head trust minor http://goodfoodtips.com speed dog see university http://p8.hostingprod.com

night we australia free watch ocean

boy ocean are land stone boat england sun

boy red [URL=http://bundesliga.theoffside.com]all university juicy joke[/URL] speed student girl greed [URL=http://cat.inist.fr]trust google[/URL]

girl black free usa frog tree trust watch land this global

Hello, nice site :)

I just found out about this while reading this weeks jewish week article. I can't believe you allowed that to be printed. Don't you priview the articles? wow!!!. This is overt antisimitism and the apology was no better. you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

I just found out about this while reading this weeks jewish week article. I can't believe you allowed that to be printed. Don't you priview the articles? wow!!!. This is overt antisimitism and the apology was no better. you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Authors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer
“We are not talking about a conspiracy”

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of the book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," about how their groundbreaking book and ideas have been received.

February 14, 2008

The anti-lobbyists

“Let’s move over here – in the corner. It’ll be better for us to talk in private. Or else some people might get the wrong idea,” chuckles John Mearsheimer, a Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and co-author of the incendiary book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” The controversial book’s co-author, Stephen Walt, an Academic Dean at the prestigious Harvard Kennedy School of Government, smiles and concurs as we all find comfortable seats in the back end, lounge corner of San Francisco’s Prescott Hotel.

“The wrong idea” according to the authors is the inaccurate labeling and smearing of their reputation as “Anti-Semites.” According to them and their supporters, they’ve unfairly earned this slander solely due to their detailed and systematic criticism of an “Israel Lobby” and its alleged actions in greatly influencing U.S. foreign policy in the volatile Middle Eastern regions of Israel and Palestine.

The Anti-Defamation League, which retaliated by publishing “The Deadliest Lies: The Myth of the Israeli Lobby” on the same release date as “The Israel Lobby,” lambasted the professors’ work as an “anti-Jewish screed: a relentless assault in scholarly guise.” However, talking to them in person and later observing their demeanor at a speech followed by question and answer session held at U.C. Berkeley, the two professors both appeared very calm, rational, collected and lacking the stereotypical, passionate vitriol and acidic anger unfortunately espoused by all parties associated with the endless “Israel-Palestine conflict.”

For anyone with even the slightest experience in dealing with the “Israel-Palestine” issue, whether that experience be academic, polemical, political, or even a friendly discussion over coffee, it becomes glaringly obvious the topic is contentious, divisive and, dare I say, explosive. To call it a “powder keg” of a situation would be a glorious understatement. I spoke with Mearsheimer and Walt regarding their controversial thesis, their critics and detractors, the stifling of academic dissent, foreign policy in the Middle East, and the resulting profound implications for the United State’s relationship with the Muslim World in the 21st century.

I guess life must have been boring for you guys, and you had nothing interesting going on. So, you decided to spice things up, right? What goes on in your head that makes you get up one day and decide, “You know what? I think we’re going to tackle the “Israeli Lobby.”

(Both laugh.)

WALT: We wrote this not because our lives were boring, but because we were concerned with what was happening with American foreign policy and specifically American Middle East policy. We felt there was an aspect that wasn’t get that much attention in the U.S; the influence of the “Israeli Lobby” was the elephant in the room that no one was willing to talk about. We believe this was having unfortunate affects on the U.S., other countries, and Israel itself, and no one, especially mainstream circles, would speak or write about it. We thought we were in positions of relative security and if we didn’t [talk about it], then no one else would.

MEARSHEIMER: Nevertheless, we fully understood we were grabbing the third rail, and pro-Israeli forces in the U.S. would come after us in a serious way. We’ve not been surprised by the reaction to our piece here in the U.S.

Ok, for the unacquainted, let’s become familiar with the central thesis of “The Israel Lobby,” lay it out for me and the readers. There’s this group you label the “Israel Lobby.” Who are they and why should we, as average Joe Americans, even care about them?

WALT: The Lobby isn’t a single organization. It is a loose coalition of different groups and individuals that actively work and try to move American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction and try to maintain a special relationship with the U.S. and Israel. This group includes some predominantly Jewish American groups, such as AIPAC, the Anti Defamation League, The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. It also includes non-Jewish groups like Christian Evangelicals, such as Christians United for Israel. This is not a single organization, and they don’t agree on every issue, but they all want to maintain that special relationship. It’s an interest group like other groups we have in U.S.

Interest groups are part of American politics. So, there’s nothing illegitimate or wrong with what the Israeli Lobby is doing. But, like some other interest groups, when they have profound impact on U.S. foreign policy, they may be leading to foreign policies that aren’t in the interest of the country as a whole. So, Americans should be concerned about this and other interest groups if they are leading to policies that are contrary to the American national interest.

MEARSHEIMER: American should care about the Israeli Lobby, because it has a profound effect on the shape of U.S.– Middle East policy. We believe by and large that effect is negative. In other words, the Lobby is pushing policies not in the U.S. interest and not in Israel’s interest either. The best example of that is the Lobby’s influence has with regards to the occupation and the building of settlements in the West Bank. The U.S. has opposed settlement building since the Israelis first conquered the West Bank and Gaza strip in 1967. It has been the official policy of every president since Lyndon B. Johnson to oppose settlement building, but no president has been able to put any meaningful pressure on Israel to stop building settlements. The principle reason is due to the Lobby, which goes to great lengths to make sure no President can force Israel to do something that it doesn’t want to do. Since Israel doesn’t want to end the settlements, no President has been able to put an end to the settlement building.

What are the consequences that result from this? It is one of the main reasons why the U.S. is deeply hated in the Arab and Islamic world. It is one of the main causes of America’s terrorism problem. It is clear that Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, one of the main architects of the 9-11 attacks, were deeply battered by American policies in the Occupied Territories [in Palestine.] So, we as Americans should care how the Lobby influences U.S.- Middle East policies, because it sometimes influences them in a way which is not in the best interests of the U.S.

However, doesn’t the publication of your book, the media publicity blitz surrounding it, the release of Jimmy Carter’s “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,” and Norman Finkelstein’s very public criticism of Alan Dershowitz’s “Case for Israel,” all provide examples that a healthy debate about Israel does indeed exist and the Lobby is either ineffective or not as influential as you suggest?

WALT: Nobody believes that the discourse in the U.S. is 100% pro-Israel. That is completely impossible. Our point in the book and our publication of the book doesn’t contradict this, we contend that conversation and public discourse in mainstream media circles is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. It’s not to say occasionally you won’t have other voices out there. But the fact is we had trouble getting our original article published in the U.S., and we have had some coverage, but relatively little, regarding our book in mainstream media circles.

We’ve seen various efforts made to try and minimize the exposure by getting events cancelled when were supposed to speak about this, or having media arrangements fall through. So, it’s not to say you can’t occasionally get critical views out there, but the balance of coverage on the Middle East coverage is pro-Israel. But, if you look at the critical reviews of the book, the reviews in England have been uniformly positive. Generally, all across Europe as well. There have been a number of positive reviews in Israel itself. But the mainstream reviews in U.S. [is a different story], for example the Washington Post, the New York Times Sunday Book Review; the New Republic had a vicious attack comparing us to Osama Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. So, getting favorable reviews, including in Israel, is relatively easy outside of the United States.

MEARSHEIMEHR: Based on reading our book, one would predict we would get hardly any positive reviews in the United States, and a lot of positive reviews outside of U.S., including Israel. That prediction has held up very well. We have been consistently slammed in the mainstream media inside The United States, and garnered lots of positive reviews outside the U.S., which is what the book would predict.

Is this proof of the New-Anti-Semitism? Is this the smoking gun evidence that the whole world is ganging up against Israel and American Jewry?

MEARSHEIMER: The fundamental flaw with that argument is that the book has received favorable treatment in Israel itself. One of the most positive reviews was written in Haaretz itself written by Daniel Levi who is an Israeli Jew. The most favorable review overall was written by an Israeli, Yuri Avnery. This is not to say that there are not people in Israel or U.S. who see our book as evidence of the The New Anti-Semitism. We don’t believe there is a New Anti-Semitism. We believe there is not a lot of Anti-Semitism in the U.S. or in Europe itself. And that charge is leveled at critics of Israel like us and Jimmy Carter, because it is an effective way of marginalizing and sidelining us. We are not Anti-Semites, Jimmy Carter is not an Anti-Semite, and the vast majority of people who like our book are not Anti-Semites, in fact many of them are Jews.

Briefly describe your initial journey towards publication at the Atlantic Monthly. Why did they ultimately reject the draft, and how did you find a publication home at London Review of Books?

MEARSHEIMER: Stephen and I decided in early 2002 to think seriously about writing a piece on The Israeli Lobby and U.S. foreign policy. Then, in the fall of 2002, we were commissioned by The Atlantic to write that piece, and we began working on it. We were slowed down by the fact the Iraq war was about to take place. We couldn’t write about it while it was still happening, because the Lobby was involved in pushing that war. So, we didn’t get a draft of the piece to the Atlantic until the Spring of 2004. After they saw the initial draft, they were very happy with it and asked us to make a number of changes, which we did. We submitted the second draft in January 2005, and shortly thereafter they rejected it. We believe they rejected it because they came to believe the subject was too controversial and would cause problems.

Were you surprised when it was rejected?

WALT: We differed on this. I was more surprised than John was. But we were both disappointed. Again, we had no indication that they weren’t going to publish it, and they had seen all of our previous drafts and had been very positive about all of them. So, for them to suddenly discover at the last minute that the entire piece was unacceptable, and that they didn’t want us to re-write it to make it acceptable, was very disappointing.

MEARSHEIMER: So, the Atlantic rejected the piece, and of course, surely, they will never say they rejected it out of fear about how the Lobby would react to the piece, but rather how the piece was written. We don’t believe that’s the case. We believe they got cold feet. After it got rejected, we talked to a number of journals about the possibility of getting the piece published somewhere in the 2005.

By the early summer of 2005, it became clear it would be impossible to get it published in the United States. So, we put the article away and didn’t think it was possible to get it published in the U.S. Someone gave a prominent American academic a copy of the piece we had submitted to the Atlantic, and he knew the editor of the London Review of Books. He wrote to me and asked me if we were interested in publishing it there. We talked about it and thought it was an excellent idea, and we talked to them and made an agreement to submit it by January 2006, a new version of the article. They published it two months later in March 2006. I mean, it’s interesting to think had this academic not gotten hold of the final draft we submitted to the Atlantic, it would have never appeared.

I want to talk about this “stifling” of criticism. Let’s discuss this recent “Google” speech, where you were scheduled to appear, but according to you a Google representative at the last minute told you, “You can’t appear without having the other side represent,” and then they cancelled at the last second. In your opinion, is this “other side” really present?

WALT: As part of the publicity campaign for the book, our publicist began to setup various venues to come talk about the book. Three of those agreements were cancelled. We were cancelled at the Chicago Council of Global Affairs who had invited us to come and speak. The President of the Council got in contact with John and said, “In order to protect the institution, he was canceling the event. The subject was just too hot to cover,” and we can only appear there if they had someone who would represent the “other side,” and it was too late to get someone from the other side. I should mention they’ve had plenty of people who represent “the other side” speak at the Chicago Council and those people spoke on their own. Michael Oren, an Israeli American historian, for example has spoken on his own without someone else representing the other side.

MEARSHEIMER: Dennis Ross would be another good example. And we always say there is nothing wrong with this.

WALT: We think that’s fine. It’s entirely appropriate for Oren or Dennis Ross or lots of other people to come and speak there. They never said anything to us or our publicist about having someone there to debate us when were arranging everything. It was only after the cancellation, did they mention this. We had an agreement to speak at the City University of New York also in September, but that also fell through without an explanation. Finally, we were scheduled to speak at Google Headquarters here in Mountain View, California, which regularly hosts an author series where they bring authors on a variety of subjects to give talks. So, our publicist got an email the previous Friday late in the afternoon that the event had been cancelled and didn’t give us an explanation.

We were subsequently told that the decision had been made “very high up in the company,” and the Google representative said they had never seen an event like this get cancelled like the way they did. They said they would be interested in possibly rescheduling us, but we’ve never been able to reschedule the event, so clearly, it’s not going to happen. But, just to add a number of other places where we’ve spoken, such as the World Affairs Council in Dallas, the Hammer Museum, The City Club of Cleveland, all these people told us they had gotten emails, phone calls, or messages protesting our appearance and suggesting we be dis-invited. To their great credit, none of these places gave into that kind of pressure. In each of these places, we appeared without note-worthy incident; we had good discussions, they asked challenging questions. Some people agreed with us, some people disagreed with us a lot, but in all these places we had a very useful discussion and nothing bad happened at all.

I want you to hear some comments by your critics. George Schultz, Reagan’s Secretary of State, writes in the new book “The Deadliest Lies: The Myth of the Israeli Lobby...”

MEARSHEIMER: That book was scheduled to be published on exactly the same date as our book was published on September the 4th.

WALT: Publishers know when things are going to appear months in advance and once our publisher made it clear it was going to be on their Fall list, then they can start preparing “The Deadliest Lies,” which is a very thin book that didn’t involve much work, and thus it could be arranged to have it timed with the release of our book. I mean, there are no secrets in the publishing world. Nothing unusual about this.

MEARSHEIMER: The Abraham Foxman book [“The Deadliest Lies] and the George Schultz preface in the forward are not based on the book we wrote, “The Israeli Lobby,” because it hadn’t been published at that time. It was rather based on the article that was published [in 2006.]

Well, he writes in the forward, “…those who blame Israel and its Jewish supporters for U.S. policies they do not support - are wrong. They are wrong because, to begin with, support for Israel is in our [The U.S.] best interests. They are also wrong because Israel and its supporters have the right to try to influence U.S. policy. And they are wrong because the U.S. government is responsible for the policies it adopts.” If you both concede that what the Israeli Lobby does is within the confines of a democratic process, then isn’t Schultz’s critique valid? If the Lobby isn’t working democratically, then how is it abusing the process?

WALT: We make it very clear in our book that what the Israeli Lobby is doing is not an abuse of the Democratic Process, but we think all Americans have the right to organize around political causes they believe about. But the fact that it is legitimate activity doesn’t mean it is in the best interest of the country. Lots of other interest groups have skewed American policy in a way that is not good for the country as a whole. We never argue, and we don’t believe what the Lobby is doing is illegitimate, inappropriate, or not Democratic, it’s just that the effects are harmful to the United States.

Now, if George Schultz disagrees with us, then he can make that argument and we can have a debate on it. One of the reasons we wrote the book is to try and encourage debate. “Whether or not unconditional support for Israel is good for the U.S. or not? Was it making Americans safer? Was it Americans more popular around the world? Was it improving our relation with allies in The Middle East and elsewhere?” If all those are true, then, maybe, we’re wrong. We’re making the argument that unconditional support for Israel, as encouraged by the Israeli Lobby, has been deeply harmful.

I’d alert anybody who reads this article that they should go back and read page 112 of George Schultz’s memoirs called “Turmoil and Triumph” where he talks about his own involvement trying to do Middle East policy in the face of pressure from the Lobby. When he and President Regan were dealing with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, he discovered Congress was about to vote a $250 million supplemental military aid package to Israel after the invasion of Lebanon, after [Israel] had used cluster bombs, after the Shatila-Sabra camp massacres. This is what he writes in his own memoirs:

“We fought the supplement and fought it hard. President Reagan and I weighed in personally making numerous calls to Senators and Congressman. The supplement sailed right by us and was approved by Congress as though President Reagan and I had not even been there. I was astonished and disheartened. This brought home for me vividly Israel’s leverage in our Congress. I saw that I must work carefully with the Israelis if I was to have any handle on Congressional action that might affect Israel, and if I were to maintain Congressional support for my efforts to make peace or progress in the Middle East.”

In 1982, and when he wrote his memoirs, he understood the Israeli Lobby was very powerful and he understood that it wasn’t good; it was interfering with what he and President Reagan wanted to do. But he understood it was too powerful to fight it. He might’ve forgotten that in 2006-2007, but that’s what he wrote in his own memoirs.

MEARSHEIMER: There’s no question that Israeli supporters in the U.S. have the right to push pro-Israeli policies. Their behavior in that regard is as American as apple pie. However, there is one form of behavior that many members of the lobby engage in that is antithetical to the American way of doing business. That is the proclivity for smearing critics of Israel. If you criticize Israeli policy, or the power of the Lobby in formulating, or influencing U.S. Middle East policy, you are almost certain to be called an Anti-Semite or worse. Smearing people has become one of the key tactics that large numbers of organizations and individuals use in the Lobby to deal with critics, and this is not as American as apple pie. This kind of behavior should be condemned.

Let’s switch gears and talk about an Arab-American professor at Columbia, Joseph Massad, who published a stinging criticism of your book in Al-Ahram. He suggests your thesis falls into a predictable trap, and I quote him, “…the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States' government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world and gives false hope to many Arabs and Palestinians who wish America would be on their side instead of on the side of their enemies.” So, my question, after listening to this, does your thesis help exonerate the U.S. government from all its responsibility? Moreover, perhaps the U.S. is in fact using Israel, instead of Israel and its Lobby using the U.S, correct?

WALT: Professor Massad greatly overstates it when he says this exonerates the U.S. government from all responsibility. We understand that actors in the U.S. government are independent actors to some degree. You take the Iraq war where we believe the Israeli Lobby had a key role in pushing the U.S. to do this, but ultimately George Bush made the decision to invade. So, we wouldn’t let him or Vice President Cheney off the hook. We are not exonerating those people in the U.S. government. Any official or most officials in the government, and certainly people in Congress are shaped by the political and social forces that exist within American society. They always pay attention where the political support is going to be, and it’s quite clear, as we just saw from the George Schultz quote a moment ago, where the Secretary of State thinks policy ought to go in one direction [not giving Israel the supplementary aid] and President Reagan agrees and thinks it’s a terrible idea, but they get rolled by Congress as if they had not even been there.

So, I think the idea that the U.S. government would be pursuing the same policies vis a vis the Middle East the same policies it would be pursuing absent the Israeli Lobby and the political power of AIPAC, I think it is just wrong. It has been the official policy of every president, every president since Lyndon Johnson to not support the settlements but none of them ever do anything about it, and they are the Presidents. It’s because of an array of political forces that make it impossible for them to take action. Problem #2 is the dog wagging the tail argument, here the argument is that Israel basically is our tool, we give it orders, and it does what we want it to do in the Middle East.

MEARSHEIMER: That Israel is our Rottweiler argument.

WALT: I mean, if you look carefully at the record, there is not much evidence that it is the tool we are using to shape the Middle East. I’ll give you three examples. One is the first Gulf War of ’91 where the U.S. goes into throw Hussein’s Iraq out of Kuwait, Israel didn’t participate in the war, not because they didn’t want to, but if they had participated the Arab coalition would have fallen apart. So, we went to great lengths to keep them out. And then we had to defend them when the SCUD missiles starting coming to Israel. The second example is the Iraq War of 2003, here we are our knocking off an Israeli enemy, but the Israelis are not there doing it, it’s us doing it. They are on the sideline yet again. The third example is the Lebanon War in the Summer of 2006. We don’t like Hezbollah very much, and of course the Israelis don’t like them very much, but there is absolutely no evidence that we were pushing the Israelis to go after Hezbollah. More importantly, we certainly didn’t want the Israelis to go after Lebanon. If Israel was taking our orders in the Summer of 2006, they would have left Beirut alone. They would have done nothing to undermine the democratically elected government in Lebanon, which is something that Bush takes great credit for. We had helped put the government in power, and it was one of the big successes you could point to in Bush’s Middle East policy. If Israel was taking orders from us, they would’ve had a very different approach than us in Lebanon. It’s not that there isn’t some collusion, but the idea they are our obedient servant carrying out the wishes of American Imperialism in the Middle East is just dead wrong

MEARSHEIMER: Two quick points. The U.S. can’t use Israel to support its policies in the Middle East in a large part because it is radioactive, and by that I mean so unpopular in the region. We couldn’t use Israel in the first Gulf War or second Gulf War. My second point would be to focus on what happened after the Shah of Iran fell in 1979. Up until that point, the U.S. had relied heavily on the Shah to do much of its heavy lifting in the Middle East. After the Shah fell, the U.S. was deeply concerned that the Soviet Union might intervene in Iran, and number two that Iraq or Iran might try to dominate the region. In that case, we would need military forces in that region to deal with the problem did it arrive.

So, the United States, if we are to believe the story where Israel is our Rottweiler, then we should’ve been able to turn to Israel to replace the Shah. But, of course, we couldn’t do that, and instead we had to build the rapid deployment force, which is an over the horizon military capability. But we need bases in the Middle East to deploy equipment for the rapid deployment force should it have to come into the region quickly. None of the equipment for the rapid deployment force was put in Israel, because it was unacceptable for the U.S. to station or to put equipment in Israel. So, what we did is we developed a rapid development force of our own, and we deployed that equipment in Arab countries.

Why do these pro-Israeli groups have such a loyal and firm alliance with hawkish, Neo-conservatives and the Christian Right in recent years? This is, after all, the same Christian Right, if you read some of their ideology and dogma, who believe that the Second coming of Christ will end in either the mass slaughter or mass conversion of Jews in Israel.

WALT: The Israel Lobby is a heterogeneous group. They all want to maintain a special relationship with the U.S., but they don’t agree on everything. There are a number of prominent groups, such as AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations, the ADL, the Zionist Organization of America. There are a number of moderate groups that support a 2 state solution as well. The Israeli Policy Forum, the Americans for Peace Now are just a few examples. Then, there is this movement of Christian Evangelicals known as Christian Zionists. The more influential and wealthier organizations have tended to be right of center and more hard-line. AIPAC for example is hard-line. The Zionist Organization of America is very hard-line, opposing a 2 state solution.

Wait, what exactly do you mean by “hard-line?”

WALT: Generally those who oppose a 2 state solution, or like AIPAC never endorsing it. And also, basically supporting the “Settlement” enterprise. Groups like Israeli Policy Forum believe in the 2 state solution and oppose the Settlement enterprise.

MEARSHEIMER: It’s marginally a function of how you think of the [President] Clinton parameters. The Clinton parameters would be a broad outline for a 2 state solution. Organizations like the Israeli Policy Forum, people like Dennis Ross endorse the parameters, I mean he helped craft them.

WALT: I think we argue this in our book, if you look at the major organizations they tend to be more right of center, but they have become more conservative over time, and become more aligned with the Likud party in Israel, more aligned at least politically with conservative movements here in the U.S. The Israeli Lobby has moved in a rightward direction over time. And, it has been strengthened by the Christian Evangelicals who believe, and I’m oversimplifying a lot here, but their view of Israel is shaped by their interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. They believe the re-establishment of a Jewish state in all of Palestine is foreordained in Biblical prophecy, and it is a key sign leading up to the Second Coming, the End of times.

Like a pre-requisite?

WALT: It’s a pre-requisite, it’s gotta’ happen. It’s one of several steps we have to go through. So, they oppose any form of Palestinian state, they oppose any withdrawl of the settlement enterprise, because they think that’s inconsistent with what the Bible has predicted.

MEARSHEIMER: What the Bible says is necessary for the End times to come about.

WALT: Now, as you said, obviously this image of what happens to Israel or the Jewish people is not optimistic. Either they die, are converted, or they get left behind. But, obviously, if you are Jewish you don’t believe any of that prophecy stuff, and therefore there has been a tactical alliance between these groups, because it strengthens the political influence of both hard-line organizations. To put it in crude terms, I think the Jewish groups don’t much care for the Christian Zionist’s other views, because they don’t think they’re true, and they’re happy to get their support on this foreign policy dimension. As we can see the support for our very confrontational policy with Iraq and Iran today, where the Christian Zionists have been very bellicose, as have members of the Israeli Lobby been as well.

MEARSHEIMER: An additional point to make is that Israel, itself, has been progressively moving to the right as well. If you look carefully at Israeli public opinion, there is little support for the Clinton parameters, which is the only meaningful way you can create a viable Palestinian state. The Israelis say they are willing to give the Palestinians a state and favor a 2 state solution, but when you see what the majority of the Israelis want to give the Palestinians it does not in any shape, way, or form add up to a viable Palestinian state. Basically, it would be a series of enclaves in the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip would be another enclave. These enclaves would not be territorially contiguous, not connected, and the Israelis wouldn’t give the Palestinians control of East Jerusalem. The point I’m trying to make is that the fact the Lobby is dominated by hard-line individuals is facilitated by the fact that it is a worldview that is largely reflected by a majority of Israelis.

Professor Mearsheimer, you and several academics recently convened in Chicago, Rockafeller Chapel, and you said academia is the only space where Israel is “treated as a normal country, where past and present actions are critically assessed,” and the place where public opinion on the matter is most accurately reflected. If that is the case, then how do we explain the abrupt denial of tenure of Israeli and Dershowitz critic Norman Finkelstein? [Finkelstein’s very public tenure controversy at DePaul University ended in September ’07 when the Board decided to reject his tenure bid, despite overwhelming support for Finkelstein by his peers, his students, and national and international scholars]

MEARSHEIMER: I said in my comments, academia “tends to be the one place,” where Israel is treated like a normal country. I think there’s no question that there is more criticism of Israel in the academic world and in college campuses, then there is in mainstream media. Nevertheless, the Lobby works very hard to influence the discourse on university campuses and goes to considerable length in influencing hiring and promotion decisions regarding critics of Israel. The Normal Finkelstein case is illustrative of this. Nobody disputes that the Lobby put considerable pressure on DePaul University to deny Finkelstein tenure. They will deny that the pressure had any effect on the ultimate decision to deny him tenure, but this is hard to believe.

You suggest in your book that the image and framing of the issues has been skewed to reflect Israel as a “David” fighting a “Goliath” that is the Palestinians and neighboring Arab enemies. How much of this alleged symbolism is actually reflected in reality? How has this image been popularized and cemented in the mindset of American psychology?

MEARSHEIMER: There is no question that Israeli’s supporters have been very successful in conveying the message to most Americans that Israel is a David surrounded by an Arab goliath. Anyone who looks carefully at the history of the conflict quickly discovers that is not the case. To be more specific, Israelis won the 1948 war decisively, they won the 1956 decisively, they won the 1967 war decisively, and they won the 1973 decisively after suffering a massive surprise attack. All those victories were gained before massive U.S. aid came to Israel.

WALT: Up thru ’67 that’s exactly right. The U.S. was starting to provide significant military aid after ’67, but the aid goes up even more after the ’73 war.

MERSHEIMER: So, Israel won those 4 wars, and since then no Arab state has picked a fight with Israel for the simple reason they all understand Israel is the “Goliath” and they are the “Davids.” Today, Israel has the most powerful conventional army in the region by far. It’s the only state in the region that has nuclear weapons, it has a couple of hundred of them. It has a very close alliance to the U.S., which would surely come to its defense if its survival is threatened. It has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and would have a treaty with Syria had it not walked away from the deal. So, Israel is not only the most powerful country in the region, but it also has peace agreement with some of its neighbors, two of them they have fought wars with in the past. And it would’ve have peace deals with 3 of its principle adversaries had they reached a peace deal with Syria.

The Saudis started in 2002 to push a peace initiative that would’ve brought peace between Israel and the Arab League, and they resurrected it again this year and pushed it again. This tells you that most of the states in the region are interested in reaching some sort of modus of endii with Israel. They understand it is very powerful and not going away anytime soon, therefore it makes sense to make some peace agreement. Israel is in excellent shape in terms of military balance. In terms of its dealings with its neighbors, it is in very good shape.

One might say what about the Palestinians? The Israelis have had opportunities to cut a deal with the Palestinians, especially during the 90’s Oslo Peace Process. But they have never shown any serious interest in allowing the Palestinians to have a viable state. If they could change their thinking on that conflict and bring themselves to evacuate almost all the West Bank, and allow for a Palestinian state, then we believe they would have good relations with the Palestinians as well.

WALT: You have to bear in mind the balance of power between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Israel, today, has the 29th highest per capita income in the world, now that’s not a poor country. Palestinians are deeply impoverished, unable to have a viable economy in the face of all of the obstacles presented now by Israel. The Palestinians have no army, no air force, no navy, they barely have an effective security force, and of course they are deeply divided internally. When any group of people is put into a situation like that, they are going to use any tactic available. Which is why of course the Palestinians have relied on terrorism. John and I both regard the use of terrorist tactics as deplorable, and the loss of innocent human life on either side is deeply, deeply regrettable. So, we’re not defending that. But, the point is that the Palestinians hardly pose an existential threat to Israel. It’s very much a one sided competition. The problem is for all of Israel’s considerable military power it still does not permit them to dominate the Palestinians to the point they won’t try to resist with any means they can come up with. But the idea that Israel is the vulnerable party here, and its various neighbors are all powerful has got reality turned upside down.

How does the Lobby skew this image, in your opinion, for the Average American psychology?

WALT: By constantly repeating how vulnerable Israel is, by constantly exaggerating the dangers that is faces. And, it does have security problems in addition to problems from terrorist bombings, it has problems with Hezbollah to the north. But the groups of the Lobby are hyping the exaggerated threat that Israel faces in trying to convince people its security is very precarious; that Israel might be destroyed anytime soon, that it faces a gigantic sea of enemies that aren’t interested in peace. But if someone looks carefully at the true military balance, or looks carefully at what Israel’s relations with its neighbors really are and what those neighbors have already offered, it suggests Israel is already quite secure in regards to its overall existence. Its survival is not in jeopardy. Its security can be significantly enhanced if it would reach a reasonable settlement with the Palestinians and take that whole problem off the table once and for a all.

MEARSHEIMER: The principle way that the Lobby creates this image of a beleaguered Israel is by working 24-7 to shape the discourse about Israel. The Lobby not only portrays Israel as a “David” surrounded by “Goliaths,” but it also goes to great lengths to silence those who argue that the opposite is the case.

Here’s a criticism. The U.S. is country with over 300 million people. We have blogs, the internet, op/ed publications, websites, liberals, republicans, and a diversity of opinions. How can a tiny minority of Jewish people, which is about 2 to 3% of our population, have that much influence? Is this some sort of conspiracy theory suggesting Jewish boogeyman who own the vast, diverse media we have in the United States?

MEARSHEIMER: We want to be absolutely clear we are not talking about a conspiracy. We are also not making an argument that pro-Israel groups control the media. Our argument is that the Lobby has to work very hard to shape discourse in the United States, because it does not control the media. Certainly, there are pundits and columnists and owners of newspapers who are naturally pro-Israel. There are many others that need to be reminded that criticism of Israel carries with it a significant cost. It’s there where the Lobby is great on what is written in the mainstream media in regards to Israel. Our argument is that they are very effective in that regard.

Let’s just talk about the discourse in the mainstream media about the Middle East. Where do you see evidence of Arab Americans writing columns in major newspapers? Where is the evidence of Arab Americans who are constantly on T.V. or on radio constantly criticizing Israel and defending the Palestinians?

Someone can say Fareed Zakaria is Muslim – [Fareed Zakaria is an influential and well known editor, columnist, and pundit]

WALT: He’s not Arab. He’s a South Asian Muslim. He does not take sides on Middle East questions very often. I think he understands this is a delicate issue, and particularly as delicate an issue for someone as prominent as he is who is known to be Muslim. Find me the Palestinian American columnist in the Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the SF Chronicle. They don’t exist.

MEARSHEIMER: What we have here in the United States is a one sided debate. We have pro-Israel forces and nothing else.

WALT: What you see of course is anytime a major media organization does publish something that is mildly critical they immediately get pressure put on them. For example, this past fall CNN ran a 3 part series on Muslim, Christian, and Jewish fundamentalism. The Forward, a Jewish newspaper, said it [CNN] suffered from an “unprecedented attack,” where organizations were putting pressure on advertisers that had bought advertising time. The whole purpose was not to stop the broadcast, because it already happened, but they wanted to put enough pressure on CNN that the next time a producer has an idea or a big story that is controversial, that producer is going to face an uphill battle. Or if a newspaper in Boston, Cleveland, San Francisco, pushes an article that is critical of the Lobby, if the editor gets 5,000 letters protesting about that, then they will think twice the next time that they let something like that appear.

If you do this long enough and over many years, plenty of reporters, editors, and columnists realize it’s too much trouble. “I’ll write about something else, or I’ll write something bland.” That isn’t control of the media as in the old conspiracy scene, that’s an interest group, like how a number of interest groups work, working very hard to try and make sure that their story gets reported, and the other side tends not to get reported. I say “tend” because every now and then you see something representing the other side appear in various places, but the point is you want to make sure the balance of coverage is on one side.

MEARSHEIMER: I want to add another dimension to this. It is widely recognized in the U.S. that the Lobby has a powerful influence on U.S.-Middle East policy. If you look at almost all the critical reviews of our book, virtually all of the critics admit that the Lobby is powerful. Nevertheless, when you read American news accounts of U.S.-Middle East policy, you hardly ever see any discussion of the Israel Lobby’s presence, much less influence, in the shaping of the U.S. policy.

WALT: Not never, but it’s rare. It’s rare you find someone who is writing about Middle East policy who will devote a couple of paragraphs to the role that pro-Israeli forces are playing in shaping that policy. Even though everyone in Washington knows that they’re very influential.

Let’s talk about Iraq. You, unlike many academics, underplay the role of oil and oil lobbies in the Iraq War. If not oil, then what was the motivating reason for the pre-emptive attack, and how does/did Israel benefit from the attack on Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein?

MEARSHEIMER: With regards to the question of oil, there is hardly any evidence that oil was driving the Iraq war. Except for Kuwait, none of the oil producing states favored the war. And even though Kuwait favored the war, it didn’t push the U.S. hard to attack. Saudi Arabia was opposed to the war, as were the other oil producing states in the regime. There is hardly any evidence that I’m aware of that the oil companies which were pushing this war. The oil companies wanted to cut a deal with Saddam, so they could help him develop his oil fields, move his oil around the globe, and make lots of money in the process. The basic problem is there is not a lot of evidence to support the idea that oil was driving this war. What we believe was driving this was war was 1) The Israeli Lobby, and 2) the fact that George Bush and Cheney after 9-11 believed it was necessary to topple Saddam to win the war on terrorism. It’s a combination of them pushing this war to make this happen.

WALT: I would add to that, of course, the people who pushed for this believed it would benefit the U.S. and benefit Israel as well. They believed it would launch a process of political change throughout the Arab-Islamic world that would make the terrorism problem go away, enhance America’s overall strategic position by gradually creating a lot of countries that were Pro-American, and finally enhance Israel’s strategic position by creating a bunch of countries that were willing to make peace. They were tragically wrong on all counts. How would this war benefit Israel? The war didn’t benefit Israel, of course, it’s been a strategic disaster for Israel. It’s created a failed state nearby [Iraq], and it has enhanced the position of Iran, which is a country Israelis worry about even more than they worried about Saddam. This underscores a point we make in our book and make all the time is that the Israel Lobby in pushing for unconditional American support for Israel, and in some elements, pushing for hair-brained schemes like invading Iraq, it has been bad for the United States and unintentionally bad for Israel, too. It’s incorrect to see the Lobby as always pro-Israel. A lot of what they are supporting is very bad for Israel.

Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker posits the U.S. is engaged in “The-Redirection,” whereby the U.S. and Israel are aligning themselves with moderate Arab dictatorships against Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. As professors of international relations and critics of the Israel Lobby, what blowback would this have, if any, on US-Muslim world relations?

MEARSHEIMER: The basic problem is that the strategy is not going to work. The fact is that Israel is radioactive in the region. The fact that Israel, the U.S., and Arab countries are going to form a right alliance against Iran and maybe Syria and Hezbollah is not going to work. Those Arab countries are going to be unwilling to reach an alliance with the Israelis and U.S. as long as the Palestinian issue continues to fester. One of the principle reasons for Condoleeza Rice is pushing for solution to a Palestinian problem now is because she understands now she can’t put together an anti Iran coalition without shutting down the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. But, there is no serious hope that conflict is going to be shut down anytime soon. That’s why you can’t put that balancing coalition against Iran together. In the populations of countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, there is a significant amount of sympathy towards Iran, and a significant amount of animosity towards U.S. and Israel.

WALT: One of those reasons those countries wont jump into bed fully with us on this, is because they are potentially fragile regimes and they worry about what their populations think if they were to try doing something like that. Second point to remember is Americans sometimes think we would be much better off if we had more democracy in the Middle East, and probably that’s true if you take a very long term view of it. But right now it’s false to imagine rapid democratic transitions in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. You would end up in countries that were very anti-American, because they don’t like the support we’ve given Israel and they also don’t like our support we’ve given to those ruling regimes as well.

MEARSHEIMER: One important piece of evidence that highlights how it’ll be impossible for the U.S. to put together that coalition is to see what happened during the Lebanon war in 2006. Initially, the Arab governments in Jordan and Egypt were very critical of Hezbollah, which is consistent with the policy that the Americans are trying to pursue. But, it quickly became clear to the leaders in Jordan and Egypt that the people in their societies sided with Hezbollah against the United States and against Israel. Therefore, the leaders in Jordan and Egypt had to turn on a dime and become critical of the U.S. and Israel and support Hezbollah.

Let’s close it with this final question and talk about U.S.-Muslim relations in regards to Palestine. Why is this issue, the Palestine issue, above all other issues at the forefront of the Muslim world’s anger against U.S. foreign policy? How does U.S. relation with Israel and the Lobby undermine or help our relations with the Muslim world in this regard?

WALT: For many people in the Muslim, Arab world there is a fundamental question of justice. What they see happening to the Palestinian people is a great injustice, although there were terrible crimes against Jewish people in history, and those crimes may justify the creation of a Jewish state. You can even argue on balance that it is ok to create a Jewish state in Palestine. John and I both thing it was a good thing. But, that act, creating a Jewish state in Palestine, involved the infliction of great crimes against the local residents – the Palestinians. Until there is some compensation and they are given a state of their own, and effort is made to compensate them and acknowledge what happened to them, the moral balance has not been equated.

Second, the entire episode resonates with the whole history of Western interference and domination of that region. It’s seen as another case where Western powers have inflicted great harm on Arab or Islamic peoples. So, it has a particular salience for people elsewhere in that region. Thirdly, it makes the U.S. look deeply hypocritical. The United States likes to talk about human rights, it likes to talk about democracy, it likes to talk about national self-determination. But here, by giving Israel nearly unconditional support, even as Israel continues its 40-year, 4-decade campaign to colonize the West Bank and previously Gaza, and for us to be supporting that enterprise the way we have is seen as deeply contrary to all the things the U.S. claims to stand for. That drives a number of people in the Arab-Muslim world, at least, makes them very angry. The fact we are so hypocritical and inconsistent with our own professed values.

MEARSHEIMER: It is the longest ongoing occupation in modern history.

WALT: It’s still ongoing; there are others like the British occupation of India that lasted much longer. Of all occupations that are currently happening, and there aren’t that many, it’s certainty the longest, continuing occupation that is still happening.

If one takes the looking glass theory and sees that they are looking back at there self in this case.

America and the the world at large does not believe that Sir Gandhi has a racist tong or thought in his statement.

No person in there fair mind even would ever belive the idea that his statement was anti-Semitic or that Sir Gandhi was even trying to pull a rasit card out.

To accuse people of that idea is shameful and degrading. Who is abusing who?

To act that way is like a child throwing a fit.

To try and control humans by using large groups to hunt after humans is abuse and like a gang.

The way Sir Gandhi was treated showes how un-civil and that no tolerance was allowed him as a human who was not trying to degrad any human but who in turn was persecuted for trying to teach to be soft and a bit more kind.

Thank You

Why is it that there can be discussion and even criticism within Israeli regarding their military policies but to speak to the issue in this country is to be labeled an anti-Semite? If you've read any of Dr. Gandhi's writings or followed his work, you would know that he truly follows in the footsteps of his grandfather who said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." And Gandhi didn't let anyone off the hook. He was the most demanding of those of his own faith, standing firm in his belief and in his very life that we humans must follow the way of non-violence iin every moment and circumstance. Nothing whatsoever, not having been the victim of terrible violence or anything else, is an excuse for perpetuating violence or war on another.

I'm dismayed at the condemnation of Dr. Gandhi, and will continue to pray that this episode provokes more thoughtful, open discussion about the sad, dismaying and ongoing crisis in the Middle East.

I'm shocked to see that you've buckled under the complaints from the Zionists while 1.5 million Palestinians starve at the hand of the Israeli Zionists and cannot find even one candle to light the night for the innocent Palestinian children in who cry enelessly at night in the darkness.

Genocide cannot be 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza; it has to be 6 million Jews at the hand of the Nazis. Now I get it!

Karma will rule, and the Zionists will reap what they have sown, whether it be in this sojourn, (lifetime), or the next. Mark my words!

Janet

Well, at least they "apologize". But I notice that Mr. Gandhi is STILL listed under "on faith Panelists".

So, I guess the same people who howled for Imus' head, and got their britches bunched up by the recent Hillary - Obama remarks, have opted for ???????? consequences for more egregious posting that THEY sponsored.

And what lesson should we take from the fact that They "apologize", but he suffers no consequences?

Richard Senturia, Director
Citizens for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Middle East
231 S. Bemiston, suite 800
Clayton, MO 63105
richardsenturia@hotmail.com

Well, at least they "apologize". But I notice that Mr. Gandhi is STILL listed under "on faith Panelists".

So, I guess the same people who howled for Imus' head, and got their britches bunched up by the recent Hillary - Obama remarks, have opted for ???????? consequences for more egregious posting that THEY sponsored.

And what lesson should we take from the fact that They "apologize", but he suffers no consequences?

Richard Senturia, Director
Citizens for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Middle East
231 S. Bemiston, suite 800
Clayton, MO 63105
richardsenturia@hotmail.com

Recently, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi resigned from the University of Rochester-based Peace Institute he is heading due to inflammatory comments he made about Jews and Israel in an online forum at the Washington Post.

The comments had to do with Arun Gandhi stating that Israel and Jews are the ‘“biggest players” in a culture of violence.’ He writes further that the ‘Jewish identity "has been locked into the holocaust experience — a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of (how) a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends’ and that "The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. ... The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the regret turns into anger." (quoted from Reuters)

Because of the anger Arun Gandhi stirred among people, particularly Americans, he was compelled to resign from him post and to issue a public apology. I do not agree with his resignation, his public apology, nor the negative flak he drew from people who called him a bigot and a host of other negative adjectives.

The question about Arun’s comments was whether his statements were really a result of his bigoted thoughts or was he just candidly stating a fact without regard for political correctness and without bothering to hold on to hypocritical proprieties? I would like to think it is the latter for Gandhi speaks true about the Israeli state.

In the past decades or so, Israel has built up its nuclear armaments to supposedly protect itself from threats from the Arab nations surrounding its borders. Interestingly, none of its Arab neighbors harbor nuclear weapons (except lately, when Iran has been reportedly trying to build a nuclear plant for power generation, so its president says). Despite this, Israel brazenly defies the UN calls for the non-proliferation of nuclear arms. Israel has also invariably used force and violence against the Palestinian nation for years now. Although it is true that the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Hamas have been staging “terroristic” attacks against Israel for a long time, this does not justify the Jewish State’s action to place the whole Palestinian Nation under attack and under economic embargoes and sanctions.

For years now, Palestinians have been living in terror because of the periodic attacks Israel stages against Hamas. Like every war, the casualties always include innocent civilians—hundreds, if not, thousands of them. Israel’s actions have also driven tens of thousands of Palestinians into abject poverty, hunger, and the disruption of every day life. It has also resulted in the marginalization and negative labeling and treatment of Palestinians living in Israel. The breach in the border separating Egypt and Palestine highlights the oppressed status of the Palestinians, and how a lot of them are suffering from poverty and hunger because of the Israeli (with consent from the USA) imposed embargoes. When the wall was broken, thousands of Palestinians rushed across Egypt to secure supplies for themselves to ensure their survival, valuable supplies that the Israeli government has denied them.
The sad thing is, the USA has condoned all these. We have not heard the American government speak against the atrocities Israel is staging against Palestinians. We have not heard anyone call Israel a terrorist (to my mind, the Israeli government has been a bigger terrorist than those who leveled the World Trade Center because they have caused more deaths among Palestinians than the deaths caused by the Islamic revolutionaries at the WTC. This does not mean I condone the attacks against the WTC. It was a dastardly act. I am only railing against the hypocrisy of it all). Attacks have not been made against Israel for holding weapons of mass destruction. I can only shake my head in disbelief at how, for instance, the Bush government legitimized its attack against Iraq because it supposedly keeps weapons of mass destruction but has not done the same with Israel. And we know how the Bush government fell flat on its face because it has not found any WMDs in Iraq and how Iraq has fallen into chaos because of American intervention.

The case of Arun can be likened to the story of the innocent little boy pointing out the nakedness of the emperor while none of the people, not even the emperor’s close associates, bothered to tell him the truth.
America is so caught up in its hypocritical ways that it immediately condemns Arun for his statements, although, Arun’s statements resoundingly ring of truth. Have Americans reacted the same when its media labeled Muslims as terrorists? Have statements against Muslims resulted in resignations among high placed university men? None that I know of because America regards Israel as its friend and therefore it is impervious to its shortcomings. It is therefore, guilty of hypocrisy. Arun's guilt lies in his brutal honesty. Like all truths, the truth Arun wrote hurts.
I visited the Holocaust museum in Washington DC and the Jewish Museum in New York some three years ago. The museums were touching testaments to the atrocities suffered by Jews under the Arian regime of Hitler. The museums evoked pathos for the victims and anger against the perpetrators of violence. However, several decades after, Israel is no longer the aggrieved party; instead, it in itself has become an aggressor--an aggressor that could be likened to her tormentors in the past. And it seems very few realize this and for the few who realize it, Americans only have condemning words for them.

Arnie

Where is the original post? If there is freedom of speech, how can you just edit entries of respected intellectuals?

Sincerely,

Paul Crames

Dear fellow Americans and seekers of peace everywhere:

Regarding Arun Gandhi’s remarks about Jews-
And his ouster therefore:
We do not need another Holocaust
Nor Do we need another Gandhi Martyrdom

I only wish I stood in a position wherefrom I might reject the resignation of Arun Gandhi from his position as chairman of the his Institute for Non-violence at the University of Rochester.

I herewith encourage him to withdraw his resignation, which was obviously under fire, and to resist peacefully the avalanche of pious, pro-Semitic sentiment that has worked his cruel institutional undoing as a voice of peace and sanity in the perennially-warring world of religion and religious zealots.

Gandhi’s surrender “under fire” is reminiscent of the media’s banishment of American odds-maker, “Jimmy the Greek” for his utterly-true but politically untimely mentioning that blacks in America have selective breeding during slavery to thank for their clearly superior (over American Caucasian counterpart athletes) athletic abilities.
Why is Gandhi being skewered and dishonored for uttering, for the sake of peace, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Why in fact has he been driven to recant any of his Jan. 7 essay? Why has he, himself in his January 12 “Apology” stated: “ I do not believe and should not have implied that the policies of the Israeli government are reflective of the views of all Jewish people. Indeed, many are as concerned as I am by the use of violence for state purposes, by Israel and many other governments.” ?
In fact Gandhi did not attribute militancy to “all Jews” or “all” of Israel, but his comment was clearly both fair and true in implication because if all Jews are not in favor of Israel’s hard line policies in Palestine, virtually all of those in favor of those hard-line policies are in fact Jews. The same goes for the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and every year since: Israel was established with pre-meditated (massive) bloodshed. The original settlers, despite the vote of the League of Nations granting them their national raison d’etre, knew the inhabitants of the ceded territories would immediately attack them when the grant was accepted and immigration begun, and the settlement of Israel was begun with the heart, mind and intent of the acquisitive warrior.

Israel was perhaps settled by Israeli’s but the State of Israel was established by its affluent Jewish supporters in America. Without the millions of dollars granted Israeli settlers and soldiers, without the grants of weapons and military vehicles, advisers and munitions, from 1948 through and including 2008, Israel, America’s puppet Jewish settlement in the Middle East promised land (shared by both Jewish and Christian Biblical mythologies and religious dogma), there would be no Israel and no violence in the Middle East (save perennial squabbles over subterranean oil deposits, mostly our fault too), and on this virtually unassailable ground, Gandhi’s thesis and assertions were quite simply true.

Gandhi didn’t even mention the recently-verified (by bin Laden himself reportedly) that the attack on America on 9/11/01 was clearly the result of America’s alliance with Israel, and who is historically-challenged enough today to gainsay the causal nexus between our current war in Iraq (and insipient financial collapse) and that attack on 9/11?

But along with the truth of his assertions, there was the collateral fact that his sooth-sayings were also “stereotypical”, and what is more, stereotypical shots at religious sacred cows are and will remain taboo until the inviolable halo of “religion” is removed from people who largely use their religious beliefs as cause(s) de guerre.

Israel is at war, constantly, with its neighbors because it seized an opportunity born of Europe’s (and perhaps the world’s) guilt and compassion over the holocaust. But more non-Jewish than Jewish people were slaughtered by the horrors of Hitler’s Axis of evil during the same period; they were simply not slaughtered for “religious” or ethnic reasons.

But the Holocaust was, as Gandhi quite cogently put it, over a half century ago. To maintain a sense of “victimhood” and unrelenting defensive and offensive militancy from 1938 through 2008 is reminiscent of the idiocy parodied by Mark Twain in Huckleberry Finn, where a new comrade of the young protagonist is killed by a family foe in a feud the origins and reasons for which were no longer known.

The ouster of Gandhi for telling the truth of Israel’s perennially militant stand in the world is hypocritical at best, both from the standpoints of his affiliations with Rochester and the “On Faith” page of the Washington Post. Shame, shame on (all three of them): University of Rochester’s President , Joel Seligman and On-Faith’s Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham for disloyalty and cowardice beyond the call of duty.

I note that it’s no longer possible from the “main page” of the Washington Post “On Faith” blog even to scroll down to Gandhi’s January 7th commentary on Israel and the Jews. Readers of Michelle Boorstein’s January 26 coverage of Gandhi’s forced resignation have to research the matter of Gandhi’s so-called “anti Semitic” assertions indirectly by meandering through the plethora of principally Jewish protests currently bombarding the ramparts of the Post’s and University of Rochester’s blogs.

I don’t accuse Gandhi of cowardice, however. I think he retreated not because it was the “just” thing to do, but rather because it was the peaceful thing to do. He was true to his (and his grandfather’s) form and walking his walk. But having said that, I think his retreat and apology are both morally wrong and counter-productive in the cause of peace. Even the Dalai Lama in his book on happiness concedes that, even though it is essential to love your neighbors even when they are your enemies….sometimes it is necessary to do what is required to defend yourself and your loved ones from attack. I am herewith attempting to do for Arun Gandhi what he appears to be unwilling to do, justly, for himself.

The “On Faith” blog was purportedly established to create a clearing house and open forum for sharing eclectic and creative ideas and views on religion. To quote from Quinn’s and Meacham’s own mission statement, the purpose of the blog on which Gandhi expressed his views included: (the exchange of views ….)

“From the nature of evil to religious reformation, from the morality of fetal stem-cell research to the history of scripture, from how to raise kids in multi-faith households to the place of gays in traditional churches -- of the asking of questions, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, there shall be no end.

Well, it appears that Gandhi has discovered that there in fact “shall be …an end”…that is a point at which free expressions of religious ideas are no longer found “tolerable”, either in the peaceful institution of his own foundation or among his allies in the media or University.

I detest, rebuke and renounce all those actions and expressions which have culminated in Arun Gandhi’s forced resignation from his position and candid quest for peace. This event smacks of fascistic theocracy and embodies the odiously-evolving of religious institutions in our collective midst in terms recently portrayed by Philip Pullman’s trilogy, “His Dark Materials” ( including, most recently, the movie, “The Golden Compass”). The University of Rochester, Gandhi Institute, and “On Faith” bloggers are all acting in concert as the evil and oppressive “Magisterium” in Pullman’s brilliant and prescient fictional accounting of a world progressively reducing itself to an oligarchy of fascistic religious fundamentalists--and a concomitant intellectual peasantry of masses afraid to oppose—or even to question them.

I am (the writer hereof) no more an anti-Semite than Arun Ghandhi is. And Arun Ghandhi is in no way or degree an anti-Semite. Being anti-Zionist is not being anti-Semite. Israel is a Zionist state. Zionism is a matter of unjustified and aggressive war and conquest based on religious mythology. Knowing and stating such truth does not make me an anti-Semite. Knowing and stating that Israel, with its American-manufactured and financed armaments is the most militant and aggressive state in the Middle East, having the greatest stockpile of weapons of mass –and minor—destruction does not make either me or Gandhi’s comments consonant with such truths…anti-Semitic.

The end of Arun Gandhi’s January 7th comments are essentially my own, and so I will close with them, primarily in order to cleanse them of the diluting taint of his subsequent –unwarranted--apology therefor.

Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?
Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.
Accordingly, about both the Jewish Holocaust and the martyrdom of anyone named Gandhi for telling the truth, I say the same thing—
NEVER AGAIN !
Robert R. Schoch*

*Robert R. (Dusty) Schoch
607 Overbrook Drive (parcels)
P.O. Box 5743 (letters; insured parcels)
High Point, NC 27262
Phone: (336) 887 3119
Fax: (336) 887 1227
E-Mail: Rschoch@triad.rr.com
Cell: (336) 847 4777
Robert R. (Dusty) Schoch is an attorney, inventor (author of Milton Bradley’s “Crack the Case”), designer (United Features Syndicate-licensed “Snoopy’s Dream Machines”) and manufacturer (D.C.S. International, Inc.), Inventor’s representative and broker of toys, games and other inventions (President and C.E.O. of I.D.E.A.S. , “Invention Design Enhancement And Sales”) and writer (novels, essays, screenplays) living in High Point, N.C. BA (English) degree, UNC Chapel Hill, JD (law) U. of Ala., Tuscaloosa. Dusty is founder and scribe of the B.E.A. (“Barristers et al”) a N.C.-based, politically-independent foreign policy think tank. He is also co-editor (foreign policy) of Democratswrite.com through the contact link of which readers are invited to correspond with him.

________________________________________

No, Jon and Sally, what is "regrettable" is your "apology," which smacks of the fruit of pressure applied by the Zionists on your editors, such as the outrageous letter from Judea Pearl to Mr. Graham, using Daniel Pearl's death as a spin-source for Zionism.

What is regrettable is the Zionist/Jewish fatah against Mr. Ghandi and Joel Seligman's removal of Mr. Ghandi from the M.K. Ghandi Institute, which Mr. Ghandi founded and which will now, presumably, be run by Jews.

The lesson is: criticizing Zionism brings retribution every bit as quickly as criticizing Mohammad.

The lesson is: the Jews and the Arabs are all Semites. They have more similarities than differences. They and the world needs to re-connect to this genetic reality.

The future vision that Mr. Ghandi longs for could be, for instance, a return to the golden era of Andalusian Spain in the 15th Century when the Jews and Muslims lived together and produced one of the most wonderful cultures in human history. After all, the Semites are, arguably, the most intelligent of the human races.

But the only vision that is extant seems to flow from the Holocaust, which has led indirectly to Israel and its hundreds of nuclear warheads and its nuclear submarines prowling the Gulf and threatening world peace -- which is what Mr. Ghandi was saying.

i find it frightening that mr gandhi was forced to resign for his comments.

his intent was not to foster conflict, but to encourage forgiveness.

clearly an effort wasted.

Why don't you host a conversation on the difference--or similarities--between anti-semitism and anti-zionism?

Regards,

SLY

This ridiculous over-reaction to Mr. Ghandi's relatively mild comments is the case in point. I mean, he actually RESIGNED over this?!!

While the point he was trying to make may have come across as a bit offensive, and oblique, I find it hard to doubt Mr. Ghandi's well-meaning intentions. I mean, how many of you folks out there have started an institute dedicated to creating peace?

I certainly haven't.

Why is it if anyone says anything even mildly critical of the modern state of Isreal and its relationship to the Holocaust, people lose their minds? Suddenly, so and so is labeled an antisemite, or a bigot, and the reasonable dialogue is just shut down once again, and we remain stuck in us-against-them war-think.

Firstly, I think all reasonable people can agree that the Holocaust 1) did factually occur, and 2) was an epic atrocity against not just Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, Homosexuals, and the disabled, but all of humanity.

Yes, the Holocaust was a horror of unfathomable proportions, but it happened 50 or so years ago. What is more relevant now is how do we create PEACE TODAY in the middle east and the world at large?

Global peace starts with regional peace. Regional peace like in the middle east requires leadership by both individuals and nations alike.

The question for Isreal -- and even more so for the United States -- should be, how can we take the initiative in shaping a culture of peace, instead of perpetuating the cycle of violence and vengeance?

By focusing one's energies on being outraged at Mr. Ghandi's remarks, is frankly, off-topic. The world needs plenty of fixing, and Mr. Ghandi is hardly what I would call one of its major problems.

I think that Mr. Arun Ghandi was neither off the mark nor outside the scope of the his position.

There is insight lacking. This insight is not of the variety of positions taken by all parties involved. What is the point in expounding these?

What he is indisposed of is fundamental flaw in all of this (and no one can himself excuse himself the obligation):

THE ELDERS BELIEF IS, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, THAT CHRISTIANITY IS DESTROYING/CONTROLLING/HIGHJACKING NOT JUST JUDAISM BUT JEWISH BLOODLINE DESTINY

Hitler did not start this, he recognized it. He was not the only one. It has been going on for some time. Don't tell me about AIDS and the colonial slave trade unless you are building this case.

There is never an exception to Justice on the grounds of prior belief.

And let us not talk about two religions in the context of one another except in the real relationship they have. We have been through that, and it is not our faith. What makes wrong, wrong?

Your comments about Arun Ghandi's post were myopic and journalistically irresponsible. Religious discussions do generate heat and sometimes that's precisely what the topic requires. We all have to get past the heat and into the discussion. His clarification was more than appropriate and your public dismissal of his response is a disgrace to your role as his colleague and to your position.

I dont agree with Arun Gandhi's views that Israelis should not defend themselves. However, there is a difference between defending oneself, and humiliating and degrading others. The responses on this forum clearly show that many people are smug that they have humiliated and destroyed Arun Gandhi. There are still others who want to extract the last ounce of blood, and are not yet satisfied. perhaps they would be satisfied if Arun gandhi was given the death penalty.

Instances such as these re-inforce the perception, real or otherwise, that the jewish peole close ranks, and act as one block whenever anyone says anything against them, whether right or wrong. They have used the sledgehammer here so that in future no one else will even think of expressing a dissenting opinion- simply out of fear. It is just NOT possible that not one jewish person thinks that what happened to Arun Gandhi is unfair.

I believe in the saying, Might is Right. But only if might is used for "right" reasons (as in fair, just).

If only they were fair and just, they would have more supporters to back them.

http://www.science.co.il/hi/Turkish/

I ALWAYS SAY PEOPLE SHOUDL SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AND DEFINE THEMSLEVES.

A TURKISH JEW SPEAKS FOR HIMSELF.

Turkish-Jewish Friendship
Over 500 Years
Turkish Jews - Brief History
A shorter version of this article was published in Turkish Times, May 1, 2001.

In 70 C.E. the Roman army invaded Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from Judea and Samaria (see brief history of the Jewish people). Some of these Jews reached Spain and established thriving communities there. The most famous famous person to emerge from Spanish Jewry is Moshe Ben Maimon (Rambam), a scientist, physician and a Torah Scholar.

In the 15th century the Jews in Spain faced strong pressures to convert to Christianity and many yielded to this pressure and became Christians. In 1492 the king of Spain, Ferdinand, issued an edict to expel from Spain all remaining Jews who did not convert to Christianity.

Sultan Beyazit II welcoming Jews to Ottoman Empire in 1492
(painting by Mevlut Akyildiz).
When the news of expulsion reached the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan (Emperor) Beyazit II issued a decree to welcome the Jews. A significant portion of those expelled thus came to Ottoman Empire and settled mostly in European parts of the Empire. The Turkish Jews are also identified as Sephardic Jews. This derives from the word Sepharad which in Hebrew means Spain.

Since 1492, through five centuries, the Ottoman sultans and the modern day Turkish Republic, welcomed the Jews and offered them a safe haven from persecution in the European countries. The Ottoman Empire at its zenith became one the largest empires in World History covering most of Mediterranean basin region extending from North Africa to Eastern Europe. It has been suggested that one of the characteristics that extended the domination of the Ottoman Empire was its allowance of religious freedom for the different nationalities and minorities under its rule. While many European nations expelled, persecuted or tried to convert the Jews under their dominion, the Turkish people of the Ottoman Empire, remained as an outstanding example of tolerance of different nationalities with different religions.

The presentation above sometimes sounds unusual to strangers who may have heard Turkey only in the context of conquests of the Ottoman Empire. Indeed Turkish people have been throughout history a nation with a strong army and strong national feelings. Yet, the Turkish history is also full of stories of humanity and tolerance. In war time they are a strong nation to avoid confrontation with, but they also know to become friends beyond the war times and zones. This, in my personal opinion is a consistent pattern of Turkish behavior in all of their extensive history through centuries.

The history of the Ottoman Jews is rich with mutual complementary cultural influences. The Jews coming from Spain established the first printing presses that had just emerged as a most important tool of the modern culture. Many Jewish doctors served in the courts of Ottoman sultans and in the Ottoman army (see Sephardic house archives for detailed lists with names). Jews engaged in commerce enhanced trade between countries of the region for the benefit of all. The religious freedom allowed the flourishing of famous rabbis that produced outstanding works of comments on the Old Testament.

Until World War I the Land of Israel also known as Palestine, remained under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. During this period the Jewish population in this region lived as loyal subjects of the greater Ottoman Empire (see brief history). After World War I, the British Empire gained control of Transjordan and Palestine which ended in 1948 with the declaration of independence of the State of Israel.

In pre World War II times Turkish government issued a decree prohibiting entry visas to Jews escaping the Nazi regime (for one of the best accounts of this period see Bali's book in the books section). Yet some Turkish diplomats in foreign countries worked hard to help Jews escape from deportation to concentration and death camps. Yad VaShem, Holocaust Memorial Institute in Israel awarded the medal of "The Righteous Among the Nations" to the Turkish ambassador Mr. Selahattin Ulkumen, for saving Jews of the Greek island Rhodes while risking his own life. One of the tragic cases took place in 1942. A ship named Struma carrying 769 Jewish refugees arrived in Istanbul. Its passengers were not granted permit to land and had to sail back to the Black and it was sunk by an explosion probably by a submarine (see full story).

In contrast to the policy of entry prohibition against refugees, the Turkish government decree left the doors open to Jewish scientists who came to Turkey. By first hand account I have heard stories of Turkish scientists honoring their German Jewish teachers who escaped to Turkey and taught in universities in Istanbul.

During World War II, the Sephardic communities in Turkey and Bulgaria were the only communities that did not suffer the Nazi Holocaust, thanks to the wisdom of the leaders of these countries. In contrast, nearly the entire Sephardic Jewish community of Greece was killed during World War II by the Nazi death machine.

After World War II, while the British rule tried to prevent the movement of the Jewish refugees into Israel, the modern day Turkish republic allowed its Jewish citizens freely to emigrate to Israel. The current population of Turkish-Jews in Israel is estimated as about 100,000, though a precise figure is difficult to obtain. This represents a relatively small community in the general population of about 6 million in Israel. The major wave of emigration from Turkey to Israel took place between 1940-1950. This migration from Turkey was not a result of a desire to escape from Turkey but rather emanated from the national desire to return to the homeland of our forefathers as each day three times a day we prayed to return to Jerusalem.

My own personal appreciation of Turkish attitude to Jews was shaped slowly. Like any minority in any country, sometimes isolated events of differential treatment are raised. Yet, as I became more knowledgeable and could compare cultures and countries around the globe with the passing of age and experience, we became much more appreciative of the benevolence of the Turkish people who harbored the Jewish people through incredibly barbaric times in the annals of European history. In retrospect of what we know of European history today, we owe Turkish people a great debt of gratitude for saving the lives of thousands of Jews. As Turkish-Jews we preserved our national identity as the descendants of the Biblical Israelites, yet to this day we also feel ourselves as Turkish and identify with the Turkish People.

Today Turkey is one of the most favorite countries for Israeli tourists, thanks to its natural beauty and famous hospitality of its people. The number of Israeli tourists visiting Turkey each year is estimated in the hundreds of thousands. This tourist travel has extended the ties of friendship between Israel and Turkey to the general population, outside of the small community of Turkish Jews. Concomitantly, the trade between Turkey and Israel has greatly expanded in all spheres of economic activity from food commodities to hi-tech products. There are also many joint scientific and commercial activities between the two countries.

Both Turkey and Israel are unique in the Middle-East as the only countries with democratic regimes and democratic culture with multi-party systems. As it is well known, Middle-East is highly volatile with intra-Arab (Iran-Iraq war, Iraq-Kuwait Gulf War, Lebanese civil war, etc.) and Arab-Israeli conflicts. I hope that continuing the centuries old tradition of strong ties between Jews in Israel and Turkey may help promote greater stability in this region. The close ties of friendship and tolerance between the Turkish and Jewish People throughout the centuries is proof that Moslems and Jews can live together with mutual respect, and should serve as an example for our Arab neighboring countries with whom we yearn for a peaceful coexistence.

From a complementary perspective, the Arabs want to project the Israeli-Arab conflict as a religious conflict. We as Turkish Jews know that this is an improper use of religion in the fight of Arabs against Israel. In all the generations of Jewish life in Turkey we never saw a single Moslem Turk trying to kill a Jew in the name of Allah, whereas this is a common occurrence here. As the recent events show this conflict is not going to end anytime soon.

For further information about the history of Sephardic and Turkish Jews see bibliography and links page.

Copyright © 1999-2008 Israel Hanukoglu. All Rights Reserved.

Turkish-Jewish Friendship
Over 500 Years

Turkish Jews - Brief History
A shorter version of this article was published in Turkish Times, May 1, 2001.

In 70 C.E. the Roman army invaded Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from Judea and Samaria (see brief history of the Jewish people). Some of these Jews reached Spain and established thriving communities there. The most famous famous person to emerge from Spanish Jewry is Moshe Ben Maimon (Rambam), a scientist, physician and a Torah Scholar.

In the 15th century the Jews in Spain faced strong pressures to convert to Christianity and many yielded to this pressure and became Christians. In 1492 the king of Spain, Ferdinand, issued an edict to expel from Spain all remaining Jews who did not convert to Christianity.

Sultan Beyazit II welcoming Jews to Ottoman Empire in 1492
(painting by Mevlut Akyildiz).
When the news of expulsion reached the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan (Emperor) Beyazit II issued a decree to welcome the Jews. A significant portion of those expelled thus came to Ottoman Empire and settled mostly in European parts of the Empire. The Turkish Jews are also identified as Sephardic Jews. This derives from the word Sepharad which in Hebrew means Spain.

Since 1492, through five centuries, the Ottoman sultans and the modern day Turkish Republic, welcomed the Jews and offered them a safe haven from persecution in the European countries. The Ottoman Empire at its zenith became one the largest empires in World History covering most of Mediterranean basin region extending from North Africa to Eastern Europe. It has been suggested that one of the characteristics that extended the domination of the Ottoman Empire was its allowance of religious freedom for the different nationalities and minorities under its rule. While many European nations expelled, persecuted or tried to convert the Jews under their dominion, the Turkish people of the Ottoman Empire, remained as an outstanding example of tolerance of different nationalities with different religions.

The presentation above sometimes sounds unusual to strangers who may have heard Turkey only in the context of conquests of the Ottoman Empire. Indeed Turkish people have been throughout history a nation with a strong army and strong national feelings. Yet, the Turkish history is also full of stories of humanity and tolerance. In war time they are a strong nation to avoid confrontation with, but they also know to become friends beyond the war times and zones. This, in my personal opinion is a consistent pattern of Turkish behavior in all of their extensive history through centuries.

The history of the Ottoman Jews is rich with mutual complementary cultural influences. The Jews coming from Spain established the first printing presses that had just emerged as a most important tool of the modern culture. Many Jewish doctors served in the courts of Ottoman sultans and in the Ottoman army (see Sephardic house archives for detailed lists with names). Jews engaged in commerce enhanced trade between countries of the region for the benefit of all. The religious freedom allowed the flourishing of famous rabbis that produced outstanding works of comments on the Old Testament.

Until World War I the Land of Israel also known as Palestine, remained under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. During this period the Jewish population in this region lived as loyal subjects of the greater Ottoman Empire (see brief history). After World War I, the British Empire gained control of Transjordan and Palestine which ended in 1948 with the declaration of independence of the State of Israel.

In pre World War II times Turkish government issued a decree prohibiting entry visas to Jews escaping the Nazi regime (for one of the best accounts of this period see Bali's book in the books section). Yet some Turkish diplomats in foreign countries worked hard to help Jews escape from deportation to concentration and death camps. Yad VaShem, Holocaust Memorial Institute in Israel awarded the medal of "The Righteous Among the Nations" to the Turkish ambassador Mr. Selahattin Ulkumen, for saving Jews of the Greek island Rhodes while risking his own life. One of the tragic cases took place in 1942. A ship named Struma carrying 769 Jewish refugees arrived in Istanbul. Its passengers were not granted permit to land and had to sail back to the Black and it was sunk by an explosion probably by a submarine (see full story).

In contrast to the policy of entry prohibition against refugees, the Turkish government decree left the doors open to Jewish scientists who came to Turkey. By first hand account I have heard stories of Turkish scientists honoring their German Jewish teachers who escaped to Turkey and taught in universities in Istanbul.

During World War II, the Sephardic communities in Turkey and Bulgaria were the only communities that did not suffer the Nazi Holocaust, thanks to the wisdom of the leaders of these countries. In contrast, nearly the entire Sephardic Jewish community of Greece was killed during World War II by the Nazi death machine.

After World War II, while the British rule tried to prevent the movement of the Jewish refugees into Israel, the modern day Turkish republic allowed its Jewish citizens freely to emigrate to Israel. The current population of Turkish-Jews in Israel is estimated as about 100,000, though a precise figure is difficult to obtain. This represents a relatively small community in the general population of about 6 million in Israel. The major wave of emigration from Turkey to Israel took place between 1940-1950. This migration from Turkey was not a result of a desire to escape from Turkey but rather emanated from the national desire to return to the homeland of our forefathers as each day three times a day we prayed to return to Jerusalem.

My own personal appreciation of Turkish attitude to Jews was shaped slowly. Like any minority in any country, sometimes isolated events of differential treatment are raised. Yet, as I became more knowledgeable and could compare cultures and countries around the globe with the passing of age and experience, we became much more appreciative of the benevolence of the Turkish people who harbored the Jewish people through incredibly barbaric times in the annals of European history. In retrospect of what we know of European history today, we owe Turkish people a great debt of gratitude for saving the lives of thousands of Jews. As Turkish-Jews we preserved our national identity as the descendants of the Biblical Israelites, yet to this day we also feel ourselves as Turkish and identify with the Turkish People.

Today Turkey is one of the most favorite countries for Israeli tourists, thanks to its natural beauty and famous hospitality of its people. The number of Israeli tourists visiting Turkey each year is estimated in the hundreds of thousands. This tourist travel has extended the ties of friendship between Israel and Turkey to the general population, outside of the small community of Turkish Jews. Concomitantly, the trade between Turkey and Israel has greatly expanded in all spheres of economic activity from food commodities to hi-tech products. There are also many joint scientific and commercial activities between the two countries.

Both Turkey and Israel are unique in the Middle-East as the only countries with democratic regimes and democratic culture with multi-party systems. As it is well known, Middle-East is highly volatile with intra-Arab (Iran-Iraq war, Iraq-Kuwait Gulf War, Lebanese civil war, etc.) and Arab-Israeli conflicts. I hope that continuing the centuries old tradition of strong ties between Jews in Israel and Turkey may help promote greater stability in this region. The close ties of friendship and tolerance between the Turkish and Jewish People throughout the centuries is proof that Moslems and Jews can live together with mutual respect, and should serve as an example for our Arab neighboring countries with whom we yearn for a peaceful coexistence.

From a complementary perspective, the Arabs want to project the Israeli-Arab conflict as a religious conflict. We as Turkish Jews know that this is an improper use of religion in the fight of Arabs against Israel. In all the generations of Jewish life in Turkey we never saw a single Moslem Turk trying to kill a Jew in the name of Allah, whereas this is a common occurrence here. As the recent events show this conflict is not going to end anytime soon.

For further information about the history of Sephardic and Turkish Jews see bibliography and links page.

Copyright © 1999-2008 Israel Hanukoglu. All Rights Reserved.

There wwere many Arun Gandhi in the past, they are at present and they will be in future.

From:

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/books/books12.htm

All of a sudden, a girl from among the audience stood up and challenged my statement. She said, ‘Here I am before you. My name is Nonica Dutt. I belong to a Husaini Brahman family.’ It was clearly a pleasant surprise for me, something like discovering a rare bird while walking through a jungle.

The girl promised me an exclusive meeting to enlighten me with interesting information about the Husaini Brahmanian background of her family. But the proposed meeting kept on being postponed for one reason or the other. Finally, on the last day of my stay in Delhi, I received a call from her.

‘Let us meet now,’ she said

‘But I have no evening to spare for you. Today is the last day of my stay in your city,’ I said.

‘But I am already in the lounge and I must meet you,’ she said.

So we finally had a meeting. She entered my room with two large volumes under her arm. I proposed a detailed sitting on my next visit, which was due after a month or so. ‘But in the coming months, I will not be in Delhi. I am moving to Germany and will spend four months at the Humboldt University.’ Nonica Dutt taught history at Jawahar Lal University and had been honoured with a fellowship from the Humboldt University. Hence she was on her way to Germany.

‘I,’ she said, ‘told my mother about your comments regarding Husaini Brahamans and how I introduced myself as one. To that she said, did you tell him that we don’t perform the rituals the Brahmans are obliged to perform. That we don’t go to the temples?’

‘Should I presume from this,’ I asked, ‘that you have turned Muslim.’

‘No, we are not Muslims,’ she exclaimed.

‘Then what are you?’ I inquired.

‘We are Husaini Brahmans,’ she said with a certain sense of pride and added, ‘Now, I will tell you about a sign each and every Husaini Brahman carries with him/her. On his/her throat s/he bears a line of cutting, which is indicative of the fact that s/he is the descendant of those Brahmans whose throats were cut in the battle of Karbala.’ Then she told me about the ritual carried out on the birth of every child in her family. She said, ‘Among Brahmans, after child birth, the ritual of Moondan is performed. In our family this ritual is performed in the name of Imam Husain.’

She then went on to tell me the historical facts. ‘I will now tell you about the history of our martyred forefathers.’ Pointing to the two books placed on the table she said, ‘our entire history is conserved within these two books. When needed, I will quote from them.’ Considering their worn out and pale pages, the books, which were written in English, seemed to be centuries old.

The history of Husaini Brahmans, as told by Nonica Dutt, begins with ten Brahmans going to Karbala with the determination to die fighting for Imam Husain. Among them were Rahib Dutt and his seven sons who fought bravely and resolutely. With the blessings of Imam Husain they met their death in a heroic way. Rahib Dutt was the lone survivor of the battle. From Karbala he escaped to Kufa, where he stayed for some time. It is said that Rahib had the privilege of meeting the members of the Imam’s family after the massacre. He introduced himself by saying, ‘I am a Brahman from Hindustan.’ The reply came, ‘Now you are Husaini Brahman. We will always remember you.’

Rahib went from Kufa to Afghanistan, and from there came back to India where he stayed for a few days in Nankana. Nonica paused for a while and then spoke, ‘In the Sialkot district there is a town known as Viran Vatan. That place is our ancestral home. We are the descendants of Rahib Dutt. He had brought with him a hair of Imam Husain, which is ensconced in the Hazratbal shrine in Kashmir. She then recited a few couplets from the book she had brought along with her, in which these incidents have been recorded. ‘These couplets,’ she said, ‘are very popular among the Husaini Brahmans.’

Nonica shut the book and said ‘Let me inform you that Sunil Dutt was also a Husaini Brahman. And the father of Nargis too was a Husaini Brahman.’

She got up saying ‘Now I must go.’

‘I think,’ I said, ‘after you return from Germany, I should make a point to come to Delhi so that you can introduce me to your father. I will perhaps be able to know much more about your ancestors from him.’

She said goodbye and left hurriedly. I had been under the impression that the story of the eight Brahmins was just a legend. But Nonica firmly believed that it is a historical fact. And it is the belief of Nonica and her community that really counts. For them the event is a reality.

Wow, that's just swell, you geniuses couldn't figure out it was antisemitic *before* you printed it. How did you ever get further in journalism than Jimmy Olsen?

Apology not accepted, as it is clearly offered in bad faith. You don't print anti-semitic and biased garbage from bigots and then come back and say "oops".

But it's ok; we know who you people are. Just stop pretending to be something else...

Gandhi is my Dhimmi. All praise our Pagan Piggy Goddess Allah! Relax and have a tall cold glass of Allah's Swine Sperm Beer. Brewed right in Mecca. Harvested by mouth right in the Kaaba. Just like Muhammad taught.

To deny us our only one State of Caliphate which existed for 1300 years and which was abolished by a Jew name Ataturk in 1923 is pure anti-Semitism too.

Here is a quotation from Joachim Prinz's 'The Secret Jews'; page 122: I did not make the story nor any member of World Muslim. From the same book written by a Jew the World can know how Jew lived under Caliphate, Al-Andalusia (Spain)to India and Yemen to Bosnia and how Jews were placed in high post. But what we know now is that the World Muslims who protected the Jews from inquisition after inquisition by European Christians; were fooled and by the same Jews Caliphate were abolished.

Abdul Hamid began among the intellectuals of Salonika. It was from there that the demand for a constitutional regime originated. Among the leaders of the revolution which resulted in a more modern government in Turkey were Djavid Bey and Mustafa Kemal. Both were ardent 'doenmehs'. Djavid Bey became minister of finance; Mustafa Kemal became the leader of the new regime and he adopted the name of Ataturk. His opponents tried to use his 'doenmeh' background to unseat him, but without success. Too many of the Young Turks in the newly formed revolutionary Cabinet prayed to Allah, but had as their real prophet Shabtai Zvi, the Messiah of Smyrna.

….In Salonika in the early days of the movement the ten commandments “of our Lord King and Messiah Shabtai Zvi” were proclaimed by the daenmebs. They still form the credo of surviving doenmebs of our time. Som of them are as follows:

I swear that I shall never convert anybody to the faith of the Turban, called Islam.

I shall meticulously adhere to the customs of the Turks so as not to arouse their suspicion. I shall not only observe the Fast of Ramadhan but all the other Muslim customs which are observed in public.

I shall not marry into a Muslim family nor maintain any intimate association with them, for they are to us an abomination and particularly their women.

Can there be any more hate and hateful conspiracy than above and above conspiracy that you will accept Islam and you will remain secret Jew to destroy Islam and Caliphate as happened in the past and it is happening at present?

To deny us our only one State of Caliphate which existed for 1300 years and which was abolished by a Jew name Ataturk in 1923 is pure anti-Semitism too.

Here is the proof from a quotation from Joachim Prinz's 'The Secret Jews'; page 122: I did not make the story nor any member of World Muslim. From the same book written by a Jew the World can know how Jew lived under Caliphate, Al-Andalusia (Spain)to India and Yemen to Bosnia and how Jews were placed in high post. But what we know now is that the World Muslims who protected the Jews from inquisition after inquisition by European Christians; were fooled and by the same Jews Caliphate were abolished.

Abdul Hamid began among the intellectuals of Salonika. It was from there that the demand for a constitutional regime originated. Among the leaders of the revolution which resulted in a more modern government in Turkey were Djavid Bey and Mustafa Kemal. Both were ardent 'doenmehs'. Djavid Bey became minister of finance; Mustafa Kemal became the leader of the new regime and he adopted the name of Ataturk. His opponents tried to use his 'doenmeh' background to unseat him, but without success. Too many of the Young Turks in the newly formed revolutionary Cabinet prayed to Allah, but had as their real prophet Shabtai Zvi, the Messiah of Smyrna.

….In Salonika in the early days of the movement the ten commandments “of our Lord King and Messiah Shabtai Zvi” were proclaimed by the daenmebs. They still form the credo of surviving doenmebs of our time. Som of them are as follows:

I swear that I shall never convert anybody to the faith of the Turban, called Islam.

I shall meticulously adhere to the customs of the Turks so as not to arouse their suspicion. I shall not only observe the Fast of Ramadhan but all the other Muslim customs which are observed in public.

I shall not marry into a Muslim family nor maintain any intimate association with them, for they are to us an abomination and particularly their women.

Can there be any more hate and hateful conspiracy than above and above conspiracy that you will accept Islam and you will remain secret Jew to destroy Islam and Caliphate as happened in the past and it is happening at present?

In an attempt to answer you Bob, I invited Mr. Gandhi to visit us here so he knows what it feels like to be an incessant target as we are. I hear he will have some free time on his hands now. Maybe he gets the point now, maybe not. Being Jewish gives one an interesting take on the whole anti-Semitic thing. It is the fundamental reason I left the US and moved to Israel. The rambling diatribes feeding this blog only emphasize my point and support my decision. Here is the nugget for you to digest: we have a right to live here. We have a right to defend ourselves and when anyone says we do not have that right they are indeed an anti-Semite. I call a spade a spade. That makes me a proud Zionist. Proud of my country and prouder of my people. It has nothing to do with anyone "occupying" any place here. That myth will go the way of the dodo bird someday. There is no such place as "Palestine" merely arabic people who originated from TransJordan and are the pawns of the Middle East ad nauseum. To deny us our history, our place on earth and our place in the world is pure anti-Semitism.

You need to get rid of Ghandi.

Mr. Arun Gandhi was forced to resign as he was not allowed equal opportunity for any debate and he was denied the equal opportunity for any debate against the crime against of illegal Immigrants in Palestine, the model of Illegal European Immigrants in 4 Continents since 1492. More is in:

http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581128770

Thanks,

"'The Board of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence has received Mr. Arun Gandhi's offer of resignation as president of our organization. We take this very seriously and have begun appropriate deliberations. In accord with the Institute's mission – to educate for nonviolence and to inspire and support efforts that promote harmony in our communities – we believe that a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Gandhi is essential. We are scheduling a board meeting with him upon his return from India next week. Our intention is to review the facts and history, and to resolve this matter with all due speed.'”

Mr. Arun Gandhi was forced to resign as he was not allowed equal opportunity for any debate and he was denied the equal opportunity for any debate against the crime against of illegal Immigrants in Palestine, the model of Illegal European Immigrants in 4 Continents since 1492.
More is in:

http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581128770

Thanks,

Suicidal bombing by Muslim children did not start in 1492 or 1757 or 1914/1916 and in our time. Suicidal bombing started by Tamil Tiger of Sri Lanka a Hindu group. Very few Muslims started it during last few years out of desperation as none want to kill him. And we Muslims don’t want that our children will kill themselves. No parents want it though it is happening and as such we need to go to root cause of this. A World power for more than a thousand years became defenseless spectator as Muslims have no WMD or means to fight back all the oppression started from 1492, 1757 and 1914/1916.

Largest Muslims live in Indonesia, Malaysia and not a single Muslim warrior ever went there. Even in India Islam was spread by spiritual power and not Sword. Here is the proof:

From:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2003/03/06/stories/2003030600560300.htm

Legend has is that a group of Punjabi Khatris from Bhera was going to Haridwar for a holy dip in Ganga. On the way, they met Sufi Shamsuddin Tabrez who asked where were they going. When he was told by the Khatris about their plan, the saint reportedly asked whether they would become Muslim if he brought the Ganga right there. The Hindu Khatris accepted his offer and the saint literally brought the Ganga there and then the awe-struck Hindus as promised converted to Islam.

Sultanul Hind (King of India) at Ajmir (Allah’s mercy upon him) is also known to all in India. Let me just append what happened in Spain and by whom.
Here more quotation from Joachim Prinz's 'The Secret Jews'; page 50 and 51 on financing by a Jew to defeat Muslims in Al-Andalusia (Spain)after 800 of rule.

But the best proof of the Jews security was the appearance in 1484 of the most outstanding Jew of his time, Don Isaac Abravanel, whose father had already held the highest position in his native Portugal as financier of Prince Fernando, son of King Joao. His grandfather and great-grand-father had also been treasurers and financiers of the royal household of Portugal. Don Isaac had inherited many millions of maravides from his family and had added many more himself. Yet he was not merely a millionaire and a financial genius, he was a Jewish Scholar of note and a distinguished statesman. That he was received by Ferdinand and Isabella was a sure sign that all was screne in the Jewish community. With so much protection and such influential friends at court, what could happen to them? But even as Abravanel negotiated with the king, the plan for the total expulsion of the Jews had been decided upon. It happened that at that time the Spanish army was engaged in the final struggle against the Moors, the battle of Granada. (Please note for non-Muslims it is struggle and for Muslims after 800/1400 years it is terrorism and that is the problem) . A great deal of money was needed and if a Jew of Abravanel’s financial genius could provide it, why not postpone the expulsion of his people until a more propitious moment? That even Abravanel, a man of extraordinary political experience and acumen, could mistake a police and cordial reception by the monarchs for assistance of his people’s security seems incomprehensible. But it is consistent with the experience and attitude of Jews throughout their history……It can be safely be said that the only ones who were oblivious to the possibility of their own destruction in fifteenth-century Al-Andalusia (Spain)were the Jews. So they surrendered, died or lost their fortunes. And those who survived were finally expelled from the land of their birth.

Same Jew also financed to discover America by Al-Andalusia (Spain)according to Prinz's 'The Secret Jews'; page 125-126.

After the discovery of the New World, the descendants of the rich Spanish Jewish families, who had financed the voyages of Christopher Columbus, (a Jew himself) and contributed (sometimes through the Inquisition’s confiscation) to the treasuries of the princes of Aragon, began to play a pivotal role in the development of the new capitalism. And when international commerce became the main source of income, particularly for those countries whose explorers had discovered new sources of gold, spices and other riches, the Marranos became deeply involvd in the exploitation of the new markets.

Also, to all of you, stop saying 'Gandhi' said it. Gandhi's grandson said it, not Gandhi. Yes, I know they both have the same last name, but still, make a clear separation between Ghandhi and his dumbass grandson.

I wonder how many islamic terrorist attacks have struck india in the last month.

As Islamic terrorists blow up innocent people in India each day, ghandi's idioitic grandson says nothing and tells us Jews we are 'leading' violence. How insane. Part of me is offended but part of me finds it funny that someone could say something so stupid. Half of India was ripped away to make Pakistan because of Muslim terrorists harrassing people in India. It's IRONIC AND FUNNY that ghandi's idiotic grandson has no grasp on reality. What about the sudan? That isn't 'leading' violence?

Betty M and marianne wrote really despicable comments betty m links muslims showing violence first thing why did muslims protested they were awfully offended when european newspapers in order to show unity with danish newspapers in the name of freedom of speech posted cartoons that were offensive that if they r offended they need to get over it as v will post more trying to outshine one another in insulting muslims [which this onfaith column usually does also on christianity buddhism hinduism], by saying that r basic principle freedom of expression is being challenged y r they silence now muslims would not have shown violence if there religion was being kicked left rite and centre what happened to that cartooonist editor publisher [did according to marianne suicide bomberskilled them]they were called heroes and were rewarded with support,on a personal noteduring danish controversy i saw ppl feeling sad and awful that really west does not want to understand us it wants to hurt us in any way they can. marianne u need to refresh your memory and c why ppl need to apologize to jewz and insult muslims history will remember that it was not israelis that killed palestinians they were actually american jews who tried to do everything to isolate US as well as cause a rift with muslim world just for a piece of real estate called jerusalem. Anybody out there who really respects and values freedom of expression post some kind of email address or internet link of the ppl who stripped arun gandhi [a staunch believer of non-violence]of his job so that i can at least render moral support[if not financial] to his cause.

TG says:

"The mayor of New York wanted to close down art galleries and museums."

.. I don't remember any riots or calls for beheading? No one was burnt at the stake. Links please.

"Israeli government were nazi like and they are useing the same tecniques against the Muslims as were used against them..."

Are you saying Muslims can no longer live, work, and worship in Israel? Or are you saying "if you were to say it" you'd be a liar or something?

We know there are countries where suspected pagans are arrested-

"Saudi Arabia’s religious police have arrested a domestic worker accused of having put a spell on her employer, the Al Madina newspaper reported on Sunday.

The arrest of the maid, whose nationality was not revealed, followed a complaint by the wife of the employer who she said had been ‘bewitched by the maid’.

The woman said she suspected her husband had been put under a spell because he fiercely defended the maid from criticism every time she neglected her work.

Members of the religious police, known as Mutawas, discovered ‘talismans and products of charlatanism’ in a search of the maid’s quarters in the eastern city of Damman, the newspaper added.

The paper said the maid, who is to face trial, ‘admitted she took refuge in sorcery so as to make her employers like her’.

‘The bewitched husband adored the maid and carried out all her wishes, unbeknownst to his wife,’ the newspaper said.

Saudi’s feared religious police are tasked with enforcing respect for public morals. Witchcraft is a capital offence in Saudi Arabia, where Sharia law is strictly applied."

I agree with your closing statement. People can be real DUMBA$$ES.

marianne,

The Muslims threw a fit because it is against their religion to picture Mohammad. It is like spitting on Jesus for Christians. Jews also do not allow any kind of portrait of God or their religious forfathers, or anything really.

To many are ignorant of others and because there are different beliefs feel they are so much more superior...

And to have Mohammad pictured in a cartoon...! that is disrespectful to begin with.

How did you feel when you heard about Jesus in Urine? or Mary done in Elephant dung? The mayor of New York wanted to close down art galleries and museums.

People can be so dumb.Their thought processes are about skin deep.
terra

So...panelists can post their view on the question IF it is accepted...free speach?
For shame.
So when Dr. Elliot says that Pagans are Un American that we are not part of the American Mind...what ever that is, is just fine. But to say that Israel uses tyranny against the Palestainians...Arun Gandhi appologizes and loses his place at the university.

So if I said that the Israeli government were nazi like and they are useing the same tecniques against the Muslims as were used against them...that as an American I am tired of my money going every year to enable child killers to blast homes and towns. Will I be made to appologize? Muslims are Semites also.
The following is a list of ancient Semitic peoples:

Akkadians — appear 4th millennium BC and amalgamate with non-Semitic Mesopotamian (Sumerian) populations into the Assyrians and Babylonians of the late Bronze Age.[1][2]
Assyrians (Aššūrāyu) — 27th century BC,[3] amalgamate with Babylonians and Aramaeans,[4] during Neo-Assyrian period, the remnants of which became the modern Assyrian people.[5]
Babylonians — 18th century BC[citation needed]
Chaldeans (Kaldu) — 8th to 6th c. BC.[6][7]
Eblaites — 23rd century BC
Akhlames 14th century[8]
Aramaeans — 16th to 8th century BC[9][10]
Ugarites, 14th to 12th centuries BC
Canaanite language speaking nations of the early Iron Age:
Amorites
Ammonites
Edomites
Hebrews — founded the kingdom of Israel and Judah, the remnants of which became the Jews
Moabites
Phoenicians — founded Mediterranean colonies including Carthage
Old South Arabian speaking peoples
Sabaeans of Yemen — 9th to 1st c. BC
Ethio-Semitic speaking peoples
Agazi (Ge'ez speaking people) — 9th c. BC to 7th c. AD
Aksumites — 4th c. BC to 7th c. AD
Arabs, Old North Arabian speaking Bedouins
Gindibu's Arabs 9th c. BC
Lihyanites — 6th to 1st c. BC
Thamud people — 2nd to 5th c. AD
Ghassanids — 3rd to 7th c. AD
Nabataeans — adopted Arabic in the 4th century AD

So please when someone is fighting for fairness between two semite nations...you can not be called Anti Semite.

People are so darn touchy about the Jews. What if it was Christians instead of the Palestanians? What if all the fighting was the same...so Christians where would your anger be then?

And if this is a forum for disscussion on religion? then allow all views, even those not appauded by 99% of those posting. Should I be circumspect on how I post about my faith and beliefs? Who has to walk on egg shells?

Seems Americans only believe in free speach when it is their speach blathering their views.
AND if people could comprehend what they read..they would see that Arun Gandhi was not anti semtetic in anyway. He was stateing a fact about policies that will not win security or harmony ever.

This just really tiffed me off!

terra

"i cant believe people say things like this-"

Maybe this will refresh your memory:

British Muslims Protest Danish Cartoons-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFzQGF0dJ6Q

Sudanese Muslims call for Teddy Bear Teacher's Death-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrXubDfk0mE

Islam needs to be re-formed.

How art thou me 'Warm-Heart"?

"Youuuuu aarrreee soo beautiful ... to meeeeee, can't you seee"

Eeeee Haaa! praise the Holy NO-Man! Hallaluja!

betty m- your statement-

Substitute Islam for Judaism in the original post and Muslims would be rioting in the streets all over the world... Jews are suppose to accept it as reasonable criticism when Muslims would be setting off suicide bombers in response."

January 18, 2008 10:51 PM

i cant believe people say things like this-

look at the lower left hand corner-
the question is 'is islam a violent religion?' see it there? 1506 responses- the largest on these boards, and its been there SINCE APRIL OF LAST YEAR

now- subsitute judaism for islam-

ooo- pretty racist, isnt it?

then go and look at the overtly violent, hateful and threatening posts against muslims-

then notice the genteel, moderate, reasonable and pacific repsoses by muslims

as a matter of fact- i challenge you to find even ONE VERBALLY violent muslim post in there-
let alone the constant calls for nuking all muslims, kicking them out of america, imprisoning them and putting them in concentration campls etc-

all responded to without anger and patience

Tony,

It is, in fact the term "biggest" that is the problem. Biggest has a meaning. It means the most.

Here is the data. In 60 years of Israeli-Palestinian violence, you would have trouble coming up with more than 15,000 Palestinian dead (another 40-50,000 Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, etc). The number of Palestinian dead is roughly the same as the number of murders within 10 miles of the Wash Post's HQ in DC during the same 60 years.

Israel currently holds about 9,000 Palestinian prisoners out of a population of 4,000,000 in the West Bank and Gaza. This includes many criminal prisoners. Consider the US per capita prison rate is roughly 4 times this number - in raw numbers 2,200,000 prisoners.

Just doesn't sound like the biggest to me.

I would have had no trouble if Mr Gandhi had said that Israel participates in the violence. That would be true.

When Mr Gandhi exaggerates the situation to make Israel AND Jews responsible for violence that is orders of magnitude worse in many other parts of the world, it cannot stand. The half of my family that no longer exists will not let me stand idly by. Its exactly the reason we cannot "get by" the Holocaust. We probably could get by if people like Mr Gandhi stopped making us scapegoats for global problems.

I find it particularly ironic because Mr. Gandhi, who lived much of his life in India, could have applied the same logic to Kashmir and India's relationship with Pakistan. An almost identical set of events have occurred there since 1948 and are ongoing. But, neither Mr. Gandhi, the Washington Post nor apparently most of the readers on this board actually care.

When the Lebanese actually destroyed a 30,000 person Palestinian refugee camp (Nahr-el-Bared) last fall (the photos are pretty definitive), no one seemed to care about that. Certainly not Mr. Gandhi.

Perhaps its because there are no Jews there to blame.

You do not admit here whether or not you approved the post and I think that's a relevant fact both sides might like to know.

Arun Gandhi clarified the only objectionable part of his claim that "Israel and Jews" hold on too firmly to their holocaust experience by correcting the implication that the policies of the Israel are reflective of the views of all Jews. I can now agree with his clarified view. It is not anti-Semitic.

However, I find University of Rochester President Joel Seligman's response to Mr. Gandhi's statement and apology paranoiac. Dr. Seligman was wrong to infer that
that Mr. Gandhi singled "out of Israel and the Jewish people as to blame for the "Culture of Violence." Mr. Gandhi's original and unclarified statements were:

"Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs."
"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."
Note the use of the terms "any nation" and "we" in these statements. The term "biggest" does not imply the term "only."

Arun Gandhi's words are disheartening and shocking.

They not only expose a deep hate for the Jewish people and Israel, but they are also the type of words that are used as an excuse for violence against Jews and Israel. They are the type of pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo that are used to explain why it is alright to attack someone.

The excuse here is an absurd claim that Israel is causing violence because Israel created a barrier in an attempt to limit the attacks on its people. The additional insult is that Jews are sub-human, because they are snakes in a "snake pit. The first step to Genocide is to dehumanize a people and take away their right to survive with dignity.

Mr. Gandhi’s convoluted logic is insulting to all people who hope and work toward building bridges and peace. One does not verbally (or otherwise) attach another because the other person is trying to survive or protect him or herself. Attaching is has never been the road of non-violence. The road to peace is one of communication between peoples and cultural exchanges.

Mr. Gandhi's words belie the fact that he is truly not a man of non-violence or peace. His heart it too corrupted. His resignation needs to be accepted.

L. Simon

Being against Israeli policies isn't being anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, Mr. Gandhi, whom I have heard speak and who has dedicated himself to peace and the practice of nonviolence, did not speak of Israel, the state, but of Jews. He was mistaken, but should not be silenced. I share his concern about a culture of violence in the world and am saddened that our own nation is part of that culture. Canada now describes the U.S. as a torturer in its consular training manual! (See WaPo article of Jan. 19)

Meacham and Quinn are too quick to say Mr. Gandhi offers nothing relevant to this space. In some religions, detachment is a goal while the attachment to the past and pain is regarded as a detriment to fostering a peaceful heart.

Being against Israeli policies isn't being anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, Mr. Gandhi, whom I have heard speak and who has dedicated himself to peace and the practice of nonviolence, did not speak of Israel, the state, but of Jews. He was mistaken, but should not be silenced. I share his concern about a culture of violence in the world and am saddened that our own nation is part of that culture. Canada now describes the U.S. as a torturer in its consular training manual! (See WaPo article of Jan. 19)

Meacham and Quinn are too quick to say Mr. Gandhi offers nothing relevant to this space. In some religions, detachment is a goal while the attachment to the past and pain is regarded as a detriment to a peaceful heart.

Israel was carved out of the land that was previously enhabited by the Palestinians for thousands of years, specifically for the purpose of being a homeland for the Jews. It may be sloppy reasoning to assume that all Jews equal Israel, and vice versa, but again, Judaism is inextricable from the idea of Israel. And most things dealing with Israel are, indeed, sloppy.

It is so disgusting, and disingenuous for people to continuously play the old canard that if you speak ill about Israel, you are an anti-semite - in fact, it almost has no meaning anymore; what does it even mean? Can you honestly say that Ghandi had any ill-will toward any person in his post from its tone? And equally disingenuous is that idea that if you had *only* criticized Israel, and not both Israel and Jews, that it'd be "OK". It's never ok, apparently!

To Rachel in Tel Aviv, why invite him to Sderot? What's the point? So he might feel sorry for you? Why would he? Why do you expect the world to feel sorry for you? If strangers, like you, were given my land, seized by a foreign government, I would fight the occupation, too. Why do we crticize the Palestinians for "terrorism"?

Ghandi was a fool. He didn't realize that one is only allowed to praise the Israeli solution to the Palestinian problem, never to criticize. This is the problem. We ignite this politcally-correct firestorm and drown out the views that the rest of the world might have, and don't even try to understand the perspective from other people. Is there any wonder the world is as it is today?

Why apologize. You asked for a discussion and you got it. This is America where we have freedom of speech. So, let's have freedom of speech and openly discuss the issues without being labeled anti-Semitic.

If you look at Arun Gandhi's views as those of a well0wisher of Israel and the world's Jewish community, you will understand what he is saying. If you don't see him as a well-wisher then obviously you can cast him and his words as hateful and biased and tie them up with every anti-Semitic action to date.

The question remains, if one can't deal with criticism from well-wishers, who will one listen to then? How is one to get through on the subject of Israel without being called anti-Semitic?
The state of Israel appears to be the new God of the US political system, against whose actions no blasphemous objections can be voiced. The rest of the world is not so constrained by this new divinity. About 165,000 people died as a result of the US invasion of Iraq and stability is a long way off. The Iraq conflict has set off resentments in multi-religious communities as far away from Iraq as India. Can the world remain mum given the connectedness of US involvement in Iraq with the state of Israel, Israel's security concerns and the influence of Israel's security concerns on US policy?

And how about the influence of Israel' security concerns on the next conflict the US govt is setting up with Iran, are the countries of the world which will be drawn into this conflict by sheer demographics and proximity supposed to remain silent because US intelligensia refuses to countenance anything remotely critical of the Israeli government's security projections?

Again, are citizens of the world supposed to go quietly like lambs to the slaughter for fear of being called anti-Semitic by Americans sitting behind the US's security shield? The expectation that people will immolate their futures in all US-Israeli decisions about war before letting themselves be labelled anti-Semitic is very unrealistic.

To dissent with the state of Israel's current decisionmaking is a basic human right which cannot be denied by vilifying the dissenter as anti-Semitic or vilifying him as wanting the destruction of Israel. There is no world fascist order in place yet in which criticism of a state's policies is a legal offence, though the American media seems to be under impression that the enforcement of such a world fascist order is its responsibility.

So the question to those invested in US-Israeli security issues is that if you can't listen to a Gandhi who is telling you the truth as he sees it for your own good, then who will you listen to?

I never met a Jew in my entire life and my knowledge abt Holocust, Israel etc are through newsapers and other readings.

For the first time I am starting to think that there must be something that the Jews did to receive such a treatment.

So Arun was made to apologize, made to almost quit his position just for what ..expressing alternative opinion. His lifelong commitment to Non-Violence and everything else he did couldn't rescue him from a few lines he happens to write about Jews.

I admit I don't know enough abt Jews to fiure how offended they could be. But this level of arm twisting shows they are not as naive as they claim to be.

I personally,being an historian, differ with the meaning of the word "Semitic" the American media has been using to particularise the Semite race of mankind with only the Jews who are the followers of a particular faith known as Judaism, whereas, their number is insignificance in comparison with the followers of other faiths but belong to the same semitic race. The inhabitants living in between the lands from the Saharan belt to the Arabian Sea are supposed to be of the Semitic race. "Semitic" does not mean the "Jews". For example, "Aryans" does not mean the "Germans" only. Billions of Aryans are non-christians and non-Germans with different faiths. We do not use the word 'Aryans' in place of Germans or Christians. Similarly, it is very foolish on the part of the western media to use 'semitic' in place of Jews or Judaism, although they belong to the Semitic race of mankind.
I am sorry to say that the comments appeared in this Blog were short sighted and imbalanced. I think, you people can not tolerate a slight criticism, whereas the western media, day and night, remains criticising the others, using filthy language. Gandhi has the right to finger out the existing problems the world is exposed to. If anybody differs, may put his points of view for further discussions. If we are denied to put our views openly, the gulf of divide would be widened further.

This is nuts. So some guy has a negative view of Isreali behavior. Since when is that cause for an uproar?
If Israel is just, it can survive dissent.

Just for fun we should invite Mr. Gandhi here for a trip to Sderot where he can see first-hand what words like his achieve. Of course, he might be too busy to write while he is running around looking for the few bomb shelters they have access to, but true wisdom begins by seeing what hateful words like his look accomplish when they become actions. Here's a hint: They look like quassam rockets and mortar shells, close to 200 have fallen in the past week, so he should be able to get a good look.

If the two of you (Quinn and Meacham) had read what Mr. Gandhi before it was posted and did not stop it, then the two of you need to join him in some anti-Semitism seminars where you might learn something useful before we readers have to point it out to you.

D in Laurel:

One heck of an eloquent post. Bravo!

no appology should bee needed 4 expressing oneself honestly...if heat come from those who have the most to be ashamed of let them feel thier own choice ten fold in blessings or calamities. if the jewish people who were my own ancesters... are too angry to talk 2 other people that is thier problem can't they understand thier own torah and history with God it was the egyptians that conquered them they were exiled by God himself for thier own unacceptable behavior in Gods eys.... they themselves will have to either get the credit 4 thier actions or be exiled again by God 4 thier own agressions on other people in words and with bombs and assasinations and wars and starvation and the lack of commpassion 4 other humans. the terrorist will also have 2 answer 2 God but israel by attacks on soveriegn countries like lebonon meets all the criterea set forth by themselves to identify a terrrist nation. i advise them to open thier eyes to truth and know truth is true in all instances or it is not truth.israel should make peace if they wish to live in peace. you don't bring peace through killing and destroying you only insure the need 4 others to retaliate upon you.... it does no good to beat and punish the many innoccents to get 2 a few who are perhaps guilty...if you yourself are hurting more people than are being harmed you cannot claim 2 bee on the side of good and right in Gods world... if a person, a religion, a nation or a people resort to means as suspect as that that they themselves are condeming themselves to Gods perfect judgement and consequences.. i suspect but eye am just an artist knott a theologeon, or a statesman or a meglomaniac serching 4 domination and dominion over others

"QUINN/MEACHAM should stop trying to politically correct everything. Religion brings out the beast in everyone and we should let the poison come out."
-Norman Ravitch

Is the Washington Post performing some noble social service by providing a forum for the "poison to come out"? I'm quite cynical about the whole "On Faith" series, seldom bother to read it, and I'm sure controversies like the one started by the "great to the power of four" son of Ghandi are QUITE intentionally. Surely you realize they vet the comments before letting them be published!? They knew it would be like messing with a hornet's nest and would incite people to post, and, by extension, stay on the WaPo website and raise ad revenue! Face it - this is all a scam to keep you from watching videos of water-skiing squirrels on youtube. And if everybody were to do that, it would probably be a better channel to peace than the useless posting of opinions here. The very essence of religious belief is that people are unlikely to change it...and to do what they see as "defending" it on forums like these.

MR GANDHI YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US.

Jacob,

you know me better than that. All I am saying is that people shouldn't persecuted for having an opinion.

I stand behind your Eclati-On philosophy.

Janet:

"It's hard to accept though that so many people on all sides of this issue seem to feel and want to express so much hatred!"

What you see as hatred is just opinions of people you do not agree with.

I do not agree with many things that go on in this world, but I don't hate. That is an ugly feeling that I do not subscribe to.

I hope my posts are not perceived as anti-semitic. Because I am not. But I truly think that people need to look in the mirror (really deeply look) before ruining the life of respected member of society. And that is precisely what is happening here.

All because someone felt offended.

I am a post-war German born person. I have been called a Nazi, a Jew Killer, a Hitler follower...you name it. People sang "Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles" to me and mocked and ridiculed my then native country.

Did I get all into a huff? No! I accepted, however hurtful, the opinion of the person who maligned me.

In America these days all you have to do is make one comment that any segment of society is opposed to and the internal war has started. A white person calling an African American black is politically incorrect, therefore hateful. A white person calling a Native American an Indian is politically incorrect, therefore hateful. Any person calling an invalid such instead of "whatever the phrase of the day is (most of the descriptions have challenged in it, as in "I am not blind, I am visually challenged")", is politically incorrect, therefore hateful. Anybody who improper language is labeled.

God (not that he exists), am I ever tired of these semantics. Call a spade an spade and be done with it (and, no that was not a slur on African Americans). I used that phrase once in a meeting in DC, meaning I speak the truth. I thought I was going to be beheaded.

Bye the way, Janet, this post was not only meant as a response to you. It was meant for everyone who disagrees with my opinion. Including the webmasters.

Sorry, I am venting!

The Germans & their 3rd Reich, today it's the 4th Reich, are the biggest trouble makers & murderer's in modern history and on Earth today.

Lets' not forget what Germans did in World War-1 and World War-2.

Total systematically murdered?

Over 100,000,000 strong! and how many had been scattered through out this Blesseth Planet via Curseth Germans! Anglo saxons et al! And

please do not say it was some kind of disease that killed these mostly young folks. The ROMAN EMPIRE is the SATAN behind these HOLOCAUSTS! Not Jews! Not Hindu's, not Moslems!

"I am ashamed that the WAPO decided to allow the post of Arun Ghandi to come forward. It is regrettable that the post contained such unmitigated vitriol against the people of the book. It is without doubt one of the most unpardonable sins that Mr. Ghandi has committed, that being the slandering of a whole race of people based upon misinformation and lies perpetrated by the very people who are trying to kill them and "wipe them from the face of earth"

Huh?? Come again!!! "against the people of the book"???? Which book??? I suppose you speak of that god-inspired compilation of scripture, which is far from the whole thing.

And "...the slandering of a whole race of people..." Hah don't make me laugh, the Palestinians and the Jews are brothers accoring to the bible. Race of people???? That must be the most ignorant statement yet. How do Jews define their race???? They can't, because they have intermarried to much during the centuries that no race is left.

"Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?"
-- Arun Gandhi

I can only imagine how you'd react to Jesus Christ posting on "On Faith."

Substitute Islam for Judaism in the original post and Muslims would be rioting in the streets all over the world. The UN would call a special session to denounce the post, etc. The original post was deplorable and worse, Jews are suppose to accept it as reasonable criticism when Muslims would be setting off suicide bombers in response.

Unfortunately, the Gandhi post is far from isolated. Some of the moderators and panelists systematically sow the seeds of hatred in the hopes of harvesting monetary crops. Such "hate farming" is distressingly common on in this blog.

We can do better.

Peace.

Remember the statement...'you're either part of the problem or
part of the solution"?. Free speech and the internet are hope-
fully enabling all of us to vent our frustrations without resorting
to violence. The availability of the internet to all those who wish to
comment is an amazing avenue of communication and even
education to those who wish to avail themselves of it.

I have learned so much from reading many of these posts. It's
hard to accept though that so many people on all sides of this
issue seem to feel and want to express so much hatred!

It just may be that the more we all contribute to these oppor-
tunities to share our opinions will result in helping to realize
that you can argue with someone's opinion but not with the
facts.

And to keep trying to advocate for facts as the means
to understanding is more important than ever.

Part of the solution.

I am ashamed that the WAPO decided to allow the post of Arun Ghandi to come forward. It is regrettable that the post contained such unmitigated vitriol against the people of the book. It is without doubt one of the most unpardonable sins that Mr. Ghandi has committed, that being the slandering of a whole race of people based upon misinformation and lies perpetrated by the very people who are trying to kill them and "wipe them from the face of earth."
Hamas' charter is explicitly clear that they will not negotiate with the Israelis and are bound by their charter to fight to the last man against the nation of Israel. This despite the Oslo Accords and other treaties signed and sealed by the head of the PLO and the "Palestinian nation," Yasser Arafat. To tar with such a broad brush, the people of Israel, is the penultimate wrong. This has been done by all who seek to destroy and denigrate a people they wish to subjugate. Mr. Ghandi, should be aware of these facts given that he heads an institute whose mission is the formation and cause of peace throughout the world. Yet he chooses to make a mockery of the fact that the world cannot stand by while a "freely elected government," Hamas will not sit at a peace table and work out a solution which is beneficial to all in the region. Enough of the rhetorical and actual hatred of the Jewish people, now is the time to stand for an actual and long-standing peace accord. If the government of Palestine cannot or will not stand for peace and freedom, then Israel must by its rights protect and defend the Jewish people from the oppressive and hate-filled people who wish to destroy their nation.

I think I know why this apology by WaPo came about? The Gandhi article was picked by a right-wing Jew run Little Green Football blog and all the wingnuts flooded the WaPo site with their vitriol. So all the power lies in who has the loudest voice. Having said this I do not agree with the sentiments of Arun Gandhi. It has become totally acceptable to blame everything on Israel and not take the thugs that constantly attack them accountable for their actions.

It has always been baffling to me how a group of expatriate Europeans can always spot 'Antisemitism', root word being Semite, or half - a language group, not religion, encompassing most of the original, (Yiddish not around) peoples inhabiting Northern Africa and the Middle East - from ten miles away and from around a 'blind' corner while continuing to spout the most militaristic and imperialistic ideologies currently in existence and further continuing to turn a blind eye to despicable State-sponsored terroristic practices and policies.

The greatest holocaust, please! Over 90 (nintey) million Africans perished in just the 'Middle Passage' phase of the transatlantic slave trade, a trade financed by Europeans of all stripes, including pious, observant Jews. Where are the outcries and wailings?

Historians quibble about the actual numbers, but all agree that a horrific holocaust occured, so much so tht sharks changed their feeding patterns to feast on the carcusses that either were thrown or who jumped overboard as a means of sacrificial escape from thier captors, totally eclipsing in numbers anything currently acknowleged. The primary difference existing between how the world views the gravity of both holocausts is that the middle passage ocurred at a time when there were no cameras nor sympathetic scribes to record the sheer carnage and slaughter. That, I might add, is the enlightened view.

But, I digress. Just as Zionism does not neccesarily equate with Racism, similarly the same Zionism does not equate with that which is in the best long-term interest of the State of Israel.

By the way, as a true Semite, I harbour no intrinsic enmity nor antipathy for neither of my own nor of anyone else's halves.

Get over the hatred and inability to receive honest criticism, please. It is unflatteringly limiting.

I'm sure a Jew would receive similar treatment from a Muslim fundamentalist run paper. Oh, he was Hindu? Well...

So alleged "anti-Zionism" or "anti-Semitism" evokes a tsunami of opprobrium. But no such outrage is engendered by the constant barrage of anti-secularism pounded home by the Christian Dominionists, fundamentalist goobers, the arch-conservative GOP ideologues, and the right-wing AM radio talk show crews.

Disappointed,

Excellent post; you are right on the money. When will we ever reach the point where we can discuss the horrendous mistakes of the 20th century, the Balfour Declaration and the 1947 UN partition of Palestine, with eliciting the knee jerk response of anti-Semitism?

Mohamed Malleck, Swift Current, Canada,

Excellent post; you too are right on the money. “But it is all to no avail in brainwashed America where Israelis wear white hats and Arabs wear black hats.

The ignorance of Americans commits US foreign policy to the service of Israel…”

Malcolm,

Excellent post: “In the end they flooded into Palestine, displaced the locals, got the U.S. to back them and used the world’s guilt to form their new nation Israel. They play us like a violin and we give them billions of our tax money that we should have used for our own people.”

Garak,

Outstanding post: “Zionism in practice is far more than the Jews having their own homeland. Zionism in practice is dispossessing an entire people to satisfy the territorial demands of a people who lost their lands 2000 years ago…

Rockets fall on Sederot? Too bad. Thieves can't complain when their victims retaliate...

As for the UN, no one asked the Palestinians. No one represented them. The UN had no authority to dispossess of their lands. The UN would have as much authority to hand over Texas to Mexico…

Anyway, go ahead and answer these questions factually. If you can then we can talk. If you can not just take your propaganda elsewhere…”

Outstanding Garak, you get the award for best post of the decade.

Providence Candlelight,

Excellent post: “Thank you Mr.Ghandi. I am disappointed that you apologized. There was no need and further, your apology is likely to prolongue the cesspool of denial, lies, threats, and false accusations. In turn, there will be no useful dialogue.”

Gaby,

Excellent post: “In my humble opinion, I would suggest that all of you get over it. You in particular, Joe!

The Jewish populace has played the victim card over the Holocaust of WWII for as long as I can remember and they will continue to do so until this is all ancient history. I am not saying that they don't have a right to be indignant over what happened, but everyone seems to focus on the 6 million Jews. That leaves 6 million others unaccounted for.

Doesn't that strike you as odd?”

Henry James,

I’m disappointed in you. I usually agree with your posts, but you really blew this one.

Joe,

You are an idiot and a racist pig. Get over it. We are all anxiously awaiting your answers to Garak’s post.

Sally and Jon,

Shame on you! What happened, did AIPAC twist the arm of your boss? Or does AIPAC own WP?

Dear Washington Post Editors. I see the Jews and Muslims and Athiests can write the most insulting and vile untruths about Christians and no one edits anythings. But golly jee, one word that might hurt the feelings of a Jew and BAM...THE ARTICLES AND APOLOGIES ARE DELETED. Do you really think that people don't notice this in our society? Do you realy think that is fair? Susan Jacoby and her anti Christian bigotry is one example of all too many.

The world watches while you edit and delete. THis is not the first time I have seen articles edited or closed off from comments after only 5 or 7 comments. Anti Christian comments are allowed with no end.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If you can dish it out, you need to be able to take it.

Stan Brin above---

wonders why ("the bloody hell") Gandhi was allowed to post?

Why it wasn't immediately taken down?

Why were 'rats' who agreed (most posters) were
allowed to post agreement to Gandhi's column?

Freedom of speech, sonny, freedom of speech.
Though apparently not in the Post of late.
But you can still insult and denigrate anything Muslim, right?

Stan Brin above---

wonders why ("the bloody hell") Gandhi was allowed to post?

Why it wasn't immediately taken down?

Why were 'rats' who agreed (most posters) were
allowed to post agreement to Gandhi's column?

Freedom of speech, sonny, freedom of speech.
Though apparently not in the Post of late.
But you can still insult and denigrate anything Muslim, right?

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

Posters- please take a moment to review your words before you post. You sound like a pack of rabid wolves intent on the kill. Either tone it down or STFU..

Gandhi wrote

"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

How are Gandhi's words blaming Jews (who constitute less then .0001 % of the world's population) for all the world's problems different then the propoganda of the 1930's--which opened the way for one third of the world's population of Jews to be killed within 4 years.

Gandhi wrote

"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

How are Gandhi's words blaming Jews (who constitute less then .0001 % of the world's population) for all the world's problems different then the propoganda of the 1930's--which opened the way for one third of the world's population of Jews to be killed within 4 years.

TO MEACHAM AND QUINN:

We realize your bosses at the Post are Jewish.

Still, your little screed at the top is
miserable and toady. The
abject apology for truth and/or the right of Gandhi to give his opinion in his opinion column
is disgusting. Especially since that opinion is by
NO MEANS IS OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM, (quite the contrary!) And most posters agreed or added to the opinion.

But now everybody knows that this "On Faith" fraud is about...and what you are about as well.

TO MEACHAM AND QUINN:

We realize your bosses at the Post are Jewish.

Still, your little screed at the top is
miserable and toady. The
abject apology for truth and/or the right of Gandhi to give his opinion in his opinion column
is disgusting. Especially since that opinion is by
NO MEANS IS OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM, (quite the contrary!) And most posters agreed or added to the opinion.

But now everybody knows that this "On Faith" fraud is about...and what you are about as well.

TO MEACHAM AND QUINN:

We realize your bosses at the Post are Jewish.

Still, your little screed at the top is
miserable and toady. The
abject apology for truth and/or the right of Gandhi to give his opinion in his opinion column
is disgusting. Especially since that opinion is by
NO MEANS IS OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM, (quite the contrary!) And most posters agreed or added to the opinion.

But now everybody knows that this "On Faith" fraud is about...and what you are about as well.

Henry James,

Sorry for the misspelling of Mr. G's name.

But, Henry, I do not agree wit you about downplaying the holocaust. The truth is that Jews accounted for half of the people who died in the concentration camps, yet the world automatically associates the holocaust with the Jews and no one else. While I have the deepest empathy with victims of the holocause (and actually all people who are persecuted one way or another)I take issue with that.

Ad far as downplaying genocide: "Probably 61,911,000 people, 54,769,000 of them citizens, have been murdered by the Communist Party--the government--of the Soviet Union. "

Maybe your definition of genocide and mine differ so I would suggest this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
for you to read.

I deeply respect you and your philosophies and did not intend to sadden you. However, in my opinion, the creation of the state of Isreal was one of the biggest political blunders ever made.

Maybe I am wrong, but I equate the Jewish dilemma with that of African Americans, and Native Americans in a way. How can you repatriate someone to their origins when they have been lost?

HOW DARE YOU?

Too many of us read closely the statement by
Gandhi...and then the screaming hissing fit by the Jews of Ameria who cannot see themselves as the rest of the world surely does see them.

There were FAR more posters who wrote that the Jewish screaming was disgusting and wrong...than thought Gandhi wrong. And in addition surely had the right to say what he did. No contest.

It's all right to denigrate and insult Muslims over and over again on these posts. But say what most of the world thinks about Israel and wham, you have a nasty riot of accusations.

The whole incident was DISGUSTING. And topped by a fawning apology by Quinn, who apparently hasn't the guts to withstand the
bullying that always accompanies such. Not the majority, not the right, just the nastiest and loudest.

HOW DARE YOU?

Too many of us read closely the statement by
Gandhi...and then the screaming hissing fit by the Jews of Ameria who cannot see themselves as the rest of the world surely does see them.

There were FAR more posters who wrote that the Jewish screaming was disgusting and wrong...than thought Gandhi wrong. And in addition surely had the right to say what he did. No contest.

It's all right to denigrate and insult Muslims over and over again on these posts. But say what most of the world thinks about Israel and wham, you have a nasty riot of accusations.

The whole incident was DISGUSTING. And topped by a fawning apology by Quinn, who apparently hasn't the guts to withstand the
bullying that always accompanies such. Not the majority, not the right, just the nastiest and loudest.

As an Indian I would like people to know that many Indians feel betrayed by Gandhi and his grandfather. However, this article of his is no more an expression of anti-semitism than the pro-muslim agenda of his grandfather's was anti-Hindu. What it does tell us, however, is that the Gandhis stand for and uniformly apply the principle of non-violence no matter what common sense and reason tells them in different contexts. India took their advice and paid for it dearly. Now they would like Israel to do the same.

Greatest genocide in history --- typical ethnocentrism here Henry James!

What of the 1.5 million Armenians not recognized by the US congress due to lobbying from AIPAC and connections to Turkey...

What about the 10 million in the Ukraine that were starved to death by the Russian Bolsheviks (this "industrialization program" to take the grain from Ukraine to Russia was led by a Jewish general, none the less)

Or the atrocities against the Irish or Indians by the English. Or the 60 million killed in Russia and China.

The holocaust is a drop in the sea of world atrocities and no worse than any of the rest!

Contrary to what Mr Gandhi says, I am always amazed at how forgiving of the Germans, the Jews seem to be. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does appear intractable but I dont see how the Palestinians and the meddling Arabs and Iranians can be absolved of their role in it. Would merely befriending the Palestinians permanently solve the problem as Mr. Gandhi suggests? I dont think so. At some point in the future, when it becomes more favorable, many Palestinian and Israeli Arabs will also demand that the Jews either convert or allow it (Islam) to dominate Israeli national life. This can be safely predicted based on realities in India, Pakistan, Malaysia etc.

Unfortunately, Mr Arun Gandhi is taking a stance that is quite familiar to most Indians. Indeed, it was his grandfather Mahatma Gandhi who wrote to Churchill asking him to give up England and its 'fair lands', and all their possessions to Hitler's advancing forces, in the name of non-violence. It was also Mahatma Gandhi who wanted that the Hindus in India forsake almost everthing and compromise with the muslims for non-violence to be the dominant ideal. The eventual result of such irrationality was that muslim leaders hardened their stances and only demanded more in the form of a separate homeland (Pakistan) whose creation was opposed but could not be prevented even by Gandhi.

A fair and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot therefore be found by following the naive assumptions and inflexible principles that Mr Arun Gandhi (and his grandfather) stand for.

Wow!

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1213634§ionID=1

Typical smear/bullying tactics used by the Jewish interests groups against ANY critic whether it be Cater, Gandhi, Mearsheimer and Walt etc. etc.

Criticize Jewish interests or geopolitics get you be "blacklisted" whether you are an academic or a politician.

Think about it people! To the faithful Jews out there, this does not improve relations with other groups and hyper-aggression does not always work to your advantage in the long run (proven by history)

Trotsky would be proud of such powerful smear tactics and chutzpa.

Watch them go after Obama next...

Gaby
Your comments sadden me.

I think the Post has acted admirably here: the did NOT censor Mr Gandhi (spell his name right).

They printed an apology from Mr G (he felt the need to apologize,, though it was a pitiful apology).

Gandhi's remarks were historically ignorant and broadly and embarrassingly stereotypical.

Both G and you minimize that greatest Genocide in history. That is sad.

You use the sad cliche "Played the victim card". Anti semitism is a thousand year old tradition in Europe and other places that is shameful, and that culminated in the Holocaust.

I cannot believe that Mr. Ghandi had to offer his resignation over such a NON-issue. Then we have people who will cancel their subsciption to the WP. Whatever happened to free speech??? Mr. Ghandi's words may have well been taken out of context.

Everyone in this country gets so easily offended. Political correctness rules. Remember when the Danish newspapers published the Muhammed cartoon? Most of you probably thought the flak over it was hilarious. And most of you defended the Danes and called the Muslims irrational.

In my humble opinion, I would suggest that all of you get over it. You in particular, Joe!

The Jewish populace has played the victim card over the Holocaust of WWII for as long as I can remember and they will continue to do so until this is all ancient history. I am not saying that they don't have a right to be indignant over what happened, but everyone seems to focus on the 6 million Jews. That leaves 6 million others unaccounted for.

Doesn't that strike you as odd? Who gave the gyspies a homeland of their own?

I cannot believe that Mr. Ghandi had to offer his resignation over such a NON-issue. Then we have people who will cancel their subsciption to the WP. Whatever happened to free speech??? Mr. Ghandi's words may have well been taken out of context.

Everyone in this country gets so easily offended. Political correctness rules. Remember when the Danish newspapers published the Muhammed cartoon? Most of you probably thought the flak over it was hilarious. And most of you defended the Danes and called the Muslims irrational.

In my humble opinion, I would suggest that all of you get over it. You in particular, Joe!

The Jewish populace has played the victim card over the Holocaust of WWII for as long as I can remember and they will continue to do so until this is all ancient history. I am not saying that they don't have a right to be indignant over what happened, but everyone seems to focus on the 6 million Jews. That leaves 6 million others unaccounted for.

Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Ghandi was perfectly correct in his post. The truth disturbs only those that fear the exposure of the truth.

E.g., try telling Susan Sarandon that she is ugly.
What would be her likely response? Laughter. whe would think you bizzare.
Why? because it is not the truth that she is ugly. The truth is that she is lovely.

The truth disturbs only those that do not not want to be exposed. Most often these people respond with denial, lies, threats, and false accusations.

Thank you Mr.Ghandi. I am disappointed that you apologized. There was no need and further, your apology is likely to prolongue the cesspool of denial, lies, threats, and false accusations. In turn, there will be no useful dialogue.

Providence

So when do you come up with a real apology, and more important, an explaination.

1. How the bloody hell did you let this idiot post this "stuff" on your site?

2. Why wasn't it immediately taken down?

3. Why was every rat from under every racist rock allowed to post under it?

Stan Brin

The "Jew haters" you mention - Carter, Gandhi etc. - just happen to be men of peace.

Of course Israeli has no interest in peace (only land and tribal aspirations) so anyone who is for peace, therefore, "hates Jews."

I think otherwise. The Gandhi post was HELPFUL. I am a Jew who doesn't believe it to be everybody's obligation to love Jews. I couldn't care less. Jew haters like Ghandi, or, Obama's spiritual clergy/adviser, should be known for what they are, who they are. Gandhi, like Jimmy Carter, clearly, holds that Jews are obligated, morally, to let homicidal neighbors freely rain rockets on their heads.

Want to see poison, Norm, looks at the atheist Hitchens and his hate of faith and love of war/utopia (iraq)

QUINN/MEACHAM should stop trying to politically correct everything. Religion brings out the beast in everyone and we should let the poison come out.

Echidna1:

I wholeheartedly agree! The apology by Meacham and Quinn does nothing to espouse the way they run their forum. Distasteful and an embarrassment for WaPo projecting "civil discourse".

Hey did you apologise when your articles bash Hindus and Hinduism? Quit being such idiots WAPO!

Hitchens, Harris and Jacoby have all stated their cultural Jewishness and much of their blather is more offensive that Ghandi's.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2008/01/jewish_identity_is_what_each_j.html

Don't see any apology from the editors for their stereotypes and uncivil tactics.

In fact, no "light" is shed by Jacoby, Hitchens and Harris only "heat" and intolerance...

You reprimand a man of peace like Ghandi, yet leave these hate-mongers to reign free???

Then again, what more would I expect from a paper that helped to sell the Iraq war...

Joe:

You need to get your facts right. Zionist terror? Go read the works of Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe. They document, in excruciating detail, the Zionist use of terror, rape, and mass murder to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Palestinians. Dier Yassin was just one example. Zionist terrorists cold-bloodedly executed over 100 innocent Palestinian men, women, and children. Today Jews live there, part of Israel. And who headed the Irgun that committed this Lidice of the Middle East? Menachem Begin, future PM of Israel.

The Zionists started the war in 1947 when they used military force to seize control of Palestine. And Israel has never passed up a chance to nip peace in the bud by provoking a Palestinian or Arab response to Israeli aggression. Go read "Beyond Chutzpah" by Dr. Norman Finkelstein. Go read any of the New Historians of Israel. They lay it all out. Israel started the 1956 and 1967 wars as wars of conquest. The Arabs started only the 1973 war, and that was after Israel rejected peace overtures. Blood-thirsty butcher Ariel Sharon invaded Lebanon in 1982, killing 20,000 Lebanese. He then incited the Sabra and Chatilla massacres. And let's not forget his executing hundreds of Egyptian POWs in 1967, just like the SS executed US POWs at Malmedy. Like his blood-stained colleague Yitzakh Shamir, he too became PM of Israel. So Israel has elected a string of butchering, murderous terrorists as leaders of the country. A "light unto nations" indeed.

Dropping bombs on apartment buildings in a willingness to kill 10 innocent civilians to get one freedom fighter? Yup, true Zionist morals. This is possible only when you don't value the lives of your opponents.

Israel has no right to steal the lands of Palestinians. This was theft, pure and simple. A theft based on a racist ideology holding that Palestinian Untermenschen have to no right to Israel's Lebensraum. The Zionists are no different than Hitler when he invaded Poland and Russia to obtain Lebensraum for the Deutsche Volk. The Palestinians are merely fighting back the only way they can.

Zionism in practice is far more than the Jews having their own homeland. Zionism in practice is dispossessing an entire people to satisfy the territorial demands of a people who lost their lands 2000 years ago. Where are all the other homelands of other peoples being restored? Where is the new Assyria? Where is the Basque nation? Where is the Philistine nation? The Canaanite nation? Why do you omit this part of Zionism. Zionism necessarily requires ethnic cleansing. And they did it very well, better than the Serbs or of the Sudanese.

As for Oslo, the "98%" line is propaganda. Go read "The Truth About Camp David" by David Swisher, instead of self-serving apologies by the likes of Dennis Ross. Even Ehud Barak's FM said he wouldn't taken the Israeli offer.

Rockets fall on Sederot? Too bad. Thieves can't complain when their victims retaliate.

The West Bank and Gaza? Let the Palestinians police themselves. No one has given them the chance. Just because other Arab countries haven't doesn't deprive the Palestinians of their right to self-gov't. Israel has done all it can to destroy Palestinian society, and are succeeding.

Darfur? All of you who bash the Sudanese fall silent when it comes to the Palestinians. Why? Because they're not Jews? Because they're the wrong race? The wrong religion? Why the deafening silence?

Palestinians dancing with body parts? Is this more Zio-fascist propaganda, like the claim that Palestine was empty before the Zionists came along? And even if this is true, you take the actions of a few Palestinians and attribute them to all Palestinians. This is like attributing the actions of Baruch Goldstein to all Jews. And keep in mind that many Israelis regard him as a hero.

Homeland of the Jews? They were absent for 2000 years. A few lived there, but it was overwhelmingly non-Jewish for 2000 years. Their claims are stale. As Moshe Dayan said, every place in Israel with a Hebrew name had an Arabic name beforehand. As for the UN, no one asked the Palestinians. No one represented them. The UN had no authority to dispossess of their lands. The UN would have as much authority to hand over Texas to Mexico. And just because other countries in the region are not legit doesn't make Israel legit. And there is one huge difference between the establishment of Israel and the establishment of other countries in the region: Only in Israel were the indigenous inhabitants dispossessed of their land. In Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the people living there stayed there. They were not driven out by state terror. Only in Israel.

As for Germany getting back East Prussia. the Iroquois should get back New York if we follow the Israeli standard. And the Iroquois would be allowed to expel, by force, all the non-Iroquois now living there. So tell us: Why, among all previously dispossessed peoples, are Jews, and Jews only, allowed to turn back the clock? Why are all other dispossessed peoples consigned to the dustbin of history?

Anyway, go ahead and answer these questions factually. If you can then we can talk. If you can not just take your propaganda elsewhere.

The first thing people do when they read or hear something that they don’t like is to whine about how “offended” they are. IMO, I could give a tick’s behind if they are “offended”. Their constant whining offends me.

Gandhi has nothing to apologize for. The fact is that the Zionists were inciting the other Western countries to go to war against Germany in the 1880’s. They wanted to get the European Jews to move to Palestine and to start a new country for Jews. In the early 1900’s they were buying land there and when the British took over they saw a golden opportunity to increase their presence. They needed a boogeyman to unite the Jews behind them and Hitler and the Nazis were perfect villains. In the end they flooded into Palestine, displaced the locals, got the U.S. to back them and used the world’s guilt to form their new nation Israel. They play us like a violin and we give them billions of our tax money that we should have used for our own people.

It’s interesting that they would have us believe that six million Jews were killed in WWII while they crow about surviving the concentration camps. I guess the survivors were collaborators who tossed the others into the one body ovens. I don’t know how else to explain the fact that they survived for years in the camps when the Nazis we so intent on exterminating them.

It's a good thing that they haven't gotten around to purging the New York Times archives.

Sally, sorry, but I find your remarks self-serving and disingenuous. You lost all credibility with me when you ran that story about the poor young man who committed suicide, and put his grieving mother's story about visiting some fakir who "channeled" her son up for discussion. I don't think you apologized for that, and YOU SHOULD HAVE. You embellished the facts about his suicide, to put forth the story YOU wanted to write-a classic Post trick, but I found it disgusting and astonishing that you would exploit that young man's death for your personal aims!

I didn't read Gandhi's post, but I'm sure it wasn't even as bad as the superficiality and disingenuousness that you exhibit nearly every time some thought of yours arrives in print!

I shall just quote Paul Craig Roberts in Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.com/). Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of "The Tyranny of Good Intentions".

"Historians, including Israel's finest, such as Ilan Pappe, have documented "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," the title of Pappe's book published in 2006.

Israelis, such as Uri Avnery, a former member of Israel's Knesset, are stronger critics of Israel's policies toward Palestine than can be found in America. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is more outspoken in its criticism of Israeli policies than any newspaper would dare to be in North America or Europe.

But it is all to no avail in brainwashed America where Israelis wear white hats and Arabs wear black hats.

The ignorance of Americans commits US foreign policy to the service of Israel. As Uri Avnery wrote in CounterPunch (January 14, 2008), a visitor from another planet, attending the recent press conference in Jerusalem, would conclude that Olmert is the leader of the superpower and that Bush is his vassal."

I find Sally and Joe's apology regrettable. When will we finally reach a state where we can civlly discuss Israel and some of its actions without eliciting the knee-jerk response of an antisemitism charge?
I agree that the last statement of Mr. Gandhi's article was unfortunate, but it was no more so than the question " is islam violent?" which Sally and Joe actually used as a discussion topic last april. I find that discussion topic--which invited people to make gross generalizations and defamatory statements about an entire releigion and the hundred of millions of varied people that follow it.
Where's the apology for that?

echidna1:

Best post of the year. You are dead right.

I find the Post's selection of writers of primary posts in this section often a source of light from perspectives I would not find casually elsewhere. - in that regard the Gandhi piece was an exception in that its presentation should have been edited better. However, I find quite often the lax standards of the blog commentators to be a source only of heat and anti-religious blather (either against religion, generally, or a particular religion). In this sense, the "blog" is a huge step back for civil discussion, because passionate topics like religion and politics need a moderator to keep a few voices from becoming invective-laden. The old-fashioned print newspaper, with limited space and the necessity of an editor, served the community better than the presence of merely an open spleen affixed with the pedigree of a publication like the Post. The removal of limits of print space and printing costs should not relieve the Post from an obligation to foster civil discourse.

I think the Post needs to consider whether to continue allowing comments in its onlines. Its fine to get different opinions, but many of these opinions make statements of fact that are factually inaccurate -- essentially libelous.

For example, Speed123 in this comment section alleges that Christopher Hitchens, Susan Jacoby and Sam Harris are "culturally Jewish atheists" who attack Christianity. Susan Jacoby was raised Catholic and didn't know she had Jewish relatives until she was an adult. Similarly, Hitchens discovered a Jewish grandmother at the age of 38. I suppose Sam Harris might fit the definition - Jewish mother and Quaker father, but he never seems to have practiced the religion. Maybe its a culturally Quaker attack on Christianity.

Nonetheless, it's Speed123's "opinion" that somehow Judaism created these people's opinions about Christianity.

Frankly, I've gotten tired of people on the Post's website taking the most tenuous connections about Judaism and spinning them up into hate speech.

Its been leaking into the paper as well. Printing editorials by Hamas that are designed to sway US opinion, rather than represent the actual position of Hamas makes them propaganda.

Sorry Washington Post, I have canceled my subscription.

Being an Indian American, it is really shameful to see an Indian's view point being criticized by a liberal newspaper like WapPO. This is a newspaper that publishes all that narrow minded, intolerant views of Muslims like Patel and Zakaria here.

But I fully agree with WaPo.That Arun Gandhi article was out of this world, unreal, hurtful. Also glad to see his employer preparing to terminate him.

But not sure if Arun is anti semitic. India and Indians are too far away from Israel and Jews to have any bad feelings towards them. I respect them (Jews) for standing up to brutal Islamic terrorists who massacre civilian men, women and children every day all over the world.

To those who did not believe the original Gandhi post was not anti-semitic,

Gandhi wrote that "the Jewish people" are the most violent on earth. He did not say "Israel". If he had said that the policies of Israel are the most violent of all democratic nations, then there could have been a discussion. Judaism is a religion and a people. It is like saying black people are the laziest on earth. It is taking false stereotype and promulgating it to the public. This person as a supposedly peaceful academic should have known better and since his apology was woefully inadequate, one can only conclude that he is an anti-semite incapable of having an intelligent discussion about Israel's policies toward the palestinians.

If you cannot see this, then you have absorbed the stereotype and anti-semitism is too deeply rooted in you to correct. May that end with you and not be passed on to the next generation.

With regard to the editors, I would have hoped that reading Gandhi's original post would have raised a red flag in their minds and that they had put a stop to it before posting to the website as opposed to apologizing later. Is anti-semitism so ok in our society that even supposedly reputable educated people believe it is ok to attack a people with hyperbolic and false statements? I hope Meacham and Quinn meditate on this.

hi sally and jon- take a break and listen to an old bob dylan song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVbK1ODWxcA

it has held up to the test of time and is still one of his best..

Jacoby, Hitchens and Harris are not cultural Jews - they are genetically partially Jewish.

Hitchens didn't even know his mother was Jewish until after she died.

P.S. dear On Faith Editors, I'm concerned you'll begin omitting essays that take extreme positions. The problem imo with Ghandi's post wasn't its ignorance but its nonreligious topic. It was on Zionists NOT Jews. In the real world, it's helpful to be familiar with extreme views.

Being accustomed to seeing the disgruntled booted into cyperspace by WaPo's bouncer, Deborah Howell, I'm still processing what reads like a bona fide apology given with grace kindly to us readers. Thank you.

If the culturally Jewish atheists such as Hitchens, Jacoby and Harris can attack Christianity and toerh religions with the bigotry and sterotypes (with the approval of the "editors") then a Hindu can comment on the nasty geopolitics of Israel - a Jewish state.

Perhaps criticism and PCness is a one way street here on "On Faith"....

Or maybe Ghandi should become a "cultural Hindu" agnostic/atheist and then he can have a free hand to attack at will - with minor criticisms for the his fellow Hindus and bigotry and vitriol for everyone else...

Ha - what a joke "objectivity" on this forum is!

On second thought, I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of your apology, seeing as Mr. Gandhi continues to appear on the roster of your panelists and to publish his so-called opinions in this forum.

This is really adding insult to injury. Being that you ask for the readers' forbearance and tolerance, why don't you make some bona fide effort to earn that, and remove him from the panel? He does not deserve to be on this panel any more than David Duke or Louis Farrakhan do.

Dear sally and John:

Your apology is accepted and appreciated. Perhaps in the future you could save yourselves the embarrassment by vetting this type of toxic racist drivel before it sees the light of day. Of course, there is plenty of it on this forum in readers' posts, but it's different when it is posted by the Washington Post itself, which gives it an aura of respectability.

That's not censorship. Of course we are all for open dialogue and free exchange of ideas, and of course tolerance is measured by our willingness to see in print ideas we consider abhorrent. But you would apply the brakes if it was, say, a White Supremacist ranting against Jews or blacks, or someone reviling the prophet Muhammad. So why would someone like that get a free pass just because he has a famous last name?

Dear Observer,

There never would have been such a post about Muslims in the first place.

Dear On Faith Editors,

While this particular post was controversial and touched on geo-politics, I suggest that if you are going to apologize for Ghandi, I suggest you also apologize for the slander and anti-Catholic vitriol that is found in the posts of Susan Jacoby.

Fair is fair....unless you deem "anti-semitism" more offensive than "anti-Catholicism"

Sally and Jon -- Can you do anything about this "Jacob Jozevz" character? His annoying posts are indecipherable.

Question for Jon and Sally,

Would you have regretted the post and apologized for the episode if Gandhi had made similar remarks against Muslims or even Christians?

You are in luck. "a measure of forbearance and tolerance" is standard inventory in Jewish response
to anti-Semitism. Had he directed his vitriol to less understanding folks, he might well have had to ring up his countryman Salman Rushdie for some quick tips on where to hide out for a few years.

That said, as a survivor of the Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp and, as it happens, a Rochester "neighbor" of Arun Ghandi, his announced resignation from his affiliation with the U of R at least is welcome news.

NOT ALLOWING FOOD OR HUMNAITARIAN AID INTO GAZA-
TRAPPING THE FISH IN THE BARREL

HEADLINES FROM THIS WEEK

Israeli military kills a senior leader of al Aqsa brigades in Nablus.
Fri Jan 18, 2008

Fresh Israeli Air attack on northern Gaza leaves a number of civilians killed an some others injured
Thu Jan 17, 2008

Israeli army invades Nablus from several directions; no abductions reported.
Thu Jan 17, 2008

Israeli jet fighters attack a car in Gaza, initial reports says three killed
Wed Jan 16, 2008

Palestinian resistance firs 25 home made shells at southern Israeli
Wed Jan 16, 2008

Israeli forces kill a top leader of the al Quds brigades in Jenin
Wed Jan 16, 2008

Israeli military kidnaps 8 from Balata refugee camp
Wed Jan 16, 2008

Seven Palestinians killed in Israeli invasion to eastern Gaza
Tue Jan 15, 2008

Israeli army invades Nablus and kidnaps three Palestinians.
Tue Jan 15, 2008

Israeli military imposes curfew on Sura town, near Nablus.
Tue Jan 15, 2008

The army issue demolishing orders against water reservoir for Palestinian farmers near Hebron
Mon Jan 14, 2008

Army attack villages near Nablus and kidnaps three civilians
Mon Jan 14, 2008

Pre down Israeli attack on Gaza leaves three Palestinian dead
Mon Jan 14, 2008

Israeli army vehicle ran over a Palestinian child near Nablus city
Sat Jan 12, 2008

Settlers open fire on international human right activists near Hebron
Sat Jan 12, 2008

http://www.imemc.org/newsbrief_wire

Garak,

Your Post is so full of lies I barely know where to start.

No one faces more opression then the Palis? I think the people in Darfur are more oppressed. However, the murderers are Muslims there - is that the cause of your silence?

Zionist violence and terror? You mean defensive war against terrorists?

The Arab nations started a war in 1948. The Jews have been hoping for peace since then, yet they are continually attacked. Everytime there looks like there might be peace there is another attack.

Israel has the duty to defend herself.

As to dropping bombs on apartment buildings, that is what you do when the building has terrorists and bombs and munitions in it. Hiding behind civilians, a favorite tactic of the terroists, does not make it less of a legitimate military target.

I am very tired of the "I am not antisemetic, I am anti zionist" garbage. Everytime the Post has anything Jewish there is a set of rather dedicated Israel and Jew haters who come out to post here. I have seen these people "who do not hate Jews, just Zionism" prove their hatred of Jews eveywhere again and again on these boards. ONce challenged these cyber-Jihadists will drop the pseudo intellectualism and the racial slurs and even gloating over the Holocaust starts.

Lets be really clear. Zionism is the belief that the Jews should be able to live in peace in their own ancestral homeland. It is no more sinister a belief then an Irish person believeing that he should be able to live in peace in County Cork.

So, as a pre-emptive strike on the Jew haters and Israel bashers and just plain jerks who will soon descend here, and some that allready have, I have the following food for thought....

I should like to ask anyone here who likes to bash Israel at any chance that anything Jewish gets even remotely mentioned the following questions:

Please before spitting bile, and freaking out, just answer these questions. You may pose some to me if you answer them, otherwise you show the weakness of your side by dodging them.

1. Many who hate Israel would like to paint her in the most graphic and horrible terms. Frequently on these boards, the Israelis are compared to Nazis. OK... Given that the Palestinian population is booming, and the Israeli army is actually powerful enough to kill all of the Palestinians, yet they are still booming, do you really think there is a genocide going on there? How exactly do you define Genocide then? You should remember that 1948 was a two state solution. The Jews, AND THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN JEWS IN ISRAEL, got land that they already had, the Arabs very clearly said they would kill all the Jews - and then they tried very hard to do so.

2. Given that the Hamas Charter openly calls for the genocide of the Jews, that the Arab nations attacked Israel multiple times with the call of killing all the Jews or driving them into the sea, who is actually genocidal?

3. Given that every time there looks like there might be a peace accord it is the ARABS who start blowing things up, who is to blame for the failure of the process? The Oslo accords gave them 98% of the land they wanted and yet they answered with murders, kidnappings and suicide bombers. So if part of your answer is that you think the Israelis just won't negotiate, you don't even pass the giggle test.

4. Hamas was democratically elected. It is a democratically elected terrorist regime that openly calls for genocide. What responsibilities do the Palestinian electorate have for their choice. Are they really blameless if they vote for a party that has sworn to wage war until Israel is destroyed?

5. Rockets fall on Sderot every day. This is an act of war. How long do you think England would let Holland lob rockets at it? The Hezzies and the Hamasnicks openly try to kidnap and murder innocent civilians every day. Is that also not an act of war? And before you go off on the land see question six.

6. Do you remember when it was the West Bank of Jordan? If the Jordanians repudiated the West Bank, which they did just like the Egyptians repudiated their claim to Gaza, then who has to police and administer the land? Further, do consider that the Palestinians are the sort of people who film themselves dancing in the streets with body parts. This is a fact, not a slur. So seriously, should the land just be left to fall into complete chaos? Can a state (Israel allow such chaos when it is used by the other Arab nations and Iran to attack Israel?) Would you call dancing in the streets with body parts barbaric? What about honor killings? Are those barbaric too? What about executing people for being gay? Is that barbaric?

7. What about Darfur? All of you who like to bash Israel are woefully silent about Darfur. Darfur is a real honest genocide. Are you silent because the killers are Muslim or because the victims are Blacks?

8. Another question about the land... Does it not surprise you that it has Hebrew names? What about the actual fact that Israel is the actual historic homeland of the Jews? Does that mean nothing? If you do think it means nothing, then what about the UN charter that created it? Does that mean nothing? If you think that means nothing too, then do consider that every other nation in the modern ME was created by treaties and interventions by the West. How is Saudi Arabia, or Jordan or Syria (all used to be part of Ottoman Turkey) which were created by the English and the French, not even the UN, more legitimate than Israel. Finally, what about the fact that Israel is the only country in the world to win a war - wars started by others, win and is expected to be punished for winning? Do you expect Germany to get East Prussia back? Perhaps you expect that the Spanish should get Portugal back as well?

9. You like to scream about AIPAC a lot, what do you say to the fact that the Saudis have a vastly larger lobby?

Anyway, go ahead and answer these questions factually. If you can then we can talk. If you can not just take your propaganda elsewhere.

Ms. Quinn and Mr.Meacham:

As one of the readers who was offended by Mr. Gandhi's postings and posted a comment about it, I appreciate your statement. I feel compelled to add that it is somewhat late in coming. In contrast, I communicated with the University of Rochester, where the M.K. Gandhi Institute resides, shortly after reading Mr. Gandhi's "apology" and was gratified to receive a response within an hour, forwarding President Seligman's unequivocal rejection of the Gandhi comments and noting his serious concern regarding the matter.

In my mind appropriately, it appears that Mr. Gandhi has offered to resign from his post with the Institute as reflected in this email, which I received this morning from the University:

"President Joel Seligman of the University of Rochester asked that I send you the announcement (below) made yesterday by the Board of the M.K. Gandhi Institute regarding Arun Gandhi.

'The Board of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence has received Mr. Arun Gandhi's offer of resignation as president of our organization. We take this very seriously and have begun appropriate deliberations. In accord with the Institute's mission – to educate for nonviolence and to inspire and support efforts that promote harmony in our communities – we believe that a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Gandhi is essential. We are scheduling a board meeting with him upon his return from India next week. Our intention is to review the facts and history, and to resolve this matter with all due speed.'”

I have to admit that my anger over Mr. Gandhi's comments leaves me feeling, in part, somewhat righteous that Arun Gandhi is paying some price for his hurtful and counterproductive statements. The better part of me, however, would like to believe that Mr. Gandhi understands how inconsistent his remarks were with his stated philosophy of nonviolence and that he will now take some affirmative action to heal, rather than inflame the very fears and insecurities that underlie both his postings and, I believe, the violence that he purports to want to ameliorate.

"Shedding light" on religion. hunh. Is that what this site is supposed to do.

I don't see much difference between this latest article and the parade of misojudaic posts that come through this website. Its not so different from presenting individuals with known extremist and ties to violent terror organizations as 'moderates.' There's no objectivity here, but a very strong editorial viewpoint.

So why did this one get the apology? *Who* let this one through? *Why* was it deemed acceptable in the first place to blame an entire population for violence inflicted upon it? Was it because of the family name of the poster? That shouldn'tve made a difference. You address none of these basic questions.

Too little, too late as far as the apology goes. That this article was even published says everything.

Ghandhi's post was not anti-semitic at all. It was anti-Zionist, but that is not ant-semitism. The two are entirely different.

Israel and its supporters most certainly do use the tragedy the Jews went through during WW II to drum up support for Israel. Dr. Norman Finkelstein explains this succinctly in his book "The Holocaust Industry." It's all there in black and white.

And Israel most definitely does use violence more than any other nation. Its suppression of the Palestinians involves violence every day. No other people face such violent oppression. From gratuitous beatings at checkpoints in their own lands to targeted assassinations of political leaders to dropping 2-ton bombs on apartment buildings, Israel relies on violence to keep the Palestinians from living as human beings. Add to this gratuitously dropping 1 million cluster bombs on civilian areas in south Lebanon and you get the picture. Israel has utter contempt for non-Jews, and its actions show this quite clearly.

We hear about the failure of Muslims to condemn Islamic terrorism. Where are the complaints about the failure of Jews to condemn Zionist violence and terror?

Ghandhi's post was not anti-semitic at all. It was anti-Zionist, but that is not ant-semitism. The two are entirely different.

Israel and its supporters most certainly do use the tragedy the Jews went through during WW II to drum up support for Israel. Dr. Norman Finkelstein explains this succinctly in his book "The Holocaust Industry." It's all there in black and white.

And Israel most definitely does use violence more than any other nation. Its suppression of the Palestinians involves violence every day. No other people face such violent oppression. From gratuitous beatings at checkpoints in their own lands to targeted assassinations of political leaders to dropping 2-ton bombs on apartment buildings, Israel relies on violence to keep the Palestinians from living as human beings. Add to this the gratuitous dropping of 1 million cluster bombs on civilian areas in south Lebanon and you get the picture. Israel has utter contempt for non-Jews, and its actions show this quite clearly.

We hear about the failure of Muslims to condemn Islamic terrorism. Where are the complaints about the failure of Jews to condemn Zionist violence and terror?

Thank you Sally and Jon - I think it’s a testament to how well this forum has done with extremely sensitive material that this is the first time you've felt obliged to make an apology for one of the essays here.

Personally, I feel that too much was read into the Ghandi post. I did't think it was anti-Semitic any more as it's anti-American when we slam-dunk Bush for his policies.

Sometimes out political correctness is over the top.

I think you two did the right thing to ask Mr Gandhi for aontribution and to post it.

And I appreciate this post as well.

I completely agree that his post was anti-semitic/deplorable, and that his apology was miserably insufficient.

But I think the Post WAS trying to have broad discussion, and attempted to continue it when the controversy erupted.

Thanks for your handling of this. And you know I don't hesitate to criticize when i feel it is justified.