Israel's Existential Question: Its Arabs


Israel's real "existential question" is whether or not to disenfranchise its Arab minority, says Fareed Zakaria in his column this week. Is he right?

Posted by David Ignatius and Fareed Zakaria on February 18, 2009 1:15 PM

Readers’ Responses to Our Question (53)

Think2 Author Profile Page :

If Israel disowns its Arab minority, it certainly is not the kind of democratic country which the US supports. Therefore, I think the US should withdraw financial support for such a non-democratic country.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

To Blund from Daniel. Good last post. You deserve the last word.

To Yeolds: You stated that you believe a one state solution without a particular religion (no religious laws applicable to all) is the solution to Israel/Palestine. I would have to disagree totally with that. The Israelis might become more secular than they are now, more allowing of a diversity of religions, but from the Palestinian side there would not only be little tolerance of the Jews, there would be first a collapse of democracy in Israel and then a clear subordination of the Jews to the increasing Palestinian numbers. Remember--or rather look at the facts now--there is no Muslim nation as far along in the direction of democracy as Israel. A one state solution would be a total collapse of democracy in the middle east. If you want a clearer statement from me, Muslims in general are still far from the humanism which you try to apply in solving Israel/Palestine (if one can call your efforts humanism. To me it just looks as one of your continuous attempts to cripple Israel). No one state solution is possible.

blund Author Profile Page :

YEOLDS,

While there are certainly a vast majority of Humanists that would disagree with your statement concerning atheism I am not one of them. Even though I am an atheist if the governing principles of ones life are reason and justice then I've never understood why the two can't be compatible. For me it's only when religion takes a front seat to reason and social justice that I have a problem. (stem cell research and the abortion issues in America would be examples of religion trumping reason) Check out the American Humanist Associations web site to see what I'm talking about. Nice to have another self described Humanist on this site.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

To Blund, Tom and Shiveh:
Thanks for the views and the lessons in history. The historical facts which were unknown to me, are appreciated, especially from Tom.
I am liberal humanist, and religious. Notwithstnading Blund's assertion humanism does not necessitate atheism.

As I have seen and EXPERIENCED the effect of EXTREME POLICE ACTION [Hungary 1956] I deplore the actions of ISrael in Lebanon and Palestine. [Some thought that the USSR reinvasion of Hungary caused more damage to buildings than WWII - of course it was justified to a certain extent by the Franco-British invasion of Egypt before the Russian aqction.

I have also experienced DISCRIMINATION based on totally irrational notions: I was A DP [displaced person, aka refugee in Canada 1957 on]. I have also experienced the discrimination of COLORED PEOPLE, as I had many such friends while student at UBC [University of British Columbia], against the Quebecois in my wife extended family. Or religious discrimination, for I dared to marry a Baptist girl, while being RC.

As our children were pressured in school to disallow racial discrimnination [rightly so] they hauled all the various colored children to our house for stay overs. Never had any trouble with any of them, they were all welcome - only had to take home one WHITE girl, who never spent a night away from home. My wife and I sent our children to Quebec, so they understand Canada, and the baselessness of anti-quebecoise propaganda in western Canada.

So having ahd ample opportunity in life to see suffering, discrimination, and having read on most religions [Koran, Torah, Bible, Taoist papers, Conficius' writing, Aristotle, Lock, and many other western philosophers -including some extreme feminists, I abhor any sort of discriminatory action, speech, etc, colonialism [having grown up in that system curtesy of Mr. Churchill, Roosevelt and De Gaulle at Yalta], I strongly believe that the one state solution without religious laws applicable to all citizens is the proper HUMANIST ANSWER TO ISRAEL/PALESTINE.

With this note, I will end my input into this subject,, escept if I find same appropriate historiocal document worthy of citation.

A Little known Historical fact: Nazi Germany tried to send the Jews to Madagascar [after all western powers refused to take them] but Imperial England stopped that effort by promising to keep all german away from that island

blund Author Profile Page :

Daniel,

For the last time. I don't care who prevails in the ME. I'm not taking anyone's side. The only thing I've ever stated that could be warped into my not supporting Israel was it was a very place on earth to locate Israel. The placement was and has caused a state of war for over 60 years. I am also on record as saying I understand why people of Jewish faith wanted the land and can understand why the Muslims (Palestinians) want it. Tom is pro-Israel. I am neutral. I do not like what the Israeli's have done to the Arabs any more then I like what the Arabs have done to the Israeli's. I have been very consistent in my posts it's their war. It's not ours. I do not want to be a party to their bloodshed in any way. I don't even want my tax dollars used to arm either side. Obviously, US involvment hasn't been able to stop the bloodshed after 60 years and I think it's pure folly to believe we are going to be able to in the next 60 or 160 years. US support to either or both sides only complicates an already complicated situation and most likely prolongs it.

Accusing me of being anti-Israel or pro-Muslim is a waste of time since neither is true. I really am neutral.

As far as bashing the US go back and look at my posts. I bashed Bush. Just like Rush Limbaugh said in his "first nationally televised speech" last night that he wanted Barrack to fail I have the exact same feeling about Bush. Bush stood for everything I dislike and think is dangerous and I had the added bonus of his incompetency to point out. I am a liberal and reject conservatism as dangerous to the American way of life. Did you see Rush's speech to CPAC? Did you notice that was the largest all white conference since the republican convention? They panned the audience several times and I couldn't even find a Hispanic. Maybe I missed it, but I never saw a single black person either. This was not a representation of our society.

I was born in Jamestown, New York. I grew up in a small suburb. I joined the Navy and spent two tours in Vietnam. I came back and availed myself of the GI bill and went on to grad school. I have lived in the DC area since 1977. I have had a relatively successful career (although I will admit being a banker today isn't what it was) and will be retiring in the next couple of years. My first wife had a Doctrate in Divinity, teaches at Union Theological Seminary today and has written several books on religion along with being an ordained minister. My second wife was an attorney who is now a judge in Maryland. My last wife (hopefully) is a hospital administrator. I have had a good life and I love this country. I love the opportunity and the diversity. For the most part I love the people. However, I have to admit I'm not fond of conservative political thought.

I was openly opposed to Bush/Cheney and said so at every opportunity. You will see from my posts any negative statements I've made have always been about the unholy twosome. That simply doesn't equate (as republicans would have you believe) I'm treasonous or that I embolden the eneny. Quite the contrary. Unlike either Bush or Cheney I actually have fought for this country.

I would have thought when I wrote in a previous post:

"Fourth, I've already felt the pain of liberalism failing. Having just lived through 8 years of the dumbest man in America as president I can see first hand what happens when liberalism fails. (we start wars, we leave our cities in ruin, we sit by and fiddle while the economy goes down the drain, we cap medical research as it upsets the Christian Right and we build walls around our borders) Trust me, I know what happens when liberalism fails, human suffering isn't far behind."

That paragraph isn't anti-American. It is anti Bush/Cheney/Conservatism. There is a difference. I've maintained consistently I've never had a problem with Bush/Conservative motives per se. I think they truely believed what they were doing was right. I didn't call them un-American for their failures. I called them incompetent. As much as I disagree with most of Tom's arguments I don't question his love of country. He bashes liberals on a regular basis. So what? He believes he's right. I believe he's wrong so I bash selective conservatives on a regular basis. Again, so what? This doesn't make either of us anti-American. Quite the contrary, it makes us pretty much main stream Americans. We just view how things should be done two different ways.

Hopefully, in your responses you will now understand I'm neutral when it comes to Israel, the Muslim world and I'm not into America bashing. However, I am anti-conservative and if you read my posts this should be clear.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

To Blund from Daniel. I will try not to be childish.

My main problem with you and Shiveh is that you two criticize the U.S. and Israel far more than the Muslim world as if the Muslim world is much farther along in the liberal values you espouse. Furthermore, one would think from your criticisms that the U.S. and Israel must alter their behavior more than the Muslims to be modern and civilized. Furthermore you seem to suggest that if only the U.S. and Israel were more liberal, more humanistic, that the Muslim world would not only become peaceful but be a place where liberalism as you espouse it will quickly take root. I merely say that no matter the harm the U.S. and Israel have done, they are far more ahead in the liberal values you espouse than the Muslim world.

Now to address an accusation you made to me Blund. I mean you saying I am arrogant for suggesting to the Jews how to live.--And you added how could I possibly know this when I am not one of them. It seems to me Blund you are one of those people who believes that oneself knows about oneself far more than anyone else can know about oneself.

My only defense is that I am one of those people who believes that often not only can one see into others better than they can see themselves, they can see into oneself better than one can see into oneself. Therefore one should listen to others as much as the promptings of one's own heart.

Furthermore, Blund, are you sure you have not been telling the Jews how to live? Not only have you been criticizing Israel freely it is pretty obvious you are criticizing me for telling the Jews how to live because you want them to continue voting liberal and not republican as I suggested. Or are you going to deny that Blund? Remember, Blund, you are the humanist--and we would expect a humanist to have a measure of honesty. Furthermore you are a banker and we would expect a banker to have a measure of honesty.

If I were in a worse mood now Blund than I am, I would make a joke and say that perhaps you being from Sweden are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome what with your constant criticisms of the U.S. and Israel and sympathy with the Muslim world. But let that joke not take effect.

Now about you saying I said the Jews were genetically superior, I merely stated facts. Jews--particularly the Ashkenazi--not only do well on I.Q. tests they win Nobel prizes out of all proportion to their numbers. Furthermore I suggested that perhaps some antisemitism is due to envy of the Jews success in so many fields. Furthermore I suggested that the last thing we should do is be antisemitic because the Jews being so intelligent might have a better chance of solving our most pressing problems in the world today.

But if that about the Jews makes you unhappy, let me tell you about something else I read. I read that Indian immigrants into the U.S. are more likely to go on to higher education than any other group of people in the U.S. There, I said something nice about an other people than the Jews.

I await you answer.

Shiveh Author Profile Page :

Tom,

It looks like “Israeli Apartheid Week” started 5 years ago in Toronto and is spreading worldwide to other college campuses. The event primarily consists of lectures about Arab Israeli relations and as the name suggests it is not complimentary to the Israeli side. Two Jewish organizations, “Not in our name: Jewish voices opposing Zionism” and “International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network” are endorsing the event. I have no doubt that there will be some incidents of anti-Semitism happening alongside such events, but the event is academic in nature. Civilized discussions by academia can not be far from what we are doing in this forum. I prefer it to stone throwing and suicide bombing that we are witnessing as other forms of dissent.

I have enjoyed and learned from our debates over the Israeli issue and believe that it was one of the best, if not the best debate we have had in this forum. The polls I found and the letter that Salamon posted were the final two pieces I needed to put everything together and have a complete picture of this conflict. That is why I was excited about the king’s letter. This letter is authentic. It is not written several years later by people who want to shape history to support their view. It is history without any after effect filters and it glues all other pieces together for me. The questions lingering in my mind regarding Zionists refusal to help Jews relocate from German’s sphere of influence prior and during the WWII, the extend of appeal of Israeli policies in the Jewish world, the politics of domination and the legality of status quo, and through them the way forward are better answered. The absurdity of actions of the mufti of Jerusalem would not change my take from the king’s letter.

Roger Cohen’s commentary on Iranian Jews was an accurate description of the situation in Iran. Yes, I also noticed that they are careful not to cross the “state line”. It is not surprising since Iran is run by a dictatorial theocracy and everybody there, including the Jewish population, has to watch what they say. I admire the Iranian Jews for the choice they have made. They can leave the country and move to Israel or almost any place in the western world and use the help and many incentives that Jewish organizations around the world offer them to relocate and have a probably more comfortable and prosperous life. Out of 100,000 Jews that used to live in Iran, about 80,000 have done just that, but the remaining 20,000 are staying by choice and are trying to be a positive force for change in the country they call their own. Roger Cohen did notice this, but you Tom, missed it.

I’m done with the Israeli debate. Not because I’m tired of it, but because with the help of few people including most notably you, I have reached a clear understanding of the situation. Thank you for your participation. Since others are running the show, all is left for me to do is to relax and watch the show. Hopefully sanity will prevail.

I will post more comments when appropriate though. It is fun!

blund Author Profile Page :

Daniel,

OK, I give up. Where have I ever said or implied, "We have Blund all so certain liberalism is good for the Jews..." I've never said that or implied that. All I said was American Jewish voters vote overwhelming liberal. What I found curious was your statement, " It is in the Jews best interests to vote republican now--and for Israel to become more republican as well--because all liberalism will get them is dissolution into an idealistic, liberal hope in all cultures getting along." This assumes you know more about what is in Jewish voters interests then they do. While I was trying to be nice in pointing that out to you I see my attempt went nowhere. See if you understand this. It is the height of arrogance and ignorance to assume you know more about what's in a groups best interest then the group itself does.

As to, "Two liberals (who knows if they are really Muslims trying to weaken America)," get a life. Everyone who has read this thread knows I'm a banker in the DC area. I'm Swedish by descent. I'm a Humanist. (Yes, if you look that term up you will see that means I'm an atheist). My liberal leanings are a direct result of hating to see human suffering. There isn't a religion on the face of this planet I have a problem with. As far as I'm concerned people have the right to believe in any religion or no religion at all. While I am very disturbed by the suffering inflicted on the Palestinians I am also disturbed by the suffering inflicted upon Israeli's at the hands of Hamas and other groups. I'm not naive enough to feel everything has a political or diplomatic solution and I know violence exists and will continue to exist. I'm by no means a Quaker and do not believe in turning the other cheek. I firmly believe people have the right and duty to defend themselves if they so desire. Hence, before you engage in smear and innuendo at least have some basis for it. You mischaracterize almost every point I've made on this forum so I guess I shouldn't be surprised when you resort to this type of childish character attack.

As to original thoughts when it comes to politics and religion. You are absolutely right. I don't have any. I guess I could come up with some whacked out concept that Jews are genetically superior, but since you've already done that it wouldn't be original. Yes Daniel, that statement was mocking you.

However, I have to give credit where credit is due. You have written something I've been thinking for a while. You wrote:

" But why continue? I am arguing with Blund And Shiveh--liberals with all the dogmatism that goes with it. Not even the both of them working together can come up with an original idea. How do I expect them to actually consider what I have written?

I cannot."

Now we're in agreement. You cannot actually consider what you have written.


TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Salamon and Shiveh

I notice that Obama has abandoned attending the second Durban Conference on Racism because the focus will be on Israel - just like Durban I. So much for all the goodwill Obama created with his interview on Al Arabiya TV. “The preparatory committee was chaired by Libya with Iran and Cuba as vice chairs” according to the Wall Street Journal (all three are bastions of human rights). Of course, this coincides with “Israel Apartheid Week” which begins tomorrow on a campus near you - an anti Semitic week long rally where Jewish students will be harassed (sometimes attacked). Notice that this hate fest will be sponsored by the left. Why are all Jews harassed for the actions of Israel? Doesn't the left throw the term "Islamaphobia" around to defend Muslims from harassment now experienced by Jews all over the world? Where is their defense of innocent Jews?

From the Jerusalem Post (“Wiesenthal C. to combat Jewish bullying”, February 26, 2009):

“…Recent incidents on college campuses in Canada - most notably a near-riot at York University in Toronto in which Jewish students were besieged in the school's Hillel house - are among the reasons for heightened concern, along with other anti-Israel efforts, including calls to boycott Israeli academia and products.
Earlier this week, B'nai B'rith Canada sent a letter to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police regarding "the inadequate policing of university campuses, which have become breeding grounds for promoting hatred against Jewish students," and decrying "clear and emerging patterns of support for radicalism, civil disobedience, and ultimately violence, on university campuses."
California schools have also been hotbeds of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activities in recent years, including the University of California, Irvine, where anti-Israel activity has reached a fever pitch during previous Israel Apartheid Week events….”

Yes, the King eloquently defends the Palestinians, but it doesn’t disprove anything I’ve said. First of all, Jews do have historical ties to Palestine unless you believe they came over on the Mayflower. But regardless, I’ve stated in the past that Jews only numbered about 5000 (+/-) in 1880 when the Zionist began immigrating to Palestine. Numbering only 5000, that’s a difficult case to make for creating a homeland (considering that the Palestinians numbered close to half a million), and I agree with the King’s assessment that its ridiculous to go by a 2000 year old regional map. I’ve stated in the past that to create Israel, the Zionist had to wrongly take Palestinian land.

But, I’ve also stated that the best case for the state of Israel is the “right to self determination” of peoples which is recognized by the UN. Taken together with the historical ties of the Jews to Jerusalem, a strong case can be made for the creation of Israel. In addition, the idea of a Jewish state, in part, was devised to create a place where Jews could escape persecution - ironically enough.

No one can doubt that Christians were dangerous to the health of Jews (as they were to each other), but the King’s recollection of the treatment of Jews has been disputed. For example, in a recently released book (“The legacy of Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History“), Andrew Bostom “brings massive evidence to show that Jews suffered greatly in Moslem societies due to an antisemitism intrinsic to the Moslem religion. In this he goes against the commonly held belief that Jews under Islam suffered relatively little for being Jewish and that Islam itself is relatively tolerant” (review by Robert Kaplan).

In addition, just look at how Arab societies are today. Who isn’t a second class citizen in Saudi Arabia besides Sunni males? In Roger Cohen’s recent commentary, notice how all the Jews parrot the “state line”. I wonder what’s behind that. Can you imagine if the Jews were to speak freely in Persian Iran today? How can any Jew feel secure today when ruled by a Holocaust denier?

The King states:

“… no one was shocked more than we by the Hitlerite terror…”

Well, not quite. In 1921, Mohammad Amin al-Husayne was appointed the grand mufti of Jerusalem - a title he kept until 1947. Al-Husayne was a virulent anti Semite. He inspired the Hebron massacre of 1929 in which over 100 Jews were slaughtered, and other acts of violence against the Jews. He welcomed the Nazis to Jerusalem after Hitler came to power and spent his war years in Germany where he participated in atrocities against the Jews. He was a ”…full fledged war criminal and he was so declared at Nuremberg…” In 2002, Arafat declared Husayne a hero to the Palestinian people. Some hero. A leader of the Palestinians beholden to Hitler.

Was the King really shocked? Somehow I doubt it.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

Here is a combination of Blund and Shiveh. Two liberals (who knows if they are really Muslims trying to weaken America) who are far more ready to blame the American right wing than any aspect of the rest of the world for liberalism not taking around the world and ushering in a peaceful world without any need of force.

We have Blund all so certain liberalism is good for the Jews (because the Jews say so) when the obvious fact is liberalism would weaken Israel and first collapse her democracy under the weight of Muslims and then make the Jews a minority in their own country. But let that not bother Blund, because the Jews can always come to America right? --Where of course they must not only vote liberal but take the lead in having all Jewish way of life disintegrate within an American society which is corrosive to the smaller ethnic groups and religions first.

And of course we have Shiveh quoting a king (Abdullah. A King with true kingly powers and not symbolic as in England. How is that anywhere near liberalism?) saying the animosity of the Muslim world toward the Jews has nothing to do with persecuting an ethnic group and religion. Really? Then why do the Muslims call the Jews Zionists? What is Zionism other than Jew ethnic group and religion trying to have their own country? And why if the dispute is about land have virtually all Muslims at one time or another attacked Israel? Why Iran's animosity toward Israel if it is about land? Why all the cries of Muslims to drive the Jews into the sea? Why all the holocaust denial?

The truth is the Muslim world is so far from the liberal ideal--is such a threat to it--that it is not even funny. But of course because the Muslims seem to be having it bad--especially the Palestinians--they must be the good people who will become liberal if only the bad Israelis and Americans just stop being so mean. Blund and Shiveh: romanticizing the less fortunate peoples in true liberal fashion--as if their suffering means they are the true good people in the world.

And the Iranians are the nicest of all right?--And deserve nuclear weapons right? Because the Iranians have stayed where they are for centuries and have not taken over other peoples right? Never mind that the Iranians are in the position they are in because they are one of history's losers, forced to be where they are because every time they tried to conquer other peoples they failed...Yes, I remember Thermopylae.

But anyone calling America bad for trying to spread democracy by force should read up on atheist, liberal, Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell. He said it must be admitted that there will not be a worldwide government which can stave off eventual disaster by WMD unless a measure of force is allowed--which is to say the more powerful nations must create an alliance and bring the entire world under law and order. Russell says if that does not occur then the current anarchy in the world will only get worse--not least because WMD are becoming more powerful and spreading more widely.

But why continue? I am arguing with Blund And Shiveh--liberals with all the dogmatism that goes with it. Not even the both of them working together can come up with an original idea. How do I expect them to actually consider what I have written?

I cannot.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

There is no point in conversing with you further Blund. For your notion of liberalism failing you do nothing but accuse the right wing party in America--as if the rest of the world is saintly or something and would be at peace with everyone--essentially embody your liberal ideals--if only America would stop being so mean. The truth is America is way ahead of most of the world when it comes to your liberal ideals and if liberalism fails to take in the world it will not be because America refuses to go along with the program. The fact the neoconsertive movement within the U.S. which liberals call so evil is not at all far removed from liberalism--the neoconservatives essentially believe more force will be required to unite the world peacefully than liberals do. And the neoconservatives have liberal, atheist, Nobel prize winner Bertrand Russell who stated in his essay "the future of mankind" that the world will not see peace until united under one government--and that will require a modicum of force. Your turn.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Salamon

Your previous post to me (forgetting the part about a single state solution which my great grandchildren will not see) was an excellent story of your Hungarian roots. Thanks for the post.


Shiveh Author Profile Page :

Thanks Salamon. Great read. I specially liked the part of introduction that says: "In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred." It clearly started as a land dispute.

This letter argues successfully that what has caused the present mess is the Jewish agancy's unduly pressure on European Jews and Western governments. Clearly Israeli Arabs are at home right where they are.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

To All:

King Abdullah's speech on Israel - Arab issues delivered in 1947
with hiustorical analysis which is not easily available to most peolple.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22108.htm

Enjoy

Also refutes some of Tom's defence for the historical right of Jews to Palestine lands.

To my limited knowledge of World History readings this essay is as close to truth as I have seen in 50 odd years since I took World History in High SAchool

blund Author Profile Page :

Daniel,

Nice to know you have been reading my posts.

First, I have never said we are on the verge of international peace of any sort. Fact is, I've said exactly the opposite. I have repeatedly stated I don't believe a peace solution between the Muslims and Israel is possible. I have gone on to state I believe sooner or later another full blown war will occur in the ME between the Muslims and Israel. It might even be a series of additional wars prior to one side or the other prevailing.

Second, I have stated I don't care who prevails in the end. I don't support one side over the other. This is a fight between them. They both have immovable positions and anyone getting in the middle of those positions will just get sucked into a no-win situation.

Third, I'm sure the Jewish-American community will be happy to hear your thoughts on how they should switch over to the republican party. Of course this assumes you know more about what's in their best interests then they do.

Fourth, I've already felt the pain of liberalism failing. Having just lived through 8 years of the dumbest man in America as president I can see first hand what happens when liberalism fails. (we start wars, we leave our cities in ruin, we sit by and fiddle while the economy goes down the drain, we cap medical research as it upsets the Christian Right and we build walls around our borders) Trust me, I know what happens when liberalism fails, human suffering isn't far behind.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

To Blund from Daniel. I am going to ignore that you obviously did not give what I wrote even the slightest regard and answer the question you asked--which is the question about Jewish people voting for liberalism more than republicanism.

First I assume by Jews voting liberal you mean Jews in the U.S. Second, Jews have voted liberal because they are a minority group in the U.S. and have found safety in the liberal viewpoint--a viewpoint which allows for cultures to mix within the U.S. far more than the conservative trend allows. Jews voting liberal in the U.S. really had nothing to do with Israel--which is to say was not a stance taken which was anti-Israeli.

In fact originally Jews voting liberal and pro-Israeli policies were identical: By liberalism Jews arrived at tolerance for themselves within the U.S. and increased tolerance for Israel. But now things have changed. Jews feel so safe in the U.S., and have placed so much faith in liberalism as so many other people have in the U.S. and Europe, that they do not see the danger to not only Israel by this stance but the danger to themselves within the U.S.

Liberalism--I mean of course the modern democratic party--lulls people into believing that we are on the brink of worldwide peace and that all we have to do is talk our way over what little differences between people that remain. Not dwelling on the fact that this flies against every sense of an understanding of history, it threatens immediately Jews--particularly Israel--because it essentially asks Israel--and all minority groups whether ethnic or religious--to just dissolve within the more dominant religions and ethnic groups in the name of a multiculturalism which will sweep over the world and essentially make us all one diverse culture and society.

Jews quite simply do not know that their best interests are threatened by liberalism--threatened because should all Jews accept the liberal viewpoint--Israel of course also--the Jews will dissolve within the cultures they are in and of course Israel will dissolve before the solvent force of the greater numbers of Muslims than Israelis within the middle east.

It is in the Jews best interests to vote republican now--and for Israel to become more republican as well--because all liberalism will get them is dissolution into an idealistic, liberal hope in all cultures getting along. And of course liberalism is not just going to get cultures to get along any time soon. History dictates that before we arrive at one world--put war at bay--we will have to "tie up the world" by force. If you need a reference to support that last viewpoint I ask you to read the first couple essays in the book "unpopular essays" by Bertrand Russell, Nobel prize winner, atheist and liberal.

Quite simply liberalism is detrimental to Jews today. It does nothing but weaken them and set up Israel for being collapsed by the Muslims--because of course liberalism will dissolve the Jews long before Islam is dissolved by continued multiculturalism. That a satisfactory answer for you? Of course not. You are a liberal and believe that we are on the brink of worldwide peace if Israel just behaves, if Russia just gets along with Europe, etc. You are an idealist and make the smaller ethnic groups and religions pay the price for testing your ideals. If your liberalism fails, you, Blund, will not feel the pain first. All the larger religions and ethnic groups will feel the pain of failure last.

Understand? Of course not. You are no different from the republicans I have conversed with. Each of you has his pet viewpoint and nothing at all can change it. I certainly do not expect you to understand because so far as I can tell you do not have a single original thought in your mind. You are rank and file liberal and nothing more.

You believe in the success of multiculturalism and are glad the hated Jews (because so close to the Israelis) are willing to unwillingly vote against themselves. Modern liberalism far from helping Jews today is something of a religion which has stolen the Jews from themselves and will help the Jews last if help the Jews at all.

In fact as I have said liberalism is a threat to precisely the smaller religions and ethnic groups first--in fact it seems such a low threat to the larger religions and ethnic groups that they somehow feel that the dissolution liberalism leads to is identical to their present day interests. But wait until the corrosive effect of multiculturalism gets to them after corroding the smaller ethnic groups and religions first.

When that day comes you, Blund, will be in the forefront of repudiating liberalism because all you hold sacred will be dissolving before it--just as now the dissolution by liberalism threatens the smaller peoples of the world.

blund Author Profile Page :

Daniel,

If liberals are against Israel please explain to me why between 70-80% of Jewish voters vote liberal.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

Are liberals against Israel? Of course they are. Whether liberals deliberately intend to undermine Israel or not, liberals are against Israel because the beliefs of liberals today call for multiculturalism and multiculturalism is a direct threat to specifically the smaller religions, ethnic groups, etc.

In other words liberals believe that if we just talk to people, take a peaceful course with them then worldwide peace and multiculturalism will occur. Liberals overlook that should such a process go forward we will see the collapse of the smaller religions and ethnic groups first.

And although liberals might say that they want the process to go forward even more than that--which is to say have even the larger religions and ethnic groups dissolve into one another--the truth is that project will probably not only not occur for many centuries, we will have the spectacle of the smaller religions and ethnic groups sacrificed in the name of multiculturalism.

So we can easily see how the typical liberal is in agreement with the hardened member of a larger religion (read Muslim here) and vice-versa. The liberal and the hardened member of a larger religion are in agreement in collapsing the smaller ethnic groups and religions first. Of course the liberal and the hardened member of a large religion should go separate ways when the day comes that the larger religions and ethnic groups must dissolve into each other, but for now they are close friends.

To be clearer, liberals call for essentially what will undermine Israel in the name of multiculturalism--or call for multiculturalism which of course cannot help but be a threat to Israel. Multiculturalism is a direct threat to the smaller religions and ethnic groups first--and of course Muslims find themselves falling in line with liberals in this regard. The liberals are calling for multiculturalism but the hardened members of the larger religions and ethnic groups see an advantage for themselves--because they too want the smaller religions and ethnic groups to fail around them.

So it can be seen how easy it is to condemn liberals for wanting to destroy Israel. Whether liberals intend to destroy Israel or whether they have good intentions (calls for multiculturalism) they find themselves in the same camp as Muslims because the Muslims too want Israel to dissolve whether by outright hostility or by the good intentions of multiculturalism.

Liberals go hand in hand with certain right wing movements around the world--and today there is no right wing movement liberals are in sympathy with more than the hardened Muslims. The liberals call for Israel to lose power in the name of multiculturalism and Muslims just want Israel to lose power period. Muslims and liberals go hand in hand. But of course once Israel collapses and the Muslims show no sign of wanting to dissolve into other cultures in the name of multiculturalism then liberals and Muslims will part ways.

But for now liberals are as much a threat to Israel as the hardened Muslims.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob, Shiveh and Salamon

I'm sick of Israel. I hope we see no more questions on Israel for a few months!

Thanks for the discussions.


TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Shiveh

Interesting articles and polls. Lots of information. Two observations:

1. Over 80% believe Arabs are trying to destroy Israel and 68% believe Israel should negotiate with Hamas. I think they are confused.

2. Jews have a problem with their younger generation - they're normal. Actually, its kind of sad since Israel is associated with the Holocaust and it appears that younger Jews may feel removed from that event.

Anyway, good information - thanks

Shiveh Author Profile Page :

4 of 4. Please read from the bigining (3 posts below)
http://btvshalom.org/resources/am_polls.shtml
61% - U.S. Muslims Optimistic About Israel by Pew Research Center, May 2007
Six-in-ten Muslim Americans (61%) say that "a way can be found for Israel to exist so that the rights and needs of the Palestinian people can be taken care of," compared with 16% who say that the rights and needs of Palestinians cannot be taken care of as long as Israel exists.

Poll: 81% of U.S. Jews believe Arabs want to destroy Israel by Haaretz, October 23, 2006
The annual survey by the American Jewish Committee shows widespread belief that the Arabs? true aim is to destroy Israel, while 38% of respondents thought that the conflict with the Palestinians could be resolved peacefully.

All comments are from the original sites.

Shiveh Author Profile Page :

continued:
http://www.irfi.org/articles2/articles_3901_3950/who%20speaks%20for%20american%20jewshtml.htm
Joe Lieberman isn't going to like the following results. Only 7% of poll respondents view evangelical Zionist leader John Hagee favourably. Only 19% have a favourable impression of Christians United for Israel, and just one in four said Jewish groups should form alliances with CUFI. Finally, Holy Joe himself only earns a 37% favourable rating (48% unfavourable).
Regarding Iran, 69% said they were more likely to support a candidate who called for negotiations with Iran and resorting to sanctions if they failed. In the AJC's December 2007 opinion survey , 57% opposed US military action against Iran to prevent it from gaining a nuclear weapon.
Seventy-six percent of those polled by J Street believe Israel should negotiate with Hamas on behalf of peace. Fifty-four percent believe that IDF killings of Palestinian civilians lead to more terror. Sixty-one percent are opposed to collective punishment (Israel's current policy toward Gaza).
Quite frankly, I was shocked that Aipac itself earned only a 38% favourable rating in the J Street poll (21% unfavourable). Sixty percent said it does not bother them when American Jews disagree with Israeli government policy. When asked whether traditional Jewish groups in general do a good job of representing the community's views on Israel, 49% agreed. When asked specifically whether Aipac does a good job, that number fell to 34%.

Shiveh Author Profile Page :

Continued:
American Jewry and Israel’s Development:
Cooperation and Competition
By Tekla Szymanski

http://www.tekla-szymanski.com/engl2israel.html
In 1989, 61 percent of American Jews reported that they felt close to other Jews in the United States - but only one percent felt close to the Israelis. Many now believe that they are vulnerable as a part of an ethnic minority. The assimilation has proven itself as a guarantee for them. "We can finally be of different opinions in fundamental matters," says Schlomo Avineri of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "We were always of different opinions on many points; however, now we can finally openly broach these topics" - without endangering Israel's security. For American Jews, the connection to Israel costs nothing. Their emotional support is, according to Avineri, "the cheapest way to belong."
J.J. Goldberg, author of Jewish Power, goes even further. "American Jews are an independent force on the international stage. They now guarantee Israel's security, and it is no longer the state of Israel that safeguards the security of Jews in the world. Israel has failed to dissolve the Diaspora. Now Washington, as the only remaining superpower, decides global politics, and American Jews have a position of power in Washington."

Shiveh Author Profile Page :

Tom,

Thanks for the post. I enjoyed reading your response.

Here are some relevant poll results starting with the one you found surprising (apparently it was limited to under 35) and ending with what I consider the biggest misunderstanding between Jews and Moslems. Also, it looks like I am more often in agreement with majority of the American Jews than you are!
The post is being held by PG (perhaps too long) so I had to cut it to several pieces to see if it works out.

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Young_American_Jews_and_Israel.asp
What Jews under 35 feel towards Israel goes beyond apathy to outright resentment.

Sociologists Stephen Cohen and Ari Kelman have now confirmed what everyone already knew: Young American Jews do not care very much about Israel. They are not just apathetic about Israel, that indifference is "giving way to downright alienation," write Cohen and Kelman.
More than half of Jews under 35 said that they would not view the destruction of Israel as a personal tragedy.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

There are a lot of liberals upset with the State of Israel including myself. Is this general sense of disappointment with Israel spilling over to other areas? I assume it probably is. However, I'm not sure if the same question was asked in the US the numbers wouldn't be the same. As Daniel pointed out members of the Jewish faith have larger percentages of their population in banking, politics, medicine and the media. However, if you were to pose the question are there too many foreign born doctors in the US I'm sure the answer would be yes. So what? So the general population of Spain thinks Jews have too much influence over the banking system?

The link between the majority answering yes to that question to anti-semitism is rising to any meaningful degree among liberals is a huge jump. I have previously stated I believe some (an insignificant minority) of liberals are anti-semites. I also belief some (an insignificant amount) of conservatives are anti-semites. I believe a huge majority of Muslims are anti-semites and I believe a huge number of Jews hate Muslims.

As far as Columbia's actions I fail to see the issue. Most Eastern Colleges in the US are liberal by nature. It's no secret anywhere these institutions are not fond of the military industrial complex. It's also no secret they believe in open dialogue with other nations and leaders whether they agree or disagree with the US. Trying to tie this action into a rise of anti-semitism again is a huge stretch. If you want an honest poll let's see one where all the Muslims in the ME want Israel to stay or go by any means possible. I have a feeling you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim leader who wants Israel to exist. Does this mean we stop talking to all them or just the ones who don't admit to their desire to see Israel gone in public?

yeolds Author Profile Page :

TOM:

The one state solution is inevitable, for there is no rational way tpo get to the two state solution.

No, I don not believe that either Sharia Law, nor Jewish law based on the Torah will be possible in the unified stae.
The presupposition that Shria Law could arise, would be a step to repeat the horros of the Theocratic State of Israel at present. As I staed the Jews, Arabs, Christians, Copts, atheist will have to live together and put up with a multicultural, multi ethnic society, else they would be sanctioed by the rest of the world.

I am aware that many in the west supported Zionism, not the least due to the political power of the Rotchild family of banking fame, not the least due to anti-semitism of their own societies - WHAT A WONDERFUL WAY TO GET RID OF THSE PESKY JEWS? SEND THEM TO PALESTINE.

When these issues of Zionism, etc arise, I
always recall the ehtical/religious behavoir of the Jewish Rabbi's family in the apartment below ours in Budapest. When food rationing was prevalent, often they asked us children to get into their purses/valets [as applicable] on Saturdays [when our area was allocated grocery shopping days] to get the ration ticket and the money to purchase the food for their family, for they were orthodox, and could not handle the money on their HOLY days. The children attended school with us [except Saturdays, when they wer given the right to stay home by the State - due to religious rights], played with us, cheered us on our own religious holydays [being RC] as we cheered them on their holidays.

A lesson can be had fromn this, nothwithstanding the old-time anti semitism in Hungary, the anti-jewish anti gypsy progrom of the war years, a few years later [1953-57 when we left Hungary] society could adjust, at least in the smaller units, which leads to the bigger units. You may not know, but the Hungarian Government has rebuilt the war destroyed old synagoge in Buda [the west side of Danube River, in the Capital ofr Hungary, where Pest is the East side]

So I wish well for the Israeli and Palestinian, Christian etc residents of ME, and trust that in a few years' time sanity will overcopme the intolarable ZIONIST leadership of the Israeli Government, and the somewhat justified idiocity of various ARAB groups, who are partially justified in their reaction to the Colonial entity lknown as the State of Israel.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Salamon

Man, I had to go back and reread my own post because that’s the first time you have agreed with me in 2 years. I can’t deny history, but I was being somewhat sarcastic toward liberal “guilt” and reconciliation with the rest of the world.

Salamon, can you truthfully believe that a single state solution is possible? Do you believe that the Jews will submit to Sharia law or live under a Hamas government? Would you?

The holocaust influenced the decision by the UN, but Israel was offered their own state in Palestine in 1937 before WWII. When faced with a decision after WWII, the British opted for a two state solution because none other was workable. It should be noted that Jewish immigration began in earnest in 1880, again, well before the British mandate and under Ottoman rule.

Also, Zionism was heavily supported by the West, but it wasn’t a colonial venture. It was a Zionist venture - a homeland for the Jews supported by the West.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob

What I’ve stated is the following (skipping the PG question):

1. Anti-Semitism is on the rise - world wide. That includes liberals. Polls from Europe suggest I’m right.

2. Liberalism has changed. Human rights is not at the forefront of liberalism anymore. Are human right s still a concern of the left? Absolutely, but the example of Columbia University is hard to dispute - human rights dismissed, politics the priority.

The US has always been a huge supporter of Israel, so anti Semitism is much less pronounced here (amongst liberals) than in Europe where I draw from polling data. When discussing liberalism, I lump the west together, although liberals in the US are more conservative (with the exception of the Moveon.org liberals) than their counterparts in Canada and Europe - much more hawkish, for example. The left in the US uses the phrase “the good war” to describe Afghanistan. I’m not sure that the European liberal establishment - as a whole - would agree. I would be interested in polling data on that question.

To answer your question, Jews have been persecuted throughout time, so as a minority, so it makes perfect sense that that they would be liberal (support human rights) and vote democratic - a party (admirably) at the forefront of human rights for the past century. In addition, Hitler - a socialist - is associated with right wing hate. It would be interesting to view polling data on how European Jews vote.

Now maybe you can answer my question concerning polling data in Spain - which you have so carefully avoided.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

Sorry, I didn't answer the question you asked me. "Do I believe Jews have too much sway over financial institutions?"

I don't know. I don't know what percentage of financial institutions are run by or owned by Jews. Frankly, I don't care if it's 1% or 100%. I've never thought a persons religion or lack thereof as a basis of employment and/or percentage of ownership a criteria worth discussing. Never once in my banking career have I ever inquired into someone's religion. I didn't care if they were Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Atheists. All I ever cared about was whether they were good at their jobs.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

Normally, I just write my posts. However, I have a fairly good memory of what I write and before you accuse me of inconsistancies I suggest you finish reading the post you reference. I went on to say,

"Also, we are a curious breed. On one hand we'll be extremely tolerant of religions and on the other we will attack the Christian Right on a regular basis."

Of course this really has very little to do with your assertions that liberals are basically anti-Semitic. You don't get a free pass for making an accusation like this. If this accusation is anything more then the typical conservatives penchant for smearing liberals at every opportunity now would be the time to address it. I'm still waiting for your answer as to why the vast majority of US Jews vote for liberals.

As I have stated I don't believe as a group liberals are anti-Semitic. I also believe your dislike for liberals results in your attacking them at every turn whether fantasy or not. I'm probably just as likely to hear from you that there's a disturbing trend of liberals turning into child molestor's or any other type of ridiculous tabloid style attack then anything else.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Shiveh

I have in the past avoided terms such as Xenophobia, racism, bigotry anti Semite etc., but this PG question is all about racism since its based on the treatment of Israel’s minority Arab population and the election of Avigdor Lieberman, who would kick their minority population out of Israel. After this question, I'll refrain from using terms that stifle debate.

All that I have tried to suggests is that Israel is unfairly singled out when there are greater atrocities in the world. Criticize Israel, but criticize everyone equally. Really, Shiveh, how can anyone explain the Durbin conference on racism without questioning the motives of those that turned the conference into an Israel bashing affair? This is a UN event for God’s sake.

Human Intelligence

Well, actually, I dipped my foot in the lake to test the water, but stayed out of the main argument. I generally avoid these subjects because I’m not that interested in them to begin with, yet they are highly controversial. If humans have developed different physical characteristics, i.e., have been isolated from each other long enough to develop physical differences, then, in my opinion, intelligence will evolve differently as well. You have to be a creationist to believe that all humans that were isolated from each other will have identical intelligence.

So do I believe that certain groups are more intelligent? Yes, however, what is the overlap of the general population of each group? One group average IQ could be 90-110, another could be 70-90 or 88-108. I just don’t know. I do believe, however, education is important for any human to reach their full potential - whatever that might be.

Daniel’s argument that IQ and culture are related is interesting. I certainly haven’t viewed things that way in the past, but I’m fairly open minded when it comes to science. Frankly, I don’t know the answer. This, for the most part, is a political, not a scientific site. Daniel could probably conjure up some interesting responses and counter arguments (supportive as well) if he went to a science discussion site.

Colonization

Well, as far as western colonization goes, how can I deny it? But I was being sarcastic from a “guilt” point of view. I’m more than a little cynical about the direction of western civilization today, however.

Other

I read about 50-75% of Roger Cohen’s articles. He seems to give a European perspective on foreign policy, but few commentators have riled me up more than Roger, but I like reading his stuff. His take on the Jewish population of Iran was good. Besides reading Cohen, who are your favorite columnist?

There are many Jews that disagree with Israeli policies including Chomski and Norman Finklestein. Finklestein received an invitation to Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial forum - along with David Duke. There are many Jews against Israeli policies. Many, if not most, disagree with their settlement policy which is stupid. That’s a surprising statistic - the 54% one. I can’t recall any other polls right off hand concerning American Jewish support for Israel.

Finally, to answer your question ("...what do you think brings people to streets to demand an end to the so called Israeli aggression?...") I think if you read the poll numbers mentioned in my first post (PG) under a quote from Soeren Kern, then you will see that many Europeans view Israel as a great threat to world peace and they also believe that the Israelis are trying to exterminate the Palestinians. Many equate Israeli treatment of Palestinians to Nazi treatment of the Jews.

Its hard for me to believe anyone could accept any of those statements - especially the last one, but poll numbers don't lie (if done correctly).

Shiveh Author Profile Page :

Roger Cohen of the NY Times has a good article about Iranian Jews in today’s paper. It is a must read for people who think Jews and Moslems can not live together.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23cohen.html?_r=1

Tom, last week you left this comment about Roger Cohen: "I don’t agree with the Christian bigot, Cohen, but I read most of his columns because he provides good information about various cultures around the world."

I could swear that anybody with last name “Cohen” is Jewish, but reading your comment, figured I was wrong. This week Mr. Cohen had to emphasis in his article that he is indeed a Jew which brings me to this question again - exactly what percentage of the Jews are for Israel? Last year I saw some poll results suggesting that 54% of the American Jews do not consider destruction of Israel a personal tragedy. May be you have better stats to show the relationship between Zionism and Jews. About 5 million Jews live in Israel; how do the other 10 million feel about the country?

Your take on Liberalism is interesting. It reminds me of my college years and all those coffee table discussions over the meaning of life. But what do you think brings people to streets to demand an end to the so called Israeli aggression? Is it their philosophical inclination or another picture of Palestinian kids covered in blood? And please tell Salamon (and I) that you described western civilization’s colonization of the third world countries from a liberal perspective not your own. Miracles, I do not believe in.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

"...You are absolutely right liberals believe the Christian Right is a dangerous group of people. We believe they have crossed the line between religion and politics. We know the arguments for their interference in politics and we reject them. We do consider them the worst kinds of bigots. They hate everything that doesn't fit into their view of life and hide behind "God" to defend their secular actions...."

Do you even read your own posts? Do you believe that ALL of the Christian right are the worst kinds of bigots? Gee Bob, isn't that bigotry? Or are you arrogant enough to believe you get a free pass because you are a liberal. Your whole statement is arrogant and bigoted, Bob. Of course you deny that liberals are anti Semitic. Would you recognize it if they were?

"Liberal" doesn't mean squat anymore. That's the point of my last post - and your post just reinforces my point. I really could care less how many Jews voted for Obama, that's irrelevant to the point I made, namely, that a rising number of liberals are anti Semitic and I am not saying all progressives are anti Semitic. As you usually do, you put words into my post that just don't exist. Incidentally, of course the right contains some bigots, anti Semites and racist, but to include all of the Christian right into that group is as false and bigoted a comment as I have seen on this site.

Let me ask you a question, Bob. Do you believe that Jews hold too much sway over the financial markets? Now, if 74% of Spaniards believe they do, and Spain is a liberal, socialist country, not all of that vote can be attributed to the far right, is that not evidence of liberal bigotry?

Wasn't that one of the motivations for Hitler? Incidentally, Spain had a very large housing bubble similar to the US. It seems to me that the Spanish population might be looking for a scapegoat.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

TOM:

I am happy that you brought up european colonization as an object lesson in inhumanity. Your judgement is correct in the historical sense, I applaud it, and agree with you on this point.

Where we differ is with respect to the extablishment of Israel, which I advocate as the event recognized by the world as the last example of European colonalism, where Europe [with consent by the basicly anti-semitist USA] decided to take some land from the local historical residents, and give that to the Jews as an atonement for the Holucost [ aside from varius efforts of the USA to establish an Imperial Hegemony, whereby sovereign states would be undermined by USA appointed Puppets, or the country invaded, with major destruction of the native population's livelyhood, Haiti, Iraq, Afganistan,Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, ad infinitum - almost]. The inhumanity of European Colonizers is well mirrored by the Zionist Colonizers in the early xxi-st century - and thus it will cease to be sooner or later, like all other colonizing efforts of the xvi-th century and thereafter.

Now deep down the Israelites, at least some of them, know that the Zionist progrom against Palestinians, LEbanese, etc will have to end sometime, and the longer it takes to get to a peaceful settlement, the more dire the consequences for Israel.

My contention that the recent war against Lebanon and the EXTREME POLICE ACTION IN GAZA made two state solution impossible. As these actions by the Israel Government were condemned by most of the world [excluding the brought and paid for USA Congress] any further idiocity by the Far Right Zionist Government will end up with trade etc sanctions, now that the USA is on her knees Fiancially.

It is true that Israel has an armament industry, [which was told in no uncertain words as to her freedom to arm Gergia] but in a few years time there will not be money for armaments in India and numerous other countries which are all having difficulties with financing energy and food [for the latter, thanks to drought in numerous countries, India, Texas, SW USA, N China, Australia, etc., which all cuts into food production].

While ISrael has A-bombs, that is not an answer to trade sanctions - these weapons are totally useless for any and all countries, for their voluntary use is a certain suicide for the nation [or the world, if started by a major power].

So without doubt there will be a single state where the Jews will be out numbered by Palestinians - and all of them will have to live with those restrictions - a small spit of land with extremly high population density.

Shiveh Author Profile Page :

Tom,

34% of journalists in U.S. consider themselves liberal (pew research), also 50% of the Jews in U.S. consider themselves liberal (Pew again) and Jews are overwhelmingly involved in the media (Marlon Brando - not in exact same words!) Now, if you could tell me what percentage of the American Jews is actively against Israel, I’ll have a better idea of how biased the liberal media could be.

Main stream media is owned by large corporations in this country and they are instruments of profit making. Media bosses know that there is a market for liberal media and a market for conservative media and they cater to both markets, i.e. New York Times tries to sell to liberals and Wall street Journal to conservatives. There are subtle differences in how the corporations are run. In the News Corps there are more edicts from the top than there is in Times. But both corporations are run by conservatives at the top (see their campaign contributions) and in all cases credibility is understood to be essential for success (profit.) It is more or less the standard in all outlets and generally keeps personal agendas in check.

Censorship is rare but when it happens, it is usually based on gentlemen’s agreements and for perceived common good, like when couple of months ago Olmert embarrassed Bush by announcing that he practically ordered him to abstain from the American sponsored UN resolution regarding Gaza. The whole world laughed about it but US media was quiet.

You mentioned Rush Limbaugh - Yes he is biased, but that is his niche. His entertainment is of the strip club class; you watch what you wouldn’t see at home and you leave it at that. There are a few strip clubs in the media and they are all biased but I wouldn’t consider them part of MSM; pity for people who do.
You showed alarming statistics regarding Israel’s lack of popularity in the world. I believe it is past the time to try to discredit the stats and time to find a remedy for the problem. Just for how long do you think Israel can continue like this before she is considered the pariah state of our civilization?

Now on the lighter side - You brought back Daniel’s odyssey. In those posts, his position was that education has no value and people are either genetically wired for greatness or of inferior races that can not be helped by educating. I was asserting that successful people are culturally inclined to pursue knowledge and live in countries with open market and democratic systems. You never revealed your position in that debate but hinted that you are pleased with Daniel’s remarks. Do you want to elaborate here?

I do think that Jews are more involved and are successful in the financial world, but I also believe that they earn their position through hard work and focused ambition. Why is it anti-Semitic to say so?
When do you think we can drop this anti-Semitic weapon? You will always find some dislike of the Jews in the world; heck some people don’t even like Mother Teresa, but is it the driving force on matters involving Israel? Or Israel’s general behavior is what is turning off the world?

I’ve been living in the U.S. for about 33 years now and the best I can hope for is to be relatively correct about what happens here majority of the times. Do not ask me about how or why things are done in Europe because I do not know the answer. They might be bigots as you say or guilt ridden pro Israelis as others claim. Again, I do not know; all I know is that the Rothschilds have it good down there.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

Have you no shame? Quoting from a member of that liberal leaning Republican hating rag the NYT's? Oh, I get it. The media is fine as long as they provide selective quotes.

Whether you like it or not calling liberals anti-Semitic makes about as much sense as calling members of the John Birch Society liberals. It's pure fantasy. What I find particularly intriguing about this line of thought is it's coming from a republican. A party who held a recent convention in Minneapolis and reporters had to go out of their way to find someone who was a minority to talk to. Did you watch your convention? If that wasn't the whitest group of people I've seen in one place at one time in this country I don't know what was. Do you think it's a coincidence the Republican party, with a very few exceptions, is white? Do you possibly think the republicans inability to attrack minority members might have something to do with it.

Also, I find it curious this liberal group like Obama can garner 78% of the Jewish vote against McCain. Are people of the Jewish faith too ignorant to know who's really on their side? Go back and check it out. In the last 100 years a republican has never come close to winning the Jewish vote for president in this country. The lowest of any total was 60% democratic. However, the average over the past century is closer to 80%. John Kennedy polled 90%. Don't you find it difficult to resolve why such a high percentage of Jewish voters would vote for people you claim are anti-Semitic? I'm sure you have an answer for this question and I'm dying to hear it.

No Tom, claiming liberals are anit-Semitic is just cheap spin devoid of truth. It's just another unfounded attempt at smearing democrats and you should be ashamed of yourself.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob

From “perfecting the Union” by Roger Cohen, NYT, November 6, 2008:

“…McCain flailed, opting on a whim for a sidekick, Sarah Palin, who personified the very “country-first” intolerance…”

Americans like Sara Palin selfishly put their nation first. There is no place for “patriotism” in the “new“ social order. Liberalism has changed, Bob, and writers like the Euroliberal, Roger Cohen, are cheered by the left.

Modern liberals (progressives) derive their philosophy from modern social liberalism. Social liberals believe that all human beings are entitled to civil rights, human rights and civil liberties. These rights form the basis for our liberal democracy. Social liberalism gave birth to human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Typically, in the past, “liberals” believed that liberal democracies were the best vehicle to spread human rights throughout the world - but today liberal thought is dominated by an elusive quest for peace and a guilt associated with Western domination.

Western civilization has dominated the world for centuries. Unconscionable destruction was committed through colonizing third world countries and exploiting entire continents for natural resources. Indigenous cultures were obliterated or irreversibly altered. In addition, colonial adventurism continued well into the twentieth century. The “West” arrogantly created nations and imposed western culture on third world countries. Democratic change through nation building was forced on third world countries. Today, the West recognizes the damage done to other peoples during this dark era. Third world cultures became “victims’ of the imperialistic West.

Atonement for the past is the starting point for ”reconciliation of nations”. Western society is reaching out with multiculturalism and now views other cultures through cultural and moral relativism. Ethnocentrism is the “N” word for the modern world. Now the West encourages the development of non western cultures within our democratic countries - even when they are at odds with our democratic principals. Free speech may be sacrificed, but extending a hand is necessary for the process of healing.

Multiculturalism is the central focus of today’s liberals, but “peace” drives this evolving liberal philosophy. American imperialism and the Israeli “apartheid” state are the rallying cries of today’s movement. Liberals no longer value human rights - at least as their first priority. Human rights are sacrificed in the pursuit of peace and in the name of cultural relativism.

Bob, do you really believe that Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University was about free speech? Columbia University banned ROTC on campus because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of military. According to University President Lee Bollinger, "to invite ROTC back to campus would violate the university's nondiscrimination policy", yet Bollinger invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to campus to speak (in the name of free speech). 

Iran’s human rights record under the Islamic government is dismal and includes the execution of homosexuals and adulterous women - the latter by stoning. So why didn’t Columbia University factor in Iran’s inhumane treatment of homosexuals before they decided to invite Ahmadinejad to speak? After all, if the ROTC is banned from campus because of discrimination against gay people, then certainly you expect the same response to the representative of a country that murders homosexuals as a matter of policy. 

The University disgracefully and hypocritically invited Ahmadinejad to score a cheap political point. The University provided Ahmadinejad a forum to challenge American imperialism and condemn Zionism in front of a willing audience of liberals who consider the US and Israel the main barriers to peace in the world. Human rights were thrown under the bus. The murder of gays was never considered. Free speech was never the issue.

The President of Iran couldn’t have asked for a greater gift from God. The popularity of Ahmadinejad - already a hero to millions in the Middle East - only increased in the Arab street.

Liberalism has changed, Bob. Bigotry is now acceptable to progressives. I stand by what I said, anti Semitism is a growing problem with the left.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

It's impossible to talk about a lasting republican majority without at the same time talking about the Christian Right.

You are absolutely right liberals believe the Christian Right is a dangerous group of people. We believe they have crossed the line between religion and politics. We know the arguments for their interference in politics and we reject them. We do consider them the worst kinds of bigots. They hate everything that doesn't fit into their view of life and hide behind "God" to defend their secular actions.

Liberals on the other hand want to take as much religion out of politics that is humanly possible. We don't hate religions. We simply believe all of them have a very limited role in politics. Also, we are a curious breed. On one hand we'll be extremely tolerant of religions and on the other we will attack the Christian Right on a regular basis. As a group we don't hate Jews. The last I knew that was pretty much the definition of an Anti-Semite. Individually, I'm sure you can find writings from various liberals who have an axe to grind against Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., but that is the exception and not the rule. I can also show you members of both the republican party and the democrat party that have roots in the KKK. That doesn't mean I go around and accuse all members of a party to be white supremists.

R's have to learn to stop whining about the press. They have done it so long it's like the little boy who cried wolf. In essence all we hear from R's is everything is the D's fault (no matter what) and the "liberal media" has a conspiracy against R's. It's almost like a cult. R's believe if they chant these two phrases over and over again people will believe them. We don't. Believe it or not the D's aren't fond of the media either. It should also be noted we don't blame the R's for everything that goes wrong either.

Right now we have Rush Limbaugh running around saying he hopes Obama fails. Liberals shrug this off assuming the pill popping moron has just lost it. Who in the world wants our economy to digress into a depression? No one in their right mind does. On Palin, we simply believe she's a joke at the national level. Ill equipped in just about everyway possible to be an effective national leader.

Anyway, back to Israel. While there are no doubt Anti-Semites out there in the world and in this country the overwhelming number of liberals are not. It goes against our fundamental core values of tolerance. So unless you are trying to redefine the definition of Anti-Smetism as anyone who opposes the policies, practices and actions of the State of Israel you are completely off the mark saying D's are Anti-Semites. If you are trying to redefine the definition then I wish you good luck in trying to find people to accept it. In essence this definition would allow anyone who feels the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians is unjustified would now be a Jew hater. I shiver at the thought of that happening.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Shiveh, Salamon, Bob

Thanks for your responses.

Shiveh

The media is a very powerful political forum - more so today than ever before, so when the Union of British Journalist call for a (selective) boycott against Israel, then the media isn’t just selling newspapers, it’s a political organization with an agenda. I can’t think of a better way to undermine your own credibility, or “neutrality”. Did the same union call for a boycott against the Russians for their war against the Chechens in which over 100,000 Chechens were killed? Does anyone in this forum understand numbers greater than 1300?

The Obama candidacy, just from an historical perspective, was newsworthy and contributed to selling newspapers, but, in addition, the media also invested politically in the election of Obama. Just like Universities are generally liberal, so are news organizations. Conservatives have been leery of the media for a long time, so that’s why Rush Limbaugh is so popular, but, in reality, Rush is just another agenda-driven media outlet - blatantly biased, but, in my paranoid opinion, the right counter to a more subtle, but still “liberal” biased media.

Yes, of course, Israeli policies are a matter of concern for the world, and voicing an opposing opinion is justified, but how do you explain the Durban I conference on racism - a United Nations event - focusing their attention primarily on Israel? How do you explain that Canada - a multiculturalists and race-obsessed society - is boycotting Durban II?

From the Wall Street Journal, December 9, 2008 (“Fighting Racism, UN - Style“):

“…"Durban II," planned for April in Geneva, promises to be an encore of the same old Israel-bashing. The draft declaration says Israel's policy toward the Palestinians amounts to no less than "a new kind of apartheid, a crime against humanity, a form of genocide and a serious threat to international peace and security." We'll spare you the rest.
Israel will be the main obsession, but it's not the only target…”

The United Nations has lost all credibility in my opinion.

If 74% of Spaniards believe its "probably true" that Jews hold too much sway over the global financial market, then, either its true, and in which case, you need to apologize to Daniel because he is right about the intelligence of such a small percentage of people controlling the world finances, or its false, in which case, it’s a stereotype of Jews and bigotry (anti Semitism) - pure and simple. Choose your poison.

Bob

Let me help you understand your fellow liberals, Bob. These are selective responses to a David Brooks column, September 11, 2008 (“The Social Animal”). The column is about conservatism.

#218 - “I sure hope they pick more of the corrupt, racists and good ole boys like Haley Barbour to continue the rightward trends and that they keep listening to the Rush Lardbutts, homophobic, racist, sexist theocratic fascists and all the other pedantic, rigid, anti-intellectual, demagogic ideologues”

#252 - “The Republicans need to get rid of the Christian Nationalists, Christo-fascists and other fear mongering & hate breeding groups.”

#243 - “The Republican Party long ago came to represent fat cats, racists, bigots, and whites who wanted things to go back to the 1950s and for blacks to know their place and stay there.”

#29 (editors selection - held up as a “good comment” by the NYT editor) - “The Republican electoral strategy at least since Reagan has been to wed country club Republicans (who are typically honestly conservative, even if frequently naive in their intellectual foundation of this) with so-called social conservatives (a significant portion of which are religiously driven intolerants)…Just as Americans feel like they are coming out of an abusive relationship as they send W packing, so too conservatives might need to realize that their need to share a bed with profligate, incompetent bigots can come to an end.”

Just a small sampling of the “tolerant” left, so do I believe that liberals can be anti Semitic? Considering the Christian bigotry of the left, then the answer is an unqualified “yes“ - a traditional role of right wingers. You will notice some of the same hate-filled responses on Israel articles in the NYT and elsewhere.

How can a comparison of Israeli tactics in Palestine to Nazi Germany not be anti Semitic at its core (and I see the comparison quite often but this is not directed at you)? How can anyone compare the selective killing of 6,000,000 innocent Jewish civilians with responses to terrorist attacks against Israel. Maybe I missed something, did the Jews attack the German state? Did they walk into markets and blow up civilians? Did they launch rockets into Berlin? Yes, I understand that Israel has also committed some atrocities - but the 1300 Palestinians (half terrorist) that were killed in Gaza was not an atrocity, genocide or crimes against humanity, but a tragedy, and that's a failure of the Hamas government .

Do I believe that all leftist are anti Christian bigots or anti Semites? No, but hard core leftist do cross the line.

“…A second point you brought about the inequity of bashing Israel while letting other inequities slide by without such scrutiny is a point you may wish to reconsider. That argument basically says I'm not so bad look at the other guys. "Yeah Mom, I stole a cookie, but Johnny stole 3 of them." "Yeah, I only killed 1,300 innocent civilians last month, but that's nothing compared to Darfur."…”

You missed the point. I’m not justifying the killing of anyone, only that the media, progressives, Universities and the UN selectively attack Israel when there are far worse atrocities in the world. They should criticize all human rights violations, not just selective, politically motivated abuses (and I fully believe they are politically motivated). And its "Yea mom, I stole 1300 cookies (half terrorist cookies), but Johnny stole 250,000..."

Palin was a great example of a media driven political lynching that crossed the line. Her family was attacked, her Christian values were attacked, reporters went through her garbage, her ability to balance family and job was questioned (left wing gender discrimination) and she was cleared of the charges against her.

Salamon

Israel is a very creative and enterprising nation. Israel does not depend on US aid to survive economically. For example, Israel is the largest seller of weapons to India in the world - over a billion in sales last year. Israel understands that to survive, they must develop allies and alliances outside of the US.

I suspect the Obama administration and Israel (Bibi) will mix it up over the next four years, but if Mitchell can find a workable solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem, I’m all for it, but it better assure Israel of security. Land for terrorism doesn’t work.

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

Very curious argument you make. I'm not quite sure I understand it. On one hand we have the liberals bashing Israel thus proving they are Anti-Semites. On the other hand we have these same liberals you are ranting about believing in differing degrees of socialism and equal rights for all. Something just doesn't seem right here. I have no recollection of ever meeting or talking to a liberal Anti-Semite. I'm sure somewhere on the face of this planet one exists. If you find that person let me know so we can kick him out of the secret liberal club.

Bashing Israel is an easy thing to do. They give everyone plenty of opportunity by their actions. That doesn't make anyone, based on the facts, an Anti-Semite. Religion has nothing to do with bashing Israel's conduct and frankly I find it insulting anyone would even try to make the case. Israel bashing is predominately done in the west by liberals who feel their treatment of the Palestinian people is deplorable.

A second point you brought about the inequity of bashing Israel while letting other inequities slide by without such scrutiny is a point you may wish to reconsider. That argument basically says I'm not so bad look at the other guys. "Yeah Mom, I stole a cookie, but Johnny stole 3 of them." "Yeah, I only killed 1,300 innocent civilians last month, but that's nothing compared to Darfur." Now there's a defense for bad actions that simply doesn't get anyone off the hook.

If you want to say you believe Israel has the right to exist and if the Muslims/Arabs get in their way they have the right to kill as many of them as they wish just come right out and say it. However, there are a growing number of us who believe the creation of Israel was a really stupid idea. What has led us to that conclusion is the 60+ years of conflict, the settlements and the inhumane treatment of the people of Gaza among a host of other things.

Liberals also realize it's too late to undo the damage creating Israel has caused. They are a fact and they aren't going to voluntarily give the land back to the Palestinians. That doesn't mean we have to agree with their decisions, policies or actions.

If I had my way the US would move Israel to Alaska. Then we could have a good neighbor policy. At the same time we could get rid of Palin. (sorry, as a liberal I had to take a parting shot at the mental midget)

blund Author Profile Page :

Tom,

Very curious argument you make. I'm not quite sure I understand it. On one hand we have the liberals bashing Israel thus proving they are Anti-Semites. On the other hand we have these same liberals you are ranting about believing in differing degrees of socialism and equal rights for all. Something just doesn't seem right here. I have no recollection of ever meeting or talking to a liberal Anti-Semite. I'm sure somewhere on the face of this planet one exists. If you find that person let me know so we can kick him out of the secret liberal club.

Bashing Israel is an easy thing to do. They give everyone plenty of opportunity by their actions. That doesn't make anyone, based on the facts, an Anti-Semite. Religion has nothing to do with bashing Israel's conduct and frankly I find it insulting anyone would even try to make the case. Israel bashing is predominately done in the west by liberals who feel their treatment of the Palestinian people is deplorable.

A second point you brought about the inequity of bashing Israel while letting other inequities slide by without such scrutiny is a point you may wish to reconsider. That argument basically says I'm not so bad look at the other guys. "Yeah Mom, I stole a cookie, but Johnny stole 3 of them." "Yeah, I only killed 1,300 innocent civilians last month, but that's nothing compared to Darfur." Now there's a defense for bad actions that simply doesn't get anyone off the hook.

If you want to say you believe Israel has the right to exist and if the Muslims/Arabs get in their way they have the right to kill as many of them as they wish just come right out and say it. However, there are a growing number of us who believe the creation of Israel was a really stupid idea.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

TOM:
your defence of Israel is most eloquent, however, also most one sided, especially regarding the lateswt Gaza fiasco'

I note that I made a staement last time re Palestine Israel isxsues that Israel had 5-10 years to solve according to UNSC resolution [as also subscribed by the King of Saudi Arabia]. It appears that I was too restricted in the time frome according to the USA's Intelligence Community, they give at most 20 years, then a single state.

If the world economy and especially the USA economy keeps collapsoing at the rate of the last 4-5 months, even 5 years might be too long. Israel can not use A-bombs for that is the end Israel, possibly almost racial suicide.

This was the worst of times for RIGHT WING results in Israel, after Lebanon/Gaz/West Bank destructions, targated assissinations , when the
USA is weak ans Europe Arab World getting fed up with the Zionist Caqbaql, as do numerous Jews in Cqanqada, USA and other areas of the world.

So get real and do something to help Israel ere she commits sovereign suicide [at least as far as a Jewish State is concerned.

Shiveh Author Profile Page :

Tom,

Israel has succeeded in vilifying the actions of her Arab opponents to a point that what they do is not news anymore. Western societies already believe that Arabs are a less educated people that are routinely involved in acts of violence against each other and also against the Jews and Christians. News organizations have done their job in this regard so well that another suicide bombing has lost much of its news worthiness.

On the other hand, Israel claims to be a western democracy and rejects all accusations of systematic violence against her neighbors. When journalists (western or otherwise) find any proof to the contrary, they consider it a controversial hence newsworthy item and publish it with all the professional trickery they use to make their product more interesting and profitable. If Israelis want the media to stop publishing any small piece of news that disputes their claim to democracy and civility, they should drop the claim and announce that they are no better than their opponents when it comes to using any means to reach their goals.

You accuse the media of being liberal (a minority group?) but then show statistics that suggest they are publishing the majority opinion. The following are from your post:

“A strong case can be made that Mr. Zakaria and the liberal media hold the Arabs to a lower societal and moral standard than Israel.”

“…third of Europeans polled blame Jews for the global economic meltdown and that a greater number think Jews have too much power in the business world….in Spain, 74 percent of those asked say they feel it is "probably true" that Jews hold too much sway over the global financial markets…”

“ …very high percentage of people (Americans included) who believe that the Israeli lobby controls US foreign policy.”

“An opinion poll in Germany, for example, shows that more than 50 percent of Germans equate Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews. Sixty-eight percent of Germans say that Israel is waging a “war of extermination” against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, another poll (2003) shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.”

If this is how majority of people in our world think about Israel, shouldn’t someone with your research ability be looking for what Israel can do to improve her image rather than trying to find scapegoats in the media. Don’t we need a better argument than “others are doing it too, don’t single us out”? People are affected by what happens in the Middle East much more than they are affected by Darfur or Tibet events and our media knows that. The news from the Middle East sell more paper and if it is about Israel’s misbehavior, more people will show interest. Palestinian violence is old news and that is all there is to it!

You conclude that: “The rise in anti Semitism in the world is well documented and can be attributed at least, in part, to an unbalanced perspective advanced by the media and other western outlets…”

There is not much that can be done about the media; they go where the news is. But I noticed that you say “in part”, what else is there that can be improved? I believe it is time to drop the anti Semitism accusation and see the “world’s” dislike of the Israel policies as a legitimate cause for concern.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

PG

Mr. Zakaria’s commentary contributes to the rise in anti Semitism world-wide and just confirms the ongoing anti Israel bias advanced by the western media. Israel is judged by a different standard than other countries and is unfairly singled out for boycotts, charges of racism, charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and is often (wrongly) compared to apartheid South Africa. The western media portrays Israel negatively. In that respect Mr. Zakaria’s commentary is just more of the same Israel bashing typical primarily of the European press. No matter how well his intentions and how gently Mr. Zakaria calls Israel, in effect, a racist nation, he gives credibility to those who accuse the media and other outlets (like the Durbin I conference on “Racism”) of a double standard concerning the criticism of Israel.

Mr. Zakaria gives ammunition and credibility to Israeli bashers in the West who are predominantly liberal in philosophy such as universities and media centers (Newspapers, TV, etc.). Indeed, Mr. Zakaria is himself a liberal. Islamic terrorist organizations, like Hamas, regularly parrot the same descriptions of Israel commonly used by the left to describe Israel for purposes of propaganda - despite their atrocious record of hate and bigotry taught in Mosque, and in their schools to children - not to mention winging PA supporters off of a fifteen story building during their coup in Gaza in 2007. A strong case can be made that Mr. Zakaria and the liberal media hold the Arabs to a lower societal and moral standard than Israel. Is this because Mr. Zakaria believes that the West is responsible for the conditions of the Middle East today? If the West never interfered in the Middle East, would conditions be any better?

International organizations such as the UN have contributed greatly to the world’s distorted view of Israel by selectively (and politically) condemning Israel - at every opportunity - either through the security council (resolutions) or through the UN human rights council.

In 2007, UN Human rights council president, Doru-Romulus Costea admitted that Israel has been treated unfairly (Jerusalem Post):
“…Doru admitted that he was dissatisfied with the fact the council had overly focused on the degree of human rights violations by Israel.
"The body which I head must examine the actions of both sides equally, and we have not done that," said Costea. "Clearly, from now on things need to change."…”

But will they change?

The UN sponsored Durban I conference on racism (2001) degenerated into an Israeli bashing event. The US and Israel walked out of the conference. Canada is boycotting Durban II which promises the same kind of politically driven agenda that dominated the first conference.

Its little wonder - especially with the propaganda emanating from the Israeli bashers in the media - that anti Semitism is on the rise in the world - especially in Europe. The media is partly responsible because of their one-sided reporting of the conflict.

The BBC does not use the word “terrorist” because the word imparts a judgment to their viewers. In other words, the BBC wants to give the impression of neutrality, yet the 40,000 member National Union of Journalists voted to boycott Israeli goods in 2007. Is there any real doubt about their neutrality?

France 2 television is accused of creating the al-Durra incident (hoax) which contributed significantly to the 2000 Intifada against Israel (over a thousand Israelis were killed). In addition, during the recent war in Gaza, the same France 2 broadcasted pictures of dead Palestinian children from an accidental truck explosion in 2005 which had absolutely nothing to do with Israel, let alone the war in Gaza which took place almost three years later!!. Media reporting is clearly politically driven.

Israeli and Jew

The leader of Hezbollah, Nasrallah once said (“The Case Against Israel’s Enemies”, Alan Dershowitz):

“If we were to search the world for a more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew…Notice, I do not say the Israeli”.

In other words, the leader of the terrorist organization does not distinguish between Israelis and Jews world-wide. Any Jew is a legitimate target. He backed up that comment when Hezbollah carried out a terrorist attack against a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires killing about 80 innocent “Jewish” civilians. Iran, and their client terrorist organization, Hezbollah, have been implicated in the planning of the attacks by the Argentina government. The anti Semitic incidents in Europe, South America and other locations around the globe during the war in Gaza suggests that the line between Israeli and Jew is becoming increasingly obscure. Yet, the media glosses over such incidents and focuses on the Arab Israeli problem in Israel. Kill Jews world-wide? Israel needs to treat her Palestinian citizens better.

Anti Semitism in Europe

A study commissioned by the Anti Defamation League and conducted by “First International Resources Dec. 1, 2008 through Jan. 13, 2009, included interviews with 3,500 people - 500 each in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Spain” found that nearly a “…third of Europeans polled blame Jews for the global economic meltdown and that a greater number think Jews have too much power in the business world….in Spain, 74 percent of those asked say they feel it is "probably true" that Jews hold too much sway over the global financial markets…”

That’s a very high percentage of Spaniards for the “anti racist” socialist state of Spain, but this is consistent with the very high percentage of people (Americans included) who believe that the Israeli lobby controls US foreign policy. But who believes that the Israeli lobby prevented Israel from attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities last year?

Chanting in demonstrations in Europe during the Gaza war included, “"Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas". In Italy, the head of a small union called for the boycott of all Jewish businesses. From December 27th to January 19th during the Gaza war, sixty seven anti Semitic acts were committed in France. Anti Semitic violence and acts have occurred on a large scale in Europe from shootings to desecration of the Star of David into a swastika. Anti Israel demonstrators equate Israel to Nazi Germany, and call the war in Gaza a crime against humanity or genocide - much of this from “progressives”.

Soeren Kern writes in the Brussels Journal recently,

“…But myriad polling data show that all across Europe, the fine line between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism has been dangerously blurred. An opinion poll in Germany, for example, shows that more than 50 percent of Germans equate Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews. Sixty-eight percent of Germans say that Israel is waging a “war of extermination” against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, another poll (2003) shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.
 
Opinions as grossly irrational as these imply that for many Europeans, anti-Israelism has become a convenient smokescreen for anti-Semitism. Taking this logic full-circle, the belief that Israel is the main force for evil in the world also acts to further legitimize anti-Semitism…”

Muslim Hypocrisy

While the movement to center stage of Avigdor Lieberman has (rightly) drawn fire from Mr. Zakaria because he has called for expelling Israel’s Arab minority, in the same vein, Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of a legal state while Iran is suspected of developing nuclear weapons.

Yet the liberal media (and liberals, in general) just dismisses the threats from Ahmadinejad. Iranian leadership is not suicidal, or stupid, so their threats to destroy Israel shouldn’t be taken seriously or Ahmadinejad is just a figurehead in Iran, so his threats are not really state-sanctioned. His statements were mistranslated (although everyone seems to get his speeches right at the UN) and so on. Naturally, Mr. Zakaria focuses on the Israeli (not so surprising) bend toward the political right while ignoring the root cause of the political change - eight years of rocket fire from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the political failure of withdrawing from Gaza and Lebanon. In effect, Israel traded land for terrorism, not peace.

The Muslim (greater) Middle East is defined by hypocrisy. Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan, slammed Israel for killing Palestinian civilians in Gaza and even called for the UN to “bar“ Israel, yet the Turkish government hosted mass murderer al-Beshir of Sudan last year. A quarter of a million Muslims have been killed by al-Beshir. Muslim on Muslim violence as well as Muslim on infidel violence rarely draws a protest from Muslims. Did anyone notice mass demonstrations against the Muslim murderers involved in the Mumbai attacks? Nary a word of protest from the Pakistan people who, themselves, are the victims of terrorism from the Taliban.

Additionally, where are the protest in the Muslim world against the murder of 250,000 African Muslims by Arab Muslims in Darfur? But if a “Jewish” state located on Muslim soil is responsible for killing 1300 Palestinians in retaliation for rocket launched into Israel (half terrorist), all hell breaks loose in the Middle East and Muslims talk about pride, dignity and ridding their land of the Israeli “cancer”.

Conclusion

The rise in anti Semitism in the world is well documented and can be attributed at least, in part, to an unbalanced perspective advanced by the media and other western outlets, and the UN. Israel is unjustly singled out, and a “disproportionate” amount of criticism is leveled at Israel compared to other conflicts like Tibet, for example. The media makes no effort to distinguish between civilians specifically targeted by terrorist organizations and civilians killed by Israelis while targeting militants. To the biased media, there is no difference, yet targeting of civilians is illegal (and immoral) under the Geneva Convention. The “disproportionate” response by Israel is nearly always the focus of the media.

Criticizing Israeli discrimination is fair game, but the media makes relatively little effort to address the dysfunctional Arab societies - rampant discrimination and bigotry, hate taught in schools and Mosque, uneducated masses, lack of democratic reform, gender discrimination and unjust Sharia laws. A clear double standard and/or a dummying down of expectations of Arab societies exists, or could this be just cultural relativism??

While Mr. Zakaria has every right to criticize Israel, he just feeds the liberal frenzy (himself?) which blames Israel for the failed peace in the Middle East. Indeed, many also blame Israel for Islamic terrorism world-wide. Terrorist organizations have used the liberal media and liberal support to effectively advance their cause which is to eliminate Israel from the Middle East altogether.

Finally, Israel could certainly improve the conditions for the minority Israeli Arab population, but most enjoy far more rights, and a better living standard than their counterparts living in Gaza, the West Bank and most other areas of the Middle East. All choose to live in Israel and, yes, I understand, its been their home for thousands of years, but nearly one million Jews were expelled, or left voluntarily from their homes in the greater Middle East (for thousands of years) because the conditions were intolerable - this since Israel became an internationally recognized state. Where's the outrage from Mr. Zakaria or the rest of the liberal media?

RobinAunggyi Author Profile Page :

When I was a young, I'd often heard about the conflict of Middle-East that has no tail. Now, not Arab face up to existential dilemma but Israel. That's why Middle-East Men have no brain that can independently work. If the creator (God,...) created their brains, they can be able to filter the discourses of any religions by working their brains. I don't mean they are to transform a shape of secularist. I think they should consider what if there is a God only, why he/she don't judge till now. Why the God watch on the wars blooded? Worse is one that religion and politics were mixed by egoism. Surely, Zakaria is right because everyone has the existential dilema based on Egoism.

hem_ker Author Profile Page :

It's amazing to me that this is even considered worth questioning. Is not Israel predominantly a Jewish nation? Though there are minority groups in Arab nations, would anyone give ear to claim that their nation is not a Muslim nation simply based on the existence of a minority that disapproves? Regarding swearing loyalty to the nation of Israel, is there any nation that does not seek allegiance from its citizens? Is not the situation in Israel complicated that much more by the fact that there are some citizens who have strictly sworn allegiance to groups who's sole purpose is the nation's destruction? Finally, would someone please tell me any other country in the world treating a minority group more liberally than Israel treats the Israeli Arabs? Even in the Gaza despite constant rocket attacks from terrorists electricity and other essentials are still provided by the nation of Israel!

romail_7866 Author Profile Page :

Jihadi groups recruiting youths for terrorist activities:

KARACHI: The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) Investigation Committee (IC) believes that banned religious organizations are sending children to Waziristan, FATA, and Afghanistan to brainwash and train them for Jihad. According to a press release issued on Friday by MQM’s London based secretariat, the IC claimed that various banned organizations were persuading minors and youngsters for Jihad and after keeping them at various offices, they were sending them to Waziristan for training. A report by the IC stated that young boys were being trained for bombings, suicide attacks and in the use of modern weaponry in training institutions located in the tribal areas. The IC report claimed that most of the suicide bombers in the last few months were found to be young boys. According to report the centers of these Jihadi organizations were, until a few months ago, concentrated in Pakhtoon dominated areas but had now expanded to other localities as well. The report alleged that most of the young boys were being sent to Jihadi training camps without their parents’ consent.

romail_7866 Author Profile Page :


IF NAWAZ SHARIF CAN CLARIFY HIS POSITION WITH REGARDS TO CHARTER OF DEMOCRACY (COD) CLAUSE 3(A) AND 3(B) ON PCO JUDGES THEN THE MQM WILL ALSO SUPPORT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COD – ALTAF HUSSAIN

London – 28th January 2009...MQM Founder & Leader Mr Altaf Hussain has offered the Mr Nawaz Sharif, the leader of PML-N, that if he is able to explain and inform the nation of what the Charter of Democracy (COD) clause 3(a) & 3(b) states about the PCO Judges then the MQM will also fully support the implementation of COD. And if Mr Nawaz Sharif fails to respond then it becomes his moral obligation to review his decision on participating in the Long March. Mr Hussain was expressing his views while addressing an important session of the MQM Coordination Committee in London. The session also discussed the current political situation of the country and was attended by Members of MQM Coordination Committee Saleem Shehzad, Muhammad Anwar, Syed Tariq Mir, Muhammad Ashfaq, Javed Kazmi, Asif Siddiqui, Mustafa Azizabadi and Qasim Ali Raza. Also present were Member Karachi City Council Ehsan Siddiqui and Naib Nazim North Nazimabad Town Ehsan Ullah.

Mr Hussain said that the lawyer’s movement is for the independence of judiciary and restoration of judges and the PML-N has announced to support the Long March of 9th March. Simultaneously, the leader of PML-N Mr Nawaz Sharif has demanded in his press conference for the complete implementation of the COD. He said that with due respect and as a student of politics he wants to ask Mr Nawaz Sharif to clarify to the nation his views on the Charter of Democracy clause 3(a) and 3(b) with reference to PCO judges, as this document was signed in person by PPP leader Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and PML-N leader Mr Nawaz Sharif in London. If Mr Sharif is able to clarify his views then the MQM will also support him on his demand of implementation of COD, otherwise if he fails then it becomes his moral obligation to review his decision of participating in the long march. Mr Hussain said that if in the light of COD it was essential to demand for the restoration of judges then it would have been prudent to demand for the restoration of those judges who refused to take oath under the PCO and offered their resignations. The MQM and all other political parties then would have not only supported this demand but also proactively participated in this struggle.

Mr Hussain explained that the country is faced with internal as well as external threats, the economy is in dire states, country is faced with internal threats of terrorism, the writ of the Government is being challenged in FATA and certain areas of NWFP and a Shariat Courts have been established parallel to the constitutional and legal courts, hundreds of girls schools have been set alight, ban has been imposed on womenfolk on their education and work; and opponents are being brutally killed and their heads hanged on the streets. On the other hand, the country is faced with external threats of aggression. It is the need of time to build up on unity, harmony and peace; however, certain elements for the ulterior motives are busy in adopting the path of confrontation and planning for a long march against the Government. This act will only create anarchy and will benefit the enemies of our country who want to see anarchy and disturbance in our country. He appealed to the Opposition leaders that they should peacefully protest and present their point of view but refrain from adopting the path that may create law and order situation. We have no objection if instead of registering the protest on streets the same is taken up in the Parliament.

Commenting on the MQM joining the Federal Government Mr Altaf Hussain said that for the sustenance and progress of the country we decided to join the federal cabinet so as to strengthen the democracy and to form a united front against the undemocratic elements who want to derail the democratic system of the country. If God forbid there is any derailment of democracy then it will not only damage the government but also the democratic system. He said that we have not even made the number of federal ministries offered to the MQM as an ego issue. We were not rigid to say that if we are not offered ministries as per the ratio of our seats in the Parliament then we will not accept the ministries. We gave priority to the country’s interest over the party’s interest and for the sustenance of the country, to strengthen the democracy, institutions and national security; we accepted the offer. We do not want to enter into confrontational politics nor do we want to weaken the democratic system of the country or to create any hindrance for the armed forces and intelligence agencies who are busy in defending country’s borders. He praised the bravery and efforts of the armed forces and intelligence agencies who are not only facing the terrorism within the country but are also offering the sacrifices of their lives in the line of duty. He reiterated that the MQM offers its fullest support to the armed forces units at the borders and to the country’s intelligence agencies so that they are able to combat the menace of terrorism. He also offered the services of the MQM will stand shoulder to shoulder with the armed forces to face any threat by our enemies against external aggression.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

On Israel. The big problem Israelis have is not so much that they took Palestinian land (and I personally believe the Jews were entitled to it--for after all, it is their ancient land)--but that their return to the middle east is a terrible offense to Muslims because not only did "the last prophet" Mohammed not see it, for centuries the Muslims have grown used to seeing all of the middle east as Muslim land.

Israel is something of a bacteriological infection to the Muslims, something to be expelled from the body Islam. And the Muslims have been doing all they can to overwhelm the Israelis. Evidence that Israel is not to the Muslims just a Palestinian problem is that many Muslim nations at one time or another have tried to destroy the Israelis.

Take the war of '67 when the Muslims ganged up on the Israelis. The Muslims were certainly not complaining when it looked as if they would have a resounding victory,--but then they lost. And they have been saying no peace can exist with the Israelis if the Israelis do not return the land taken from them.

The truth is there will be no peace regardless of whether the Israelis return the land. The Muslims in fact have been trying to beat the Israelis by two main methods: attack them violently and outbreed them, overwhelm them through sheer demographics.

And the Muslims have world opinion on their side now. In fact the Muslims can not only deny the holocaust of the Jews occurred and receive worldwide applause, they have succeeded in making it seem as if Israel is perpetrating a holocaust in the middle east when the obvious fact is the Jews are some 7 million and they are surrounded by overwhelmingly more Muslims.

In WW2 the Jews were overwhelmed by the Germans and thrown into concentration camps--and the Muslims today have the gall to say that only 7 million Jews are perpetrating a holocaust against so many more Muslims! Israel has a serious problem.

There really is no choice for Israel other than trying to make a "Jew only" zone because if they do not do so not only will their democracy collapse by an influx of Muslims, they will become a minority in their own country. So the battle between Jews and Muslims will rage on. And...I am on the side of Israel.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

The implementation of furhter debasement of the Arab /Islamist citizens of Israel is a step in the right direction by the Zionist government [present and to be] if their aim is to end any and all USA/W European support for Israel.

At a time that the USA [and indeed, the whole world, curtesy of Wall Street] is on the verge of total collapse/bankrupcy - evaded til now by OPEC/China/Japan finances, it would be most unpleasant for the Zionist Government if the USA $ wobbles and or ceases to be world reserve currency. Whereas King Abduallah, his half prother Prince Turki [??] indicated in strong terms that the Israel Palestine problem has to be solved in a year or so, it would be most self-destructive for the Zionist Government ot upset any or all USA Creditors - for without creditors the USA can not help Israel.

Without doubt, pronouncement like the above can be called anti-semitist, when, in fact, it is only anti-zionist.

The argument above regarding Arab citizens of Israel and the Zionist proposal is similar to the effect of any attack on Iran [and possibly Lebanon and or Syria], for it is presumed by the ARAB STREET, that Israel can only act with USA support with respect to war. Therefore, I would propose that Israel's next government will not do anything to Arab Citizens, will not start new wars [ or extreme police action in Gaza, as in dec 2008], lest Israel is willing to gamble that the US$ will survive such an attack - a hioghly questionable proposition when the USA needs 3-4 trillion for next year for federal defcit/bank bailout/nationalization.

Zolko Author Profile Page :

Mr Zakaria, I´ll save us much time:

1) Israel is a secular state where muslims and arabs have the same right. It´s the only democracy in the region.

2) Israel is an apartheid state built by terrorists through terrorism, where the native population pays the price of european barbarism.

3) repeat ad-nauseam, citing the Hamas charter and UN resolutions.

ayodicebosteroyperonista Author Profile Page :

Israel will fight the arabs to the last american...

gary4books Author Profile Page :

Israeli Arabs are the hidden resource for the future and when they are full partners in the peace process will allow Israel to demonstrate the future of cooperation and success. Trained and educated Arabs will give Israel the labor supply it needs to dominate the Middle East.

Recent Comments

  • Think2:
    If Israel disowns its ...
  • daniel12:
    To Blund from Daniel. ...
  • blund:
    YEOLDS, While there a...
  • yeolds:
    To Blund, Tom and Shiv...
  • blund:
    Daniel, For the last ...
  • daniel12:
    To Blund from Daniel. ...
  • Shiveh:
    Tom, It looks like “I...
  • blund:
    Daniel, OK, I give up...
PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send us your comments, questions and suggestions.