[Robert Meyer]

Quincy:
Titus's sacking of Jerusalem aside, it seems, from what I've read, that most of ancient Palestine's Jewish population probably stayed put, converted to Christianity and then Islam, and gradually became Palestinians.

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).]

[Dan Halberstein]

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

[Dick Morgan]

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

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Originally posted by Dick Morgan:
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.

[Roger Slater]

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.

[Dick Morgan]

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

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

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.

[Dan Halberstein]

Originally posted by Kevin Andrew Murphy:
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 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).]

[Mark Granier]

"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).]

[Mark Allinson]

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.

For the first 25 years of its existence, the State of Israel's greatest champions in the west were on the left. Through the wars in 1967 and 1973, liberals in America lobbied for strong American support for Israel against its enemies who were seeking to destroy it.

But something happened that transitioned the left's strong support for Israel into opposition to Israeli policies and even tipping over into anti-Semitism. And the answer can be found in the transition from the tolerance, coherence, and nobility of thought of the old left into the intolerant, riot of conceits and unabashed hatred spouted by the new left.

It wasn't just the radicalization of politics during the 1960's that gave the new left traction. More than anything, it was their bold forays into political advocacy that gave them real power and caused a sea change in American liberalism that booted the old left to the sidelines. Immersing themselves in Democratic party politics, the new left's anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, statist (later anti-globalist) message that became ascendant saw the state of Israel as just one more rich state oppressing poorer ones. Forgotten was the reason for the formation of the State of Israel. Instead, the grievance culture of the new left identified with the Palestinian cause (as they identified with the bloodthirsty North Vietnamese during the war) and saw Israel's “occupation” of Palestine a travesty of justice.

This is how the new left can look at Hizbullah and rather than seeing a terrorist group wishing to kill every living Jew in Israel they see instead a “resistance” to Zionist neo-colonialism. The Ward Churchills and Cindy Sheehans of the new left are only the most incoherent examples of a kind of virulent anti-Semitism disguised as opposition to capitalism and “racism” (as if Arabs and Jews are of a different race) that is now accepted on the new left as gospel. In fact, it is now perfectly acceptable to daydream about ridding the world of the Jewish state while making the jaw-dropping denial that this is in any way anti-Semitic.

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?