All Comments (95)

http://yomayonifigasebe.com yomayonifigasebe

hey William Graham.
Do you realize that you didn't say anything in what you wrote? You're just trying to not let anything be defined. "people do this in all religions" -- I get a feeling that this view of yours will be your life's work-- trying to find exceptions to biases of religions. Big deal.
What is the truth?? How do these religions correspond to what is proven in science about origins? You're a worthless leader of a non-demoninational school that spins out worthless degrees--ohhh "diversity"!! it should be honored above all.. even truth itself!

Here, here! Well said.

People like that imagine hatred and lies repeated often enough will magically produce their opposite.

IF ANYONE IS ANTI-SEMITIC ITS ISRAEL THE FASCIST NATION THAT IS COMMITTING NEFARIOUS CRIMES AGAINST THE INDIGENOUS PALESTINIANS

(WHO ARE IN TRUTH MORE SEMITIC THEN THE ASHKENAZI JEW EVER COULD HOPE TO BE).

I guess someone is papering the board here with this anti-semitic post. This is the 8th copy I have seen. Do you think Armageddon will come if you post it enough?

You can be critical of every thing from communism, terrorism, government, gays even the creator God who gave us the very knowledge but you dare not be critical of the mighty Jews people or state of Israel.

I do not understand why American's love the Jews so much that they follow all their orders blindly, get their sons die for their war, give all their money and gets nothing but the whole world yes the rest of the world including the Europeans hate them.

Americans are the real looser may be some day there would be another painful repeat of history in European Jews.

Look at the numbers:

1. Jews populatioin is only about 15 million and rest of the world over 6 billion people, what is the percentage.

2. Over 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Indian, 1 billion Chinese.

3. Muslims sits over oil and they should control the world policy but who does it by proxy - the Jews. India has the brain power, look at US softwar industry, and China - they make every thing, yes every thing for the world.

5. In America they are about 5 million Jews but 10 million Muslims - where they are, brand them terrorist so Jews can be worshipped. China is evil without human rights, India they are half communist eat with hands, so Jews is the only friend of America.

6. 5 Billion in guns and money goes to Israel more than the rest of the world gets from the USA annually, why..

7. What America get in return, enemy of the Arabs, lost of friends in Europe, Bin Laden, 600,000 killed in Iraq (Jews wanted Saddan to be killed). 120,000 death in Afghanistan so oil pine can go to Israel from central Asia. World Trade centre death of 3000 Americans and humiliation of America around the world when their president travels.

8. What America really gets is nothing, Israel got no oil, no population like Muslim world of 1 billion consumers. China is the richest nation soon in terms of production and India the the power at the door.

9. American Jews dominated media would loss controld someday the Internet will bring the truth to every American home and the the history will repeat again as in Europe, this is sad for humanity but this about greed and drive for money. Poor America they do not understand what Europeans knew long ago, but obviously killing is not an option but they should choose the right friend it should the the Indians, Chinese and Muslims, they all controld brain, money and old together not the Jews.

Jews conspricy or whatever you say the fact Americans are naive to talk they are scare to death to be critical of Israel or Jews, they are same as early days Europeans afrid to talk, if one leader like Jimmy Carter comes to power that knows the facts about Jews or Ford (found of Ford motors) will be change todays Jews control of American power and the bad consequence. You can fool some time somebody you can not fool all time every body.

Choose wrong friend in long run, you run out of the game, who wins, China, - you stupid.

"serbs and bosnians are the same race."

Different religions and ethnicity. The fights are over religion, history, and language.

"so the world courts decision to convict serbia of apartheid practices currently extends beyond the limits of the racist practices of south africa."

I could not find a reference to that. So apartheid now refers to keeping people separate for any reason by any means?

"the current definition by popular use of the word anti-semitism to apply more specifically to jewish people"

The word was created to refer to how Jews are viewed. It is only recently that some folks have decided to change its meaning.

"while youre trying to make it a race issue, and then clouding it by insufficient defintions of the word race"

I introduced the concept of race here? What about all your quotes referring to Israel as racist?

"since jewish people themselves define themselves by their religion"

Wrong. It is membership in the group by birth or adoption. And if you try hard you can opt out of the group.

it should also be noted that the serbs and bosnians are the same race.

so the world courts decision to convict serbia of apartheid practices currently extends beyond the limits of the racist practices of south africa.

while everyone has no problem accepting the current definition by popular use of the word anti-semitism to apply more specifically to jewish people, and you accept that definition-
we can understand you have the flexibility to accept when defintions change in language.

so the accepted defintion of apartheid is separation by race, caste,etc.

it is the etc. open ended as it is that we will define it by here-

while youre trying to make it a race issue, and then clouding it by insufficient defintions of the word race-

we can make it much clearer by calling it what it is-

(as stated, even jewish people cannot agree among themselves what constitutes being a jew- expanding their definitions to include but not be limited by race, language and religion of course)

since jewish people themselves define themselves by their religion, and the palestinians practice different religions than judaism- it might be more judicious to define apartheid by in the context of religious separatism.

dave- jews themselves disagree about their 'racehood'. and what constitutes being a jew.

what is your point?

no dave- you are pretty misinformed about what constitutes race.

i have a friend who is a sociological anthropologist and for the purposes of this conversation defining what constitutes race is a great deal more complicated than just an encyclopaedia britannica snippet.

anyway you cut it- there was a massive population displaced by force and fear frm zionists-

defining whether they are a race or not is extraneous to the point.

here is a very simple destruction of your posit.

"The Anti-Israel application of the words apartheid and genocide depend on this notion that the people in Gaza and the West Bank are a distinct race."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

now well reframe this-

"The Serbo-Bosnian application of the words apartheid and genocide depend on this notion that the people in Gaza and the West Bank are a different religion"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

still applies dave-
race is not the issue

as evidenced by the decision of the world court in the hague which recently indicted serbia for allowing genocide to occur

We can try to talk about racism. Perhaps we could also talk about reading.

"When racism was rampant in 20th Century America, Jews were treated about the same as blacks."

There was no slavery after the Civil War ended. And lynchings were mainly in the South. "About the same" is quite different from exactly the same.

How do you manage to view Palestinians as a race?

I posted a longer version of this earlier.

"The modern meaning of the term race with reference to humans began to emerge in the 17th century. Since then it has had a variety of meanings in the languages of the Western world. What most definitions have in common is an attempt to categorize peoples primarily by their physical differences."

That is from the Encyclopedia Britannica. What are the distinctive physical differences by which you can tell Jews in Israel, Arabs in Syria, Arabs in lebanon, and Arabs in Jordan from the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza?

The Anti-Israel application of the words apartheid and genocide depend on this notion that the people in Gaza and the West Bank are a distinct race.

dave thats not even close to true, when was a jewish person ever lynched and hung?
what does this have to do with the oslo accord?

its really kind of crazy to be denying that palestinians are a race or not- what are you talking about?

make a point

why are you always talking about hitler?

how can you compare being slaves to jewish treatment in america?

theres no comparison pick a subject dave

I will try again. Racism used to refer to what people did because of race not what part of the world people lived in and not religion.

Saying that something has things in common with another thing does not make it that other thing.

When racism was rampant in 20th Century America, Jews were treated about the same as blacks. They were not viewed as whites. Nor did Hitler view them as whites or Europeans. In his view they were trying to Africanize Europe.

Jews everywhere do not pick on Muslims everywhere and Arabs everywhere. They are concerned about people who want to kill them.

And the Palestinians are not a race by any definition of the word.

people have created a definition of racism?

well separate roads and laws and not letting any that arent in the 'club' buy property-

people didnt invent a defintion to describe those activities-

they applied an already solid definition to the situation

what is a true false proposition?
that doesnt even make any sense

is it like a hard soft cement block?
a hot cold ice cube?

youre not making any sense

the defintin of racism already existed
people didnt invent it to apply to israel

if i accuse another white person of being an aryan and say their racist for it, does that mean that i invented a definition to apply to them?

or that the definition applies to them?

i just did stick with one and you rudely replied youre not ask jeeves

ok what is right with the oslo accord?

You have already raised many issues. Why not stick with one of them?

If people think saying Israel is racist is a sign of anti-semitic reasoning, folks yell about intimidation and the vast power of AIPAC.

Israel is racist is treated as a true false proposition. It can not be so viewed. It is definitional. People have created a definition of racsim by which Israel is racist. They have done the same with genocide, terrorist, Apartheid, and Nazism.

I have pointed out the ways those and other definitions deviate from the common use of those terms in a way that defeats attempts to deal with these issues pecefully. You have dismissed everything I have said in a very general way without engaging me about the specifics of what I have said.

That is the way the world is. Two groups who are sure they are right getting surer and surer and angrier and angrier.

wow, i was just presenting a possible point to start on dave- never mind i thought you were suggesting starting at a point that one might agree upon

I am not Ask Me Jeeves.

go for it dave

what about the oslo accord- what is right with it?

"At some point all concerned are going to have to put aside their anger, forget about who did what to whom when, and try to find things they can agree on one thing at a time."

That is not a cohesive idea? Why not?

I have posted many ideas which are clear and cohesive. You have some criteria they do not fit.

what are you, clinton?
you are asking what my definition of 'idea' is?
just spit one out dave-

why dont you just put down a cohesive idea?

what kind of nonsense answer is that?

You do not see any ideas in the above or any of my other posts? How can that be? Do you have a special meaning for the word "idea?"

cool dave- what are your ideas?

These are matters I think through for myself using my own methods. I do not rely blindly on Dershowitz or anyone else. I sift them all through the same sieve. I see a lot of anger, some ingenious arguments, and few hard facts in my sense of the term.

At some point all concerned are going to have to put aside their anger, forget about who did what to whom when, and try to find things they can agree on one thing at a time.

well dave- if you ever post something from these sources ill be happy to peruse it-

but you havent-
but id welcome it

also ive used israeli sources in my blogs

""If Palestinians were black, Israel would now be a pariah state"

So people try very hard to convince themselves they are black and act as if it is so. Then like Carter they rant that evil AIPAC is preventing them from getting everyone in America to see that.

The problem is the huge difference in how we go about deciding that something is true. You seem to operate on the "Chomsky wrote it. I believe it." principle. Likewise with some of the other people and organizations you cite. Yet there seems to be no one in those media enterprises which have much smart staff or our government or Israel's government who you can consistently trust.

Can't you see what a huge impediment to discussion the way you are deciding you are sure about something is?

Why should I give a point by point refutation of a linguistics professor who knows much less about religion, philosophy, psychology, systems, and history than I do. How could he understand these things better when he is so busy with his own profession and telling everyone in the world what to do?

address the information dave-

id say you didnt even read it-

having a staff is your criteria for truth and facts?

ok- dispute and diprove just one-

just one dave-

its a direct challenge

Chomsky has a staff of zero and no particular expertise outside of linguistics. If you think he knows more than our whole State Department, you are wrong.

I have never understood what Chomsky thinks he is accomplishing. The same for his followers. I do not understand how they can think they are making the world a more peaceful place. I do not know how they expect to convince Americans they are right.

Top jobs in the State Department are competed for fiercely by highly competent people who are doing as much good as they can. You can believe otherwise if you choose.

then how could this be one of my favorite jews dave?
you shouldnt put words in others mouths- especially such potentially inflammatory ones- that idea came out of your head- not mine

Avram Noam Chomsky, Ph.D (born December 7, 1928) is the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th Century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman, Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth most cited scholar in any time period.[1][2][3]

Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known — especially internationally — for his media criticism and politics than for his linguistic theories.[4][5] He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).

as for your ridiculously putting inflammatroy words in my mouth dave- dont do that

here is what this jewish man says-

completely within topic of course as always

Blinded by the Truth
Noam Chomsky
Al-Ahram Weekly, November 2-8, 2000
After three weeks of virtual war in the Israeli-occupied territories, Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced a new plan to determine the final status of the region. During these weeks, over 100 Palestinians were killed, including 30 children, often by "excessive use of lethal force in circumstances in which neither the lives of the security forces nor others were in imminent danger, resulting in unlawful killings," Amnesty International concluded in a detailed report that was scarcely mentioned in the US. The ratio of Palestinian to Israeli dead was then about 15-1, reflecting the resources of force available.

Barak's plan was not given in detail, but the outlines are familiar: they conform to the "final status map" presented by the US-Israel as the basis for the Camp David negotiations that collapsed in July. This plan, extending US-Israeli rejectionist proposals of earlier years, called for cantonisation of the territories that Israel had conquered in 1967, with mechanisms to ensure that usable land and resources (primarily water) remain largely in Israeli hands while the population is administered by a corrupt and brutal Palestinian Authority (PA), playing the role traditionally assigned to indigenous collaborators under the several varieties of imperial rule: the Black leadership of South Africa's Bantustans, to mention only the most obvious analogue. In the West Bank, a northern canton is to include Nablus and other Palestinian cities, a central canton is based in Ramallah, and a southern canton in Bethlehem; Jericho is to remain isolated. Palestinians would be effectively cut off from Jerusalem, the centre of Palestinian life. Similar arrangements are likely in Gaza, with Israel keeping the southern coastal region and a small settlement at Netzarim (the site of many of the recent atrocities), which is hardly more than an excuse for a large military presence and roads splitting the Strip below Gaza City.

These proposals formalise the vast settlement and construction programmes that Israel has been conducting, thanks to munificent US aid, with increasing energy since the US was able to implement its version of the "peace process" after the Gulf War. The goal of the negotiations was to secure official PA adherence to this project. Two months after they collapsed, the current phase of violence began. Tensions, always high, were raised when the Barak government authorised a visit by Ariel Sharon with 1,000 police to the Muslim religious sites (Al-Aqsa) on a Thursday (28 September). Sharon is the very symbol of Israeli state terror and aggression, with a rich record of atrocities going back to 1953. Sharon's announced purpose was to demonstrate "Jewish sovereignty" over the Al-Aqsa compound, but as the veteran correspondent Graham Usher points out, the "Al-Aqsa Intifada," as Palestinians call it, was not initiated by Sharon's visit; rather, by the massive and intimidating police and military presence that Barak introduced the following day, the day of prayers. Predictably, that led to clashes as thousands of people streamed out of the mosque, leaving seven Palestinians dead and 200 wounded.

Whatever Barak's purpose, there could hardly have been a more efficient way to set the stage for the shocking atrocities of the following weeks. The same can be said about the failed negotiations, which focused on Jerusalem, a condition observed strictly by US commentary. Possibly Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling was exaggerating when he wrote that a solution to this problem "could have been reached in five minutes," but he is right to say that "by any diplomatic logic [it] should have been the easiest issue to solve (Ha'aretz, 4 October).

It is understandable that Clinton-Barak should want to suppress what they are doing in the occupied territories, which is far more important. Why did Arafat agree? Perhaps because he recognises that the leadership of the Arab states regard the Palestinians as a nuisance, and have little problem with the Bantustan-style settlement, but cannot overlook administration of the religious sites, fearing the reaction of their own populations. Nothing could be better calculated to set off a confrontation with religious overtones -- the most ominous kind, as centuries of experience reveal. The primary innovation of Barak's new plan is that the US-Israeli demands are to be imposed by direct force instead of coercive diplomacy, and in a harsher form, to punish the victims who refused to concede politely. The outlines are in basic accord with policies established informally in 1968 (the Allon Plan), and variants that have been proposed since by both political groupings (the Sharon Plan, the Labour government plans, and others). It is important to recall that the policies have not only been proposed, but implemented, with the support of the US. That support has been decisive since 1971, when Washington abandoned the basic diplomatic framework that it had initiated (UN Security Council Resolution 242), then pursued its unilateral rejection of Palestinian rights in the years that followed, culminating in the "Oslo process."

Since all of this has been effectively vetoed from history in the US, it takes a little work to discover the essential facts. They are not controversial, only evaded. As noted, Barak's plan is a particularly harsh version of familiar US-Israeli rejectionism. It calls for terminating electricity, water, telecommunications, and other services that are doled out in meagre rations to the Palestinian population, who are now under virtual siege. It should be recalled that independent development was ruthlessly barred by the military regime from 1967, leaving the people in destitution and dependency, a process that has worsened considerably during the US-run "Oslo process." One reason is the "closures" regularly instituted, most brutally by the more dovish Labour-based governments. As discussed by another outstanding journalist, Amira Hass, this policy was initiated by the Rabin government "years before Hamas had planned suicide attacks, [and] has been perfected over the years, especially since the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority." An efficient mechanism of strangulation and control, closure has been accompanied by the importation of an essential commodity to replace the cheap and exploited Palestinian labour on which much of the economy relies: hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from around the world, many of them victims of the "neoliberal reforms" of the recent years of "globalisation." Surviving in misery and without rights, they are regularly described as a virtual slave labour force in the Israeli press.

The current Barak proposal is to extend this programme, reducing still further the prospects even for mere survival for the Palestinians. A major barrier to the programme is the opposition of the Israeli business community, which relies on a captive Palestinian market for some $2.5 billion in annual exports, and has "forged links with Palestinian security officials" and Arafat's "economic adviser, enabling them to carve out monopolies with official PA consent" (Financial Times, 22 October; also New York Times, same day). They have also hoped to set up industrial zones in the territories, transferring pollution and exploiting a cheap labour force in maquiladora-style installations owned by Israeli enterprises and the Palestinian elite, who are enriching themselves in the time-honoured fashion. Barak's new proposals appear to be more of a warning than a plan, though they are a natural extension of what has come before. Insofar as they are implemented, they would extend the project of "invisible transfer" that has been underway for many years, and that makes more sense than outright "ethnic cleansing" (as we call the process when carried out by official enemies). People compelled to abandon hope and offered no opportunities for meaningful existence will drift elsewhere, if they have any chance to do so.

The plans, which have roots in traditional goals of the Zionist movement from its origins (across the ideological spectrum), were articulated in internal discussion by Israeli government Arabists in 1948 while outright ethnic cleansing was underway: their expectation was that the refugees "would be crushed" and "die," while "most of them would turn into human dust and the waste of society, and join the most impoverished classes in the Arab countries." Current plans, whether imposed by coercive diplomacy or outright force, have similar goals. They are not unrealistic if they can rely on the world-dominant power and its intellectual classes. The current situation is described accurately by Amira Hass, in Israel's most prestigious daily (Ha'aretz, 18 October). Seven years after the Declaration of Principles in September 1993 -- which foretold this outcome for anyone who chose to see -- "Israel has security and administrative control" of most of the West Bank and 20 per cent of the Gaza Strip. It has been able "to double the number of settlers in 10 years, to enlarge the settlements, to continue its discriminatory policy of cutting back water quotas for three million Palestinians, to prevent Palestinian development in most of the area of the West Bank, and to seal an entire nation into restricted areas, imprisoned in a network of bypass roads meant for Jews only. During these days of strict internal restriction of movement in the West Bank, one can see how carefully each road was planned: So that 200,000 Jews have freedom of movement, about three million Palestinians are locked into their Bantustans until they submit to Israeli demands. The blood bath that has been going on for three weeks is the natural outcome of seven years of lying and deception, just as the first Intifada was the natural outcome of direct Israeli occupation."

The settlement and construction programmes continue, with US support, whoever may be in office. On 18 August, Ha'aretz noted that two governments -- Rabin and Barak -- had declared that settlement was "frozen," in accord with the dovish image preferred in the US and by much of the Israeli left. They made use of the "freezing" to intensify settlement, including economic inducements for the secular population, automatic grants for ultra-religious settlers, and other devices, which can be carried out with little protest while "the lesser of two evils" happens to be making the decisions, a pattern hardly unfamiliar elsewhere. "There is freezing and there is reality," the report observes caustically. The reality is that settlement in the occupied territories has grown over four times as fast as in Israeli population centres, continuing -- perhaps accelerating -- under Barak. Settlement brings with it large infrastructure projects designed to integrate much of the region within Israel, while leaving Palestinians isolated, apart from "Palestinian roads" that are travelled at one's peril. Another journalist with an outstanding record, Danny Rubinstein, points out that "readers of the Palestinian papers get the impression (and rightly so) that activity in the settlements never stops. Israel is constantly building, expanding and reinforcing the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is always grabbing homes and lands in areas beyond the 1967 lines -- and of course, this is all at the expense of the Palestinians, in order to limit them, push them into a corner and then out. In other words, the goal is to eventually dispossess them of their homeland and their capital, Jerusalem" (Ha'aretz, 23 October).

Readers of the Israeli press, Rubinstein continues, are largely shielded from the unwelcome facts, though not entirely so. In the US, it is far more important for the population to be kept in ignorance, for obvious reasons: the economic and military programmes rely crucially on US support, which is domestically unpopular and would be far more so if its purposes were known. To illustrate, on 3 October, after a week of bitter fighting and killing, the defence correspondent of Ha'aretz reported "the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade," an agreement with the US to provide Israel with 35 Blackhawk military helicopters and spare parts at a cost of $525 million, along with jet fuel, following the purchase shortly before of patrol aircraft and Apache attack helicopters. These are "the newest and most advanced multi-mission attack helicopters in the US inventory," the Jerusalem Post adds. It would be unfair to say that those providing the gifts cannot discover the fact. In a database search, David Peterson found that they were reported in the Raleigh (North Carolina) press. The sale of military helicopters was condemned by Amnesty International (19 October), because these "US-supplied helicopters have been used to violate the human rights of Palestinians and Arab Israelis during the recent conflict in the region." Surely that was anticipated, barring advanced cretinism.

Israel has been condemned internationally (the US abstaining) for "excessive use of force," in a "disproportionate reaction" to Palestinian violence. That includes even rare condemnations by the International Committee of the Red Cross, specifically, for attacks on at least 18 Red Cross ambulances (NYT, 4 October). Israel's response is that it is being unfairly singled out for criticism. The response is entirely accurate. Israel is employing official US doctrine, known here as "the Powell doctrine," though it is of far more ancient vintage, tracing back centuries: Use massive force in response to any perceived threat. Official Israeli doctrine allows "the full use of weapons against anyone who endangers lives and especially at anyone who shoots at our forces or at Israelis" (Israeli military legal adviser Daniel Reisner, FT, 6 October). Full use of force by a modern army includes tanks, helicopter gunships, sharpshooters aiming at civilians (often children), etc. US weapons sales "do not carry a stipulation that the weapons can't be used against civilians," a Pentagon official said; he "acknowledged however that anti-tank missiles and attack helicopters are not traditionally considered tools for crowd control" -- except by those powerful enough to get away with it, under the protective wings of the reigning superpower. "We cannot second-guess an Israeli commander who calls in a Cobra (helicopter) gunship because his troops are under attack," another US official said (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 3 October). Accordingly, such killing machines must be provided in an unceasing flow.

It is not surprising that a US client state should adopt standard US military doctrine, which has left a toll too awesome to record, including in very recent years. The US and Israel are, of course, not alone in adopting this doctrine, and it is sometimes even condemned: namely, when adopted by enemies targeted for destruction. A recent example is the response of Serbia when its territory (as the US insists it is) was attacked by Albanian-based guerrillas, killing Serb police and civilians and abducting civilians (including Albanians) with the openly-announced intent of eliciting a "disproportionate response" that would arouse Western indignation, then NATO military attack. Very rich documentation from US, NATO, and other Western sources is now available, most of it produced in an effort to justify the bombing. Assuming these sources to be credible, we find that the Serbian response -- while doubtless "disproportionate" and criminal, as alleged -- does not compare with the standard resort to the same doctrine by the US and its clients, Israel included.

In the mainstream British press, we can at last read that "If Palestinians were black, Israel would now be a pariah state subject to economic sanctions led by the United States [which is not accurate, unfortunately]. Its development and settlement of the West Bank would be seen as a system of apartheid, in which the indigenous population was allowed to live in a tiny fraction of its own country, in self-administered 'bantustans', with 'whites' monopolising the supply of water and electricity. And just as the black population was allowed into South Africa's white areas in disgracefully under-resourced townships, so Israel's treatment of Israeli Arabs -- flagrantly discriminating against them in housing and education spending -- would be recognised as scandalous too" (Observer, Guardian, 15 October).

Such conclusions will come as no surprise to those whose vision has not been constrained by the doctrinal blinders imposed for many years. It remains a major task to remove them in the most important country. That is a prerequisite to any constructive reaction to the mounting chaos and destruction, terrible enough before our eyes, and with long-term implications that are not pleasant to contemplate.
chomsky.info

like this jewish man dave?
thinking is what ive been asking you to do-
im not asking the presidents what they think-

so heres an example of what a jew would say-
(although why you throw jewishness into the mix all the time is not exactly a mystery)

Avram Noam Chomsky, Ph.D (born December 7, 1928) is the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th Century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman, Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth most cited scholar in any time period.[1][2][3]

Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known — especially internationally — for his media criticism and politics than for his linguistic theories.[4][5] He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. Chomsky is widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW).

Let us think a bit. We have been supporting Israel continuously since the Truman administration. If even one president had not wanted to do it, there would have been a big break in support. That is where presidents come in. And there is none who viewed it as you do, which means you oppose all of them about a matter which is very important. And you bring up religion as if not attacking every president's judgment is something only a Jew would do.

its a qustion dave, not a statement-

i havent complained about one president!

i didnt bring it up, you did! i was never asking what presidents think-

i was asking your own reasoning process

that has nothing to do with presidents-

if you dont have a reason - fine- but it makes no difference what presidents think

who cares?
WHYBRING IT UP?

i was asking your personal reasoning process-

if you have one fine- post it-

if you dont fine!
dont post it!

dave what are you talking about? where have i complained about all presidents?

i bring in religion because THE QUESTION BRINGS IT UP-

i havent mentioned presidents at all-

since you have stated support of israel- never given a reason that makes realistic sense-

i rarely hear thinking people that blindly follow the politics of a president no matter what they do-

i think because youre jewish you support israel-

you havent proved otherwise- youve given no logical reason at all-

possibly you havent investigated your own reasons very deeply- thats your prerogative

who brought up presidents?

"youre answer is that you blindly unconditionally support all presidents?"

That is turned around. You are complaining about all presidents. I am saying it makes no sense to think they all were wrong and if they were, I would be in no position to make that determination.

"are you saying that you dont have a reason and just support it from an emotional attachment to your religion?"

Thinking every president since FDR has not gotten it wrong is not a religious position. So why do you bring in religion?

"you surely MUST have a reason for what you believe"

About the capabilities of all presidents since FDR? It seems to me that I would need a very good collection of reasons in order to think they were all wrong. And where would I find unassailable facts to support that view? You seem to think almost all the politicians in both parties, the media, and most of the Civil Service can not be trusted about this matter.

thanks for the answer on the other post- sorry ive been such a pain

dave - if i knew what youre answer is- THEN i could like or dislike it-

but i have no idea what it is!!!!!!!!!!!!

youre answer is that you blindly unconditionally support all presidents?

or only the ones that support israel?

ok back to round one-

what is the reasoning that you, yourself, dave marshak has given to you and your self for this support?

are you saying that you dont have a reason and just support it from an emotional attachment to your religion?

what else could it be?
and thats fine dave- but you surely MUST have a reason for what you believe, dont you?

maybe you dont i dont know
its hard for me to imagine

youve taken a position on it- there must have been some levelof thought involved-

what are the thoughts?

"yeh dave youre so analytic you make a claim and after 2 weeks of the same question cant form a reason for what you claim"

You simply do not like my answers because there is no standard retort available. You want me to give my reasons why we must support Israel. But we are supporting Israel. We always have and always will. Simply by assuming that some presidents have been smart, decent people, I can conclude that it makes sense to provide aid to Israel. I do not feel the need to do an independent study. Moreover it would be foolish for me to think I could figure it out better than anyone in any administration.

That is not evasiveness. It is simply an awareness of who I am, where I am, and the information I have access to.

"ill assume its self interest then"

We are all connected. What is in the interest of all is in my interest.

the question couldnt be clearer dave-
you squirm and distract like a politician

ok- so you are reluctant to say why you support israeli funding by the usa

yeh dave youre so analytic you make a claim and after 2 weeks of the same question cant form a reason for what you claim

so you dont have an answer-

you still hold those views, you just admit you dont have a good reason for them

ill assume its self interest then

great dave- but can you answer a direct question on a position you have stated?

i guess not

I have these conversations with my kids. I am very analytic. I can talk about what should go into an evaluation of the issue. I have not done it. Nor do I have to. I do not go around giving talks about why we should support Israel. I would need far more information than I have to do that.

I can address what to me are glaring holes in some folk's reasoning, what to me are verbal confusions, the uselessness of anger driven actions, and why Jewish leaders are decent people who are trying to achieve peace as best they can.

no dave- im asking what is the reasoning process that led you to the conclusion that america the country should finance israel the country/state

ill rephrase-

why do you , dave marshak believe that israelis deserving of funding?

or

what is your current validation in your own mind of why you support israeli funding by the usa

imagine im your grandkid and im taking a poli-sci course for the first time and ask you why do you think the usa should fund israel-

what would you tell me?

Are you asking why I think most leaders, including Jewish leaders, in the US are decent, honest people who are trying to do the right thing? That is the sense I get from those I have met.

Are you asking whether I support what our government does with Israel more than anything else our government does? That is not so.

we dont need to do all that dave- those are your procrastinations-

youve stated you support personally that america gives financial support to israel,

those are your personal facts-

so you must have a reason for supporting them-

what are they?

so dave- what are your personal reasonings for supporting americas financial aid to israel?

"(clearly you DO think a handful of israeli children are more important than 1000s of muslim children in darfur)"

That is you reading things into what I write.

"no dave- we give outright charity"

That is the way you define the word charity.

Let me see if we can move forward an inch. You and many others are sure you understand the situation. How did that come to pass? You do not trust what our government or the media says if it does not fit you views. How can you be sure you are right in every case?

Now you ask about morality. However we have not been able to get to the point where moral views come into play. First we would have to agree about some facts and find a way to use words whose definition we can both agree on.

Rushing to moral judgments, without dealing mutually with the facts and agreeing on how to use words, inevitably leads to violence. As long as that is the case, the violence will continually escalate because people on both sides will be angered, eager to strike back, and fearful for the future.

what is YOUR personal reasoning dave?

(clearly you DO think a handful of israeli children are more important than 1000s of muslim children in darfur)

no dave- we give outright charity

what is your reasoning?

hiding behind the politicians and just saying they know what theyre doing doesnt substitute for a thinking process on your part

what are YOUR rationale?
what are the moral reasons YOU in particular are comfortable with?

"commented on well spent or not well spent dave-

keep asking the same question

why does israel deserve to be subsidized by american taxpayers?"

Because our elected leaders all agree most of the money is well spent and governments tend to keep doing what they have been doing under those circumstances.

"a handful of israeli children dies last year-

are you saying theyre more imprtant than thousands of children in darfur?
hundreds of children in palestine?"

Is medical care for veterans at Walter Reed and elsewhere more or less important than that? If you made decisions on that basis, what would be done even for those suffering while someone is still suffering even worse somewhere?

"700,000 refugees have left iraq and moved to syria alone

by tomorrow they expect that mark to top a million refugees out of iraq-

its just the begininning of the iraqi exodus-"

There is a priority issue for you. Why so much focus on the West Bank and Gaza while that is going on? Concern about the West Bank and Gaza takes away focus from our problems in Iraq which are far worse.

"why should we give israel billions of dollars of charity now?"

Foreign aid is not charity. What the people who are elected to run our government think is in the national interest determines how foreign aid is spent.

never commented on well spent or not well spent dave-

keep asking the same question

why does israel deserve to be subsidized by american taxpayers?

children are dying all over the world dave-

thousands and tens of thousands-

shouldnt we worry bout those children now?

a handful of israeli children dies last year-

are you saying theyre more imprtant than thousands of children in darfur?
hundreds of children in palestine?

700,000 refugees have left iraq and moved to syria alone

by tomorrow they expect that mark to top a million refugees out of iraq-

its just the begininning of the iraqi exodus-

maybe we should think about that now-

all your conjecture doesnt make sense or matter-

why should we give israel billions of dollars of charity now?

its been the same question-

can you not answer a question with a question?

it doesnt make sense-

what makes israel more deserving than everyone else?

thats been the question

Do you contend none of the money is well spent?

I think folks have deluded the people in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank into thinking that if they are violent enough for long enough, they will get another Vietnam. We will cut all funds and supplies to Israel. Syria will roll over Israel just as North Vietnam rolled over South Vietnam. What are now Israel and Jordan will be merged into Greater Palestine, which with Lebanon will be overseen by Syria just as the Soviets oversaw Hungary and Poland.

That is a wonderful dream for the Arabs but it is not realistic. It is not worth sacrificing their children for.

actually dave- the onus isnt on me to prove anything- im simply asking why you think that we should continue to funding israel-

a considered reply- a specific compelling reply-

if you have one- if not its ok

"If it helps, it is a wise investment."

That is conditional.

"Some of it is usefully spent."

I do not think you have shown that is wrong.