Opps....sorry...that was me, not Dan. I surely HAVE to get my own computer really really soon.
Lo

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited July 30, 2006).]

[quote]Originally posted by Kevin Andrew Murphy:
Innocent symbols can also get tainted by association with political causes. Happens all the time. If someone, for example, has his friend killed by people displaying the Star of David, what is he supposed to think?

I dunno....would you hate each and every guy who stops off at the corner tavern and has a drink after work before getting on the bus and heading home if your friend was killed by a drunk driver? Personally, if my son innocently happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got shot in a drive-by gang shooting, I'd be adult enough (and smart enough) to be angry at the shooter himself, not his entire race/religion/creed. On the same note, if the drunk driver who hit my friend was displaying a Knights of Columbus sticker on his bumper, I'd not be pissed at the organization...I'd be pissed at the driver.



As for comparing teenage gang fights to battles between nation states, I think many teenage gang fights have better logic and reasoning behind them.

Yep, better logic and reasoning always takes place through chemicals. Obviously, according to your reasoning, driving by in your car and killing someone walking down the street over wearing his hat at the wrong angle is somehow considered to be much more intelligent and reasonable than defending yourself from someone who's consistantly and constantly lobbing rockets at your home or crossing your borders and killing and/or kidnapping your soldiers in the dead of the night.

And what about those gang wars that are fought over "turf" - "that's the corner where we run our ho's and sell our drugs, you go find another corner or we'll kill you and your mama."

Turf and territory - again, apparently you find that reasonable and logical to fight over.....if you're a street gang - but not so reasonable and logical if you're a country who's constantly having its borders infringed upon and its citizens terrorized.

Life is so confusing. That's why I don't wear hats or leave the house anymore.

Lo

So if someone with Lebanese license plates waving a Hezbollah flag kidnaps your soldiers, the proper response is...?

It's good to know that you're more focused and morally superior than the state of Israel. Pity you're not in charge of it right now.



[This message has been edited by Kevin Andrew Murphy (edited July 30, 2006).]

I'm sick of the Middle East.

You have to be a diplomatic genius to

1) keep up to date with the latest round of violence and doubletalk,

2) properly integrate your understanding of the latest round of violence and doubletalk with previous rounds of violence and doubletalk, while

3) not offending diametrically opposed sides in the debate, thereby drawing charges of

4) anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-Arabism, pro-oilism, rabid Americanism, pro-capitalism, unilaterialism, plus a complex of other isms that, once hurled, are a bitch to get out in the wash.

And apparently it signals a lack of seriousness to lift up from the nuances of the latest round of violence and double talk to point out that

One, an alleged holy land for three of the world's great religions is consistently more randomly dangerous than Southeast Washington, East Oakland, certain fun bits of Chicago and Philly, Compton and the Bronx.

Two, Israel and Lebanon, plus a gaggle of other Middle Eastern countries have been serving up mayhem or threats of mayhem for multiple decades now, so that

Three, the television footage has long since taken to looking exactly the same (Middle East violence is practically a television genre--bad sound from voiceover reporters, dusty white buildings with pops of gunfire coming out of them, and bursts of dust for bombs, plus assorted R-rated carnage), which

Four, numbs the world to the actual suffering, and suggests that

Five, it's never going to end--all sides involved hate each other deeply, have a litany of egregious acts committed against them to fuel their hate, and

Six, no one's admitting they have blood on their hands (YES, THEY DO, and there isn't enough bandwidth in the universe to sort through it properly), and everyone knows it, plus

Seven, all the spokesmen involved talk about ideology and/or policy and/or agreements for lack thereof, when

Eight, the rest of the world has long since figured out it's about some intractable complex featuring real estate, oil, and hatred, which

Nine, leads to perpetual, tiresome, hope-draining ironies: when the words we want peace are uttered, what's meant is almost invariably we want to win.

Beirut isn't being bombed. It's being bombed again. Israel isn't under attack. It's under attack again. People are dying, and bullshit is flying all over the place again--the U.S. "isn't evacuating" Lebanon "in any way, shape, or form," the "legitimate" Lebanese government has a group of ideologues FIRING ROCKETS from their turf, and spin doctors on all sides have everybody in a huff over whether--in terms of terminology--it's possible to kidnap soldiers.

However it resolves or doesn't, it's a reasonable bet that the Middle East will be Same Shit, Different Day in 2016, as it was in '96, '86, '76, '66...

I'm sick of it.




[This message has been edited by Ethan Anderson (edited July 30, 2006).]

....to get your soldiers back, of course. Moot point, however, because just a few days ago you said that soldiers couldn't be kidnapped.

That was me, Lo, by the way, that made that post which kept showing up under Dan's name because I was too stupid to change screen names both times I tried to post it. Which is why I won't respond to the "too bad you're not in charge" statement. I'm presuming you want him in charge and not me. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

Although it IS a common enough fact that women are notoriously more focused and morally superiour than are most men. < grin >

Lo (who finally got focused enough to figure out her own password and to quit using Dan's instead - thereby making people believe he said what she said when she was actually the one who really said it even though it looks like he did)

Surely one of the main points of Kevin's post was that ALL national flags, and the repulsive exclusiveness they so often symbolise, are something we need to get beyond if we're going to consider our species civilised (in any meaningful sense of that word anyway).

Dan cannot - cannot - be in charge of the state of Israel until he and Lo get separate computers. It's confusing enough as is. I think everybody would accept that as a given, and if we can all agree on that small point, maybe it's a start.

Alternately, blame everything on Mark Allinson. He started the thread. The advantages of blaming things on Mark are (a) he's accustomed to it, and reasonably gracious, and (b) Mark has no means of retaliation, no flag, no religion, no weaponry and only a single zealot.

(I'm sorry guys. I wish I could say something deeper and more helpful, but those crazy bastards - all of them, and a pox on all their houses, but particularly the leaders - make me sick. Once again, the simple desire for peace and co-existence on the part of the majorities of all the peoples of the Middle East is destroyed by a few willful and clever acts by religious and hate-filled nut-cases, and we spiral into insanity. And what makes it worse this time is that my nation - compromised, incompetent, and morally corrupt - does not, can not, provide the leadership needed to find a way out. I can either make jokes, or weep in anger and frustration, and I generally end up doing both.)







[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited July 30, 2006).]

Life is a tragedy to those who feel but a comedy to those who think
Hugh Walpole 1717-1797

Michael, your concluding comment above is not facetious, it just reflects that saving grace which allows us to, somehow, to keep going in the face of, what is, just one more ludicous affront to civilisation.

Michael,
I have just woken up and heard the news on the radio. Your message made me cry for a second time this morning. I wish you ruled the world. Really I do. Thank you.
Janet

ALEXANDRIA - Dan Halberstein, Leader for Life of the (Con)Dominion of Danistan, has announced that he and the Lo Lo Rebellion, have come to a lasting peace.

"Lo (leader of the Lo Lo Rebels) recognizes my right to exist, based on my earning power and more endearing traits, of which she claims there are several," Halberstein said. "Lo's infrastructure needs have been addressed, and she enjoys an unequal but nevertheless benevolently dictated role in Dannish society."

"I got a new 'puter, I got a new 'puter," Lo said when asked to comment, moving her legs in what can only be described as "The Snoopy Dance."

Lo's desk will reside across a narrow cable-strewn valley from Dan's, in the area unofficially called East Danistan.

O.K., Michael. I admit it - it is all my fault.

And here I was wondering why I have been feeling a bit down lately, and there's the answer!

Actually, as far as the Erato involvement in the war is concerned, it is indeed my fault. As Henry says, it's like the instruction says on the fireworks - light blue touch paper and retire immediately. But I suppose someone would have started it if I hadn't.

I haven't had much to say on the thread because:

[1] I am no expert on the region.

[2] I have been keen to learn about if from others.

And I have learned a great deal, on many levels.

Dan and Roger have impressed me the most with their postings, which are models of intelligent and gracious debate.

In fact, probably the most amazing aspect of this whole multipage thread is that it has not (yet) been locked, which in itself offers a glimmer of light.

Michael, I hope this doesn't sound too soppy, but if I could be the scapegoat for all this mess, and by so being end this madness, I would gladly accept your offer.

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:


"First, in response to the oft-recycled number of "800,000 forcibly displaced" Arab Palestinians:

To put it simply: There were barely 800,000 Arabs to expel from Israel in 1948..."

Sorry, Dan, I was talking about the current displacement of civilians in Lebanon.

Bob

Bob, that is an amazing number.

You'd think it easier to remove the 7,500 Hezbollah fighters from within your midsts, than to have to move the rest of the population elsewhere.

I'd agree with you that it is selfish of Hezbollah, and stupid of Lebanon's central government, to precipitate such a state of affairs.

Dan

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"Blithe disregard for real human suffering speaks for itself. "

Good description of our compassionate conservatives, Dan. Neocons too. To them, it's all a game of power. I hope, however, that you don't intend the "disregard" to describe my contribution to this thread.

"And those who embrace Anti-Semitism as part of a fashionable political agenda -- and then cry "Ad Hom!" when they are described as what they are "

I described MYSELF as an anti-Semite. Didn't know that was fashionable. You first described me as a Nazi. Big difference.

"In such cases, the Anti-Semitism is clothed as Anti-Zionism, until the real colors begin to show (as we've lately seen.)"

Semitic is an ethnic description that includes both Jew and Arab. I find the people of the entire region behaving like lunatics. I don't care whether they're Israeli, Jewish, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi, Taliban, Wahabbi, Druze, Sunni, or Shiite.

"...when you deny the rights of Jews where you would gladly grant those rights to non-Jews, you are an Anti-Semite."

If I'm in your sights, Dan, I'm not granting the right to slaughter innocent human beings to ANY of them.

"...behavior has suggested that the 1/300th of the world which is Jewish has a right, a responsibility, and an obligation to make certain that, if only on one very small patch of land, the Jewish people will be protected from those who desire their destruction."

Not in contention here, but a considerable portion of the 300ths is tiring of the mess, especially when the reaction is, traditionally, so strong and allegedly righteous. The argument appears to be a matter of "proportion." Is it tit for tat, or TIT TIT TIT for tat?

I don't take the rocketing of Israel lightly. It's dastardly, but quite like past Arab incursions it's hardly as effective, on the kill scorecard, as Israeli retalition . Also, the bombing's UNITING THE ENEMY (Arabs and their terrorists throughout the region). Strategic bombing is supposed to break the will of the populace. Since the first bomb was dropped on Spain, it's yet to actually do that. Isreal may be using "smart" bombs,
but as a tactic, that ain't too smart.

After the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the horror of the henceforth unthinkable use of nuclear weapons may have proved to be a deterrent, but, otherwise, conventionally bombing civilians has only pissed them off and inspired them to get even.

"...only responsible stewards for the world's Jewish population are Jews themselves. This goes hand in hand with Wilsonian self-determination."

I'm glad you didn't say Israel, because that country receives one quarter of U. S. foreign aid, mainly for weaponry. We have touted our support of Israel for more than a half century. It's hard to deny that the United States shares in the stewardship of Israel. Also, I think we've been quite careful to pay attention to "the world's Jewish population." Our government has been as least as close to Israel as it has been to Britain and Austrailia. Until Bush took office, we spent years trying to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Our erstwhile fellow semites have chosen the wrong people to threaten with extermination."

Don't mess with Texas!

Can't disagree with this. It's been evident since, what, 1948? I wonder if Shiites feel the same way about Sunnis? What are Shiites, 15% of the Muslim population?

"...there has never been a Palestinian state..."

What was it that the original partition defined, a reservation? A refugee camp?

"First, on the "Nationhood" of Jews, in this sense of the word: A Sephardic Jew in Sao Paulo could discuss the most important things in his world, in a common language, with an Ashkenaz in Minsk; then the two could have a lively debate about it with Chinese, Indian, or African Jews"

This is also true of Red Sox Nation.

"If a Jew considered himself a Frenchman (like Dreyfus,) a German, a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Pole, an Arab, an Iraqi, Jordanian, or a Syrian, the "real" peoples of those nations always set him straight on the subject in short order. This is not something a few words of civilized debate will erase."

I agree, Dan. It's called prejudice. Being "different" is always a problem in Yahoo Land. Currently, it's difficult to be a Democrat in the U.S. Evangelical preachers call us "The Hoards from Hell." We're on the wrong end of the Culture War, which is clearly a strategic effort to manufacture predjudice. Its favorite weapon is hate speech, like calling decent, but dissenting, people "traitors" or "Nazies."

"Regarding expansionism: Israel routinely attempts to withdraw from territories won in war. What other nation do you know of that does this?"

Good question. Did Britain and the U.S. withdraw from mainland Europe after WWI? It's quite difficult for me to name a nation on the globe where our military isn't involved in some way, except in countries, such as Vietnam and Somalia, where we lost the fight.

However, isn't it just in the past year that Sharon decided to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza?
And it took Israel a long time to exit Lebanon. I believe the Israeli troops left because the pressure from Hezbollah was so intense, and international opinion was so hard on Isreal, especially after the business in the refugee camps.

It may be a point that makes Isreal appear more decent than other countries, but since the original partition that defined the borders, Israel grew its territory and pushed its settlements onto land that had previously been surveyed as Arab land. If we're talking about what's happened over 60 years, I think your statement , especially "routinely," is flawed. However, being one of those who doesn't bother to acquaint myself with the history of the conflict, I may be wrong on this count.

"There's a phrase in the Israeli vocabulary, "The Lebanon Mud." "

That sounds similar to the phrase in American English, "quagmire." We first applied it, I beIieve, to the American War in Vietnam. Unfortunately, it's been reapplied to the American War in Iraq. As with the oft-used "gate," I'd much prefer something more original.

I like, "Tar Baby," with its specific reference to crude oil. It's also redolent of racism. Not a small portion of American oil magnates have referred to Arabs as, "sand niggers." The phrase had to have been coined in Texas...out of jealousy.

"You may be right, but I think you're seeing parallels to Iraq, where there aren't any."

Well, Dan, there is one. If you recall, we got attacked by Arabs in '01. That pretty much ends any parallels, because we didn't bomb Saudia Arabia.

"Finally, I hope for those patient, civil, and well-spoken souls watching the back-and-forth and chiming in, that I am not too terribly vitriolic in my point of view -- the last thing I would want to do is put off those people in the "middle," among whom I usually count myself regarding this issue."

This is great, so politically adept. You should run for office.

"Despite needing "and editor" [sic]"

Thanks, I've corrected that. As I said, we all need editors.

"...despite my distaste for the fraternity house style of Israel-bashing,"

Oh, come on. Who am I, Bluto?

"I really do see other sides to the present crisis than the Zionist basics you're seeing me discuss here."

Now, this I'd genuinely like to hear about. You spoke earlier of nuances. I think there may be many, especially involving the relationship between Israel and the U.S., the relationship between Hezbollah and Syria/Iran and how the U.S figures in that. I'd also like to hear if you feel that American foreign policy for the past five years has enhanced the boldness of the terrorists abroad in the land. I mean, lobbing 100 rockets into Israel daily seems a tad more terrorizing than blowing up a train in Spain.

"Oh, and if anybody surprised {sic} I'm happy to say I'm a Zionist... it's not a dirty word."

No problem. I have friends who are Zionists.

Shameless O'Clawson



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited July 31, 2006).]

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:


"First, in response to the oft-recycled number of "800,000 forcibly displaced" Arab Palestinians:

To put it simply: There were barely 800,000 Arabs to expel from Israel in 1948..."

Sorry, Dan, I was talking about the current displacement of civilians in Lebanon.

Bob

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"You'd think it easier to remove the 7,500 Hezbollah fighters from within your midsts, than to have to move the rest of the population elsewhere."

The gov doesn't have to move them. They move on their own, out of fear.

"I'd agree with you that it is selfish of Hezbollah, and stupid of Lebanon's central government, to precipitate such a state of affairs."

This precipitation falls from the sky.

Bob

Bob, first of all, I noted and responded to your entry regarding displaced persons.

Secondly, it's time to work again. In the time between now and when next I post, I thought all and sundry might enjoy this, from my own "frat boy analysis" side/time period.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:5110186/The+basketball+championship+of+Lebanon%7eR%7e+(sat ire)+(illustration).html

(You have to get a trial membership to view it, but, if I do say so myself, it's worth signing up for, if they retained the format.)


A 19-year-old piece, that hints at the Lebanon you would see if you "turn the clock back 20 years." For any who thought that phrase, spoken by an Israeli official, meant basically "bombing them into the stone age," you're a tad off. The phrase refers to gang warfare, not about infrastructure.

Dan

Is anyone interested in giving humanitarian assistance to refugees in Lebanon? I will post more concrete details soon, assuming there is some interest. My wife’s aunt helps run a non-profit organization, called Ahlouna, in Sidon, Lebanon that normally employs poor women in an enterprise making sweets for sale. Now that Sidon has swelled with many thousands of refugees from southern Lebanon, it has shifted its mission towards feeding those in need, currently around two thousand people a day. My parents-in-law, with a group of Lebanese families in the Baltimore area, have been working to raise money for this and other organizations giving humanitarian aid to Lebanese refugees. This organization, Ahlouna, is purely humanitarian. I understand, however, that people may feel wary of giving to an organization in the Middle East they have never heard of, vouched for by a person (me) whom most of you have never met. However, there are other more well-known organizations that are doing great work in Lebanon, such as the Red Cross (who are giving medical aid to victims, see http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0...C?OpenDocument ) and the Hariri Foundation (who also is giving much aid to refugees, see http://www.hfusa.org/ELRF.htm ). I believe this is work anyone can agree with, no matter what they feel about the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel. The ultimate safety of the Lebanese civilians displaced by the war is in the interests of all parties. It is the first step towards ensuring a better future for Lebanon, and thus for the entire Middle East. I’ll post more soon. I just thought I could help to direct our thoughts in a more concrete direction (not to say that I haven’t been quite tempted to add my own bits of insight/anger from time to time).

[This message has been edited by Daniel Haar (edited July 31, 2006).]

Since this forum is more appropriate for talk than announcements (as its name would suggest), I have started a new thread devoted to the subject of aiding Lebanese refugees over on the "General Announcements" forum: http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtm...ML/000677.html

Especially the 'Connecticut' Texans in King George's Court.

Robert Meyer

I kind of doubt it Quincy, because after the Bar Kochaba revolution in the 2nd century Rome didn't allow any Jews to live in Palestine/Israel. At least that's my understanding of it. Post 130 CE/AD or so, the population was either all pagan or a mix of pagans and Samaritans. The Samaritans were Israelite and Hebrew (from the Northern Kingdom, post Solomon); but definitely not Jewish (from the Southern Kingdom), in fact were a pain in the butt to the Jews on several occasions.

After the Persian (Iranian) king Cyrus allowed the Jews to return and even start rebuilding the Temple, the king died while it was only half finished. Then the Samaritans convinced his son, Cambyses, that the Temple was a threat and that Jews were trouble makers; so during Cambyses' reign (6 years) the work on the temple stopped. After his death, Darius was the new king and he thought the Samaritan plea was nonsense, so the rebuilding started up again. (Josephus, Antiquities: 11) In Ezra chapter 4, Cambyses is called Ar-ta-xerx'es, but Cyrus and Darius have the same names with the story essentially the same, although a bit more abbreviated in the bible version.

In the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus of Syria (precipitated by the king's sacrificing a pig to Zeus in the Temple of Jerusalem), the Samaritans show up in Josepheus, Antiquities: 12, also. When Antiochus was marching on Jerusalem they sent an emissary to him saying, in effect, "We're not like our cousins to the south; you can sacrifice a pig to Zeus on our Holy Mountain, Gerizim, anytime."

Whether pagan or Samaritan, most of the people of the area seemed not particularly grounded in any sort of faith but changing whenever the powers-that-be change. The idea that Jews would stay on in Palestine, just converting to Christianity, has a huge hole in the logic: in the 2nd century, Rome was periodically butchering Christians. Would a Jew in Palestine say to a Roman centurion, "It's ok, I'm really a Christian."? The answer would be something like, "Great, it seems like ages since I've seen a good crucifixion!"

Robert Meyer


[This message has been edited by Robert Meyer (edited July 31, 2006).]

Robert, thanks for that post. I would add that I wonder why a Rabbi had to beg to be allowed to establish an academy at Javneh, if Jews were permitted to stay in Israel in the first place.

RJ, please let your Zionist friends know you consider yourself an Anti-Semite; it's only fair.

At the risk of sounding dense, RJ: It is not something to joke about with me. I think you think it's funny, or that it's a clever way to say how you disagree with the politics of a whole region.

I have another perspective. I would very much like to help fill in the gaps you have with knowledge of the area and of the Jewish people not in the region, but cannot continue knowing your purpose is derision of semites in general, or Jews in particular (the word "Anti-Semite" has a historical meaning distinct from its literal meaning; thus, Hitler, who also proclaimed "I am an Anti-Semite," was quite fond of the Arab people, particularly Haj Amin Al Husseini, the Palestinian leader of the time, and Hitler's erstwhile ally in the city of Jerusalem.)

So if you'd like to continue with the childish plea that you should be considered witty for proclaiming your Anti-Semitism, I'll just discuss the matter with those of a bit more grave disposition, or with a tiny bit more self-control. If you want to retract and apologize I'm open to that as well.

But I'm not having a running discussion with a self-proclaimed Anti-Semite. It's an insult from square 1.

Dan

There is always a "reason" for a war just as there is always a "war" somewhere on the planet. Now that everyone has discussed all the "reasons" -- what do you "brains" suggest we do about the fact we're in WW3? It may be beyond talking it to death. Maybe we should start handing out candy or put on a musical in the barn--or something...

Dick

I don't think this is WWIII, for the simple reason that I think every WW has to be grander and more spectacular than the last. Plus you need at least one superpower trying to take over the world.

This? Iraq is looking an awful lot like Vietnam, and as for Israel-Lebanon, I still remember the phrase "War-Torn Bombing in Beirut" as a headline from high school. The geography isn't even any different.

As for what to do, for the former, Bush needs to be out of office before anything meaningful is accomplished to solve the mess. For the second, the atrocity-meter has to get high enough before the nations involved have their "Oh fuck, we're killing children and nobody likes us!" moments.

Currently, that hasn't happened. I would accuse Israel of crocodile tears except that the spokeswoman they put on television expressed their "profound regrets" with the sort of glassy-eyed smile usually reserved for announcing the weather report.

If your "profound regrets" are accompanied by no discernable emotion, they're probably neither.

My friend "Mel" wants to know:

"Does it make you an anti-Semite if you say anti-semitic things only when you are drunk and you promise to check into a rehab center to deal with your alcoholism? Does it matter if, by coincidence, you have been accused of making an anti-semitic film and defending your father's Holocaust denials? Or can no one be called anti-Semitic these days because Israel is so bad and countries who defend Israel, even when it is right, are put in fear of terrorist attack?"

Off topic? Not really. I just want to point out, for those who may not find it convenient to notice, that anti-Semitism is a very real thing, and not merely the tired cry of those who defend Israel policies. It is real enough, indeed, that one should scrutinize the motives of those who just so happen to believe that Israel is a special case among nations, should be held to a double standard, or should be singled out for its actions by a world that doesn't seem nearly as concerned about genocide in Darfur, for example.

I'm definitely not saying that one cannot be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic. But I'm saying that a sensitivity to the anti-Semitism concern in such a context is appropriate and should not be derided. Just as one can be in favor of making felons of illegal Mexican immigrants without having racist attitudes toward Mexicans, but those who have such racist attitudes toward Mexicans are most likely to be "toughest" on immigration, it is appropriate and wise to examine the underlying biases and prejudices that could be affecting the debate of any issue. We shoudn't allow racists to parade their racism and hide behind the veneer of seemingly neutral "policy."

And of course it's wise to remember that all of us may be subject to unconscious prejudices, even if we truly believe that we are exempt from such frailties, and that we sometimes react under the influence of attitudes that we would sincerely and vehemently criticize were they to be articulated by and manifested in others.

In short, anti-Semitism has a long, long history, and has not been confined only to certain people at certain times. Even as a New York Jew, I have sometimes been exposed to anti-Semitic comments and behavior, though not often. In a world in which anti-Semitism has such a long history and universality, it would be remarkable, indeed, if at least some vestiges of anti-Semitism did not at least unconsciously crop up in debates involving Jews and the Jewish state.

These remarks are not addressed to anyone in particular.

Kevin --WW2 ended with the atomic bombing. Obviously one cannot get more "grand" than that. Each war learns from the last, each general prepares to fight the last war. War exposes weakness to the defeated. The world media is th4e greatest asset of the terrorists and they are exploiting it--even if it comes to staging the "dead women and babies". Where were the men at the latest tragedy. Didn't the man holding the dead baby look familiar? Did we ever see him and that dead baby at another site. That building was hit in the top--it stayed upright for many many hours --maybe hezbollah dynamited it?

What democrat do you think solve this? Name him or her. How about Cynthia McKinney? This next election will be so close you may get Nancy Pelosi. She doesn't make sense any time I've ever heard her talk.

Not counting the cold war as WW3 and based on the promises of the head of IRAN I believe we are in WW3. Pick a side before it picks you.


Dick

Roger,

Where the hell is Darfur? Can you point to it on a map? What language do they speak there? Is there any important bit of literature set there that everybody's read, seen on film, or even heard vaguely about? No? Then why in the hell would anyone care, except in the vague "It's not nice that people somewhere we've never heard of are killing each other" sense?

Israel could be the land of candy and lollipops and people would still be talking about the place. There were two Crusades and I don't know how many Cecil B. DeMille epics about that swatch of land, and every winter, the entire western economy and social calendar revolves around a story set in somebody's barn in Jerusalem. If you want to be inobtrusive and left alone, the very last thing you should do is latch onto the world's largest and most stationary McGuffin.

As for Mel Gibson...yep, sounds Anti-Semitic. Sounds self-destructive too.

As I understand it, the reason to examine Israel's behavior differently from that of other nations, and to magnify Israel's "misdeeds," real, imagined, or badly reported is:
Israel exists on land featured prominently in Christian religion, and is peopled by the group featured in the Christian narrative.

You aren't the first to use this thought process.

As for Darfur:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

A partial quote:
"Estimates of deaths in the conflict have ranged from 50,000 (World Health Organization, September 2004) to 450,000 (Dr. Eric Reeves, 28 April 2006). Most NGOs use 400,000, a figure from the Coalition for International Justice. The conflict has been described by mass media as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide"; the Bush Administration of the United States and the U.S. Congress have declared it to be genocide, though the United Nations has declined to do so."

To help the uninitiated with the math: 50,000 (the low estimate) is 100 times the 500 so far noted as killed in Lebanon. The 400,000 "most NGOs are using" is 800 times the number killed in Lebanon.

Obviously, it was used as an example. Many others exist -- most prominently (since the home nations of many members here are deeply involved,) Iraq.

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 01, 2006).]

"Pick a side before it picks you"

said the grumpy old man who lives in a shoe,
"the boots on the other foot, You Know Who
will tag your big toe if you don't come through."

chorus
This is MY side, I got here first
That's YOUR side and its already cursed
My holsters are heavy and my lips are pursed
Step over this line and your head will burst

Cast the last stone before it casts you
said the sweet old lady who stirs the stew,
"my old man's the head of the wrecking crew,
get with the programme before it gets you ..."

chorus
This is MY side, I got here first etc.



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited August 02, 2006).]

For me, one of the most startling patterns of this debate so far has been the vehement opposition to the Israeli side by supporters of the Left. I have noticed this also among my friends and family. So I went Googling to see if I could find some background on possible reasons for this tendency. Here is a passage from a blog discussion of the issue.


http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archive...m-on-the-left/

What I would like to ask is, are there any folk of the Left here who think otherwise?

More the former than the later--the west was pretty obsessed with the place during the Crusades too--and you don't even have to have Christians involved to have people get all obsessed. After all, it also features in the Koran, and you only have to look into the controversy of the Al Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount to see the trouble <cite>that's</cite> caused.

Ignoring the whole business is much more difficult because other people aren't ignoring it. It's human nature. A crowd gathers to watch and suddenly you want to look too.




[This message has been edited by Kevin Andrew Murphy (edited August 01, 2006).]

If we scrutinized all of the people who hold Israel to be "a special case among nations," we would be scrutinizing a bunch of Israel supporters as well, who justfify promoting the emigration of European Jews to Israel, while preventing Palestinians to return to their former homes. This policy is often justified by saying that Israel is a special case. Of course their motives are not anti-Jewish. But if we look into things more of course we may find that occasionally a pro-Israel sentiment coincides with an anti-Arab bias. This is just to say that if we, as good, non-discriminating Americans are going to be vigilant about anti-Jewish attitudes of some anti-Israel folks, we should be equally vigilant about exposing the anti-Arab and/or anti-Muslim attitudes held by some of the pro-Israel camp. As an example, if Mearsheimer and Walt are guilty of anti-Semitism, then many who question the impact of French Arabs on France's Middle East policy are likely guilty of harboring an anti-Arab prejudice. If the argument doesn't cut both ways, it doesn't cut.



[This message has been edited by Daniel Haar (edited August 01, 2006).]

I do agree that French Arabs should involve themselves in the Democratic process in France. Given the support of France for various Arab and Muslim regimes, and France's historical (not to mention financial) ties to many such regimes, I am not even certain the influence of French Arabs is necessary for France to maintain her pro-Arab and pro-Muslim positions. At the very least we have to conclude that Frenchmen of Arab descent have the same right as Frenchmen of European descent to help shape that nation's policy (without treating the issue of Arabs without French citizenship who reside in France.)

On the question of returning real estate lost in war in 1948, there is a problem concerning the continuing state of war promised and prosecuted by those refugees' "protector states" from 1948 to 1967, and then by those refugees' representatives, self-declared and then elected, up until the present day. Even in the best of times, Fatah - the most "moderate" representative group - maintained the Al Aqsa Brigades, a terrorist wing.

I've never heard "Israel is a Special Case" to explain why Palestinians cannot return to their former homes, or repossess homes of family members. In fact, if they were invited to do so, that would be the special case, since a significant part of the Palestinian population has considered itself at war with Israel -- to the death -- since the "catastrophe" of 1948.

History works that way: you start a war, you run from the field, you lose the field; you don't get to dictate unconditional surrender (which, effectively, was the stance of Arab nations regarding Israel.) And to even discuss the issue, you have to stop pretending the people who defeated you don't exist, or -- in the more realistic formulation -- stop insisting they all disappear. If you choose to separate the refugee from their "protector states" in 1948, they have as much to expect from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq -- who lost them their homes -- as they have to expect from Israel.

Perhaps final status talks one day will include an arithmetic of compensation -- for Israelis who fled Arab nations, as well as Palestinians who fled Israel proper. Another argument that must cut both ways, if it is to cut at all.

There are a great number of Israelis, I dare say, who (as you say) are anti-Arab. There are a great number of Arabs who are Anti-Semites, as the term has come to be used (or, if you prefer, Anti-Jewish). But one does not need to be anti-Arab to oppose re-absorption of a population whose leaders consistently espouse their dedication to the destruction of your state. Being anti-suicidal will do just fine. Just as -- as Roger says -- you do not have to be Anti-Semitic to be anti-Israel.

So we can make our lists of Anti-Semite and Anti-Arab commentators, who have taken hard positions on this conflict based on their biases. What we do not have to do is tolerate instances of either here on this board.

I certainly hope I've not evidenced hatred of Arabs of any kind in any of my own posts, as I do not actually have such feelings. If anything I've said can be taken that way, I do apologize. We don't need bigotry here, regardless of the issue, which has been my point all along, as regards the Anti-Semitism discussion.

Thanks,

Dan

Mark,

I am probably in a different situation than most here, but I'll try to give you an idea of my perspective. I do not consider myself a man "of the left". I'm pretty much centrist. I often have debates with my more leftist friends about issues ranging from foreign policy to economics. However, I am married to a woman who is half Lebanese and half Palestinian. My perspective on the Middle East has changed, I must admit, since being married to her. I support Israel's right to exist, but I do resent being told that opposing Israel's actions is equated with sympathy for Hezbollah. Many Lebanese detest the influence of Hezbollah and Israel on their country -- there is no contradiction considering the damage both have done to the high hopes of many Lebanese. And I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of Palestine here, but I would like to note that reasonable people can disagree here, again without being Hamas supporters.

Dan,

I agree with most of what you have said. However, there are many people who argue that due to the Holocaust, there needs to be a special home of the Jews, which justifies descriminating against non-Jews in its immigration policy. On your other point, individuals cannot be "officially at war" with Israel, only states. Thus, your argument does justify keeping Syrians and Lebanese (and Egyptians and Jordanians pre-peace) but not Palestinians, who had no state. Truly I did not mean to imply anything against you with my above post, nor in this one. I do think there were injustices involved in the creation of Israel, but I do believe in its right to exist. It is difficult for all of us to be objective during a war. I think it is human to choose sides.

- Daniel

What if those refugees' representatives are the US government? I have a friend from college whose father is a Palestinian refugee who moved to Libya, while there married a US citizen, and they both now live in Texas.

That is certainly fair. As a model you might use the system for land "nationalized" in East Germany and then returned to its former owners or their heirs after German reunification.

Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:

"RJ, please let your Zionist friends know you consider yourself an Anti-Semite; it's only fair."

Agree. Will do.

"At the risk of sounding dense, RJ: It is not something to joke about with me."

I guess not, but I have such trouble with the length and depth of your rationalizations (earnest though they be) that the imp in me can't resist making fun of the inconsistencies that float to the surface of your "instructions."

"I think you think it's funny,"

Not the war, certainly. Not any war. As I said earlier, I can only gape in horror.

"or that it's a clever way to say how you disagree with the politics of a whole region."

I disagree with something broader than that, which includes the politics of the West in the region. Its oil reserves make it strategic to the haves who crave more.

"I have another perspective. I would very much like to help fill in the gaps you have with knowledge of the area..."

That's thoughtful of you. I do some reading, but it's difficult for me to achieve what I could call a well-informed stance, other than having come to the conclusion that the region abounds with lunatics. (It has, however, no monopoly on political lunacy.)

"...and of the Jewish people not in the region,..."

About 20 years ago, a client who regularly traveled on business to Israel, told me that the educated/professional class was leaving and that the right wing was taking over. He was in the business of selling military-quality, power-supply devices. He felt that this would be good for his business, but not too good for the country because of the brain drain.

So, I guess that unnoticed diaspora could have had some uplifting effect on the Jewish people not in the region. That has to be a guess because those not in the region are too dispersed for me to keep in touch.

"but cannot continue knowing your purpose is derision of semites in general, or Jews in particular (the word "Anti-Semite" has a historical meaning distinct from its literal meaning;"

Please strike "Jews in particular." My quarrel in this particular case is with both the Israelies and the Arabs. History is a continuum. It's clear, historically, that Jews and Arabs (your "erstwhile fellow semites") come from the same ethnic stock. You're saying that "Antisemitism" connotes "Anti Jewish" in more recent history, yes? Who excluded the Arabs?

I'm not at all comfortable with its more recent political usage. It too often comes off as a "Gotcha!" I suspect that it's designed to end uncomfortable debates. However, its frequent usage wears it thin and renders it less effective.

"...thus, Hitler, who also proclaimed "I am an Anti-Semite," was quite fond of the Arab people, particularly Haj Amin Al Husseini, the Palestinian leader of the time, and Hitler's erstwhile ally in the city of Jerusalem.)"

Thanks for filling in the gap. (Note to self: change file from "People Hitler Used" to "People Hitler Loved.")

Thanks also for promoting me from a mere Nazi to the Top Banana himself.

"So if you'd like to continue with the childish plea that you should be considered witty for proclaiming your Anti-Semitism, I'll just discuss the matter with those of a bit more grave disposition, or with a tiny bit more self-control."

Dan, you're not my aunt. I've put up with being "glib," a "dilettante," a "frat boy," a "bigot," and, now, "childish." I'm a model for restraint.

"If you want to retract and apologize I'm open to that as well."

That's right decent of you. What's in it for me?

"But I'm not having a running discussion with a self-proclaimed Anti-Semite. It's an insult from square 1."

Let me take you back to my understanding of square one: "You {Kevin} and RJ have a good time together at the next wine-and-cheese-cross-burning, or whatever it is you do at the local poet nazi gathering."

Don't pull a Limbaugh on me without expecting a Franken in return.

Shameless O'Clawson

Kevin, Daniel,

It's hard to disagree that the whole Palestinian people are paying the price for the intransigence and insanity of those who make their voices heard -- if in fact the bulk of the people disagree with these voices. I read far more often of some or another agreement that is a "good idea but will not be accepted by the 'Arab Street.'"

Hamas was elected by the people -- now, as far as I've read, "the people" were just sick and tired of Fatah corruption. Before that, Fatah was the "peoples' choice," and were persuaded to drop the destruction of Israel from their charter by the 90s (though not their bombers). The leaders of the Palestinian people -- elected and otherwise -- have not served the peoples' aspirations well.

I don't think anybody would be well served by the return of a few septuagenerians to their pre-1948 abodes, but, were the parties at the table and I was the Israeli negotiator, I would consider it a possibility. Similarly, there is no great rush for the Jews of Europe to be given homes in the places they were evicted from. There were, however, about 600,000 to 650,000 persons who lost their homes in '48.

Reparations specifically paid for the cost of real property (not "pain and suffering," etc.,) sounds reasonable, just as I am sure it will be considered reasonable to similarly compensate those who left their homes in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, etc.

Since the leaders of the Palestinian people aren't trusted to speak for the people, though, I have no idea how the people would feel about such an arrangement. I know their leaders are back to insisting on a judenrein Middle East.

Right now, the problem is the declaration on all sides that "peace is dead." The Israelis have evidently decided that they will stay on their side of the line, and the Palestinians and Lebanese will stay on theirs -- or else. What we're seeing is "else."

The current majority opinion in Israel is the train has left the station (hence Sharon's security fence/withdrawl/dismantlement of settlements designs.) I am sure Olmert plans to complete the Sharon plan. The Israeli people have not lived in squalor for sixty years, but they have lived in an unnatural state as well, a state of a heightened war footing from which they can not relax for a moment. They are tired of it.

After 60 years, it seems the nation of Israel is going to simply act like any other nation, and say, if you want to stop losing homes, stop picking fights.

Dan

Mark, that blog is inconsistant. First the "old left" is Stalinist, then it's a bastion of "tolerance, coherence, and nobility of thought." Which is it?

The way he brings out that hackneyed talk about the 1960s is irrelevant. The change happened in Nov 4, 1980 when the monster took over our nation. The old left was out, eventually to be replaced by the timid new left who rarely will stand up for our rights but gives in to the lazy tax cutters.

The reason why where's confusion is because that's the way the private sector media wants it; and the private sector media is in bed with the GOP, who are in bed with the oil companies, who are in bed with the Islamic governments. It's called "good old fashioned conservative values." It's also called adultry.

Robert Meyer

Oh be fair. It's more like incest.

That is certainly true, and likewise the rest of it. Though I think you're placing a bit much emphasis on "majority." After all, a majority of this country elected Bush this last election and an even large majority does not approve of the way he's handling things. And even citing such majorities makes it sound like the country is in lockstep, which is hardly the case. Judging by the pictures I've seen of protesters in Tel Aviv, who look decidedly unhappy with the current war, Israel is not in lockstep either.

I think it's also fair to say that the "state of heightened war footing" in Israel has varied over the past sixty odd years, and it's currently a lot more heightened than it was at certain other times.