharon sending Lewinsky to blow Clinton.

Can I get an L?

Can I get an I?

Can I get an A?

Can I get an R?

What's that spell?

No, not anything.

But you can usually spot the agenda behind the remarks. Surprising how strong the correlation is.

I'm looking hard for the objectivity on this thread. Must be here somewhere ...

I'm looking hard for the objectivity on this thread. Must be here somewhere ...

We should reconsider our policy towards Israel, towards blind support to Israel, and that wont happen coz the Jewish Lobby controls our policy to such an extent that it has become painted in the star of david rather than the star and stripes

The US is a democracy. Vote for someone who has "not scurrying around to do whatever the Israel lobby demands unquestioningly" as a key policy. Tell all your friends to vote for that candidate, whoever it is.

There. That should do it.

I second that, Dennis.

And if the Israelis, on their part, would vote for some non-Zionist politicians, the so-called "Palestinian problem" would soon be solved

not really-- as long as Hamas exists, and sticks to their goal of wiping out Israel-- it really doesn't matter what Israel does. It takes to sides to make peace.

Shimon Peres was a huge dove, Keld... what else do you want?

Hetep and Respect Gideon Polya, thank you for your understanding and support for African Americans. Your keeping track of the UN excess death numbers always startles me.

Afghan Territoires 0.3 milion, 2.0 millin and 3.2 million,
respectively; refugees total 7 million, 4 milllion and 3.7 million,
respectively; Apartheid Israel has cost America over $2.6 TRILLION;

I can understand why people living in East and far East Africa ("middle" east) would be angry. I look forward to seeing all anti-humanists leaving African soil.

There must be zero tolerance for ALL racists such as the KKK,
the Nazis, the Racist Religious Right Republican (R4) Bush-ites and the
genocidal Racist Zionists.

I just quoted this part because it is the crux of the matter, but I found your entire post repulsive. I found your entire rant to be bigoted and disgusting.

I can understand why people living in East and far East Africa ("middle" east) would be angry. I look forward to seeing all anti-humanists leaving African soil.

Video-- the truth about Israel and their neighbours: 'Neighbourhood Bully'

Hetep and Respect Krishna, tnx for the video, I had not seen it before and did not know that humanists now living on the ancient African land of Canaan (Israel/Palitine) had done such good things for others especially Africans.

Unfortunetly, the message of the humanists is muted by anti-humanists. At the end it becomes shockingly clear that their is a Cultural Poisoning attempt to try to cause the viewer to believe that the Europeans shown are "Builders" and the Arabs are "destroyers".
. You should find a way to cut the end off and just leave to positive humanist message.

Tnx for taking the time to raise my Cultural Literacy in this area.

African land of Canaan (Israel/Palitine)

A commonly held misconception! Actually its in Asia (as are Lebanon Syria, Iraq, Jordan.. .as well most of Turkey . . . and some of Egypt)

Hetep and Respect Krishna, You have been watching too much none historically accurate Hollywood, like Moses and not looking at your maps and reading history.

Let us keep this simple and stay with Classical African Civilization, Kemet (Egypt) and the indigenous Africans of Canaan.

1. Go to your local library and find a map of Africa. There is no part of Kemet or even modern day Egypt that is not on the African Continent proper. Let alone in Asia. Where did you receive the culturally poisoned notion that part of Egypt is in Asia? Please name or link to the reputable scholar who has made the geographical error.

2. African Recorded history exists for almost 3000 years before the first Caucasian is know to write a book (Homer). Herodotus, the first Western historian personally noted, what the Africans had already recorded, that the indigenous people from Kemet (Egypt) to India are the same Black ethnic group. India still has 100 million Black people known as Dravidian's. If you watch TV you will note that most Indians are substantially melanin-producing people.

3. Last but not lest, the dominant ethnic groups that you find today in the African lands of ancient Kemet (Egypt) and Canaan are not the indigenous people of these lands. Just like you should not mix up those that live in America today with the indigenous people of Turtle Island. Most Arabs in Egypt today are multi-ethnic invaders or the sons of invaders not the indigenous people. The same is true of Canaan (Israel/Palestine) Modern day Israel is populated mostly with Europeans (Russia, Germany etc.) and Arabs not the indigenous people.

Go to your local library and find a map of Africa. There is no part of Kemet or even modern day Egypt that is not on the African Continent proper. Let alone in Asia. Where did you receive the culturally poisoned notion that part of Egypt is in Asia? Please name or link to the reputable scholar who has made the geographical error.

Of course you are correct-- Egypt lies in Africa.

The Sinai peninsula, which is part of Egypt, is actually considered part of Asia.

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzborderasiaafrica.htm

The Sinai peninsula, which is part of Egypt, is actually considered part of Asia.

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzborderasiaafrica.htm

That's what I had thought. Geographically it looks like the Sinai is separated from Africa by natural features-- The Red Sea and the Suez Canal-- west of these waterways is clearly Africa-- looking at these waterways, it seems obvious that the area east of them is part of Asia -- the extreme South-Western tip of Asia.
That is why I thought that part of Egypt is in Asia-- it sure looks that way geographically.

However I was surprised to find that many maps place Sinai in Africa. If this is the case, there is no natural border there between the two continents-- rather, placing the Sinai in Africa is based on an artificial boundary-- a relatively straight line that is the border between Egyptian Sinai...and Israel-- Sinai being considered Africa-- crossing that border into Israel would be crossing into Asia.
Looking at at map makes this much clearer.

I guess that is done so as to consider all of Egypt as in Africa-- but the geography would indicate otherwise.

There is a somewhat similar situation with Turkey-- the geography-- natural features00 indicates that it is mainly in Asia with a portion in Europe. However, I have never seen anyone argue that Turkey is entirely in Asia-- unlike Egypt everyone seems to agree that Turkey lies within two continents.

Here's a pretrty good map of the area link

P.S:. Sometimes countries are motivated by political considerations to give different names to geographical features. What is usually referred to as ''The Gulf of Aqaba'' is called ''The Gulf of Eilat'' in Israel. What most of the world calls ''The Persian Gulf'' is referred to as the ''Arabian Gulf'' on some Arab maps. Nationalism and ego . . .

The Suez canal isn't natural. Some proto-Canal has been present for thousands of years, but it was entirely manmade.

The Suez canal isn't natural. Some proto-Canal has been present for thousands of years, but it was entirely manmade.

That is true-- aIA guess my post was inaccurate. The canal is an extension of the Red Sea -- which is most of the water separating the Sinai from the rest of Egypt.

Hetep and Respect folks, good to see you guys did your home work.

Usually discussions of Cultural health are focused on words as both symptoms of Cultural Poisoning and the means of transmitting Cultural Poisoning. Pictures, maps in this case, can also be used as tools of cultural poisoning.

In my first book DoublerSpeak, I included a Cultural Poisoning Self-test. The first question was.

1. Were all the maps we learned from in school accurate?

Below are some map links I think your will find interesting.

Upside Down Map - Australians Don't like being at the bottom of the world.

Peters vs Mecator Map - (better known as the conterfit map verses the accurate map. Which map do you see on the news and behind Government officials?

Maps are a good way to make the point, that all that we are shown, is not all that their is to see. What one can and can't see on a map, has a strong influence on a person's view of the world.

Upside Down Map - Australians Don't like being at the bottom of the world.

I loved that site! Very funny-- but also makes a good point!

Peters vs Mecator Map - (better known as the conterfit map verses the accurate map. Which map do you see on the news and behind Government officials?

Very interesting--I bookmarked both those map sites and will study them When I get a chance.

I didn't realize most of the info on the Peters maps-- except I have always wondered about Greenland looking so tremendous on conventional maps.

Hetep and Respect Kald B, now that was funny I am still crying, LoL Unfortunately it demonstrates that Bush was able to drag Americans into a war because of their Cultural Illiteracy.

A little laughter is God's anti-depresent.

"Set Washington on fire" != Cause Monica Lewinsky scandal. Either provide proof, right here, right now, or retract that statement, please.

Isn't the favoring of another country over your own the very definition of treason? Certainly making the USA do without oil in order to give it to a foreign country is treasonous.

Could some one explain to me why we protect Israeli, they bring nothing to the table. They do not sell us any type of products, we receive nothing from them at all. It doesn't seem fair that we would cut ourselves out of oil for them or anything else.

I assume you are using a computer. Odds are, if its a modern computer, particularly a modern laptop, it has an Intel Core Duo or Core 2 Duo processor. The codenames for these products are "Yonah" and "Merom" respectively. It's no coincidence that these are Hebrew words - they were developed in Israel. Sounds like thats one thing that Israel brings to the table. If you want, I can find many more products developed in Israel.

Certainly making the USA do without oil in order to give it to a foreign country is treasonous.

The US is offering to supply Israel with oil for "essential needs", that is, defense and humanitarian services, even if doing so would constrict the civilian supply in America. That is not putting Israeli lives over American lives, but putting Israeli lives over American luxury. Israel would be supplied with NOTHING that the U.S. didn't have.

so you say israel developed a couple of processors that are in computers that we pay ridiculous money for, but we are sending Billions of american dollars to Israel...How is that an example of what israel brings to the table?

What israel brings to the table and why we keep them on the payroll is because we would not be able to use the muslim countries to stage our war of ...ahem against terror. US uses Israel to stir the pot and still pretend they don't have their hands all in the mess.

How is that an example of what israel brings to the table?

Previous poster #10 said that "They [Israel] do not sell us any type of products." I proved that false.

It is an example of what Israel brings to the table - research and development on the same level as the United States, often for U.S. firms, in an environment that is more conducive to that kind of research, such as a lower (in dollar value) standard of living.

How is Israel stirring the pot in the war against terror? Israel hasn't attacked Iraq since 1981, while Iraq attacked Israel in 1991. Sounds like Iraq was stirring the pot. (Not that I would condone the War in Iraq - I opposed it since before it began.) Israel never attacked Al-Qaida, the Taliban or Afghanistan. They started the (legitimate parts of the) war on terror on 9/11.

Israel is our ally and should help us in the war on Terror, no?

Although I doubt you will try to understand what I'm saying and why I'm saying it:

Israel doesn't have to attack Iraq to stir the pot, although they have attacked Iraq. Operation Opera.
But the list is long...here's just a wee taste.
2006 Lebanon War.
Invading Syrian airspace and then bombing them. Invading Turkey's airspace in order to attack Syria...these are acts of aggression. Here is a very interesting article on the subject. Shooting down a civilian airplane that strayed too far into its airspace, killing 104.

This article is about Israeli plans to unleash nukes in Iran to stop them from enriching Uranium. Israel and it's WMDs. Arab states have very good reason to fear Israel.

"Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches." Quote attributed to Ariel Sharon.

How is the attack in 1981 to be dismissed but the attack in 1991 is somehow justified?

How is the attack in 1981 to be dismissed but the attack in 1991 is somehow justified?

You said that Israel is stirring the pot. I'm saying that Iraq, between the two countries, is the most recent to have stirred the pot. Therefore, Israel is less culpable for that pot-stirring.

2006 Lebanon War.

Israel was attacked. With missiles. That kill people. And its soldiers were kidnapped. And its tanks destroyed. And then, Israel decided to make that stop. And Israel is blamed for stirring the pot?

I don't understand your view, which seems to license the killing of Israelis, but when Israelis destroy a building, its a horrible violation. At least in my moral sense, any life is worth more than any building.

Invading Syrian airspace and then bombing them. Invading Turkey's airspace in order to attack Syria...these are acts of aggression.

This is a little less clearcut. Who would you trust more with a nuclear weapon, a democratic, free country, or a dictatorship? (Answer the question. Blockquote it, and answer it.)

Personally, I would trust a democracy (Israel) with a nuke more than I would Syria. Also, some Muslim fundamentalists (not all Muslims, not even all Muslim fundies) have a suicidal worldview. This lends itself more to nuke use than the Jewish view of life, which promotes self-preservation. (Nuking a neighboring country in the middle east means nuking yourself. Which is dumb.)

Also, note that Turkey in the past cooperates with Israel for military training exercises and the like. My interpretation of the scenario is that Turkey was aware of what happened and was itself very uncomfortable with a Syrian nuke, but had to voice an objection to avoid pissing off all the Arab nations. In other words, they were actually OK with having their airspace violated.

And Syria, was "stirring the pot" by upsetting the balance of power by threatening Israel and Europe with a nuclear weapon. (If I draw a gun on you, and you shoot me in response, I was the one who "stirred the pot" - not you, although you pulled the trigger)

The Israeli response in the 2006 war with Lebanon was completely disproportionate and crossed the line into collective punishment.

Who would you trust more with a nuclear weapon, a democratic, free country, or a dictatorship?

I don't think the US should have military dealings with any country that isn't a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel's nukes are destabilizing to the region.

As far as the Lebanon war the world condemned Israel's actions.

This is a little less clearcut. Who would you trust more with a nuclear weapon, a democratic, free country, or a dictatorship?

It isn't less clearcut. I don't trust anyone with nukes, certainly not Israel. To me it seems as if Israel wants to be the only Mideastern country with the ability to defend themselves. How is Syria with nukes threatening Israel? In the same way that Israel with nukes threatens them. Your gun analogy is ridiculous.

The Israeli response in the 2006 war with Lebanon was completely disproportionate and crossed the line into collective punishment.

As far as the Lebanon war the world condemned Israel's actions.

But they were not "stirring the pot", which was the original allegation, because it was a response to aggression levied against Israel. (Whether the fact that the response was "disproportionate" is a bad thing is not the topic at hand)

It isn't less clearcut. I don't trust anyone with nukes, certainly not Israel. To me it seems as if Israel wants to be the only Mideastern country with the ability to defend themselves. How is Syria with nukes threatening Israel? In the same way that Israel with nukes threatens them. Your gun analogy is ridiculous.

I find it extremely hard to believe that you would trust a dictator, who has to answer to no one, with a nuke, with a democratically-elected leader who has to answer to his people. You may say you don't, but I believe that you probably do. Besides, Israel has had nukes for at least 20, if not 30 years, and hasn't used them yet. Hasn't threatened to use them yet.

Syria with nukes threatens Israel more than Israel with nukes threatens Syria. Syria participates in, and sponsors, the various terrorist groups (e.g. Hezbollah) which regularly pledge to destroy Israel and drive all the Jews into the sea. A nuke is a tool to that end. As has been shown by the past, oh, 40 years, Israel wants to be left well enough alone. If Syria doesn't threaten Israel, Israel will leave Syria alone.

I certainly would not trust Israel with nukes. So far they seem like the only government in this day and age that will use them....even for a "preemptive strike". They have not made outright declaration of intent to use nukes but they have drawn up plans to nuke iran in the near future. Your opinion as to who is more dangerous is just that, your opinion.

I trust the Israeli government as much as I trust the United States government, which at this time, is not at all.

You want to dismiss the inhumanity displayed by Israel as irrelevant to the topic at hand but it certainly is. If committing war crimes against Lebanon isn't stirring the pot I guess neither of us knows what stirring the pot means.

This article is about Israeli plans to unleash nukes in Iran to stop them from enriching Uranium. Israel and it's WMDs. Arab states have very good reason to fear Israel.

Iran is not an Arab country.

However, most Arab states (at least those that are predominantly Sunni) are starting to realize that they have more to fear from Iran than Israel.

Een the perpetually racist Saudis are starting to realize that a nuclear Iran would represent more of a threat to them than a nuclear Israel.

thanks for clearing that up krishna. That changes everything

They have not made outright declaration of intent to use nukes but they have drawn up plans to nuke iran in the near future.

Israel has plans to nuke Canada, I'm sure, as well as to respond to an alien attack. It's their job to plan for any contingency.

Or do you mean that Israel is actually going to nuke Iran in the near future? If that's what you mean, please pony up some proof. And not an "unnamed source" from AlterNet or some other untrustworthy source.

thanks for clearing that up krishna. That changes everything

You're welcome 8-)

since I can't predict the future I don't know if Israel is going to nuke Iran but I do know that they plan to.

I linked to an article about it in 10.6

"they plan to" means that they have plans to, right?

That means that they are doing their job, planning for any contingency. Just the same, the US Military probably has plans to take over Canada, if need be, but that doesn't mean we're going to do it.

since I can't predict the future I don't know if Israel is going to nuke Iran but I do know that they plan to.

I linked to an article about it in 10.6

Did you know that the US actually had contingency plans for an attack on the UK in the 1940's?

Most countries have developed contingency plans for all sorts of military actions...even scenarios that seem unlikely. The idea is that its best to be prepared rather than being taken by surprise if unexpected events unfold quickly.

Unfortunately, the nasty thing about unexpected events is that...people usually don't expect them!

However most of these plans will never, ever be put into play.

A more relevant question might be-- will Israel go beyond some plans...and actually do it? I, for one do not have any idea of what secrets lie within the minds of the higher ups in the military or political establishment in Israel ...or for that matter, those in Iran ...or the US Pentagon. And I am rather skeptical of those who claim they do know...for certain...and reveal what they know.

Israel is not very welcome by its neighbours

The Kurds are also not very welcome by their neighbours...and of course, the Sunnis are not particularly loved by their Shia neighbours...and the Shia are not particularly loved by their Sunni neighbours.

Copts [a Christian group with ancient roots in Egypt] are not particularly welcomed by Egyptian Muslims...and have been subject to violent attacks.

Christians in Lebanon are not welcomed by Hizb'Allah...to say the least! (Are you aware3 of the atrocities committed during the Lebanese Civil War?). And...most Lebanese really have an intense dislike for the Palestinians in their country.

Do you think the Kurds are really welcomed by the Turks? (Of course, the Turks aren't really loved all that much by the Kurds either).

And did you know--the Persians in Iran really don't like the Arabs living there...they are persecuted...along with women and gays...???

Do you remember the recent massacre of the Yezidis in Iraq...?

Blacks in Darfur have been subject to massacres...the women to mass rape...they are not particularly welcomed by the Aerabs from the north. (Those that fled to Egypt were persecuted by the Egyptians...some Darfurians even tried to escape to freedom in Israel!)

Actually this merely scratches the surface...there are so many more gro/ups that are "not welcome" by their neighbours...in some cases their neighbours try to exterminate them!!!

But...the question in my mind is...why only pick on the Jews? Of all the persecuted peoples in the mid-east-- and there are many-- why is it only the Jews that have no right to their own country?

the reason I think that Israel is singled out is that their atrocities are committed with US supplied funds, arms, and consent. That means like it or not my hands are covered in blood. That is unacceptible.

Perhaps my comment was to do with the article and I am beginning to see something stinky in the Israeli and USA connections, I have a gut feeling that there's more to meet the eye here. I am going to research and analyse prior to writing an article on my own conclusions.

Yes I know there are small problems of dislike and likes within the middle east, but that is nothing to do with the story here, I suggest that you write an article on all these problems you see and have seen. For us to see and debate your findings.

Israel is unique as its not liked by any middle eastern country and hated by most Muslim nations through out the world. This make Israel a more newsworthy. That's the reason and its the reality.

Small problems? You say there are small problems and then point out Israel is hated by "most Muslim nations" throughout the world. Isn't that a bit more than small problems?

Interesting snippet, I guess that the reason was that Israel is not very welcome by its neighbours and its to ensure that Israel can stand on its own feet. However there are probably 1001 points for this USA and Israel agreement and 1002 points against.

One point against it, it does not look good to the Muslim world and another to me.

The very existance of a predominantly non-Muslim state in the area, whether it be Jewish or Christian ...does not look good to the Muslim world. Non-Muslim countries are not welcome in themidst of the dar al-Islam.

Muslim countries have done everything in their power to change this.

(When it gained its independence, Lebanon was a predominantly Christian country-- their civil war was extremely bloody...)

the reason I think that Israel is singled out is that their atrocities are committed with US supplied funds, arms, and consent. That means like it or not my hands are covered in blood. That is unacceptible.

Some time ago the U.S. did not sell arms to Israel-- their weapons were mainly from France.....and btw it was the French who initially suppied the material for Israel'as nuclear programme-- the US refused.

At that time..since this was French, not US supplies.---.would Israel's policies be more acceptable to you?

IAF Mirages are best known for their conduct during the 1967 Six Days War. Mirages spearheaded the decisive pre-emptive strike against Arab airfields, operation "Moked", decimating Arab air forces, and completely overwhelmed the few enemy aircraft that survived to challenge the IDF. Israel entered with war with 65 airworthy examples and all but 12 participated in the strikes launched on the morning of June 5th 1967. Four by four, the entire IAF fighter inventory descended on Egyptian Air Force bases, destroying the majority of its aircraft on the ground. Mirages, the IAF primary fighter of the war, were tasked with attacking the farthest and best defended air bases: Abu-Sweir, Cairo West, Helwan and more. When operation "Moked" was turned against other Arab nations, Mirages were once again in the forefront of the fighting, attacking Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air bases as well. Having destroyed dozens of enemy aircraft during the first day's activities, 4 Mirages were also lost.

It was only a natural expression of the close ties formed between France and Israel, that the IAF chose the Super Mystere as its next air superiority fighter in the aftermath of operation "Kadesh" (1956). The operation had revealed the IAF's requirement for a longe range, high endurance fighter. Furthermore, the conclusion of the Suez Crisis did not dissipate tensions in the Middle East. Arab nations continued their aqcuisition of ever more sophisticated Soviet military hardware and the introduction of the supersonic MiG-19 into the arena forced Israel to look its own next-generation interceptor. The Sambad, as the type was known in Israel (acronym of Super Mystere 2B), was not only the IAF's first supersonic fighter but also its first aircraft with an afterburning engine.

For reactor design and construction, Israel sought the assistance of France. Nuclear cooperation between the two nations dates back as far as early 1950's, when construction began on France's 40MWt heavy water reactor and a chemical reprocessing plant at Marcoule. France was a natural partner for Israel and both governments saw an independent nuclear option as a means by which they could maintain a degree of autonomy in the bipolar environment of the cold war.

[...]

Although the United States government did not encourage or approve of the Israeli nuclear program, it also did nothing to stop it. Walworth Barbour, US ambassador to Israel from 1961-73, the bomb program's crucial years, primarily saw his job as being to insulate the President from facts which might compel him to act on the nuclear issue, alledgedly saying at one point that "The President did not send me there to give him problems. He does not want to be told any bad news." After the 1967 war, Barbour even put a stop to military attach�s' intelligence collection efforts around Dimona. Even when Barbour did authorize forwarding information, as he did in 1966 when embassy staff learned that Israel was beginning to put nuclear warheads in missiles, the message seemed to disappear into the bureaucracy and was never acted upon.

Israel is unique as its not liked by any middle eastern country

Here is an article that may be of interest to you: "Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon

Excerpt--

'From the outset in 1992, the Israeli-Turkish military alliance has consistently been directed against Syria. A 1993 Memorandum of Understanding led to the creation of (Israeli-Turkish) "joint committees" to handle so-called regional threats. Under the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed "to cooperate in gathering intelligence on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and these countries' military capabilities."

Turkey agreed to allow IDF and Israeli security forces to gather electronic intelligence on Syria and Iran from Turkey. In exchange, Israel assisted in the equipping and training of Turkish forces in anti-terror warfare along the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian borders." (Ibid)

In 1997, Israel and Turkey launched "A Strategic Dialogue" involving a bi-annual process of high level military consultations by the respective deputy chiefs of staff. (Milliyet, Istanbul, in Turkish 14 July 2006).
-----------------------
(As you are undoubtedly aware, Turkey is not only a middle-eastern country but it is predominantly Muslim as well....)

hated by most Muslim nations through out the world.

Quite true-- there is a lot of racism , a lot of bigotry in many Muslim nations throughout the world. Most Americans would probably be quite shcked if they saw the type of racist propaganda that is regularly shown in much of the edia in the Muslim world.

Quite true-- there is a lot of racism , a lot of bigotry in many Muslim nations throughout the world. Most Americans would probably be quite shcked if they saw the type of racist propaganda that is regularly shown in much of the edia in the Muslim world.

This blurb is well bigoted and racist propaganda itself. Who are you trying to kid? The Jews and the Muslims have a mutual contempt. Why is it that you think this type of anti-muslim sentiment, painting the Muslim world with a very broad brush.

Some time ago the U.S. did not sell arms to Israel-- their weapons were mainly from France.....and btw it was the French who initially suppied the material for Israel'as nuclear programme-- the US refused.

At that time..since this was French, not US supplies.---.would Israel's policies be more acceptable to you?

I know that it was the French who supplied the initial material, that doesn't make it right. We're not really talking about that time, we're talking about now and the future. And right now US is who is bankrolling Israel.

As a US and a French citizen I am profoundly disgusted with France for giving Israel material for its nuclear program. What is the point of non-proliferation if no one respects it?

So how is it that you became a dual citizen of the US and France?

My father is a French citizen. I'm not sure if they are still granting citizenship to children of French citizens but many moons ago when I was born they did. My brother had to get special permission not to report for his 2 years mandatory military service when he turned 18.

I bet that is an interesting background to have.

I know that it was the French who supplied the initial material, that doesn't make it right. We're not really talking about that time, we're talking about now and the future. And right now US is who is bankrolling Israel.

The reason I brought it up was because it seemed that one of your main criticisms of Israel was that they were using US weapons-- somehow this seemed to be an important factor in condeming them.

shiki

the reason I think that Israel is singled out is that their atrocities are committed with US supplied funds, arms

I was wondering if they were using French weapons, as they had in the past-- you would be less criticial of them?

You do nothing to advance your position with such sloppy spelling standards. If you don't care enough about your comment to use the built-in spell checker, why should I care enough to read it or respond to it?

That said, your view of the situation is extremely simplistic and overly black and white. Furthermore, your conflation of anti-jewish and anti-israel is dangerous. They are not the same thing.

Brian if my writing errors is all you care about you got major issues.

and ur anti everything soo im not going to waste my time with you get a life and move to Iran ..... you and ur anti-israel anti-jewish views is wrong and dispicable...

Whats the big deal about this. Its sicking how many anti-israel and anti-jewish people there are on newsvine.

I don't think its only on Newsvine-- there are racists everywhere. And-- I don't think its all that large a number-- just a handful of bigots. But because their hatred is so extreme...they have a big effect...all out of proportion to their numbers. (Look at the recent 'noose incident' at Columbia...does that necessarily indiate a large number of racists there? I don't really know...but I wouldn't be surprised if that nooose was placed by only one person!)

You have absolutely no idea what my views on Israel are. You just joined this site, and I haven't been in an Israel debate in months.

Your comment is inflammatory, and reported as such. By the way, I was simply pointing out to you that people who cannot express themselves clearly are not well-respected on a site like this. The harder it is to understand you, the less people will bother making the effort.

yah i agree..... its just that the newsviners who are all anti- (what metioned above) are soo active it seems like its everyone.

Avi, from someone else who shares similar views, and probably similar circumstances (If I remember correctly, you're in high school, as am I. Your name sounds Jewish - I am too.) Honestly, you've got to conform to conventions of English. It is difficult to understand what you mean to say if you don't write in a way that is standard and understandable by all English speakers.

Consider the commenter JoulesBeef. No one pays much attention to him, because he doesn't spell corrently or write coherent sentences. Don't be like that.

There is a difference between being "racist" against Jews and being against our tax money being spent on a country that has NOTHING to do with us. I want my money going to places in America that need help. Israel can worry about their own problems.... they are God's chosen people, by the way. Why isn't he helping?

Avi, please review the Code of Honor guidelines or you'll find yourself in trouble with the site staff. This site is no place to call people juvenile names. Please go to some trashy site like myspace if you feel like calling people "nut jerks".

Reported as inflammatory, again.

good i reported you as well.

Reported me for asking you spell correctly? The ! button is for inflammatory comments or other comments that violate the Code of Honor. Not for comments you simply don't like. I don't have anything further to say on this topic, so let's not threadjack here.

Hi... nice to meet you too

Why is it that you think this type of anti-muslim sentiment, painting the Muslim world with a very broad brush.

Not the entire Muslim world. There are many for example who are even working towards peace with the Jews-- even many Palestinians . . . such as Abbas! AND, of course, there are many others. It is only an extremely tiny minority of extremsists...certainly not ther majority....but they have an impact all out of proportion to their numbers.

So-- why do I think there's so much racism in the Muislim world? Simply because I have seen so much of it in the media there-- most westerners have not seen what's in the media...and assume its probably no different than what we see in the west, or what is seen in Israel.

One can hardly blame the people foir having racist sentiments-- they are exposed to so much of it. For example-- here's a video clip of the sort of sermon that often seen on TV in Arab countries-- I would imagine that many in the west are unaware of this sort of thing and may find it quite shocking; Dr. Halibiya-- broadcast on Official Palistinian TV station

Israel is a make-believe nation

Did you just conflate two conspiracy theories?

The US didn't travel to the moon, it was in a movie studio. Israel wouldn't exist without U.S. help, which comes about because the j00s control the government. Therefore, by the transitive property, Israel doesn't exist, it was made in a film studio!

Did you just grab words out of your ass?
I never said anything about the moon. I didn't say Israel wouldn't exist without our help because the "j00s" (i don't see what OJ has to do with this at all man, leave the Juice out of this)control the government, in fact I blamed it on the Christians. The land exists, but it isn't Israel, we helped the UN make it Israel. On 11/28/47 it wasn't Israel. It would be the same as if the UN took control of Texas and gave it back to the Native Americans.

Let Israel burn,

What exactly, are you trying to say?

On 11/28/47 it wasn't Israel

What's in a name? It was a land that had a lot of Jews, and more Jews who wanted to come.

What is Israel, if the current state located south of Lebanon isn't Israel? It sure seems to me that the place I've visited is Israel.

That if Israel catches on fire, let Israel put it out. Do you disagree? Or do you think they need us as babysitters?

If Israel catches on fire, America will suffer, loses billions of dollars in capital (Intel, Motorola and many other firms whose fates are intertwined with America's have factories in Israel). Therefore, the loss of a few million dollars is not so big of a loss, no?

Nothing exists in a vacuum. We can't simply cut Israel loose. We would hurt ourselves more than we are hurt by supporting Israel. Simple cost/benefit analysis would show we have an interest in keeping Israel alive and well.

Yeah, the UN took it from Palestine and made it Israel. You went there?!??! wow!

As opposed to the few million we lose by helping them? I guess either way Israel is going to cost us much-needed money. I hope they are using it well, because we are going down-hill fast. Maybe those corporations that are so important to you will help our poor! j/k

Yeah, the UN took it from Palestine and made it Israel.

You clearly don't know the history of the origin of Israel. Please do some research on the topic. I'd suggest this page as a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

The British Mandate for Palestine, sometimes referred to as the Mandate of Palestine, was a League of Nations Mandate created after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was split by the Treaty of Sèvres. The British Mandate of Palestine comprised territory that now comprises modern-day Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

It was the League of Nations, not the UN, and it wasn't taken from "Palestine", which has never existed, it was part of the splitting up of the Ottoman Empire following the first world war. Britain had much more to do with what happened than anyone else, the eventual UN Partition Plan simply expanded on what Britain had started.

Actually in their war of Independence in 1948 Israel was supported by Russia as both the U.S. and U.K was very much against their declaration of statehood.

Actually in their war of Independence in 1948 Israel was supported by Russia as both the U.S. and U.K was very much against their declaration of statehood.

And of course...people know who enabled Israel to start their nuclear programme :-)

From the wikipedia page:

The British mandate over Palestine was due to expire on 15 May 1948, but Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared independence on 14 May. The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the Soviet Union, the United States, and many other countries.

Why do you say the US was against it?

Truman recognized Israel within 15 minutes of getting word that independence had been declared, actually. He did counsel against declaring independence, but when the die was cast, he cast America's lot with Israel's.

Brian, I read the same article. the LoN did start it, but they didn't finish it, the UN did.

The fact remains, the UN took nothing from Palestine, since the UN didn't exist at the time, and Palestine has never existed. The land that is Israel was formerly a part of the Ottoman empire.

Brian you're right it was the Ottoman Empire, but the action did disenfranchise the people who were already living there.

It disenfranchised them of what exactly?

The Ottoman Empire was defeated in war, and was carved up into small pieces according to whatever logic or lack thereof the victors wanted. This is what always happens after the conquest of a nation. When the British Mandate ended, the people living in Israel took control and declared themselves a country. Should they have meekly followed the UN plan instead? Things might have been more peaceful if they had, but they didn't. Their neighbors didn't like this action, attacked them, and suffered a military defeat, establishing the borders of the new country in the peace treaties ending the war, fully consistent with international law in every way. International law is still unfortunately fully rooted in countries fighting each other over territory, not the high minded ideals of the United Nations.

The fact remains, the UN took nothing from Palestine, since the UN didn't exist at the time, and Palestine has never existed. The land that is Israel was formerly a part of the Ottoman empire.

You have a very tainted view of history, it was the british who gave up and allowed the settlement of Jews on the holy land, the british monarch herself mentioned the fact that they would like to see a jewish homeland established here.

They [the british] had no right to allow open immigration for non-indigenous jews, and thats exactly what happened, and when it did the arabs of the area revolted and refuse to accept this mass influx of jews, as they refused to accept Israel in 1948 as they viewed it as a foreihn entity.

There were indigineous Jews in Historic Palestine, and FYI, Historic Palestine did exist just look up any historical document, the local jews should have stayed , its the import of jews that compounded the issue,

They [the british] had no right to allow open immigration for non-indigenous jews, and thats exactly what happened

How did they have no right? They were part of the group that conquered the Ottoman Empire, and they were given the job of controlling the area by the victorious allies. The British got cold feet later on, and didn't want to support any plan that wasn't acceptable to the majority Muslim indigenous population, but things were out of their control at that point. What part of my view of history is tainted?

"Historic Palestine" is not a country, and never was. The land obviously existed yes, and people lived there, but it was not a nation.

If one wants to argue there was a historical Palestinian people, they would be the Philistines and the Israelis conquered the Philistines. The Israelis returned after their diaspora and fought off Muslim armies that heavily outnumbered them. They continue to hold their position because they can defend the land. If the Muslims can't take it from them, they have no one to blame but themselves. They started two wars to "push Israel into the sea" and failed on both attempts. They would have attacked a third time if Israel hadn't pre-emptively attacked them. If you're Muslim and you're angry because you don't think the Israelis belong in Israel, find a mirror because your ancestors tried to shove them off that plot of land and they couldn't get the job done. Take some responsibility and blame yourself for once... I get sick of hearing "Zionist this" and "Conspiracy that" because you had them dead to rights in 1948 because you had them outnumbered and they didn't even have proper weapons or any allies. Put the blame where it belongs: on you.

When the British Mandate ended, the people living in Israel took control and declared themselves a country. Should they have meekly followed the UN plan instead? Things might have been more peaceful if they had, but they didn't.

When they declared themselves an independent country they took on the responsibility of all the people living there, not just the Jewish people.

The Jews who moved to the British Mandate didn't steal land, they bought it. They have just the same rights to live there, then, than the indigenous "Palestinians".

Note that some of this land which Jews purchased from its Palestinian owner includes Gush Etzion, a large complex of "settlements" in the West Bank.

Question, for Keld and shiki: Do Palestinians have the right to sell their land to whomever will pay the highest price? (The answer must be yes, or else you are using the Palestinians for your own political, anti-Israel purposes, without actually sticking up for their rights) Does any person who owns land in the former British mandate have the right to live there? (The answer must be yes, or else you are promoting an apartheid system where there are places where Israelis (read: Jews) cannot live.)

Therefore, you must support the right of Israelis to live in, and have as part of their country, Gush Etzion and other legal settlements, as well as most of Israel proper.

@shiki, 13.22: Note that all Israeli citizens, Arab or not, have full rights in Israeli society. They have taken responsibility for all the people living there.

Insert, I'm not going to play this game, I say one thing and you make a bunch of specious assertions and try to pin them on me. No thank you. The part about apartheid is rich. There already is apartheid in Israel.
Not all Israeli's are Jews. Are the Palestinian people Israeli citizens?

shiki, you are correct. And Israel accomodates the Muslim Arabs living there today, and includes them in the political process. They are not disenfranchised. The ones living outside of Israel are not technically Israel's problem. Israel did not claim all of the Mandate territory, only a part of it. The entire country of Jordan for instance was also part of the Mandate territory.

insert_name_here, you are distorting the historical record. During the Mandate period, yes many Jews moved in and bought land quite legally. There was considerable cultural conflict over what that entailed though, as the people selling the land still expected to be able to harvest the date trees on the land, and other such issues. Post-declaration-of-Israel though, many of the indigenous Palestinian peoples fled the chaos, and returned to find their land claimed by someone else and themselves with no recourse to reclaim land that they never sold. This is one of the big sticking points in Israeli-Palestinian dealings.

Only the Ashkenazi Jews have full rights in Israel. Everybody else are second class citizens.

Keld, find me an example of special rights afforded Ashkenazim.

Insert, I'm not going to play this game, I say one thing and you make a bunch of specious assertions and try to pin them on me. No thank you. The part about apartheid is rich. There already is apartheid in Israel.

Answer the @!$%#ing questions. I'll answer yours:

Not all Israeli's are Jews. Are the Palestinian people Israeli citizens?

\

Correct. Some Palestinians are Israeli citizens - namely, those who didn't flee to hide behind Israel's enemies in the War of Independence. Those Palestinians probably would have no trouble buying and living in land in the West Bank. Only those Jewish Israeli citizens would have trouble if they tried to live in the West Bank. That's apartheid.

What you claim, shiki, is apartheid is not so. (At least, I assume. You don't name any specific instances) Israel affords certain rights to its citizens which it doesn't afford to non-citizens. Every country does that.

Actually that is not what apartheid means.

Answer the @!$%#ing questions. I'll answer yours.

So very rude. First of all. Give me real questions. Telling me what I think is not asking me a question.

You didn't really answer my question. What about the other Palestinians that aren't Israeli citizens? What country are the citizens of? Do they live in land that Israel controls? Are the children of the denied citizens citizens?

Why do you say that the Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship would be able to buy land and settle in the Westbank? Are the Palestinians who are Israelis not allowed to live in other areas of Israel?

Keld, that site to which you link is blocked by WebSense for "Racism and Hate" - while I oppose internet censorship, it doesn't bode well for the content located there. If you can find another mirror of the article, I'll read it, but otherwise, it just isn't possible for me.

I looked up Jack Bernstein on Wikipedia - he doesn't have an entry.

What about the other Palestinians that aren't Israeli citizens? What country are the citizens of?

I don't know. Not Israel. Perhaps they should be Jordanian citizens, considering the land they lived in belonged to Jordan until 1967. Perhaps they should just be Palestinian citizens, considering that state is becoming more and more legitimate, especially if there are favorable results to Annapolis.

Do they live in land that Israel controls?

Yes, but it's not Israel. Persons born in Afghanistan have never become American citizens, even when America was the sole controller of that country.

Are the children of the denied citizens citizens?

Why would they be? They don't live in Israel.

Keld, I found a link to that piece by Mr. Bernstein. And I see why WebSense would block it. After struggling through some irrelevant details (How his friend's cousin was so sexy) and non-sequiturs (People can be citizens of both the US and Israel, but not of both the US and Egypt, therefore, Zionists control the US Government), I found the story of the "Khazar" Jews which has no basis in fact, is not scientifically valid and is spouted only by certain Christian groups who deny the Jews killed in the Holocaust and who founded Israel legitimacy as the "Chosen People" who have a right to the land of Israel and by other racist and anti-Semitic groups. The fact that you would espouse this racist nonsense reflects poorly on yourself and even Newsvine. Your comment directing me to that bull@!$%# has been reported as inflammatory for its racist comments. I would urge anyone else who rejects such racist allegations to do so as well.

That's a very interesting article. I read it further, and found some obvious LIES. One, in Israel, property is traded in a private market system - no one is given priority for property except the person willing to pay the greatest price. Also, it is blatantly false that preaching non-Jewish religion is illegal in Israel - I saw people preaching their religion, outside of churches, who were not Jewish.

It is somewhat true that conversions of Jews to other religions is not recognized by the state. Jewish law doesn't provide for non-Jews to cease being Jewish - in a sense, once a Jew, always a Jew. However, there is certainly no penalty provided for conversion.

Mr. Bernstein, whose last name is unfortunately the same as my mother's, is also denying the Holocaust. Which is not only silly, harmful, and false, but continuing stereotypes of Jews causing everything - even the greatest catastrophe to Judaism since the destruction of the Temple.

He also quotes Henry Ford, who is blatantly anti-Semitic. (Do you deny this?) Since you seem to agree with Mr. Bernstein, you seem to be agreeing with Ford, which would make you an anti-Semite. Do you deny that?

You have shown a clear and repeated prejudice against Jews. Not against Israel, but against Jews as a group. You are now on my ignore list, and I do not anticipate speaking to you again. I encourage all other non-anti-Semites to do the same, and to quit funding Mr. Bach with your pageviews.

Thank you, and goodbye.

I came back to respond to just that. It wasn't a critique of the Jewish state to which I produced the anti-Semitism card, but the claims that Zionists caused the Holocaust and that Ashkenazi Jews are Khazars. No Israel involved, only Jews as a group.

I don't know. Not Israel. Perhaps they should be Jordanian citizens, considering the land they lived in belonged to Jordan until 1967. Perhaps they should just be Palestinian citizens, considering that state is becoming more and more legitimate, especially if there are favorable results to Annapolis.

Do they live in land that Israel controls?

Yes, but it's not Israel. Persons born in Afghanistan have never become American citizens, even when America was the sole controller of that country.

Are the children of the denied citizens citizens?

Why would they be? They don't live in Israel.

Your Afghanistan comparison is ridiculous.

You haven't really answered my questions. Perhaps you believe that it's ok to occupy a land yet not provide a decent standard of living for the people under your rule but I think that is despicable.

Really tho I think this will be my last exchange with you on the subject. You don't really answer the questions I pose to you. You talk in circles and yet don't say much of anything. You demand sources and proof, yet you provide very little.

What about the other Palestinians that aren't Israeli citizens? What country are the citizens of? Do they live in land that Israel controls? Are the children of the denied citizens citizens?

Why do you say that the Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship would be able to buy land and settle in the Westbank? Are the Palestinians who are Israelis not allowed to live in other areas of Israel?

First of all the term Palestinian had always referred to the inhabitants of an area-- it was never a country-- nor was it a Muslim ethnic group. It was a term used by the Romans for a colony.

That part of the middle-east became known as Palestine. The inhabitants were Muslims, Christians, Jews, Druse, etc. But-- even the Jews who lived there were referred to as 'Palestinians'... and, in fact the Jews themselves referred to themselves as Palestinian...or Palestinian Jews. The area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire...then the British.

As with so many colonies, the bouindaries were quite artificial-- established by the colonial powers-- they were not drawn by considering ethnic groups. Iraq for example, is an artificial creation...it includes Shia, Sunni Kurds, etc.

The British gave independence to their colony. It was to become 3 independent countries---The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, a Jewish country of Palestine, and an Arab country of Palestine. On the eve of independence, 5 Arab countries attacked the tiny Jewish state, with the stated intent of pushing the Jews into the sea. They failed.

So-- where are the Palestinians today?

Those who are Jewish live in Israel and are called Israelis.. Those who are Muslim and live in Israel are also not referred to Palestinians but rather as 'israeli Arabs'. They have citizenship, the right to vote...and have representatives in the Israeli Parliament (ironically this is a right that they would not have in most Arab countries!). There is some intermarriage between Israeli Arabs and Jews. There have been Israeli Arabs in the cabinet as well...and an Israeli Arab was even voted in as a Miss Israel. (Obviously, none of these things were allowed to blacks in Apartheid South Africa-- Israel contrary to anti-semitic propaganda, is simply not an Apartheid state).

Other Palestinians live in what is now called Jordan-- in fact some people feel that this is really the Arab Palestine as the majority are Palestinians...

Some are in Lebanon where they do not have the rights that the Arabs in Israel have. They are treated badly, and, in fact, one could make a good case that there is apartheid in Lebanon.

There were quite a few living in the Gulf states, working in the oil industry-- and sending lots of money to their families in the West Bank and Gaza. They were mistreated, as are other foreign workers.

But they were kicked out, and that source of income ended.

Palestinians in all Arab countries are treated badly with the exception of Jordan an Iraq under Saddam.

The West Bank and Gaza had the status of occupied territories. After years of occupation Sharon suddenly decided to leave Gaza-- they tore down the settlements (which people had been saying were 'an obstacle to peace')-- and ended the occupation. Now that the Palis are in charge and the Jews have left-- they have turned their violent urges on each other-- its not a pretty picture. The West Bank is still occupied-- it is much more peaceful.

Thank you for your reply Krishna, it doesn't really clear things up for me but I appreciate your effort to educate me on the subject :) This is sincere. The issues I feel aren't being addressed is if the Palestinians are living under Israeli control Israel should be caring for them. The situation is very complex, but honestly I think both sides are wrong.

I still think both sides need to stop the propaganda. I don't think there is a worse or more racist in this situation. It isn't just a islam/jew situation, it goes towards peace for the world. This thread has gotten into Israel and it's policy, but that is a smoke screen for the evil being perpetrated by my government, the USA.

Thank you for your reply Krishna, it doesn't really clear things up for me but I appreciate your effort to educate me on the subject :) This is sincere. The issues I feel aren't being addressed is if the Palestinians are living under Israeli control Israel should be caring for them. The situation is very complex, but honestly I think both sides are wrong.

I still think both sides need to stop the propaganda. I don't think there is a worse or more racist in this situation. It isn't just a islam/jew situation, it goes towards peace for the world. This thread has gotten into Israel and it's policy, but that is a smoke screen for the evil being perpetrated by my government, the USA.

I agree-- it is a complex situation.

To blame only one side is inaccurate-- and an over-simplification. A lot of it is due to the selfish desires of various world leaders-- including at times the US and the USSR, Israeli and various Arab leaders...as well as other leaders...many European. In an area of long-standing hatred and division various leaders have exploited these hatreds to their own advantage.

[And this is the case in many other parts of the world as well-- I believe the only reason the atrocities continue in places such as Darfur for example, is that certain vested interests want the conflict to continue...]

Longterm I would not however, blame the US more for the Israel/Pali crisis any more than other countries. We have been much worse in other conflicts.

(However usually reliable sources have reported that during the recent war between Israel and Hizb'Allah in Lebanon, the Bush administration tried to get the Israelis to attack Syria. There could be some rationalization for this-- after all H. was getting its advanced armaments by way of Syria. Israel rejected the US pressure...one Israeli general was heard to say that the idea of Israel attacking Syria 'was nuts'. During the war, Israeli did bomb supply routes from Syria-- but they were careful to do so only on the Lebanese side of the border...in one case they took out a bridge that crossed the border-- hitting it on the Lebanese side. Both Israel and Syria have been making agressive statements against each other-- but bothhave actually gone out of their way to avoid a war with each other...the reality is that neither Syria nor Israel want a fight at this point-- both know they would both suffer very heavy losses).

The real focus should be on how to achieve peace-- rather than bashing the Arabs or the bashing Jews (anti-semitism thinly disguised by calling it 'anti-Zionism').

In terms of Israel taking care ofthe inhabitants of the occupied territories-- many people aren't aware of it, but for years the Palis recieved the #1 highest amount of aid from the UN and other countries--, per capita, --of any entity in the world! Much more in fact, than those countries where you see pictures of starving Africans.

However, most of the aid to the Palis ended up in the pockets of a greedy few.

[And this is the case in many other parts of the world as well-- I believe the only reason the atrocities continue in places such as Darfur for example, is that certain vested interests want the conflict to continue...]

I agree.

The real focus should be on how to achieve peace-- rather than bashing the Arabs or the bashing Jews (anti-semitism thinly disguised by calling it 'anti-Zionism')

I agree.

I think the stupid squabbles between the people are up played to keep tension between people who should really be coming together. This is why in America your race is still very much emphasized. It keeps people polarized and occupied, that way they make off with all the loot and we've all been screwed.

Also, I asked you this question: if the Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazars, what are they?

Evil scheming neo-cons? (is that the answer you are looking for?)

Keld, I will refer you to the part that's in giant red letters:

Regarding the Holocaust Museum, I cannot help but comment:

THE HOLOCAUST MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED — IF —

1. If the Zionist leadership in Germany had not cooperated with the Nazis. 2. If the Zionists, world-wide, had not persuaded various countries to refuse to accept Jews from Germany. The Zionists in America persuaded President Roosevelt to shut the door and not allow Jewish refugees into America before the war when there was still a chance for Jews to leave Germany.

* It must be added that many people, including Jews, question whether the Holocaust happened as portrayed by the Zionist propagandists — at least not to the extent the Zionist claim.

Thank you, Brian. That was exactly what I was referring too. I'm sorry, Keld, I didn't respond quickly, I have these neat things called exams coming up.

Regarding the origin of Ashkenazim, Wikipedia says:

Efforts to identify the origins of Ashkenazi Jews through DNA analysis began in the 1990s. Like most DNA studies of human migration patterns, these studies have focused on two segments of the human genome, the Y chromosome (inherited only by males), and the mitochondrial genome (DNA which passes from mother to child). Both segments are unaffected by recombination. Thus, they provide an indicator of paternal and maternal origins, respectively.

A study of haplotypes of the Y chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al[13] found that the Y chromosome of some Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East.

The first research on Ashkenazi maternal ancestry was less conclusive. A 2002 study by Goldstein et al[14] found that "the women's origins cannot be genetically determined", but that "his own speculation" was that "most Jewish communities were formed by unions between Jewish men and local women."

More recent research indicates that a significant portion of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is also of Middle Eastern origin. A 2006 study by Behar et al[1], based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women. These four "founder lineages" were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE. According to the authors, "The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population."

Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure. Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only four women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.[1][15][16]

And regarding the Khazars:

According to Bernard Lewis:

This theory… is supported by no evidence whatsoever. It has long since been abandoned by all serious scholars in the field, including those in Arab countries, where the Khazar theory is little used except in occasional political polemics.

Additionally, you and Mr. Bernstein are making the affirmative claim that Ashkenazi Jews descended from Khazars. The burden of proof resides on you to prove that assertion using reputable sources (i.e. no Christian identity groups or Neo-Nazi sites).

Perhaps the discussion is taking a slightly different direction than I had intended. To me it's not very important whether the Ashkenazi Jews come from Eastern Europe or the Middle East

If Mr. Bernstein is going to make a few very false, very offensive claims, then that discounts the rest of his points, even if they may be valid.

the class system in Israel. Bernstein, and many others, claim that Sephardic Jews, Arabs, Christians don't have the same rights to housing, work, etc. as the Ashkenazi Jews do. That's what I find most important.

I realize that often there has been a double standard in treatment of rich/poor, which would often correlate to Ashkenazi/Sephardic (or Mizrahi). For example, in the 1950s, millions of Jews were moving to Israel, often from underdeveloped Arab countries where they were being mistreated. These people obviously had to be put somewhere. Israel put many of them in homes built/owned by Palestinians who were no longer living there - they had fled, died or whatever. (The morality of this is the topic of another discussion) After these were full, the new immigrants who couldn't afford to buy their own housing (W. European or American Jews probably could buy housing on the free market, as dollars were worth a lot, as opposed to Yemenite currency) were placed into essentially DP camps, until they were put into development towns such as Dimona, Yerucham, Eilat or Sderot, all in the Negev. These towns are still in bad shape (I was there. Mr. Bernstein's claim that tourists aren't allowed to see these areas is false. I worked in a Dimona soup kitchen one day, I volunteered in an old age home in Yerucham one day, and that's significantly different than just touring Rabin Square or the Western Wall.) but Israel is working to improve them.

Was this Israeli plan optimal? No. Is there a much better solution for a nation that was surrounded by enemies and fairly poor (US aid hadn't started yet)? No.

Thank you for the plug, Keld. I've studied the Holocaust as a part of History through my B.A. degree and once in-depth for a project in high school but I am interested in looking much closer at it through this discussion and, hopefully, learning some things as I compose my own posts as well as reading those by others.

Colour scheme? That's differentiation based on citizenship, not race. Israeli citizens, Arab or Jewish have blue. Palestinians have orange. That's just like US citizens having different passports than US Permanent Residents. Wikipedia: Teudat Zehut (ID card)

Also, note that the as of 2005, Israel has stopped identifying people based on ethnicity. Jews (by Orthodox standards) have an extra identifier, but a White Christian Israeli citizen would be identified no differently than an Israeli Arab Muslim.

So note that, yes, the previous situation with ethnicity noted on the ID card provided a method for racial profiling. And probably, Arabs were racially profiled against. And that (the racial profiling) is wrong. However, consider the American (and probably Danish) police identification of suspected criminals:

Is it wrong to say "The perpetrator was a black male about 160 cm tall"? I don't think so. It aids in identification of criminals. However, it also perpetuates the myth of race. An equilibtium must be drawn, you know?

I was curious INH, how does a white Christian become an Israeli citizen?

I was curious INH, how does a white Christian become an Israeli citizen?

By naturalization

According to the Israeli MFA:

Acquisition of Nationality by Naturalization

Adults may acquire Israeli citizenship by naturalization at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior and subject to a number of requirements, such as:

1. they must have resided in Israel for three years out of the five years preceding the day of submission of the application.

2. they are entitled to reside in Israel permanently and have settled or intend to settle in Israel;

3. they have renounced their prior nationality, or have proved that they will cease to be foreign nationals upon becoming Israeli citizens.

The Minister of the Interior may exempt an applicant from some of these requirements.

Do you believe the Minister of the Interior would allow white Christians to be dual citizens of Israel and the United States or that they would have to give up their U.S. citizenship to obtain Israeli citizenship? Also, once one becomes a citizen of Israel, do they need to do mandatory military service?

Do you believe the Minister of the Interior would allow white Christians to be dual citizens of Israel and the United States or that they would have to give up their U.S. citizenship to obtain Israeli citizenship? Also, once one becomes a citizen of Israel, do they need to do mandatory military service?

1- Yes. In fact I have known Christians who have had dual citizenship.
2- They do not have to give up US citizenship--dual citizenship is allowed by both countries (there are other countries who allow their nationals to have dual citizenship-- I believe its not that rare)
3-Not sure. It used to be that the draft only applies to Jews and the Druze-- others are exempt but may volunteer.

3-Not sure. It used to be that the draft only applies to Jews and the Druze-- others are exempt but may volunteer.

The way I've heard that phrased is that the draft applies to all non-Arab citizens of Israel, who may serve if they wish. Druze are required to serve, according to the wishes of their community.

I assume that a Christian US/Israeli citizen would be required to serve, if they were of the correct age (18 to about 24). However, US/Israeli dual citizens have the option to defer their service for 8 years or so, at which point the IDF rarely wants them, so they don't end up serving.

Your contemptuous attitude for "greedy" Muslims is no more acceptable than the same attitude applied to Jews, and doesn't help this conversation advance. The situation is far more complex than us vs. them, Jews vs. Muslims.

while the greedy Muslims

The Arab people, who are majority muslim, are also Semites. I guess that makes you an anti-semite

Anti-Semitism means prejudice against Jews. Please, shiki, don't go off on semantic tangents, it's a waste of time.

You can't around redefining things to fit your argument. Read any English dictionary, and the definition given for "anti-Semitism" will have to do with Jews, not any speaker of a language which is a member of the Semitic language group.

The etymology of a word does not cause its definition. For example, a senator does not have to be old, although the root of "Senator" is "Senex" meaning "old guy" in Latin.

Insert

It was only a few months ago that Keld linked to a site that claimed that Zyklon B was a disinfectant in the camps.

Attila,
we shouldn't be spending money on a stronghold in that part of the world. that part of the world, and their conflicts are not our business. It's another case of us meddling in affairs that aren't ours.

And you're right, it doesn't exist because of the Evangelical view on Israel, but it plays a part in our foreign policy with them today. I know Evangelicals and I have heard this view 1000 times, that Israel has to be in place in order for the Apocalypse to take place. I didn't feed that conspiracy theory, or buy into it, i acknowledge it. It's the psycho-Christians who buy into it. It's called "hidden-agenda" and it's fueled by the likes of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (may his soul burn forever in torment). And the mindless mass of sheep and the hollow politicians are more than ready to crush this nation for the sake of Israel. That is treason.

It was only a few months ago that Keld linked to a site that claimed that Zyklon B was a disinfectant in the camps.

What's wrong with disinfecting once in a while?

Which tells you all you ever need to know about Keld.

What's wrong with disinfecting once in a while?

Which by that I take it you mean what's wrong with exterminating millions of Jews once in a while. Try spinning any way you want to but that it is one of the most repulsive and blatantly racist thing I have read on Newsvine.

You can't around redefining things to fit your argument. Read any English dictionary, and the definition given for "anti-Semitism" will have to do with Jews, not any speaker of a language which is a member of the Semitic language group.

I didn't just go around redefining anything. First of all, English is a living language, as such it changes with use. Although it is not the popular usage of the word it has been argued that the word should also be expanded to encompass anti-arab sentiment as well. Jews are not the only descendants of Shem.

I think you're the one playing semantics, two posts addressing my using a word in a way that you don't like.

You are wrong shiki.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-semitism:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
an·ti-Sem·i·tism /ˌæntiˈsɛmɪˌtɪzəm, ˌæntaɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-tee-sem-i-tiz-uhm, an-tahy-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews. [Origin: 1880–85]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
an·ti-Sem·i·tism (ān'tē-sěm'ĭ-tĭz'əm, ān'tī-)
n.

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism. 2. Discrimination against Jews.

(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
anti-Semitism 1881, from Ger. Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr in 1880, from anti- + Semite (q.v.). Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
anti-semitism

noun the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
anti-Semitism [(an-tee-sem-uh-tiz-uhm, an-teye-sem-uh-tiz-uhm)]

Prejudice or hatred against Jews, a Semitic race. (See Arab-Israeli conflict and Nazis.)

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

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jews. While the term's etymology may imply that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, it is in practice used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group.[1][2]

There is no ambiguity in those definitions whatsoever, and wikipedia pages certainly go with the flow of evolving definitions. Etymologically it is not restricted to prejudice against Jews, but that has nothing to do with current definitions and usage, and the word was originally coined in German to refer specifically to prejudice against Jews. While I draw the line of what constitutes anti-Semitism in a different place than a group like the Anti-Defamation League would, clearly anti-Semitism refers to prejudice against Jews (the concept of "new anti-Semitism" in that wikipedia page is one I reject outright).

In his next book, "The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism", published in 1880, Marr developed his ideas further and coined the related German word Antisemitismus - antisemitism.

The book became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Antisemites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews, and advocating their forced removal from the country.

So Brian you pick and choose what parts of the Wikipedia article that go with what you're saying and reject the parts that don't match up with your opinion.

Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882).

Almost always. Why the attempt too keep the word only for Jews?
The word has been around for just over a century, it is brand new in the world of words, and can and will evolve whether you like it or not.

In recent decades some groups have argued that the term should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs or Anti-Arabism[citation needed], in the context of answering accusations of Arab antisemitism; further, some, including the Islamic Association of Palestine, have argued that this implies that Arabs cannot, by definition, be antisemitic.[citation needed] The argument runs that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, "anti-Semitism" should be likewise inclusive. However, this usage is not generally accepted.

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

Not generally accepted and not accepted are two different things.

Trying to shift the meaning of anti-semitism away from its original meaning is really trying to make it harder for Jews to call out those who seek to oppress them. Saying someone is "Judaeophobic" doesn't carry the same stigma as "anti-Semite" and is therefore less powerful as a deterrent.

All this really is is an attempt to cover up "anti-Jewish anti-Semitism" by arguing along this tangent every time the word is used. Argue the content, not the semantics.

There was that one note that it isn't etymologically required to refer to only Jews, but all the actual definitions (since that was not actually a definition) define it as referring only to the Jews. Oh, you mean just the wiki page, not dictionary.com. I am unsurprised that there is a group of Arabs who wish to declare themselves categorically incapable of being anti-Semitic, but you will not that there is that [citation needed] on that part. It can't be attributed to anything reputable. As opposed to the opening sentences I posted with multiple citations, and the actual history of the words, and it's current definitions from multiple dictionaries. Take your pick. One position is strong, the other is weak. If you pick the weak one, you should explain why.

I don't think that labeling anyone who criticizes Israel or her actions an "anti-semite" is really helping the cause. It actually trivializes the term. Using the term to stigmatize people who do not agree with you is very manipulative. The deterrent is really codename for censor in this instance. The fact is you don't own the word.

Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882).

almost always, not always. It is a young word. Like I said language evolves.

I don't label people who criticize Israel anti-Semitic. I frequently criticize Israel myself.

No, I don't "own" the definition of anti-Semitism, but every dictionary definition I posted above says that it's prejudice against the Jews. I don't own the definition of apple either, or abstract expressionism, or feminism, or any other word, but if we had a conversation where I attempted to define apple as pear, abstract expressionism as realism, or feminism as anti-woman we wouldn't get too far in our discussion.

An apple and a pear are both fruit. Now if apple decided that now only it is a fruit and the rest of the fruit can just go screw themselves, that would be different. To me the term anti-Semite encompasses both judaeophobia and islamophobia.

To me that we are arguing over whether I'm using a word properly or in a way that YOU agree with is stupid.

Shiki,
that tactic is to divert from a failed argument. don't expect too much from the Simple

Right... the way that I and all four of the dictionary definitions from dictionary.com define it. That is definitely an unreasonable standard.

To me Israel means both Israel, and Iran. Hence, Iran can never threaten Israel, and Israel can never threaten Iran. Case closed.

;P

what? that's like saying black people can't be racist when we know damn well they can.

Aunk would most likely disagree with that statement.

Sorry, my redefining Israel to mean something it doesn't was just an example to show how frustrating it is to see anti-Semitism redefined in the same way.

Anti-Semitism means prejudice against Jews. Please, shiki, don't go off on semantic tangents, it's a waste of time.

It is really off topic. (Just for the record I myself am anti-semantic 8-)

I don't label people who criticize Israel anti-Semitic.

That would seem to be obvious. Israel is a democracy and as such Israelis often criticize their own government. (read some of the speeches of the more radical Arab representatives elected to their congress)

However there are people in the world who are genuinely anti-semitic-- who hate Jews-- but who can't say that in some circles because it is politically incorrect to be a bigot. So, instead, they use words like 'zionist'-- pretending that they only dislike Israel-- not Jews in general.

How can you tell the difference between someone who is legitimately criticizing Israel-- and someone who is using that as a subtle way to express their anti-semitism? (I won't mention names).

Think about it a moment.

If someone claims to be really concerned with oppressed peoples-- and constantly talks only about the Palestinians-- but never seems to mention atrocities in Darfur-- or Zimbabwe-- Cuba-- or the Congo-- or Myanmar-- if they are obsessed with Israel-- or nitpicking minor aspects of Jewish history-- but never mention anything else-- there's a good chance they are basically anti-semitic...and pretending they only dislike Israel. but aren't really bigoted vs Jews... If ya catch my drift.. .

An apple and a pear are both fruit. Now if apple decided that now only it is a fruit and the rest of the fruit can just go screw themselves, that would be different. To me the term anti-Semite encompasses both judaeophobia and islamophobia.

To me that we are arguing over whether I'm using a word properly or in a way that YOU agree with is stupid.

Its really merely a question of generally accepted usage. When you say 'anti-semitic'--what do most people think it means? If you start trying to use words in a manner that is inconsistent with common usage-- communication tends to break down-- or slow down if you need to explain how you personally use various words.

Yes technically speaking, Arabs are also Semitic peoples--but the generally accepted usage of the word anti-semitic does not refer to Arabs.

(If you really want to split hairs, the term semitic refers to a lingusitic group-- not a racial or ethnic group. It refers to speakers of Semitic languages-- Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke-- now almost defunct)--a few others such as ,Amharic,Phoenician etc -- the exact definitions can be confusing and there is disagreement about the correct usage of the term 'semitic'---but the meaning of the term antisemitic in common usage is understood to mean Jews-- thats how its evolved)

That would seem to be obvious. Israel is a democracy and as such Israelis often criticize their own government.

It is not obvious though. See this wikipedia section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#New_antisemitism

New antisemitism

Main article: New antisemitism

In recent years some scholars have advanced the concept of New antisemitism, coming simultaneously from the left, the far right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to the creation of a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel,[4] and argue that the language of Anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are used to attack the Jews more broadly. In this view, the proponents of the new concept believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to antisemitism. The concept has been criticized by those who argue it is used to stifle debate and deflect attention from legitimate criticism of the State of Israel, and, by associating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, is intended to taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies.

For an example, look at Avi Bublick's post up above where he seems completely incapable of separating the two concepts and may not realize that they are actually two separate concepts.

THat the bottom line People on the newvine need to combat Anti- Semetic and ANTI- jEWISH hATERS. onLY a handfull of people here stick up for israel while all the outhers condone and call out israel.

Notice the segue from Jewish to Israel? The problem isn't one sided.

Why should the US decide how to "even out" the situation inside of Israel?

How does providing oil to Israel hurt Lebanese, Syrians or Palestinians? Lots of Israel's oil is sold to the Palestinians. (Who often use Israeli oil and electricity to make rockets with which to kill Israelis)

Lebanon and Syria are at no risk of having their oil supplies cut off, and supply less of a benefit to the U.S. than Israel does.

"Lots of Israel's oil is sold to the Palestinians. (Who often use Israeli oil and electricity to make rockets with which to kill Israelis)"

they knowingly do that and then come crying to us when the explosions happen so we can dump more of our budget into their safety. Providing resources to an enemy so they can attack you and you can turn around and reap more benefits is an American tactic. (and I am speaking of their government, not their innocent civilians who die in this sick and twisted game. Like our public, there are no benefits for them.)

Mars, then why would Israel try to cut off oil and electricity to Gaza (with the exception of those products being used for humanitarian purposes)? Why would they give up such a pot o' gold?

Besides, do you have any proof for that accusation? (The accusation that Israel provides oil and electricity to Gaza with the express purpose of allowing rocket attacks). I won't believe it until I see proof. Put up, or shut up.

Insert, you're like the Bill-O of this thread. I'm starting to like you. "Put up or shut up" as if I really have to do either. I'm not here as a journalist, I'm here to state my opinion as an American citizen. I can say whatever I want, as can you. I haven't seen you cite one single tid-bit of priceless information (opinion) that you have provided. At least I acknowledge my statements as my own personal opinions, be they right or wrong, it is what I believe and you have yet to prove me wrong.

I don't have proof that they do it intentionally, and I don't think they do it intentionally. Do you have proof that they don't do it intentionally? Are they just too simple to understand the logistics of it all?

I think that they are so dependent on us that they don't care one way or the other. If the rockets come, call Uncle Sam.... if not, they still get the profits. Governments have a way of putting themselves in a win-win-situation at the expense of their own people and neighbors. Precious Israel is no different. They are just as corrupt as our government is, don't fool yourself.

You cannot make a factual assertion and then call it just a personal opinion. That's a cop out. Facts are about the outside universe and can be confirmed or disproved. You don't have to be here as a journalist, just be willing to back up your statements, or admit that you can't and consider that maybe you were incorrect.

If you want me to prove any fact, tell me. I'll do it. I'm not going to cite enerything I say, because that would simply take too long. I'll prove any fact on demand, or admit I'm wrong. I expect the same from you.

it is what I believe and you have yet to prove me wrong.

Logically, the burden of proof resides on the person arguing the affirmative. In other words, you have to prove yourself right, it's not my duty to prove you wrong.

YOU said they sell them fuel, and YOU said that fuel is used to attack Israel. They know who they sell it to, and what it is being used for. I'm going off your statements man. If they know who is attacking them, and they are selling them the fuel, then they are knowingly selling fuel to people who attack them.

"Lots of Israel's oil is sold to the Palestinians. (Who often use Israeli oil and electricity to make rockets with which to kill Israelis)"

So unless this is information that you have that Israel doesn't, I don't see a need for ME to prove anything. As far as them doing it knowingly, show me how they are not. They know what the Palestinians are doing, yet they sell to them, am I wrong?

Israel is now cutting off the sale of fuel to Gaza to stop the rockets. It is only selling oil to Gaza for "essential needs" - no matter what happens in Gaza. That is just like what the US would do for Israel - no matter what.

What needs to be done is, we should rethink our policy in the ME, we should re-evaluate our ties with Israel, and we should see what are getting for this sizable support that we give them

What is this "we and our" talk. According to your page you are in Iran. That might tend to color your views.

What is this "we and our" talk. According to your page you are in Iran. That might tend to color your views.

You serious? I havent filled anything in my bio? WHere di you get the Iran thing from?

When i mention us i mean , the Untied States of America.

p.s.

Comment on my views and arguments. not my ethnicity.

Thank you for bringing up the Evangelical issue Manan. I firmly believe this plays a more significant role in our Israeli policy than it should. As a nation we should be outraged by this and demand more of Israel. They'll understand us wanting to get our profits out of this situation.

What is this "we and our" talk. According to your page you are in Iran. That might tend to color your views.

This is so rude. Is someone in Iran's view any more biased that someone in Israel? All our views are biased towards our own experience and being. Why try to put a gag on free speech?

i think he didnt realise i am an american, lol, how he figured i am from iran ROFL ... i have no f**g clue...

Looks like a good analogy, until you look closer.

As unjust as our theft of Indian land was, we did it all by ourselves. The whole world helped Israel steal Palestine from the Palestinians. If say, China had been helping us beat the Native Americans up ever since it happened even though we're fully capable of beating them up nicely all by ourselves, that would also strengthen the analogy. That hasn't happened either. If the Native Americans were being treated the way the Palestinians are, you'd have another chance to have a point. If there was the kind of world destabilizing violence going on in Texas between us and Palestine you'd have another one. Neither thing is the case.

Just won't fly.

Prospero1,
Not trying to argue that its perfect or conclusive analogy, just that its an interesting one to contemplate, as it places us (usa citizens) as the occupiers, and asks how we would react to violent rebellions against us. I do think its a bit better an analogy than you give credit for. I don't know my history that well, but I don't think we did it quite by "ourselves" , since there were at least a few other European countries in North and Sourth America taking land from Native Americans as well. Also, I don't see how "doing it ourselves" makes it any better...if anything it would give us full responsibility for righting the situation. I agree that the Native Americans are not (currently) being treated the way the Palestinians are. And I'm not Native American, so not really equipped to argue their side that forcefully, or even know what it would be. But as far as I can tell, as a people (peoples) they are currently confined to small patches of resource-poor (except casinos) land with very little power and autonomy, and relative to the wider society they have a whole lot of poverty and social problems. But this issue of treatment is just where the analogy gets interesting, and the outcome uncertain. What if Native Americans in the US got together, and said - "Hey, we got scr*d, and now we've decided we want a Federation of Native America, and we want all of California for it." Well, they'd get nowhere pretty quick by any official route. Now what if some of them decided they had a right to pursue their goal of a true, independent, autonomous state, and justification to pursue it violently, say by suicide bombings? Well, I think they would start getting treated as badly as the Palestinians, and probably worse, pretty darn quick. And many of those sympathetic to their initial complaint would probably become a lot less sympathetic if some of their family members got killed. And finally, I agree with you there would be no world destabilizing violence, because the United States government would suppress the situation, and at this point it is not in a position to be destabilized by such an uprising - if it were vulnerable, then indeed the world would be destabilized. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a world destabilizing situation partly because Israel has not had the will (thankfully, or maybe the power, I don't think thats it though) to engage in the most extreme measures. (Also, I think that conflict is so destabilizing in part because it is a proxy for broader conflicts, but that's a different subject). And the uprising there is willing to engage in violent measures on a fairly large scale. In places where occupation and subjugation are total and/or there is no prolonged violent rebellion, there is often "stability". Tibet is not exacly a world-destabilizing situation either, but it could become one rapidly I would think, if anyone had the b**s to call China on it in a serious way, or if the Dalai Lama called for an armed uprising (unlikely, I know). Anyway, you are free to poke new holes, I'm not that attached...basically I think its useful to "wear the other shoe", test out one's ideas for consistency, and this analogy is one way to do it. And lest I be misunderstood, I do think there should be an independent Palestinian state, and I am not advocating a fully autonomous Native American State (although if they demanded one and didn't blow up anybody I knew, I'd be tempted).

PS - Bandit, if you're asking me about a memorandum of understanding, you'll have to make your point clearer for me to respond, I'm not understanding your memo.

The whole world helped Israel steal Palestine from the Palestinians

Not exactly. The whole group of allies who won World War I divided up the Ottoman Empire into dozens of separate countries.

Israel has the same right to exist as any other country - namely that they can fight off their neighbors. That is all it takes, and that is all that defines a nation.

In the cases of the US and Israel, they have more weapons and more innocent civilians dead from aggressive use of those than any terrorist groups in history.

yea,riiiigggghhhhtttt.

It is right space guy. Terrorists suck at mass death. Militaries excel at it. Of course the same thing could be said about most countries. It would be a pretty paltry, or extremely pacifistic, country that hadn't killed more civilians than a terrorist group. Maybe Lichtenstein or some place like that.

I think that the analogy is correct. USA is responsible for the largest genocide in the world. We laid waste to the American Indians. The nation was built on the backs of slaves and indentured servants and many atrocities. That the American Indians live the way they do right now is an enduring shame.

Even now many Hawaiians are demanding the US end their unlawful occupation.

side note: Prospero I'm part blackfoot too:)

Prospero, I appreciate your response.
There are some things you said that I disagree with. I am not persuaded that the fault (original or ongoing) here is so one-sided as you describe, and even more I am not persuaded that coming to the 'correct' conclusion about that is truly the essential key to peace. I think the essential key to peace is realizing that both sides have populations that are fully persuaded of incompatible views on the relevant history, justifications etc, and that both sides have a (I think) larger population that would like to move away from that polarizing argument toward a future without so much killing. I think violence is inherently polarizing, and that those who pursue violence have an excellent chance of getting it returned, which is unfortunately what some on both sides would rather have than give up some of what they think they deserve. The current approach on both sides gives the bulk of the power to the minority that is eager to pursue violence. Despite what I assume is your disagreement about some or most of that, I do agree we are not that far apart, I never thought we were. I think its true that Jews and Arabs, and in fact pretty much everyone is more similar than they are different, and that is an unbelievably important truth that violence tends to blind people to. I echo your prayer, and your optimism. Believing peace is impossible is probably the greatest barrier to peace.

Thanks Dan. I think it's important for people like me to remember what you said. The Palestinians know how to behave badly too. When I see what looks to me like something so overwhelmingly unfair, it's easy for me to forget that these things are never totally black and white.

Here's to the future. May it be better for everyone.

I think the essential key to peace is realizing that both sides have populations that are fully persuaded of incompatible views on the relevant history, justifications etc, and that both sides have a (I think) larger population that would like to move away from that polarizing argument toward a future without so much killing. I think violence is inherently polarizing, and that those who pursue violence have an excellent chance of getting it returned,

I think you've made an excellent point. There have been, from time to time attempts at settlement-- Clinton tried it, now Condi is. However everytime a suicide bomber attacks the Israelis respond withmore violence. And-- vice-versa. This really hardens positions-- on both sides. The only way that an approach to peace can even begin-- is to have both sides end all violent acts. That is a necessary first step.

Both sides do have to stop their respective terrorist campaigns on each other. I think the United States promising to butt out is equally important. To find a way to make sure Israel understands we will no longer be helping them oppress the Palestinians, or steal territory from anyone else. Then to make sure the rest of the middle east believes we are going to do everything possible to regain the honest broker status we had, once upon a time. Meaning no more playing favorites, and no more imperialistic wars to enable the theft of someone else's oil. It will take a while to convince them both. But it's very doable, and boy is it ever high time.

Here's a totally radical idea: How about we come home, start taking care of our own country, and let the countries involved settle it themselves?

Don't anybody tell me I haven't got an endless supply of revolutionary ideas.

Unfortunately, I think if peace depends on both sides stopping all violent acts, then there can never be peace, as there will always be at least a small minority seeking to stop the peace process and its inevitable compromises who are willing to engage in violence. I think the key is for the majorities that want to move on to explicitly recognize this cycle of violence-induced polarization, realize that the minorities pursuing violence are doing so at least in part with the express purpose of increasing this polarization...and insist on moving ahead with peace negotiations even in the face of violence. The actions of violent factions uninterested in peace must no longer be used as an excuse to stop or postpone peace negotiations...this gives the violent minorities a veto over progress, that veto power must be taken away.

Unfortunately Dan, I think you're right. The only way these two groups will get along is if a superior power compels them to. And I'm not sure that would even work.

I did not see Bandit's post that was deleted. I did see the one about disinfectant and I thought it was completely tasteless. I guess as a non-jew I'm less sensitive to such language, but being a black american I do know what it's like to see certain language and know that it is beyond @!$%#ed up. I think this thread is filthy with CoH violations from several people.

I think the labeling of everything that is critical of Israel or Israeli is antisemetic is bull@!$%#. Jewish people/ culture and Israel are not the same thing. I think that it intentionally muddies the water when people try to lump the two together. Many Jews do not support Israels actions either.

Yes, I read your later post Keld. The notion that the primary use of Zyklon-B was for delousing of clothes is ridiculous, therefore, I must believe that you were referring to Jews and the killing of them. I do not believe you have completed a study of relevant historical sources if you think that Zyklon-B saved the lives of Jews. Perhaps it extended the lives of Jews if it was used for delousing but they were executed.

That isn't Zionist propaganda, Keld. It is what happened. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pictures taken by Allied servicemen that liberated concentration camps showing the dead bodies, showing the malnourished inmates and showing the chambers that they were killed & incinerated in. It is perhaps the greatest killing of one ethnicity in history. Are you telling me you don't believe in the Holocaust? Are you telling me that the Allied servicemen that took those pictures are all lying? What exactly are you telling me, Keld?

6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. The method of death for many, perhaps not a majority but a large percentage, were killed by systematic gassing. You were unhappy with the numbers being incorrect? The page at Auschwitz says that 1.1-1.5 million Jews were killed there and the majority of those was gassing because Auschwitz was build specifically with the idea of killing people in mind. The Nazis practiced on mentally handicapped Germans before they did it to the Jews.

6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. The method of death for many, perhaps not a majority but a large percentage, were killed by systematic gassing. You were unhappy with the numbers being incorrect? The page at Auschwitz says that 1.1-1.5 million Jews were killed there and the majority of those was gassing because Auschwitz was build specifically with the idea of killing people in mind. The Nazis practiced on mentally handicapped Germans before they did it to the Jews.

It seems pretty obvious that Keld knows that he can't get away with denying that the Holocaust occurred-- so he is trying to find ways to minimize it.

Whether Zyklon-B "saved" the lives of Jews or "extended" their lives is an academic discussion

Actually its not. Its an established fact-- the gas was used to murder them.

Keld, when you say that Zyklon-B was used as a disinfectant and don't mention its primary use, by leaving it out, you discount it and imply that it didn't happen.

Consider the following example: If I said that Palestinians were to blame for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you'd jump on me for it. I could try to weasel my way out of by saying that "Well, the Israelis are to blame, too" and wouldn't technically be lying. However, my original statement still carries the implication that the Israelis were not to blame.

Keld, when you say that Zyklon-B was used as a disinfectant and don't mention its primary use, by leaving it out, you discount it and imply that it didn't happen.

He knows exactly what he's implying. Hopefully, other people realize it too.

Keld,

Here is the article I have posted for the discussion of The Holocaust:
http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/2007/11/09/1086252-holocaust-cybrary-remembering-the-stories-of-the-survivors-rememberorg

Everyone from this thread is hereby invited to discuss The Holocaust there. I am off to make the first post to set the tone and then Keld can post. Others can join in from there.

Bandit....It never ceases to astound me that the proprietors of this site enable antisemitism. Perhaps MSNBC will take a different outlook on it. Perhaps not.

Reply#21 - Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:21 PM EST

Pamela Drew

Bandit...It never ceases to astound me that the proprietors of this site enable antisemitism. Perhaps MSNBC will take a different outlook on it. Perhaps not.

The site does not enable anything but open discussion and the list of views that are distasteful or objectionable to any set of users spans the full spectrum expressed. There is no moral high ground when users defend the idea of nuking Iran because the "same kind" as the 9/11 terrorists live in that country.

That's stupidity and bigotry and much as the staff might hope it vanishes from discussions, it is here in every form. That said, there is a separate issue of what constitutes antisemitism and what is fair criticism of political policy.

You seem to confuse the criticism of a government with hatred for followers of a religion....etc

But clearly you don't want to talk about the view Bandit, because you could have returned to my reply and picked up a point. Instead you travel farther down and spice things up with false charges once again. Keep that stuff up and people will start to wonder if you and Ardith are twins or something. Don't want folks thinking that now do we, lil doggie.

Bandit...The proprietors of this site defend the use of the site to spread antisemitic propaganda seeded from known antisemitic sites. I can only conclude that they view antisemitism not only as not a violation of their terms of use or Code of Honor, but also as newsworthy. Perhaps MSNBC will take a different view. Perhaps not.

#25.1 - Tue Nov 6, 2007 6:02 PM EST

It's great to have an alternate view or opposing beliefs if you discuss. If pasting the same thing is all you've got, maybe you need to start reading and think a bit about composing original replies with merit not whining.

You're welcome. Could you address your "Zionist propaganda" comment and tell us all what you actually believe happened during the Holocaust? I hate to trouble you but it seems you engaged in a semantic argument with me on grounds you knew you could win on so you could appear to be right.

P.S. - You seem less a wondering Dane and more a Dane convinced of what he believes far in advance.

You're welcome. Could you address your "Zionist propaganda" comment and tell us all what you actually believe happened during the Holocaust? I hate to trouble you but it seems you engaged in a semantic argument with me on grounds you knew you could win on so you could appear to be right.

P.S. - You seem less a wondering Dane and more a Dane convinced of what he believes far in advance.

Very good idea.

It seems that anytime someone makes a statement about what happened during the Holocaust he says it isn't so-- but so far has not presented his opinions re what actually happened. I too would be curious to know what he believes actually happened.

I wasn't aware that the EU has prosecutorial powers when it comes to individuals from member nations.

I will happily create a thread and send you and others the link with either a Holocaust official history or a Holocaust denial article so that we can properly discuss this. I'm honestly interested to know what you believe.

I would suspect that Germany's version of AIPAC is probably very busy, as well it should be. After the atrocity that the country of Germany unleashed more or less two generations ago, they certainly owe something to Israel IMO. Just as Germany has had to make amends with its fellow European states, it has had to make amends with the state of Israel that represents a good deal of what is left of the Jews that they tried to kill who are still alive today. Perhaps when the last Holocaust survivor dies I will conclude that Germany has paid its debt, but certainly not before then.

I will prepare an article, post it and alert you and others who are relevant from this thread to it.

Since Israel was a country established by many of the victims of the Holocaust and safehaven for many more victims of the Holocaust, I think it is at least right that Germany continue to service that debt until all Holocaust survivors are deceased. I believe that is the price that Germany can pay due to the fact that they made many, many future generations of Jews disappear. Assistance to those that remain from that time is right, IMO.

The benefits to the state of Israel are not monetary so much as they are diplomatic and international-relations influenced. For example, if the Iranian President goes on record in English translation as calling for the destruction of the state of Israel (or Zionism... I would say that Ahmedinjehad considers the destruction of the state of Israel necessary to destroy Zionism), Germany goes on record that they will not permit Iran to acquire military parity or first-strike capability on Israel. In this protection of the state in which those survivors live, they serve the survivors of the Holocaust. So while Germany has paid money in the past, offering support and protection for the state where most of the survivors of the Holocaust fled is something they can do to right the wrong that they created. They wrought destruction on Jews so, now, they provide protection and support to the Jewish state.

Something fishy here...

Dop you think it may be some sort of nefarious zionist conspiracy, perhaps?

A rose by any other name . . .

Claus:
It bothers me when anyone minimizes or denies the Holocaust because it makes it all the more plausible to happen again. I still haven't gotten a straight answer from Keld regarding what he believes about the Holocaust and I cannot debate someone that doesn't define their positions. Also, wouldn't you agree that minimizing or denying the Holocaust would indicate a serious bias against Jews that would have to be considered in light of anything else he says on the subject of Jews and Israel?

Scott:

Like I told you: I have clarified my position, but it bought me no favours. I have written articles out of my own volition, commemorating Holocaust, defending Israel's right to exist. Now I am on a hitlist, because I have criticized The Law of Return and other discriminatory legislation, and the policy of settlements, occupation, segregation, incarceration and retaliation. Look at the list of offenses - it is not derived from counter-terrorism efforts. It is a systematical, structural oppression, and it is today the only method of dealing with Palestinian dissidence, because it has been employed from the beginning and is too cost-expensive to revert.

Acknowledging Holocaust, acknowledging the UN resolution to form the Israeli state... all this is pointless, because I am still targeted, trolled, silenced, slandered and defamed.

So, I can sympathize with Keld's unwillingness to engage in dialogue on those terms.

Also, wouldn't you agree that minimizing or denying the Holocaust would indicate a serious bias against Jews that would have to be considered in light of anything else he says on the subject of Jews and Israel?

I agree that would be the mainstream interpretation of it, and as a matter of public diplomacy I cannot recommend taking that attitude. But I do not see it as a matter of "serious bias against Jews". It is a matter of weighing the options and seeing that no matter how many there are who expresses bias against Jews or criticism against Israel, there are infinitely more in the West who are seriously biased against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims, and unable to see the reality of the Nakba for all their own prejudices, bigotry and historical revisionism, exercised on a daily basis and to lethal effect against Palestinians.

To me, Keld Bach reminds me of Palestinians - disenfranchised, cornered and misunderstood, partially due to his own inability to compromise, and partially due to the fact that the opposite side treats any compromise as a weakness they can exploit to continue to deny you rights, continue to defame and debase you, and continue to roll their PR machine, the military machine and the financial machine over you, until you are blotted out from the pages of history.

To me, the Jewish Defense League controversy highlights just that unscrupulousness. I was educated about Holocaust in school. I have studied the subject of fascism, the Spanish Civil War, the Munich Agreement and the Second World War for years. I have listened to the tapes for hours based on transcripts from the Nürnberg Process. And I have publicly stated my position out of my own volition, and yet I am being targeted and vilified, because I am not silent about the injustice done to the indigenous Arab population of Israel.

So, you see, Scott. It is very difficult to be a friend to Israel, and what makes it difficult is the ferocity of her defenders. They are willing to paint me a Jew-hater in public and target me for what inevitably will amount to character assasination by a lynch mob of under-educated, over-zealous and dangerously opinionated thugs. What would happen if I really mattered in this game, and if I really was in a position to make a difference? What will it take, before the AIPAC and the JDL and their similars go all post-Munich on someone? Less and less, it seems, just as it takes less and less for someone to be considered a terrorist.

I can understand what bothers you. Do you have the faintest concept of what bothers me?

Clearly you're concerned that this list is going to amount to more than verbal attacks. I can't imagine that the state of Israel or a group associated with it such as AIPAC would resort to violence against people like you that criticize them. However, I can't speak to the motivations or possible future actions of the JDL just as I can't speak to possible actions by Islamists.

I consider violence a very unlikely outcome. Still, tensions are building, and what I do consider a probable outcome is some kind of global conflict, not because of a "clash of civilizations", but due to one simple little conflict about land in the Middle East that is connected to cultural, religous and political differences between people in large parts of the world. And that would affect us all. It would lead to a clash, where Muslims in Europe would be even further ostracized, and as an Asian I would likely become collateral damage.

But all this is not about political projections into the future, or about the paranoia of one individual. It is about principles. If JDL is willing to violate principles like this, calling a parliamentarian witch hunt against dissenters, what is the next step? What I detect is a radicalization, not only of Zionists, but also among Caucasians, partly over the issue of Islamic terrorism, partly over Obama's candidacy and the challenge it constitutes to the old concept of Caucasian supremacy, the "white Christian male power structure".

As Martin and I stated in the other thread: I will defend anybody who is innocent against accusations from any lobbyist group, and I will denounce systematic persecution - even if it is only by slander - in any disguise. It's the principle.

I don't quite get the caucasian connection you're making, Claus. The white power and Neo-Nazi movements are associated with Islamists, not with Jews. They're united by their hate of Jews. Neo-Nazis have been recruited in Europe to fight the IDF in the Intifada. Jews have long been the advocates of victims of white power movements like the fight for civil rights for blacks in the 1960's.

but due to one simple little conflict about land in the Middle East

But Claus-- do you honestly believe its only about one little piece of land in the mideast?

But Claus-- do you honestly believe its only about one little piece of land in the mideast?

In my opinion-- terrorism over land claims isn't limited to Israel-- in fact, the jihad is a worldwide phenomenon---- do you really believe that these events are all because of the "Zionists"?

Jihadis strike in Marocco ... Tunesia Jihad -Algeria...many westerners aren't aware of it-- but terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists occurs in many countries-- that have nothing to do with Israel..or Iraq..or U.S. policy (perhaps that's why many refuse to take a look at it).

Attack by Islamist terrorists at Luxor:

"In the mid-morning attack, terrorists from the Islamic Group and Jihad Talaat al-Fath ("Holy War of the Vanguard of the Conquest") massacred 63 people at the attraction. The six assailants were armed with automatic firearms and knives, and disguised as members of the security forces. They descended on the Temple of Hatshepsut at around 08:45. With the tourists trapped inside the temple, the killing went on systematically for 45 minutes. The dead included a five-year-old British child and four Japanese couples on their honeymoons.[3][4]

The attackers then hijacked a bus, but ran into a checkpoint of armed Egyptian tourist police and military forces. One of the terrorists was wounded in the shootout and the rest fled into the hills where their bodies were found in a cave, apparently having committed suicide together.[5]

Casualties

A total of 59 foreign tourists were killed: 36 Swiss, ten Japanese, six British, four Germans, one French, one Colombian, and a dual-national Bulgarian/British. Four Egyptians were killed, three of them police officers and one of them a tour guide. Twelve Swiss, two Japanese, two Germans, one French, and nine Egyptians were among the wounded."

This had nothing to do with that "tiny sliver of land"-- like the others, theywant to establish an Islamic government in Egypt...

What I just posted is only part of the terror in North Africa alone-- there's lots more! Then there's sub-Saharan Africa...Asia...Latin America...etc, etc

Its fashionable to blame Israel...or the US..but the fact is, there's a tremendous amount of this sort of thing going on (did you know that Islamic extremists are beheading Buddhist monks in Thailand?)

These are not isolated incidents-- they are part of a pattern that exists worldwide...I could list many, many more countrie..but there's really no point.