Fine Line: Criticizing Israel Without Anti-Semitism

The POST's recent story on Messianic Jews facing "discrimination" in Israel is exemplary of the dual marks of implicit anti-Semitism: "moral equivalence" and "moral double-standard".
How frequently does The POST focus on aggression toward Christians in the Arab world? In Iraq, this is a burning issue [quite literally, in some cases].
Why is there no exploration of the implicit religious superiority of Christians to all others? Surely, Ann Coulter's televised remarks about the need to "perfect" Jews by converting them should have sensitized The POST to the assumption -- by a majority of American Christians -- that Jews are inferior.
It is disappointing that America's crusader for the rights of man should ignore the context of the "Jews for Jesus" movement -- at the very moment it is exploring the revival of open racism in America.
The subject of Israeli treatment of Palestinians [Christian or Muslim] is a subject worthy of critical inquiry. As the Rabbi suggests, those who decry "unequal treatment" of Palestinians should not be silenced [thought balance might require more extensive coverage of official Islam's labeling of Jews as "dogs unworthy of life"].
But the sympathetic coverage of "Jews" who have betrayed their co-religionists in time of peace is uncsonscionable. One can empathize with the plight of Kapos in concentration camps, whose survival depended on exploiting fellow Jews.
But glorifying hypostacy today is less supportable than praising the Jews who converted and then persecuted European Jews at the behest of the Church. The "blood libel" of those former Jews may have been performed under threat of death.
The disgusting spectacle of "Jews for Jesus" deserves study as the perverse performance of Western Civilization's oldest tradition: anti-Semitism.

Excuse me, Gentlemen, isn't "Arabic" a Semitic language? Aren't "Arabs" Semitic peoples, too? Do people have a problem citicizing the Vatican?-or China? How odd, that "the State of Israel," or "Zionism" are not to be approached by common mortals unless one wears kid gloves? Is that what is known as "Zionist Social Democracy?"---Reflections in complete honesty, Brian Curdy.

claiborne pharyngolaryngitis chrysophilist manius quinotannic nothofagus decrescendo rhinorrhea
http://www.kids.premier.gov.on.ca/english/history/premiers.asp >Premiers of Ontario Since 1867
http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/

to make a criticism one should first be well informed. there are two important books that are essential when it comes to israel:

"from time immemorial", by joan peters; a british journalist who set out to write a pro arab history but transformed as she delved more deeply. it is a well documented study that deconstructs the lies masquerading as truth in today's world.

"israel, echo of eternity", by r' abraham heschel; heschel marched with m.l. king in the sixties and many of the civil rights leaders read his books. this book,sans the inaccurate intro by his daughter, is a valuable resource for the cogent discussion of the differences between jewish, christian and muslim views of the holy land the the history.

unfortunately, today, it seems that many people have not taken the time necessary for an accurate understanding of israel's situation. these two books, even if perused thoughtfully, serve as edifying and informative accurate sources.

My opinion is uneducated in this aspect. I can tell one of the main reasons that the US supports Israel is the so - called intelligence. Also,many years ago Christians believed the Jews were God's chosen people.They feel the need to defend the Jews. I really believe Western cultures should stay away from the politics of Eastern Nations. Our ideas do not gel well. If we want to trade it should be done by strict contracts.According to history people in t hat section of the world have been having internal conflict since the beginning of their cultural.Europe and the Americas have since stopped.We have slight person to person conflicts, but not community on community. Religion on religion.I personally think all trade between the combative middle east and hostile African countries should be ceased . I believe they should be allowed to sort themselves out. When they are ready, come to the world table.

I am amazed at this article even existing ! Indeed you have the right to criticize Israel, it is a State, as any others States.The Zionist project was to normalize the Jewish People through the existence of a national entity.Well, criticism is part of normalization too.
I am sorry to say there are many things a moral person must criticize about Israel's policies.It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

Did you pay attention that there is no any peace movement in the Arab World? How can you make peace with a brutal enemy who honestly believes that it is God's will to exterminate Jews. Did you see what Iraqis made to Kuwaitis, do you see how Sunnites & Sheets kill each other including suicide killing? We, Jews, are very aware of the possible new Holocaust, & we have decided that we will not scarify our existence for the progress of the civilization, or to satisfy religious and political needs of our enemies. I am not a political annalist, but an engineer. I do not intend to use politically correct language, this time we are armed and we will protect our country, our families and our 2000 years old dream to the end.

I am not anti semitic . I have not met any jews to be anti semitic. Like any child of God what happened to jews troubled my soul. I have prayed Lord how could this happen to any one person.But still Israel should live now in peace with the Arab world. Peace should come from within the community.As long as politicians use fear to control people and religious beliefs gives the tool I doubt it will take place.

I am not anti semitic . I have not met any jews to be anti semitic. Like any child of God what happened to jews troubled my soul. I have prayed Lord how could this happen to any one person.But still Israel should live now in peace with the Arab world. Peace should come from within the community.As long as politicians use fear to control people and religious beliefs gives the tool I doubt it will take place.

movies?

"after about 150 years they had a firmly established rule-"

Over part of Northern India.

"dave- even indians dont have your take on india-pakistan"

Movies like Gandhi and China Gate do. Where do I look for your view?

"muslims left dave and became the biggest refugee population ever seen on this planet-"

Only by defining refugee absurdly. There were more German refugees in the same period and for about the same reasons. They were treated far worse than the people who left Israel proper were. So were the Hindus driven out of Pakistan and the Muslims driven out of India.

"why are all other peoples responsible when they dispalce people but israelis bear no responsibility?"

You do not seem to hold Muslims responsible for displacing non Muslims. All I am doing is providing facts which give a sense of proportion and a world political context.

"The Gaza Strip is essentially an open-air prison for Palestinian refugees, guarded on all sides by the Israeli military."

That is metaphor with a propaganda purpose. It is not a prison. Hence folks there care much when they are put in an actual prison.

"and by the way- how is it punishing the hindus to give the vast bulk of india to them?"

Arabs have the vast bulk of the Roman province of Palestine and huge lands adjoining it.

India in the Hindu religion is one and indivisible. That gave way to Muslim leaders' needs as payback for Hindus not supporting the British in WW II. So Muslims are killing to control some of the holiest Hindu places.

dave- the muslims entered india in the 700s - after about 150 years they had a firmly established rule-

dave- even indians dont have your take on india-pakistan-

theres no parallel and its not true that there was a population exchange of muslims in israel-

yes- muslims left dave and became the biggest refugee population ever seen on this planet-

where did they go dave?
a population exchange (like the one in turkey) provides for the displaced- this didnt happen with the palestinians-

they were just run out-

one of the most densely populated areas in the world is the gaza strip=

look at a map dave- if anyone is being pushed into the sea its the paelstinians

why are all other peoples responsible when they dispalce people but israelis bear no responsibility?

here is a quote from James Longley from a film
is PBS okay with you dave? will you find some way to dismiss pbs as no other news sources have been validated by you yet?
into the Gaza Strip one rainy day in January.

To my great relief, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip turned out to be people like everyone else. It is the situation they find themselves in that is extraordinary: The Gaza Strip is essentially an open-air prison for Palestinian refugees, guarded on all sides by the Israeli military. Barely 28 miles long and 4 miles wide, it contains more than 1,200,000 Palestinians -- over one third of them living in squalid refugee camps built in 1948 to hold the people forced out of their homes by the creation of modern-day Israel. It is one of the most densely populated places on the planet. Nobody can pass through its borders without the permission of the Israeli soldiers. Like the West Bank, the Gaza Strip has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. Most people living in the Gaza Strip have never known a single day of real freedom.

http://www.littleredbutton.com/gaza/about.html

theres a simple synopsis-

and by the way- how is it punishing the hindus to give the vast bulk of india to them?
(actually they gave it to themselves-)

for an interesting perspective of the formation of pakistan read gandhis autobiography

Umm, Muslims took power in parts of Northern India about 1200. That was the beginning of the Mamluk dynasty. Babar started the Mughal dynasty which ruled most of India. There were Hindu states within the Mughal Empire.

"theres no correlation dave-

it was the MUSLIMS who left india-"

Yes. And millions of Hindus were driven out of East and West Pakistan which were created by fiat just as Israel was but with no basis in culture or history.

"and population exchanges arent necessarily the best way to restructure a demographic-
look at turkey-"

Which is why a right of return for all descendents of Palestians and/or driving the Jews into the sea are bad ideas. In history either folks decide the fight is over or they kill each other for endless generations.

"there was no population exchange in israel-"

Well, about as many Jews came in from Muslim countries as Muslims left for the same reasons and at the same time as in India. What happened in India was world news and certainly influenced what happened in the Middle East. I remember reading about it and watching it on television.

"it wasnt a population exchange - there was no provisions for the indigenous peoples- they were just driven out-"

Read about what happened in Pakistan and watch news reports.

"a world that was guilted into acceptance"

I don't think that was what led the Soviet Union to vote for the creation of Israel. You should check the list of states who voted for it.

"so from this non- religious view-
there should be reparations made to the palestinians-"

Just the Palestinians? Why the special regard for them?

"most palestinians (like most israelis) werent around during its formation"

Exactly. They are brooding and complaining about what was done to their ancestors over fifty years ago. That is not helpful. They are stuck in the past. They are also treating anecdotes as facts.

"they dont want their grandkids to be so poverty stricken and devoid of hope for the future that they strap bombs on themselves and blow up cafes"

Then they should stop doing that now.

"the average israeli has health care and housing and education opportunities that i cannot even dream of-"

Where are you?

"so how do we justify israel?
i dont know how we justify other states"

The idea behind the UN is that states simply are. They do not continually have to prove they deserve to exist. Such a requirement leads to endless wars.

Why is that not a direct answer.

"pakistan was a mutual decision by the people-"

The majority did not want it. It was imposed by the British to reward Muslims for fighting with the British in WW II and punish the Hindus because they did not. What a grand and peaceful reason to create a new country!

Pakistan is a perfect parallel to Israel.

A simple no would have sufficed dave.

712- was the year that started the beginning of muslim rule in india- it took 500 years for it to take effect- the early 1200s to 1700s were solid muslim rule- 1700 to 1857 was the slow decline.

712- 1857 over a thousand years dave- its easy to verify- ive never heard hindu or muslim make such a claim- go to an indian source- babar wasnt the first

anyway-

it was a population exchange so muslims and hindus were both driven out of their respective lands-

theres no correlation dave-

it was the MUSLIMS who left india-

and population exchanges arent necessarily the best way to restructure a demographic-
look at turkey-

and the mos obvious point of all-

no matter how you try to present it-

there was no population exchange in israel-

just illegal occupation sanctioned by a world that was guilted into acceptance-(although grudgingly) and willing to turn their eyes away from the expulsion of the palestinians

so theres your major difference dave

it wasnt a population exchange - there was no provisions for the indigenous peoples- they were just driven out-

so from this non- religious view-
there should be reparations made to the palestinians-

we both know that wont happen-
israel isnt gong anywhere it has the usa backing it miltiarily and financially

most palestinians (like most israelis) werent around during its formation

people just want to feed their families and bounce their grandkids on their knees

they dont want their grandkids to be so poverty stricken and devoid of hope for the future that they strap bombs on themselves and blow up cafes

do you think that the usa funding of israel is somewhat imbalanced?

the average israeli has health care and housing and education opportunities that i cannot even dream of-
if the usa stopped funding israel today its economy would collapse-

so the issue is- israel exists- whats done is done-

so how do we justify israel?
i dont know how we justify other states

is there any other modern state that canbe compared? there isnt- pakistan was a mutual decision by the people-

israel was an occupying force driving out the palestinians

so what is the justification?
of israel?

without many distracting comments about what others do or have done(pakistan hasnt been the subject- and isnt a good corollary)

im kind of curious how you turn this direct question into some other subject

""Let's start with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists, as documented by Israeli historians. The Zionists used mass murder, rape, and terrorism to ethnically cleanse over 700,000 Palestinians from their indigenous homes in 1947-48."

That is an anti-semitic fable."

"world census figures easily counter that one"

What census says that?

"SO oyu are actually saying that jewish historians are anti-semitic?"

Which Jewish historians say that?

"you mention there being jew- free neighborhoods in the 40s-
so what? there were black- free neighborhoods too- and people of different ethnic groups didnt live in each others neighborhoods-
i could say there were alot of irish free or indian free neighborhoods too- it doesnt really mean anything-"

I was referring to restrictive covenants. They also applied to blacks. They show Jews were not treated as whites were treated. They usually did not apply to wealthy Muslims or Hindus.

"the city i was raised in still has a strictly jewish community- its the best real estate in the city- adjacent to the universities and hospitals-
try buying a house there if youre not jewish!"

Today restrictive covenants are illegal. What does happen? Are they happy with Jews who are atheists and don't want to observe the Sabbath?

"as far as the power structure in america- AIPAC the jewish lobby- is the second most powerful lobby in america that keeps those billions rolling into israel-

can you name ONE OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS RECEIVED hundreds of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS?
no of course not- there isnt one- but israel has-"

Jimmy Carter has said this is largely due to Protestants.

"heres another non-sensical statement-
"Jews were driven out at the same time Muslims elsewhere were driving Hindus out with the same means for the same reasons."

where in your imagination did THAT happen?
wasnt it the muslims who left india?"

Muslims were driven out of India and Hindus were driven out of Pakistan. There are many Muslims in India. I don't think there are many non Muslims in Pakistan.

The Mughals ruled India for about two centuries. The first emperor Babur reigned from 1526 to 1530.

"Babur is rightly considered the founder of the Indian Mughal Empire, even though the work of consolidating the empire was performed by his grandson Akbar. Babur, moreover, provided the glamour of magnetic leadership that inspired the next two generations.

Babur was a military adventurer of genius, an empire builder of good fortune, and an engaging personality. He was also a Turki poet of considerable gifts that would have won him distinction apart from his political career. He was a lover of nature who constructed gardens wherever he went and complemented beautiful spots by holding convivial parties. Finally, his prose memoirs, the Babur-nameh, have become a world classic of autobiography. They were translated from Turki into Persian in Akbar's reign (1589) and were translated into English in two volumes in 1921–22 with the title Memoirs of Babur. They portray a ruler unusually magnanimous for his age, cultured, witty, convivial, and full of good fellowship and adventurous spirit, with a sensitive eye for natural beauty.

T.G. Percival Spear"

"Babur." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 12 Mar. 2007 .

"how do you justify the formation of israel?"

The same way we justify any other state.

alright heres one for the rabbi and dave-

(ive already read elsewhere the rabbis inconclusive rationale)

what is the religious basis and justification for the formation of israel?

dave- you made several statements-

(the one about 700,000 being an anti-semitic fable is the most easily disproved- world census figures easily counter that one)
SO oyu are actually saying that jewish historians are anti-semitic?
that doesnt even begin to make any sense-

you mention there being jew- free neighborhoods in the 40s-
so what? there were black- free neighborhoods too- and people of different ethnic groups didnt live in each others neighborhoods-
i could say there were alot of irish free or indian free neighborhoods too- it doesnt really mean anything-
they put japanese americans in concentration campks here in america- certainly no jewish people here have any corollary to that!
the city i was raised in still has a strictly jewish community- its the best real estate in the city- adjacent to the universities and hospitals-
try buying a house there if youre not jewish!

as far as the power structure in america- AIPAC the jewish lobby- is the second most powerful lobby in america that keeps those billions rolling into israel-

can you name ONE OTHER COUNTRY THAT HAS RECEIVED hundreds of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS?
no of course not- there isnt one- but israel has-

heres another non-sensical statement-
"Jews were driven out at the same time Muslims elsewhere were driving Hindus out with the same means for the same reasons."

where in your imagination did THAT happen?
wasnt it the muslims who left india?
umm- yes- for any instance of "muslims driving hindus out'youll find a resiprocal instance of hindus driving muslims out-

india lived over a 1000 years under islamic rule and the hindu population thrived and is the majority!

today the president of india is a muslim- and the population is overwhemingly hindu-

so it stands- whats the justificatin for israel?

religiously? morally? ethically?

this isthe one question no zionist can answer- insteadit always gets deflected into crying anti-semitism or hurling accusations at others-

when i encounter a child doing wrong- and they poit their little finger at another child and say "well so and so did it too!" i am not concerned with such infantile squirming away from responsibility-
thats the level that conversation is on and it doesnt work with children- why should it work with an entire state of illegal occupiers?

so whats the justification?
if there was one these panelists would have flooded the posts with them-

but not a peep- not a one.

so whats the defense? should we continue to pour billions into the coffer of israel? continue to supply them with guns to shoot children with?
should we go to iran now to secure their safety?

why dont they do it themselves? where are the israeli soldiers in iraq? our allies?

every israeli has to join the military when they hit 18- its a nation of trained soldiers- why dont they help america in iraq?

id say enough americans have died already- imnot comfortable to send more to die to keep israel secure from iran-

when did the drums of war reach their fevered pitch so that were even discussing this?
when ahmadenijad made an anti-zionist (not anti-jewish as so often misrepresented) remark and held a holocaust denial convention-

so far- a cache of weapons were found in iraq from iran- thats it-

so again and simply-
how do you justify israels formation?

no one has returned the full million holocaust victims the roma(gypsies) to romania- alot came to america and assimilated- alot dispersed all over europe-(what was left of them) ive certainly never heard any instance whatsoever of the jewish people extending any help to their fellow sufferers- as amatter of fact- it is downplayed when brought up or just ignored-

how do you justify the formation of israel?

I don't think mutually venting negative emotions is useful. I think trying to drill down to things that can be agreed on is highly useful.

Dave,

Yes, I have to conclude I am an anti-semite. The shame of it tears me apart. I despair that I've sunk so low as a human being.
I've tried many things to wipe this stain from my soul but the thoughts and then the feelings keep coming. It feels like a mental illness and probably is at least a sign of one. I don't want to be an anti-semite.
I thought by airing some of my grievances I'd exorcize myself somewhat. It felt like that. Maybe if I could get them all out and had someone to challenge me, like you did Mr. Marsh, I could make progress on this.
It might be worthwhile if Jews and Christians had a place where they could just vent on each other. Just let it all out. Many of us feel less hate towards Jews than anger. Jews must feel similarly. Maybe if we could express that anger in a relatively safe way we could diminish it, for everyone's benefit. I plead with anyone who has the ability and resources, to create a web site that would allow this. Despite how such a web site might be misused, maybe both sides could learn a lot more about each other.
I hope that the Truth will set us free. Me, in particular.

Steve,

I gather you have a long list of grievances against Jews.

Countries set their own criteria for citizenship and immigration. There is no universal right to immigrate anywhere. You might look at some Muslim countries' requirements to become citizens.

I have always lived in the United States in several different regions.

Where do you live? Crosses are forbidden but there is a town menorah?

Do you have issues with being viewed as an anti-semite? If so, that is worth discussing.

That's right Mr. Marshak, no crosses either. If we (Christians) are lucky we get to put up a Christmas tree, only we have to call it a holiday tree. And of course wishing a Merry Christmas to someone who is Jewish is tantamount to saying "Heil Hitler". You obviously don't live in the U.S, do you?

"How many countries can you go to, say make me a citizen please, and get what you want?"
Are you serious? If there are other countries who make you renounce your religion also, I want them off our aid list as well. Would Israelis like their taxes going to the Vatican?

"Why does Semite mean Jewish, whenever someone speaks about anti semitism is always about the jews."

Anti-semite is a compound word which means anti Jew whether the Jew is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist.

"Before the 1940's Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived in harmony."

At some times in some places. And there were massacres of Jews.

"If European had sympathy for European Jews, why did they not give them a piece of their own land?"

There was widespread anti-semitism in the 40s. There were Jew free neighborhoods in the NYC area.

"In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.

The history of the "Mizrahi aliyah" (immigration to Israel) is complex, and cannot be subsumed within a facile explanation. Many of the newcomers lost considerable property, and there can be no question that they should be allowed to submit individual property claims against Arab states (up to the present day, the State of Israel and WOJAC have blocked the submission of claims on this basis).

The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute, degrades the dignity of many Mizrahi Jews, and harms prospects for genuine Jewish-Arab reconciliation."

Jews were driven out at the same time Muslims elsewhere were driving Hindus out with the same means for the same reasons. And Muslims in turn felt they should leave to be where they could be under Muslim rule. Some of those folks chafe about the way Egypt and Jordan abandoned them but will not blame Egypt and Jordan.

"zionism is a political movement started by atheists

judaism is a religion adhered to by jewish people

by deliberately obscuring the differences and trying to equate zionism with jewishness the zionists have managed to deflect criticism for many many years now-"

Almost all Jews are Zionists. Jews have been moving to Israel for millenia. The movement started by Herzl was not based on religion but the Russian movement which merged with it was. And their history has been complex.

The words some prominent people use in expressing their feelings about the movement started by Herzl and others tell the story as the above demonstrates.

In matters such as this where the goal is peace, careful distinctions are important.

"I know that your talmud teaches you this idea (i.e. can kill and steal from non-jews) and that Jews are enthnocentric;"

More anti-semitic nonsense. Why aren't liberal Christians like Jimmy Carter forthright in condemning this kind of thing? Instead they provide it with cover.

"Let's start with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists, as documented by Israeli historians. The Zionists used mass murder, rape, and terrorism to ethnically cleanse over 700,000 Palestinians from their indigenous homes in 1947-48."

That is an anti-semitic fable.

Are there people who view Palestinian as an ethnicity separate from that of Arabs?

"The US and the EU as sponsors of Israel should also contribute to the economic reparations to the dispossessed Palestinians. We must recognize that many still living Palestinians lost their homes during the formation of Israel and the conditions in which they live are completely unacceptable to humanitarians."

The world has not done this for immediate refugees from other communities. This demand extends to grandchildren and great grandchildren but does not stop even there.

The UN controls the camps they are in and their Muslim brethren want them to be miserable for propaganda purposes.

A lot of these folk did not own land and not all of the families had lived in the same place for hundreds of years. Israel has always been a center for Jewish learning.

"We should accept it that President Carter is trying to make the point that Israel will find its safest and truest course in justice and even kindness to the Palestinians. He clearly has poked a hornet's nest on this one, and I think he did this bravely, and in full knowledge of how much heat he would take."

I think Carter blames the American Jewish community for his defeat by Ronald Reagan. He seems to take delight in using phrases which intentionally provoke them so he can say how dare they criticize noble me. He is no better or more noble than they are despite his superb devotion to Christianity.

"However, since the country receives billions in aid from America, we would consider it a fair political stipulation for the receipt of assistance.

If Israel received no money from America, then it would answer only to the United Nations for its conduct. That's not what I want though.

I want Israel to act better than its neighbors and to make America proud of the assistance we send."

Jews turned the other cheek far more than seventy times seventy for millenia. They changed their policy in the 20th century for obvious reasons. They have to deal with the folks in their neighborhood who have complete contempt for peaceful people be they Muslim or Jewish. Note that everyone who condemns Israel especially complains about the Orthodox in Israel and they do not fight in an army because using force has been viewed for two millenia as un-Jewish.

We give billions to many countries. Some of them still harbor terrorists and oppose us in many areas. We too are good at turning the other cheek. Many people see that as a sign of weakness. I see it as a sign of strength.

"The eighty-some year old creche that was put up every year in my hometown has been replaced with a menorah, no double standard there. My tax dollars go to a country where I'd have to reject my religion and convert to Judaism in order to become a citizen."

And there is no cross?

How many countries can you go to, say make me a citizen please, and get what you want?

"I really don't know how one can be Jewish and anti-Semitic. It is not anti-Semitic to question whether members of a religion need a homeland of their own. After all, there is no "Budhistia" in East Asia."

You can be part of any group and not like it.

There are countries dominated by Buddhists; Japan for example.

Despite what people who think ill of the American Jewish community insist on believing, America is not dominated by Jews and has plenty of people who think the few Jews here have dual loyalties and far too much influence. Israel is the only place that does not happen and billions of people seem to want it wiped off the face of the Earth and pretend today's 15 million surviviors never had any connection to what they want to call Palestine in memory of the Philistines they seem to think were far nobler than Jews are.

It is not just Muslims who think that way about Israel. Many Christian leaders and Christian countries think ill of Israel and the leaders of the Jewish community in the United States.

Assalamu'alaykum, Peace Be Upon You:

"If Muslims & Jews live under the Islamic Shariah as implemented at the age of UMAYYAD in ANDALUSIA SPAIN and OTTOMAN in MIDDLE EAST & EASTERN EUROPE, There MUST BE NO hatred/persecution/enmity between Muslims & Jews."

Muslims & Jews COULD live together in love & harmony to participate in Science & Technology, Art & Commerce.

Jews Groups such as NATUREI KARTA & JEWS FOR ALLAH CAN participate in promoting dialog to Muslim Groups such as IKHWANUL MUSLIMEEN in Egypt, JAMEEAT E ISLAMI in Pakistan, MUHAMMADIYAH & NAHDHATUL ULAMA (both in Indonesia) & PAS (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia) in Malaysia.

If NATUREI KARTA & JEWS FOR ALLAH can bring dialog with these Muslim Groups, ALL of us can distinguish between Anti Zionism & Anti Semitism (both are extremely different).

In my opinion, the alliance between Naturei Karta & Jews for Allah in one side with Ikhwanul Muslimeen, Jamiat e Islami, PAS, Muhammadiyyah & Nahdhatul Ulama on the other side COULD BE another alternative alliance opposing ISRAEL outside Middle East (HAMMAS-HIZBULLAH). Insha Allah...

Arif Nurwahyu

Jakarta - Indonesia

Sir

In the past, I have criticized a lot of what you have written as rubbish and drivel.

This time, I agree with everything you have written with one exception.

"In a certain way, there is a widespread belief, even sometimes reluctant, in Jewish “superiority,” not only in mundane matters, but also in morality. This results in an attitude that holds Jews, and by extension, the Jewish state, to standards that are not expected of any other nation. One must be aware of this tendency when making a critique of Israel."

This is just complete, utter, unadulterated nonsense. If you are saying that those who criticize Israeli policies are doing so because they think that Israel is conforming only to general levels of conduct but should be doing better, you are smoking something that causes delusions. If you are saying that Israel can reject the criticism because it is doing only what others would do and should not be held to a higher standard, again that is rubbish -- I have never heard any Israeli make such a claim.

That said, I repeat that on all the other stuff you wrote, I agree with you.

Peace!

Why does Semite mean Jewish, whenever someone speaks about anti semitism is always about the jews. Have you not done your homework beause Semites include arabs, babylonians,phoneciens and others. Also on the subject of Palestine, it is rightfully for the Palestinians. The European Jews had upturned the social balance that was in Palestine. Before the 1940's Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived in harmony. If you dont believe ask any Palestinian or Jew how the the early days were like. We would celebrate together, did you now that muslims celebrated Yom kippur(in arabic its youm kabeer), and there are many other examples. My point is Israel is and illegal aprtheid state and they know it, from these actions it has been indirectly responsible for the Middle East of today.

Victoria,

Do really know how to say "I renounce and condemn the militaristic and demeaning passages of the Koran"? Simply say Yes and you will finally reach religious maturity.

liberated i use you as a gauge- wheniam saying something compelling you always show up to try and distract me- has it ever worked?

here is one tiny sentence form the link ill post-

IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.

these are 10 questions to ask zionists-

spain- britain- the usa - hungary- ghana- were all rejected by the zionists even though jewish people were still being killed enmasse- here is what they had to say regarding their own-

Chaim Weitzman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weitzman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

europe did have alternatives that were offeredn nd rejected- heres the link-

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/tenquestions.htm

taken from-http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/holocaust.htm

peace and thank you garak

Victoria,

And the Islamic "wishy wash" of copying and pasting continues. First things first!!! Renounce and condemn the militaristic and demeaning passages of the Koran then what you say/copy might have some meaning.

"the critique must be honest and without other agendas"

--------------------------------------

Fine!

a) Isn’t it true that European Jews wanted to settle in areas only occupied by people of color: countries considered for such a colonial project were: Argentina, Kenya, Uganda, Madagascar. What do people of color have to do with what was done to European Jews by other Europeans?

b) When thousands of European Jews stampeded towards regions of non-white lands, they came with the intention of dispelling the indigenous people.

c) If European had sympathy for European Jews, why did they not give them a piece of their own land?

The Brian Krug piece from the Guardian is a rare, shining example of clear thinking, true history and high values. Thanks for posting it, Anonymous. Should be required reading for the dim-sighted Zionists and secret Jew-haters who occupy most of the ground in these discussions.

Victoria--no problem. Haaretz probably owns the copyright, not I. I just saved the article when it came out. Haaretz is a great daily. Like Al Jazeera, it gives you a perspective on the Middle East quite different from that of the US media.

i ask your permission to copy this on another post -

i will do so under my own name if you like-

thank you garak

ill wait for your response

w w w . h a a r e t z d a i l y . c o m
Last update - 12:34 15/08/2003
Hitching a ride on the magic carpet

Any analogy between Palestinian refugees and Jewish immigrants from Arab lands is folly in historical and political terms

By Yehouda Shenhav

An intensive campaign to secure official political and legal recognition of Jews from Arab lands as refugees has been going on for the past three years. This campaign has tried to create an analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi Jews, whose origins are in Middle Eastern countries--depicting both groups as victims of the 1948 War of Independence. The campaign's proponents hope their efforts will prevent conferral of what is called a "right of return" on Palestinians, and reduce the size of the compensation Israel is liable to be asked to pay in exchange for Palestinian property appropriated by the state guardian of "lost" assets.

The idea of drawing this analogy constitutes a mistaken reading of history, imprudent politics, and moral injustice.

Bill Clinton launched the campaign in July 2000 in an interview with Israel's Channel One, in which he disclosed that an agreement to recognize Jews from Arab lands as refugees materialized at the Camp David summit. Ehud Barak then stepped up and enthusiastically expounded on his "achievement" in an interview with Dan Margalit.

Past Israeli governments had refrained from issuing declarations of this sort. First, there has been concern that any such proclamation will underscore what Israel has tried to repress and forget: the Palestinians' demand for return. Second, there has been anxiety that such a declaration would encourage property claims submitted by Jews against Arab states and, in response, Palestinian counter-claims to lost property. Third, such declarations would require Israel to update its schoolbooks and history, and devise a new narrative by which the Mizrahi Jews journeyed to the country under duress, without being fueled by Zionist aspirations. That would be a post-Zionist narrative.

At Camp David, Ehud Barak decided that the right of return issue was not really on the agenda, so he thought he had the liberty to indulge the Mizrahi analogy rhetorically. Characteristically, rather than really dealing with issues as a leader, in a fashion that might lead to mutual reconciliation, Barak acted like a shopkeeper.

This hot potato was cooked up for Barak and Clinton by Bobby Brown, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's adviser for Diaspora affairs, and his colleagues, along with delegates from organizations such as the World Jewish Congress and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

WOJAC fails

A few months ago Dr. Avi Becker, secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress, and Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents, persuaded Prof. Irwin Cotler, a member of Canada's parliament and an expert on international law, to join their campaign. An article by Becker published a few weeks ago in the Hebrew edition of Haaretz (July 20), entitled "Respect for Jews from Arab lands," constituted one step in this public campaign. The article said little about respect for Mizrahi Jews. On the contrary--it trampled their dignity.

The campaign's results thus far are meager. Its umbrella organization, Justice for Jews From Arab Countries, has not inspired much enthusiasm in Israel, or among Jews overseas. It has yet to extract a single noteworthy declaration from any major Israeli politician. This comes as no surprise: The campaign has a forlorn history whose details are worth revisiting. Sometimes recounting history has a very practical effect.

The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) was founded in the 1970s. Yigal Allon, then foreign minister, worried that WOJAC would become a hotbed of what he called "ethnic mobilization." But WOJAC was not formed to assist Mizrahi Jews; it was invented as a deterrent to block claims harbored by the Palestinian national movement, particularly claims related to compensation and the right of return.

At first glance, the use of the term "refugees" for Mizrahi Jews was not unreasonable. After all, the word had occupied a central place in historical and international legal discourses after World War II. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 referred to a just solution to "the problem of refugees in the Middle East." In the 1970s, Arab countries tried to fine-tune the resolution's language so that it would refer to "Arab refugees in the Middle East," but the U.S. government, under the direction of ambassador to the UN Arthur Goldberg, opposed this revision. A working paper prepared in 1977 by Cyrus Vance, then U.S. secretary of state, ahead of scheduled international meetings in Geneva, alluded to the search for a solution to the "problem of refugees," without specifying the identities of those refugees. Israel lobbied for this formulation. WOJAC, which tried to introduce use of the concept "Jewish refugees," failed.

The Arabs were not the only ones to object to the phrase. Many Zionist Jews from around the world opposed WOJAC's initiative. Organizers of the current campaign would be wise to study the history of WOJAC, an organization which transmogrified over its years of activity from a Zionist to a post-Zionist entity. It is a tale of unexpected results arising from political activity.

"We are not refugees"

The WOJAC figure who came up with the idea of "Jewish refugees" was Yaakov Meron, head of the Justice Ministry's Arab legal affairs department. Meron propounded the most radical thesis ever devised concerning the history of Jews in Arab lands. He claimed Jews were expelled from Arab countries under policies enacted in concert with Palestinian leaders--and he termed these policies "ethnic cleansing." Vehemently opposing the dramatic Zionist narrative, Meron claimed that Zionism had relied on romantic, borrowed phrases ("Magic Carpet," "Operation Ezra and Nehemiah") in the description of Mizrahi immigration waves to conceal the "fact" that Jewish migration was the result of "Arab expulsion policy." In a bid to complete the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews, WOJAC publicists claimed that the Mizrahi immigrants lived in refugee camps in Israel during the 1950s (i.e., ma'abarot or transit camps), just like the Palestinian refugees.

The organization's claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC's formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: "We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations."

Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: "I don't regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists."

In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee." He added: "I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee."

The opposition was so vociferous that Ora Schweitzer, chair of WOJAC's political department, asked the organization's secretariat to end its campaign. She reported that members of Strasburg's Jewish community were so offended that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of "Sephardi Jews as refugees" ever come up again. Such remonstration precisely predicted the failure of the current organization, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries to inspire enthusiasm for its efforts.

Also alarmed by WOJAC's stridency, the Foreign Ministry proposed that the organization bring its campaign to a halt on the grounds that the description of Mizrahi Jews as refugees was a double-edged sword. Israel, ministry officials pointed out, had always adopted a stance of ambiguity on the complex issue raised by WOJAC. In 1949, Israel even rejected a British-Iraqi proposal for population exchange--Iraqi Jews for Palestinian refugees--due to concerns that it would subsequently be asked to settle "surplus refugees" within its own borders.

The foreign minister deemed WOJAC a Phalangist, zealous group, and asked that it cease operating as a "state within a state." In the end, the ministry closed the tap on the modest flow of funds it had transferred to WOJAC. Then justice minister Yossi Beilin fired Yaakov Meron from the Arab legal affairs department. Today, no serious researcher in Israel or overseas embraces WOJAC's extreme claims.

Moreover, WOJAC, which intended to promote Zionist claims and assist Israel in its conflict with Palestinian nationalism, accomplished the opposite: It presented a confused Zionist position regarding the dispute with the Palestinians, and infuriated many Mizrahi Jews around the world by casting them as victims bereft of positive motivation to immigrate to Israel. WOJAC subordinated the interests of Mizrahi Jews (particularly with regard to Jewish property in Arab lands) to what it erroneously defined as Israeli national interests. The organization failed to grasp that defining Mizrahi Jews as refugees opens a Pandora's box and ultimately harms all parties to the dispute, Jews and Arabs alike.

Lessons not learned

The World Jewish Congress and other Jewish rganizations learned nothing from this woeful legacy. Hungry for a magic solution to the refugee question, they have adopted the refugee analogy and are lobbying for it all over the world. It would be interesting to hear the education minister's reaction to the historical narrative presented nowadays by these Jewish organizations. Should Limor Livnat establish a committee of ministry experts to revise school textbooks in accordance with this new post-Zionist genre?

Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition.

In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.

The history of the "Mizrahi aliyah" (immigration to Israel) is complex, and cannot be subsumed within a facile explanation. Many of the newcomers lost considerable property, and there can be no question that they should be allowed to submit individual property claims against Arab states (up to the present day, the State of Israel and WOJAC have blocked the submission of claims on this basis).

The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute, degrades the dignity of many Mizrahi Jews, and harms prospects for genuine Jewish-Arab reconciliation.

Jewish anxieties about discussing the question of 1948 are understandable. But this question will be addressed in the future, and it is clear that any peace agreement will have to contain a solution to the refugee problem. It's reasonable to assume that as final status agreements between Israelis and Palestinians are reached, an international fund will be formed with the aim of compensating Palestinian refugees for the hardships caused them by the establishment of the State of Israel. Israel will surely be asked to contribute generously to such a fund.

In this connection, the idea of reducing compensation obligations by designating Mizrahi immigrants as refugees might become very tempting. But it is wrong to use scarecrows to chase away politically and morally valid claims advanced by Palestinians. The "creative accounting" manipulation concocted by the refugee analogy only adds insult to injury, and widens the psychological gap between Jews and Palestinians. Palestinians might abandon hopes of redeeming a right of return (as, for example, Palestinian pollster Dr. Khalil Shikai claims); but this is not a result to be adduced via creative accounting.

Any peace agreement must be validated by Israeli recognition of past wrongs and suffering, and the forging of a just solution. The creative accounts proposed by the refugee analogy turns Israel into a morally and politically spineless bookkeeper.

Yehouda Shenhav is a professor at Tel Aviv University and the editorof Theory Criticism, an Israeli journal in the area of critical theory and cultural studies.

/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=329736
close window

Perhaps the rabbi could answer the question what is the scriptural and religious basis for the formation of israel and zionism?

there is no scriptural basis-

here are what other rabbis say about it-

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

there are certainly more-

there is much dissension within the jewish community as to the religious validity of zionism- except the difference is that jewish dissenter since they cant be accused of anti-semitism outright- are called 'self-hating'.

also answering the question can you criticize israel and still be a good jew- contains the inferrence that its possible if you criticize israel you are a bad jew-

but of course the moderators seem to have a penchant for framing their questions pitting one idea against another to create emphatic dialogue=

moderation is so boring to the press

today- egypt is the second biggest recipient of foreign aid form the us-- but --israel has been receiving aid for 50 years- and at an exponential rate also-

people are not saying israel has to hold itself to a higher standard- just the same standard-

65 resolutions have been leivied against israel-

us aid to israel
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

zionism is a political movement started by atheists

judaism is a religion adhered to by jewish people

by deliberately obscuring the differences and trying to equate zionism with jewishness the zionists have managed to deflect criticism for many many years now-

does this mean that in 50 years palestinians can point to the millions of refugees and start draining the us treasury?

only if they maintain the second largest lobby group in america like AIPAC

i challenge anyone to find one anti-semitic remark in this post-

there isnt any - but there are anit-zionist sentiments expressed

can israel be criticized without accusations of anit-semitism?

i would say no- but that doesnt mean screaming anti-semitism loud and long is a valid rebuttal any longer to zionism as a political entity

the question itself is a good basis for a further discussion-

Egypt is the second biggest recipient of US foreign aid after Israel getting around 2 billion every year. Why does Egypt get so much? The money is essentially a bribe for Egypt to make and maintain peace with Israel. Egypt is the most powerful and advanced Arab country in the Middle East. The Yom Kippur war was almost a defeat for Israel. US foreign aid for Egypt soared after they peace made with Israel in the 1970’s. In reality, many if not most Egyptians are hostile to Israel and are kept in check by Egypt’s dictators.

So the money going to Egypt also indirectly benefits Israel. In 2002, Senator Patrick Leahy said two-thirds of US foreign aid went to Israel and Egypt. I’m not too sure what the ratio is today. Probably a lot less as more foreign aid is now going to Africa.

Mr. Cavalier (UVA grad?): Try these two books, written by Israeli historians:

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, by Ilan Pappe.

The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, by Benny Morris.

Both document, in painful detail, what really happened in 1947-48. As for the claim that the Arb nations "brutally expelled" their Jews, I'll post an article rebutting this spurious claim later.

CF: If being a Jew is a matter of race, and Israel is a Jewish state to the detriment of all other races, then Israel is a racist state by definition--your definition.

Just looking at the replies above you can see that the anti-Jewish feeling is driving so many people, so many of the replies are clearly full of foolish word. (for example, Egypt receives billions of dollars in aid as well, yet no one holds them to even 10% of the responsibility that they hold Israel, yet claim the money is justification for holding Israel to a different standard). They anti-Jewish racists are in terror that their smoke screen of claiming they are 'not against Jew's just Zionists will be blown away and they will be exposed for the racist they are. (Want to bet someone will reply saying they can't be racist because Jews aren't a race?)

Sigh....

superiority....hahahahah. You wish rabbi! I know that your talmud teaches you this idea (i.e. can kill and steal from non-jews) and that Jews are enthnocentric; however, you are just like the rest of us and are held accountable to the same standards of decency.

Apologies,

The correct URL for WOJAC is:
http://www.wojac.com/history.html

Hello Garak,

Yes, let's talk about history and facts. Perhaps you'd like to consider the well-documented facts around the establishment of the State of Israel and the role the Arab Muslim countries played in using the Palestinian Muslims as pawns in their war against the new Israeli State. Also, let's consider the over 900,000 Jewish Refugees brutally expelled from Muslim countries between the years 1948-51.

Here are two important URLs that hopefully will shed some light on it for you and for others:

http://www.wojac.org/history.html
http://www.jimena.org

Let's talk about history. Let's start with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists, as documented by Israeli historians. The Zionists used mass murder, rape, and terrorism to ethnically cleanse over 700,000 Palestinians from their indigenous homes in 1947-48. Rabbi, is it anti-semitic to acknowledge this? If it is, then not only is there nothing wrong with anti-semitism, but it is, it must be, admirable. Admitting the facts, recognizing history, is admirable. If this is also anti-semitic, then anti-semitism is admirable.

This entire debate has but one purpose--to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.

Ralph

You said : "If Israel received no money from America, then it would answer only to the United Nations for its conduct. That's not what I want though.

I want Israel to act better than its neighbors and to make America proud of the assistance we send."

Why should Israel not be answerable to the United Nations, the global community, like any other country? By its membership of international organizations, surely Israel acknowledges that it is part of the international community. Likewise the US. Are you saying that there is now not only American exceptionalism but Israeli exceptionalism?

Bill

Unfortunately, it is according to the Israel playbook in some ways and the Arabs know it. They have been reading the Project for the New American Century and it was and still is widely discussed in the Arab media. The neocons are not so well loved in the Arab world. Not that this so-called Israeli playbook did not backfire sometimes. E.g. Isreal initially encouraged Hamas to weaken the PLO and now....blowback.

Only Iraq and Iran have the potential to be really significant military and economic states in the Middle East. Scary for some countries to contemplate that prospect as competitors for spheres of influence.

Now, I am waiting for Iran to be bombed back to the stone age according to the Isreali/neocon playbook. The Iranians have plans for nuclear power, not nukes, but that point is irrelavant. Iran is a "big threat" to Israel in planning to have nukes to destroy it as the Israelis and neocons tells us. Never mind the fact that Israel has over 200 nukes and US bases in the in Middle East and Central Asia can nuke Iran if it so much sneezes.

Any wonder why the President of Iran is paranoid of Israel and say all those things about Jews? He is, after all, a politician, who won by elections and can be elected out, who saw his plans for nuclear power in Iran scuttled and his country may be bombed under his watch. Iran will be running out of oil in the next 10 to 15 years and this they know. Essentially, the President of Iran is fixing the blame of his woes on somebody, and it is the Israel and Jews. He wanted to reach out to the US in his own bizarre way. Wipe Isreal out? Not a chance in hell. Probably Iran be wiped out because of its President's anti-Zionism and denial of the Holocaust. Israel is dying to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

Sorry, the rest of the world, and not just the Muslim world, buy the point that Israel can be wiped off the map by anybody. It is about military supremacy and oil fundamentally. Everything else - to bring freedoms and democracy are high minding excuses, er, reasons.

I posted the 2nd post with the article by Brian Klug- just to let everyone know- it wasnt intended to be an anonymous post- i always use my name (well i guess unless im tired like up there)

No wonder the Jews/Israelis tolerate so little criticism, always being at war, a victim, controversial, etc. After a long history of persecution they have nothing to lose by taking the offensive. Blacks in the US have a comparable sensitivity and one constantly has to tiptoe around it.

US involvement in the Iraq debacle is tailor-made for Israel but a big loss for the US, in money, blood and bad relations. The Sunni-Shia time bomb keeps the Arabs divided, keeps them anti-US as well as anti-Israel, and promises to be an outlet for unemployed Arab Islamists to kill each other rather than "the white men." Too bad for US troops who give their lives without sufficient justification. It might be right out of the Israeli foreign policy playbook, however.

We should accept it that President Carter is trying to make the point that Israel will find its safest and truest course in justice and even kindness to the Palestinians. He clearly has poked a hornet's nest on this one, and I think he did this bravely, and in full knowledge of how much heat he would take. As someone who is pro-Israel I have found it difficult to be understood when calling for justice for the Palestinians. This is emotionally charged and some are threatened by the idea, apparently believing we blame Israel when calling for bettering conditions for Palestinians. The US and the EU as sponsors of Israel should also contribute to the economic reparations to the dispossessed Palestinians. We must recognize that many still living Palestinians lost their homes during the formation of Israel and the conditions in which they live are completely unacceptable to humanitarians. Helping these people is the right thing to do, and it is the best thing for Israel, too. The Lex Talonis approach has brought only suffering upon suffering for six decades. The old proverb goes: If you want Peace, then fight for Justice.

This is the second example I've read where a writer has said that holding Israel to a higher standard of conduct than its neighbors qualifies as anti-Semitism.

Normally, that would be called unfair.

However, since the country receives billions in aid from America, we would consider it a fair political stipulation for the receipt of assistance.

If Israel received no money from America, then it would answer only to the United Nations for its conduct. That's not what I want though.

I want Israel to act better than its neighbors and to make America proud of the assistance we send.

I guess it has become a very fine line between the two. But more and more people don't really care anymore. Anti-Semitism, we've come to learn, is anything a Jew says it is.

No, Rabbi, we don't believe in Jewish "superiority" morally or otherwise. Not any more anyway. Once Jews became a nation they chose to treat people just as they had been treated. Is this the double standard you mention? That it's not ok for Jews to do so? Or is it that Jews don't want to be held to any standard at all.

The eighty-some year old creche that was put up every year in my hometown has been replaced with a menorah, no double standard there. My tax dollars go to a country where I'd have to reject my religion and convert to Judaism in order to become a citizen. My tax dollars are currently being used in Lebanon as American supplied cluster bombs continue to go off and kill and maim civilians. American kids, overwhelmingly Christian, are dying at least in part because of the fanatical hatred Israelis have inspired in their neighbors.
Be men. At least try to accept some responsibility for your lives.

I really don't know how one can be Jewish and anti-Semitic. It is not anti-Semitic to question whether members of a religion need a homeland of their own. After all, there is no "Budhistia" in East Asia. Along the same lines, most people here in the West tend to condemn Islamic separatist movements in places like Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines, and not just on the basis of their tactics.

I object to religious states of any sort because they tend to be exclusionary and there is a very natural tendency for them to establish an apartheid. A really nice example was the Taliban state in Afghanistan. I am not saying Israel is as crazy as that, but they would be if the far right in Israeli politics had there way, and there is no doubt that Arab citizens of Israel have a tough time even now. Recent Israeli actions regarding settlements, cluster bombs in Lebanon, etc. have crossed far over the line of civilized behavior. (I am sorry to say, however, that the Bush administration crossed at least as far over the same line).

I understand the complaint that Israel is criticized on the basis of standards of behavior that are not applied to their neighbors. (After all, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt are awful at every level). I think that complaint has some truth, but there is a reason. Israel appeals to our support on the very basis that they behave better than their neighbors, that they are a Western style democracy. As the descendant of Eastern European Jews, I used to have some emotional attachment to Israel, but no longer. They would be better off as an entirely secular state.

"Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

Are you deliberately trying to mislead people into equating anti-semitism with anti-zionism?

No, anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism

As an idea, a Jewish homeland was always controversial. As a reality, Israel still is - and it is not anti-Jewish to say so

Brian Klug
Wednesday December 3, 2003
The Guardian

From the beginning, political Zionism was a controversial movement even among Jews. So strong was the opposition of German orthodox and reform rabbis to the Zionist idea in the name of Judaism that Theodor Herzl changed the venue of the First Zionist Congress in 1897 from Munich to Basle in Switzerland.

Twenty years later, when the British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour (sponsor of the 1905 Aliens Act to restrict Jewish immigration to the UK), wanted the government to commit itself to a Jewish homeland in Palestine, his declaration was delayed - not by anti-semites but by leading figures in the British Jewish community. They included a Jewish member of the cabinet who called Balfour's pro-Zionism "anti-semitic in result".

The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 has not put an end to the debate, though the issue has changed. Today, the question is about Israel's future. Should it become a "post-Zionist" state, one that defines itself in terms of the sum of its citizens, rather than seeing itself as belonging to the entire Jewish people? This is a perfectly legitimate question and not anti-semitic in the least. When people suggest otherwise - as Emanuele Ottolenghi did on these pages last Saturday - they simply add to the growing confusion.

Ottolenghi contends that "Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are". This is doubly confused. First, the ideology of Jewish nationalism was irrelevant to many of the Jews, as well as non-Jewish sympathisers, who were drawn to the Zionist goal of creating a Jewish state in Palestine. They saw Israel in purely humanitarian or practical terms: as a safe haven where Jews could live as Jews after centuries of being marginalised and persecuted.

This motive was strengthened by the Nazi murder of one-third of the world's Jewish population, the wholesale destruction of Jewish communities in Europe, and the plight of masses of Jewish refugees with nowhere to go.

Second, you do not have to be an anti-semite to reject the belief that Jews constitute a separate nation in the modern sense of the word or that Israel is the Jewish nation state. There is an irony here: it is a staple of anti-semitic discourse that Jews are a people apart, who form "a state within a state". Partly for this reason, some European anti-semites thought that the solution to "the Jewish question" might be for Jews to have a state of their own. Herzl certainly thought he could count on the support of anti-semites.

What is anti-semitism? Although the word only goes back to the 1870s, anti-semitism is an old European fantasy about Jews. The composer Richard Wagner exemplified it when he said: "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it." An anti-semite sees Jews this way: they are an alien presence, a parasite that preys on humanity and seeks to dominate the world. Across the globe, their hidden hand controls the banks, the markets and the media. Even governments are under their sway. And when revolutions occur or nations go to war, it is the Jews - clever, ruthless and cohesive - who invariably pull the strings and reap the rewards.

When this fantasy is projected on to Israel because it is a Jewish state, then anti-Zionism is anti-semitic. And when zealous critics of Israel, without themselves being anti-semitic, carelessly use language, such as "Jewish influence", that conjures up this fantasy, they are fuelling an anti-semitic current in the wider culture.

But Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is no fantasy. Nor is the spread of Jewish settlements in these territories. Nor the unequal treatment of Jewish colonisers and Palestinian inhabitants. Nor the institutionalised discrimination against Israeli Arab citizens in various spheres of life. These are realities. It is one thing to oppose Israel or Zionism on the basis of an anti-semitic fantasy; quite another to do so on the basis of reality. The latter is not anti-semitism.

But isn't excessive criticism of Israel or Zionism evidence of an anti-semitic bias? In his book, The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz argues that when criticism of Israel "crosses the line from fair to foul" it goes "from acceptable to anti-semitic".

People who take this view say the line is crossed when critics single Israel out unfairly; when they apply a double standard and judge Israel by harsher criteria than they use for other states; when they misrepresent the facts so as to put Israel in a bad light; when they vilify the Jewish state; and so on. All of which undoubtedly is foul. But is it necessarily anti-semitic?

No, it is not. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter political struggle. The issues are complex, passions are inflamed, and the suffering is great. In such circumstances, people on both sides are liable to be partisan and to "cross the line from fair to foul". When people who side with Israel cross that line, they are not necessarily anti-Muslim. And when others cross the line on behalf of the Palestinian cause, this does not make them anti-Jewish. It cuts both ways.

There is something else that cuts both ways: racism. Both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim feeling appear to be growing. Each has its own peculiarities, but both are exacerbated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the invasion of Iraq, the "war against terror", and other conflicts.

We should unite in rejecting racism in all its forms: the Islamophobia that demonises Muslims, as well as the anti-semitic discourse that can infect anti-Zionism and poison the political debate. However, people of goodwill can disagree politically - even to the extent of arguing over Israel's future as a Jewish state. Equating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism can also, in its own way, poison the political debate.

· Brian Klug is senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's Hall, Oxford, and a founder member of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights

comment@guardian.co.uk

Well said, Rabbi Steinsaltz.