This week, the Spanish Foreign Minister felt compelled to defend Prime Minister Zapatero from charges of anti-Semitism.

Zapatero had donned the black-checked keffiyeh that is the symbol of Palestinian determination to destroy the Jewish State and criticized Israel for using “abusive force that does not protect innocent human beings.”1

It was all too familiar.

On any given day one can find some eminent European – a university professor, high-ranking churchman, a parliamentarian – gravely explaining to reporters that harsh and disproportionate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic.

And their protestations sound plausible. After all, this is not your grandfather’s anti-Semitism. Israel’s highly-educated critics do not refuse to dine in restaurants that serve Jews, use epithets like “kike,” or believe that Jews control the international financial markets and are more likely than others to engage in shady business practices.

At least that is what I assumed until someone did the study.

Two Connecticut professors got curious about the constant denials that extremely harsh critics of Israel were anti-Semitic. Edward H. Kaplan, the William N. and Marie A. Beach Professor of Management Sciences at Yale, and Charles A. Small, Director of Urban Studies, Southern Connecticut State University, decided to examine the issue in formal way. Their paper, “Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe,” appears in the August issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2

Kaplan and Small ask whether individuals expressing strong anti-Israel sentiments, such as the statement by Ted Honderich, Emeritus Grote Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic at University College London, that “those Palestinians who have resorted to necessary killing have been right to try to free their people, and those who have killed themselves in the cause of their people have indeed sanctified themselves,” are more likely than the general population to also support in such old-style anti-Semitic slurs as “Jews have too much power in our country today.”

The correlation was almost perfect. In a survey of 5,000 Europeans in ten countries, people who believed that the Israeli soldiers “intentionally target Palestinian civilians,” and that “Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israeli civilians” are justified, also believed that “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind,” “Jews have a lot of irritating faults,” and “Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want.”

The study’s other interesting finding was that only a small fraction of Europeans believe any of these things. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism flourish among the few, but those few are over-represented in Europe’s newspapers, its universities, and its left-wing political parties.

For Americans who do not read the European press, the level of raw anti-Semitism in European intellectual circles can be shocking.

A couple of years ago the French Ambassador at the Court of St. James, Daniel Bernard, told his companions at a London dinner party that Israel is a “shitty little country,” “Why,” he asked, “should the world be in danger of World War Three because of those people?”3

Those people? Moderates heard echoes of old-fashioned anti-Semitism. But the French Foreign Ministry stood behind their ambassador, calling assertions that Bernard’s remarks were anti-Semitic "malevolent insinuations."4

The British press agreed. Columnist Deborah Orr defended Ambassador Bernard in the Independent. “Anti-Semitism is disliking all Jews, anywhere, and anti-Zionism is just disliking the existence of Israel and opposing those who support it,” explained Orr, who holds “the honest view that in my experience Israel is shitty and little.”5

Columnist Richard Woods summed up the attitude of the European intelligentsia when he wrote that Ambassador Bernard’s remark was only “apparently anti-Semitic”.6

Kaplan and Small have shown otherwise. When you read, for example, the opinion of Marc Gentilli, president of the French Red Cross, that the idea of allowing Israel to join the International Red Cross and use the Star of David on its ambulances is “disgusting,”7 you can be pretty sure that he, along with Ambassador Bernard, Prime Minister Zapatero, President Chirac, and the rest of Europe’s harsh critics of Israel, are very probably the kind of old-fashioned anti-Semites who just don’t like Jews very much.

Post Script 7-23-06

After writing this essay, I learned that Zapatero may have had his own Daniel-Bernard-at-the-dinner-party moment. According to some reports, at a dinner party in late 2005, Zapatero loosed a tirade of extreme anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic rhetoric that ended with the phrase:"Es que a veces hasta se entiende que haya gente que puede justificar el holocausto" which means:"At times one can even understand that there might be people who could justify the Holocaust."

The conversation was reported on a Spanish talk-radio program. This is the Spanish article that has been echoed on a number of Spanish language blogs:

Vidal Quadras habla del alegato antisemita del Presidente Zapatero.

En el programa radiofónico español ¨Mas se perdio en Cuba¨ de Intereconomia, Alejo Vidal Quadras dirigente del PP narro un suceso ocurrido hace unos meses entre el matrimonio Benarroch y la familia Zapatero. Por lo visto durante la cena, Zapatero profirió alegatos antisionistas y antisemitas de modo tan exagerado que los Benarroch (familia judía de peleteros) tuvieron que llamarle la atencion por el tono extremista de su discurso antisemita. Sin embargo, Zapatero estaba extasiado y continuo y continuo hasta que solto esta perla : ¨es que se entiende que haya quien justifique el Holocausto¨.

Despues de esta frase el matrimonio Benarroch se levanto y se largo de la Moncloa, donde se celebraba la cena, y desde entonces no han querido saber nada del presidente del Gobierno.

English translation:

Vidal Quadras Talks About President Zapatero's Anti-Semitic Tirade

"It is understandable that someone might justify the Holocaust."

On the program"Más se perdió en Cuba" on Spanish Radio Intereconomía, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, leader of the PP [Partida Popular or People's Party] told of an event that occurred a few months ago with Mr. and Mrs. Benarroch and the Zapatero family. Apparently during dinner Zapatero hurled anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic tirades so excessive that the Benarrochs (a Jewish family of furriers) had to call his attention to the extremist tone of his anti-Semitic discourse. Nevertheless Zapatero was ecstatic and kept on going until he threw out this pearl:"It is understandable that someone might justify the Holocaust."

After those words the Benarrochs got up and left the [Palace of] Moncloa, where the dinner was being held, and since then have wanted nothing to do with the President of the Government.

You can follow a link to a podcast of a Spanish radio broadcast in which Vidal-Quadras supposedly narrates the incident. The speakers are not identified, but listening to the podcast, it sounds as though the person who tells the story is one of the talk show hosts, not Vidal-Quadras.

And what he says on the radio is:"Es que a veces hasta se entiende que haya gente que puede justificar el holocausto." Not:"es que se entiende que haya quien justifique el Holocausto."

The quote on the podcast would translate as:"At times one can even understand that there might be people who could justify the Holocaust."

Notes

1 “Spanish Minister Objects – Says Criticism of Israel Not anti-Semitic” International Herald Tribune, July 20, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/20/news/spain.php

2 Kaplan, Edward H. and Small, Charles A., “Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 50 No. 4, August 2006, pp. 548-561 PDF

3 Tom Gross, “ ‘A Shitty Little Country,’ Prejudice and Abuse in Paris and London,” National Review, Jan 10, 2002. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gross011002.shtml

4 “’Anti-Semitic’ French Envoy Under Fire,” BBC Dec. 20, 2001 news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1721172.stm

5 Deborah Orr, “I’m fed up being called an anti-Semite,” Independent, December 21, 2001, cited in Tom Gross, “ ‘A Shitty Little Country,’ Prejudice and Abuse in Paris and London,” National Review, Jan 10, 2002. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gross011002.shtml

6 Richard Woods in the, “When silence speaks volumes” London Sunday Times, December 23, 2001, cited in Tom Gross, “ ‘A Shitty Little Country,’ Prejudice and Abuse in Paris and London,” National Review, Jan 10, 2002. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gross011002.shtml

7 Davis, Avi, “A Star-Crossed Resignation,” Washington Times, Jan 2, 2002, http://www.mideasttruth.com/mda2.html

ugg boots on sale - 10/31/2009

An ugg bailey button better be unborn than untaught,for ignorance is the root of misfortune.Genius17 withoutugg knightsbridge education is like silver in the mine. ugg boots man is not made for defeat. an uggs boots man can be destroyed but not defeated.No rational man can die without ugg lo pro button? uneasy apprehension.

Bradley Smith - 3/5/2008

As someone who has been accused of being an anti-Semite over the last 25 years, I find the subject interesting. I wonder if anti-Semitism is even possible. If to be an anti-Semite is to hate all Jews everywhere only because they are Jews, anti-Semitism is not possible in any real way. I know there are people who claim to be able to do that, but I don't believe them. Rather, I believe they are expressing their point of view in a way that is inadequate to the subject.

I discovered that I had suddenly become an anti-Semite when I stopped believing in the first great WMD fraud, the German gas chamber story. From then on it has been just one thing after another.

Any significant criticism of how "Jews" behave--particularly with regard to Jewish greed for Arab land in Palestine is, cut and dried, anti-Semitic. I see that specific greed (I understand the provocative nature of that word) as a problem for Jews, those who are interested, to work out among themselves.

As an American, I would want to help create an open debate on the U.S. alliance with Israel, on whether it is good or bad for Americans. I believe the alliance has been and will continue to be a catastrophe for Americans, but I don't know. An open debate is one way to move toward a rational answer.

To promote such a debate, of course, is viewed in most quarters as anti-Semitic. And there's the issue. The anti-Semite card. It's always in play here. Always. Why not? Why should those who play it stop playing it when it has been so successful for so many years?

Bradley Smith - 3/5/2008

I wonder if there are very many "historical" or any other academic studies that consider the role that Jewish behavior plays in the forwarding of "anti-Semitism?" Jewish behavior in Lebanon, say? Or in Palestine over the last six decades?

Bradley Smith - 3/5/2008

Mr. Simon:
It is a simple question. I can see by other posts you have made that you are capable of something better than a small, slanderous attack. Take a run at the question itself. There's no real danger.

omar ibrahim baker - 10/19/2007

Two things come out of this hodge- podge amalgam of sayings/episodes and attitudes amassed to document the consequential relationship between anti Zionism and anti Semitism:
1-If you happen to have said,done or reflected in a manner that is NOT blindly pro Israel, or is critical of Israel, then you are necessarily an anti Semite.
2- If you happen to have said,done or reflected in a manner that is pro Palestinian liberation from Israeli occupation , then you are necessarily anti Semite
Conclusion: the only way NOT to be an anti Semite is to support Israel unquestioningly AND to be all out anti Palestinian rights.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

This article not only has little to do with history, it also has little to do with current revelance. The crude conflating of "Anti-Zionism" with "criticism of Israel" is superceded in silliness by the more basic fallacy of assigning causal significance to a trivial correlation.

I have no doubt that a sample of American Jews could find them statistically significantly more likely than the general populace of the U.S. to be anti-Arab and anti-Moslem. One could undoubtedly find an even greater correlation between being a Bostonian and being "anti-New York Yankees."

SO WHAT?

Therefore

- if you are Jewish, you must be prejudiced against Arabs or Islam?

- if you are from Boston you must necessarily care deeply and antagonistically about one particular sports team from one particular other city?

This article has some kind of agenda behind it. I am not sure what that is, but I am quite sure it has nothing to do with understanding history or helping to solve the conflicts between Israel and the non-Jewish peoples in it, under its control, or around it.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

Mr. Friedman,

Your remarks are beside the point.

I have ALREADY looked at the Kaplan and Small article on which Muir's silliness is based. It comes to the statistically sound, albeit rather trivially obvious, conclusion that
"when an individual's criticism of Israel becomes sufficiently severe, it does become reasonable to ask whether such criticism is a mask for underlying anti-Semitism."

To reiterate, it would be astonishing were this NOT the result of an objective scientifically sound statisical survey, just as it would be highly improbable were one not able to conclude -in an analagous study- that "when an individual's unwavering and prolific devotion to Israel becomes sufficiently severe, it does become reasonable to ask whether such devotion is a mask for underlying anti-Arab or anti-Moslem views."

What K&S pointedly do NOT do is to make the fallacious leap which Muir makes in her piece here by claiming
that all of "Europe’s harsh critics of Israel are very probably the kind of old-fashioned anti-Semites who just don’t like Jews very much." This is a boneheaded fallacy.

Of course, anti-Semitism is matter of concern (to Jews especially, of course, but also to all reasonable, enlightened and concerned people of any other religion), and there is little point in your reiterating what is already obvious to both us. Making asinine and illogical wholesale accusations of anti-Semitism is, however, a highly dubious way of addressing what is indeed a serious, and probably growing, international problem.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

That criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism are both stronger in Europe than they are in North America should come as no suprise to anyone familiar with both continents. Being thusly unfamiliar and therefore accordingly suprised is, moreover, no excuse for leaping to a fallacious blanket conflation of two very different phenomena.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

You are on to something, Mr. M., but run the risk of being sidetracked. There is a deeper cowardice at work in the Lebanon conflict, and on both sides. Israeli hawks like Sharon reveled in being the bullies of the region, but were inconsistently squeamish when it came to acceptable sacrifices. Thus the recurring pitiful spectacle of trading hundreds of prisoners for just one or two, which of course, gives a tremendous incentive for the just the sort of kidnappings that touched off this whole horror show. But, Hezbollah having failed to appreciate the need of a relative wimp like Olmert to show how "tough" he is, is no justification for blowing up civilians in Israel. This whole mess only makes sense if one's goal is maximum hatred, violence and war in the region, which may not be far off from the objectives held by both the current Israeli regime and Hezbollah. The "shitty little country" is surrounded by larger even shittier ones.

Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

accepting sacrifices, not acceptable sacrifices

Terror-Free Oil Initiative - 8/16/2006

Dr. Michael Ledeen on Fox News

http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/ML081506.php - video

James Frusetta - 7/29/2006

As a guess -- rather than a professional argument -- I think you're right that there's two levels of anti-Semitism at work here, and about causes. Though I suspect the "street level" complaints are both pretty shallow, and possibly of foreign derivation. Which is fairly interesting -- did Bulgaria "import" anti-Semitism in the 1990s? (The skinhead and white power movements are clearly foreign-inspired, IMO)

Some, though, I think is also a legacy of the People's Republic. Many Buglarians worked in the Middle East and I would expect that many people feel sympahty for Muslim friends and colleagues. This may translate into anti-Zionism, and in some cases into anti-Semitism.

With a tiny fraction of Bulgaria's Jews remaining (those from Bulgaria proper survived the Holocaust but most emigrated), there's not much that would cause people to confront the issue. A friend of mine is a Bulgarian Jew, and his own interpretation has been that while he runs into shallow anti-Semitism quite a bit, he rarely sees it directed at him. The skinheads where he lives dislike the idea of Jews, but don't seem to make the connection that they should specifically dislike him.

Apparently, this is a very shallow anti-Semitism indeed!

tara ellis - 7/28/2006

I don't understand if you're anti-Zionist why you would be called Anti-Semitic. I truly feel deeply for the people who suffered during the Holocaust and have no bear no ill will towards Jews as a people.

But I do not agree with the Zionist movement. If you looked at this movement, it began around the turn of the century...and many Orthodox Jews at the time were wary towards this new movement. The major belief among Orthodox Jews is that the "Promised Land" stated in the Torah is Heaven...not a place on Earth.

john crocker - 7/27/2006

Your point was that anti-Semitism was the reason that Israel recieves what you consider disproportionate criticism.

My response points to what I think are more likely reasons for the coverage of Israel you have a problem with.

Other countries do things worse than what Israel does, but they do not share Israel's relationship with the US and Western Europe. That relationship is the reason for the heightened criticism, not anti-semitism.

N. Friedman - 7/25/2006

Peter,

You write: "Being thusly unfamiliar and therefore accordingly suprised is, moreover, no excuse for leaping to a fallacious blanket conflation of two very different phenomena."

If you are correct, the question is whether being anti-Zionist is better than or worse than being Antisemitic. Given that the destruction of Israel would result in 4 or 5 million displaced, if not dead, people while Antisemites are at present not able to harm Jews directly, it may be, at present, that anti-Zionism ia a more malign disease.

Over the long haul, however, I am sure that Antisemites will do their best to be just as bad or worse. They just need an opportunity.

Then again, I think you are wrong. I think that Antisemitism is central to understanding the differences between how Israel is portrayed in Europe versus the rest of the world - apart from Arab and Muslim dominated regions -. Hence, while the Indian press tends, overall, to be pro-Arab, it is not vicious about Israel in the manner the European press is. And, neither, so far as I know, is the Japanese press. Nor, is the Korean press or the Chinese press or the Canadian press.

Which is to say, we have a phenomena applicable primarily to Europeans. And, that ought to raise the eyebrow of anyone familiar, even a little bit, of Europe's views about Jews.

Peter Kovachev - 7/25/2006

Mr. Frusetta,

As someone who grew up in Bulgaria and returns for visits there every year, I have to agree with your observation, no matter how much it pains me. On the "street," crude antisemitic expressions are becoming the norm, and among what passes itself off as the intelligentsia, a mish-mash of old and new anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and an inexplicable "palestinianism" are becoming the norm.

I don't spend enough time in Bulgaria to figure out the reasons for this sad development. My guess is that the crude, old versions of Jew hatred appeal to the impoverished masses in the way violent soccer hooliganism does, simply because raw emotions empower, and that the intellectuals are aping the genteel, new anitisemitism of their Western European counterparts in order to be confused with sophisticated Westerners. Perhaps you have a better take on this?

Steve Broce - 7/24/2006

-*-“And please do not make this about Hezbollah missiles.”

Pleading for readers not to refer to relevant facts is a novel approach to debate here at HNN, but not one likely to be successful. Hezbollah has made their use of missiles relevant by launching over two thousand of them at Israel.

-*-“Multiple timelines from mainstream sources have shown that Hezbollah missiles were not fired until after Israel bombed Beruit.

This is utter nonsense. Hezbollah kidnapped the two soldiers, and killed three more, under the cover of massive Katyusha rocket and mortar fire on an Israeli village, Shtula, where five civilians were injured. Thus Hezbollah fired rockets into Israeli, before Israel bombed anything.

You are either massively uninformed or lying. Or both.

Furthermore, Israel cratered the Beirut airport, injuring no one, to prevent the two kidnapped soldiers from being flown out and to prevent Iranian resupply of Hezbollah. Hezbollah responded with more rockets, killing several Israelis.

-*-“When Israel is bombing parts of a nation where they are likely to kill civilian, what would you expect a militia dedicated to protecting the people of that nation to do?”

Actually, it has been well reported that Israel has routinely dropped leaflets in areas of Lebanon where theyt intend to strike, before they actually strike, giving civilians time to get out. Israel does this despite the fact that it also gives Hezbollah time to get out also.

Heard of Hezbollah dropping any leaflets, John?

Of course, I guess that is what can be expected from someone who compares the Hamas action of killing and kidnapping Israeli civilians and soldiers to a “dirty look”. May no one you care about ever receive such “dirty looks”.

As for what I expect from Hezbollah, what I would expect is that they not intertwine themselves in a cowardly and cynical attempt to gain sympathy for themselves by maximizing Lebanese civilian casualties.

Here’s a nifty link, John, concerning the latest statement from UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland, concerning Hezbollah tactics. I’ll give you a preview—He calls Hezbollah “cowardly” for blending with Lebanese civilians and causing their death.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205349,00.html

All-in all, John, I bet the Lebanese civilians would have preferred the lollipops.

N. Friedman - 7/24/2006

John,

Again, John, read what I wrote. You are responding to a point I did not make.

N. Friedman - 7/24/2006

Steve,

I do not object to your argument. I think, however, that it is not quite the case that Israel was formed on someone else's land. I think it was formed on land that had multiple claimants and that, rather interestingly, was not claimed by Palestinian Arabs on their own behalf until much later.

Steve Broce - 7/24/2006

“Question for you, is it a legitimate tactic for any one group to use force to gain their will over others?’

Actually, Israel was formed by UN mandate and as such, one could argue, is MORE legitimate than the many nations that were formed through the use of force.

E. Simon - 7/23/2006

It's your argument. You run with it. Or continue to run away from it.

James Frusetta - 7/23/2006

Ironically, as a historian I seem to live in the past: it seems the IRC admitted the MDA last month (though it will be using the Red Crystal).

Ergo, I have to edit myself to "ridiculous it took that long for the IRC to admit Israel."

James Frusetta - 7/23/2006

I've lived in Europe for ~five years, and, as others have said, I'm not surprised. I've heard things that amazed me from friends, colleagues and neighbors.

That said, what the survey seems to say (in my brief reading, and as a non social scientist but as someone in the humanities), is that the "most extreme" are often anti-Semitic. This doesn't preclude, to my mind, the fact that a great deal of criticism of Israel is driven by factors other than anti-Semitism. The report, in fact, seems to state this by suggesting that the "less extreme" critics are usually *not* anti-Semitic. (Or at least not responding as such in a survey.) And it's certainly not definitive enough to be able to leap upon a desk, point to a critic and say, "J'accuse!" While there's a statistical correlation, this does not transfer into individual correlations...

One thing the survey doesn't address, which I'd be intrigued to see, would be "new anti-Semitism." The countries I'm experienced with (in SEE) varied in terms of anti-Semitism; but the killing, expulsion or flight of the local Jewish population generally made anti-Semitism less of a force. Now, I've seen a lot of it (and much of it recent in origin) in the late 1990s and 21st century in the region; but the reasons I hear cited now are often less about domestic issues than about specific complaints (often, I add, misguided) about Israel, conspiracy theories, linkages that stress Israel and Jews = America and complains about globalization. (Plus a lingering fondness for old Arab allies during the Socialist period.) This isn't a focus of the study, but I'd be interested to see: is this the old strains of anti-Semitism that efforts can't eliminate? Something new? A mix of the two? Etc.

I live in Bulgaria, where anti-Semitism wasn't much of a mass phenomenon historically. (It existed, but to a lesser degree than in, say, Romania.) So what do we make of the fact that anti-Semitism has become fashionable over the past decade? The rise of Ataka has given the issue some international attention.

As other posters have noted, I'd be curious about how much of a "blow-back" effect there is in terms of Israeli policy and anti-Semitism. I'd also be curious about whether or not the respondant group differentiated strongly between "our [e.g., local] Jews" and "Israeli Jews." How much do the *respondants* differentiate between "Jew" and "Israeli?" To most of us here, of course, there's an obvious difference, but I'd be curious to see if there's a correlation there as well.

James Frusetta - 7/23/2006

Mmm. I say out of context because (you provide the original quote above) but you say in your own article:

"the idea of allowing Israel to join the International Red Cross and use the Star of David on its ambulances is 'disgusting.'"

This may, stipulated, be an accurate rendition of the man's feelings, but what the quote you quote says, fully, was "...Dr. Healy's campaign as a disgusting maneuver."

I don't think it's splitting hairs to say that one shouldn't be transplanting adjectives referring to something specific to something general. If he didn't say "the idea of allowing Israel to join the International Red Cross" is disgusting, why quote "disgusting" here? (Yes, he may feel it. But he didn't say >that,< the use of the quote bothers me.)

Don't get me wrong: I think it's ridiculous that the IRC refuses to admit Israel. Gentilli might well be as rabid an anti-Semite as Karl Lueger, sure, I'm willing to allow that. It's the use of quotation marks that bothers me, which smacks of "manufacturing" a quote. (I do not say that you *did* this, rather that "It can be interpreted in such fashion.")

It's an important and sensitive issue -- and so (to my mind) every "t" should be crossed, every "i" dotted, and then all of them doublechecked. :(

Charles S Young - 7/23/2006

So we have this correlation between old school anti-semitism and hostility to the Israeli nation state. Is one causing the other? That's always the tricky thing about correlations.

Muir seems to believe that classic anti-semitic is causing more hostility to Israel, as seen in this quote:

"I rather supposed that European anti-Israel sentiment had to do with other things, such as the rejection of the idea of the nation caused by equating nationalism with fascism, or a kind of radical-chic fashion for Palestinians..."

But why not the other way? Revulsion at the actions of Israeli nationalism is powering a revival of old school anti-semitism. So in this case, rather than smearing opposition to Israel as anti-semitic, instead, you have the actions of Israel poisoning the reputation of all Jews. Objectionable of course, but might not that be what the study shows?

BTW, I'm not sensing any effort by Muir to keep discussion of anti-semitism from bleeding into a blanket attack on critics of Israel. Not even a concern or acknowledgement that that occurs. But then, that's the point, right?

Randll Reese Besch - 7/23/2006

What of the red swastika used by the ambulances in the far east Asia region.I don't have adequate knowledge of its history. Such as when it was first used to if it is still used on vehicles today. Swastikas from Bangalore to Yokohama don't have the same stigma as here. Just see the use of the fasci both in USA & France symbology today.

Randll Reese Besch - 7/23/2006

Question for you,is it a legitimate tactic for any one group to use force to gain their will over others? Please I await examples for and against. From empires to city-states to tribes have engaged in such for centuries,does might make right?
Semitism isn't a prerequisite to answer.

Randll Reese Besch - 7/23/2006

With all the other countries out there like northern Somaliland and Patagonia are ignored by the arbirator ,the UN,who or whom shall be recognized officially?
I understand those in Isreal who took the reigns of control for themselves and damned all others. That is why the boundaries are still fluid on the maps. Humanity isn't ready to be simply of Earth,but I believe it is possible for everyone to have their own canton enclave like the Swiss.
I don't mind it as long as all humans get the same treatment as countries, by and large,do now. Not this global terrorism instilled fear both by small groups and whole countries using terrifing weapons of destruction.You thought the 20th was a bloody dark age,see what is shaping up now with all those purists of their religions Xian/Muslim/Hindu/Judeaic wanting and proceeding to carve out the world their way.

john crocker - 7/23/2006

I have been living in Europe for about a year now. I have read local and British press several times a week. I have not seen this one-sided criticism. In fact I have seen more balanced coverage than I saw in America. Virtually every media outlet and politician in America shows unwaiveringly one-sided support of Israel.

It is unfortunate that some of the European critics of Israel are anti-semites, but I doubt that it is any more common than anti-arab sentiment among strident Israel supporters.

john crocker - 7/23/2006

People have strong views about Israel because it is and has been since the Cold War such a pivotal part of our foreign policy and is given regular and emotional television coverage.

People in the US tend to only have particularly strong views on topics that affect them directly or are given extensive television coverage. If Sudan, Rwanda or any number of other horrific tragedies had been given the television coverage they deserved perhaps Americans would have stronger opinions about them.

This position has opened up Israel to greater criticism than the other countries you have mentioned.

I agree though that too few Americans know much at all of these other conflicts.

John Myrth - 7/23/2006

Well said Mr. Mendez

John Myrth - 7/23/2006

It is interesting that Ms Muir's writing is dripping in bias itself.

I would suggest she clean up her own act or become a "spokeswoman" instead of a respected regular at HNN.

The truth is that Israel imprisons too many Palestinians.

The game is that Palestinians try to capture some Israeli soldiers to get some of them out.

Everyone knows the rules of this game.

Israel's army was embarassed when the Hamas guys were able capture an armyman though really it has to be seen as partial failure if they had to kill two others to do so. But Olmert, who is trying to work up some toughness creds and remove the embarassment, went over the top in response.

Then Hezbollah came in like a middle schooler trying to help a kindergarten boy who is being beaten up by a high schooler for looking at him wrong.

In amazing re-enactment Hezbollah caught the Israeli military being lazy too. And then the army's rescue mission failed and got more Israeli soldiers killed.

This embarassment is the biggest reason I can see for Olmert's decision to let the neocons of his government hold sway.

How many children must be killed to wipe away this discomfiture?

And please do not make this about Hezbollah missiles. Multiple timelines from mainstream sources have shown that Hezbollah missiles were not fired until after Israel bombed Beruit.

When Israel is bombing parts of a nation where they are likely to kill civilian, what would you expect a militia dedicated to protecting the people of that nation to do?

Pass out lollipops?

Sergio Alejandro Méndez - 7/23/2006

What is "extremely harsh criticism of Israel"? Certainly saying Israel is a "shitty state" qualifies. But saying that israel dispropotionate use of force, murdering civilians and destroying civilian infraestructure in lebanon is unaceptable qualifies as "extremely harsh criticism"?

E. Simon - 7/23/2006

Blaming people for the genocidal hatred others feel for them was argued before. But I'm sure the thesis you'd like to advance in this specific case is stronger than that made in Mein Kampf, Mr. Smith.

Arnold Shcherban - 7/23/2006

As I have been repeating for years:
almost all more or less global conflicts experienced by humankind
over the most part of 20th century and now are, to a very significant extent, the direct or indirect consequences of imperialist, hegemonic policies of:
first - UK, then USA and Soviet Union, now - almost exclusively - USA.

diana muir appelbaum - 7/23/2006

Ms. Pacheco's statement

"It flew in the face of our people's beliefs. Spirituality within the Native Americans dictates that we are all connected to each other and every living and inanimate thing upon our living earth is connected to us. While most of the world might find that “charming” or “naïve,” it really is the only way to look at it."

While Ms. pacheco is entitled to conceptualize her beliefs any way she choses, this is problematic in a discussion of ethnies, nations, and peoples.

The statement: "Spirituality within the Native Americans dictates that..."

is prima facie absurd because there is no unified 'Native American'culture. Inuit have different culture and beliefs than Zuni.

Paul Mocker - 7/23/2006

Is the ideal discredited because practice varies from it, Ms. Appelbaum?

Ideals not matching actual practices? Sounds like "AmerIndians" are no different from Americans.

diana muir appelbaum - 7/22/2006

Thank you N.

diana muir appelbaum - 7/22/2006

Thank you, N.

diana muir appelbaum - 7/22/2006

One reason why I am so taken with the Kaplan and Small study is that it surprised me.

While shocked by the intensity and one-sided nature of European criticism of Israel, I was unwilling to believe that any significant number of Europeans harbored old-fashioned anti-semitic ideas like the ones the surveyed Europeans agreed with. It is so far from my experience as an American.

I rather supposed that European anti-Israel sentiment had to do with other things, such as the rejection of the idea of the nation caused by equating nationalism with fascism, or a kind of radical-chic fashion for Palestinians, or a liberation-theology style assumption that justice is axiomatically on the side of the poor. I really resisted seeing Europe's Isrel -bashers as anti-Semites. Misguided internationalists, perhaps. but not anti-Semites. Facts (methodologically-careful studies) can be very convincing.

diana muir appelbaum - 7/22/2006

The purpose of posting this brief essay was to make people aware of what I consider to be a very carefully done study.

There are several ways to refute a methodologically careful study, assering your disagreement is not among them.

1) you can find some flaw in the methodology or execution

2) you can replicate it, because if it can't be replicated it's not worth much

3) you can design an equally methodologically careful study to test a competing hypothesis, such as the hypothesis that Christians who support Israel are the true anti-Semites.

I hope that everyone interested enough to argue about this study will do the authors the courtesy of first reading it, with careful attention to the methodology.

diana muir appelbaum - 7/22/2006

I suppose Ms. Pacheco's world would be charming, utopia usually are.

What troubles me is her distorted version of history. In the real world AmerIndians behave pretty much like other mortals.

The Iroquois, for example, conquering algonquian-speaking tribes in their endless wars of expansion. Slaughtering and enslaving the conquered.

Or the Inca, moving entire peoples to distant parts of their empire much as the Assyrians did and for similar reasons: to decrease the liklihood of ethnic rebellion.

As for loving nature, I suppose all peoples do in their own way, but the extinctions caused by native Americans are well-documented in the archaeological record. I refer here not to much to the megafauna - that question is still not completely settled - but to the more recent extinctions of species on Caribbean and Hawaiian islands, and of flightless birds on the California coast. All of this, of course, like the Inca, the Iroquois and myriad other examples, occurred long before Columbus.

I see no particular reason to consider AmerIndians to have a worse record on the question of either man's inhumaninty to man or man's abuse of the natural environment than the international average, but neither do I see evidence that it was superior.

diana muir appelbaum - 7/22/2006

The use of a Red Crescent on Muslim ambulances dates to the Russo-Turkish War. It was recognized as an alternative to the Red Cross for use in the Islamic world in 1929. http://www.ifrc.org/who/emblemqa.asp

One understands, certainly, that the Red Cross symbol, which had seemed so universal to Victorians, was offensive to Muslims. And one understands that both the Red Cross and Red Crescent were similarly offensive to Jews. Which is why one of the national institutions that developed in Mandatory Palestine was known as the Magen David Adam (red Star of David,) founded 1930. http://www.ifrc.org/who/emblemqa.asp

It is only within the last few months that Israel's version of the Red Cross has been recognized by the international body and allowed to paint a sort of second-class symbol on its ambulances. Muslim countries can paint a large Red Crescent, Christian countries a large Red Cross, Jewish countries can only paint a small Magen David inside a large Red Crystal. (you can see the symbols on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross)

The issue became a particular sore point in Israel because of the well-documented use of Red Crescent ambulances in recent years to transport bombs and terrorists. http://www.israelnewsagency.com/palestinianambulancesterrorism1009.html

The Red Crescent and the Persian Red Lion were approved in 1930, but when the Magen David Adom applied for recognition in 1931 it was turned down.

Israel has been pressing for admission ever since. It might be waiting still had not Dr. Bernadine Healy become President of the American Red Cross and decided to play hardball. Dr Healy decided to withhold American dues from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies until Israel was admitted. http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20F14F7345D0C7A8CDDA80994D9404482, http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50617FE3F5E0C748CDDA80994D1494D81

This is the context of Mark Gentilli's remark. The fullest quote I can find in English is "he referred to Dr. Healy's campaign as a disgusting maneuver to coerce the IRC to accept the Red Star of David as a third symbol of the organization.'" http://www.mideasttruth.com/mda2.html The same article explains that while calling Dr. Healy's maneuver disgusting, Gentilli was calling on the Palestine Red Crescent Society to apply for immediate membership, despite the fact that contemporary Red Cross rules admit only sovereign states as members.

I do not, on reflection, believe that I took Gentilli's remarks out of context. I included Gentilli on a list of "Europe’s harsh critics of Israel" along with Ambassador Bernard, Prime Minister Zapatero, and President Chirac. It does seem harsh and far from evenhanded to demand membership in the Red Cross for the Palestinian Authority while denying it to Israel. It is the sort of intense disproportionate hostility toward Israel that, in the light of the Kaplan and Small study, does make me suspect Gentilli of disliking the Jews, not just the Jewish State.

On Zapatero, see below.

Steve Broce - 7/22/2006

N., I'm not sure we disagree on this.

What I'm attempting to show is that the attempt to de-legitimize Israel on the grounds that it was "formed from land belonging to others", which is a common attack, is a specious effort, because many nations were "formed from land belonging to others". We don't de-legitimize those nations, including our own, on those grounds.

I'm not sure how that conflicts with the point you're making.

N. Friedman - 7/22/2006

Peter,

You are correct that the article is not about history. It is an article in the social science genre. It does, however, draw on history and on how Antisemitism has played out in history. I might add that eliminationist Antisemitism did, in fact, have a close connection with anti-Zionist sentiment, the origins of the famed Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a prime example.

On the other hand, the article raises very important issues of underlying prejudice, particular regarding people who are disproportionately critical of Israel. Such people tend to use tell-tale language when discussing Israel that sounds more like the language of traditional Antisemitism than the language of International criticism.

I would read the article on which the article you criticize is based, namely http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/antisemitism/kaplan.pdf The article makes a very good case for the position it asserts. Which is to say, Jew hatred among Europeans correlates very closely with hatred of Israel. And, frankly, the average European has no imaginable reason to despise Israel any more than any other country.

This is a matter of considerable concern to Jews all over the world. Which is to say, the argument is made that the extreme version of critiques of Israeli behavior and of Israel's existence are, not so surprisingly, held very often by Antisemites to the extent that one needs to be suspicious of extreme criticism of Israel, even if it were justified.

N. Friedman - 7/22/2006

In my last comment, I should have said 2 million people killed in Sudan.

N. Friedman - 7/22/2006

Mr. Stephenson,

The issue raised concerns "strong" views, not merely critical views.

It certainly is not a surprise that people who feel compelled to voice strong views about a nation run by Jews while, for example, having had only muted criticism of, for example, Sudan's behavior from 1983 to 2000 (i.e. 2 million people, more than 100,000 people sold into slavery, food used as a war weapon and as a weapon to force people to change religion, children taken from their families and converted to another religion, etc.) or France's behavior in Algeria make their choices for a reason.

The proposition of the article is that Jew hatred is one of the reasons why Israel receives disproportiate concern and criticism. The statistical analysis done in the Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small study suggests that Jew hatred could be the main reason.

I do not understand why that should surprise you. And, I do not see why you think Ms. Muir opposes treating Israel like people treat other conflicts - e.g. the conflict over Kashmir, which has been perhaps a thousand times worse, in terms of casualties, etc., than the dispute in Israel.

What is noted is that Israel receives too much criticism and that its behavior is described with the most over-inflated rhetoric that is not applied to conflicts which make the Arab Israeli dispute seem like a minor gang war.

N. Friedman - 7/22/2006

Steve,

I do not quite accept your thesis. Israel was formed on land that was ruled, for many hundreds of years by the Ottoman Turks and, later, by Great Britain on a custodial basis - although Great Britain, no doubt, wanted to retain control. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, those we now call Palestinian Arabs were mostly people with allegeance not to "Palestine" - which, at the time, was a Jewish cause - but to Syria or to pan-Arabism.

Jews, mainly from Europe, but also from what is now Israel bought and/or owned land in the area and were as entitled to try to participate in politics of the area. Arabs in the area were entitled to seek political arrangements as well.

In any event, the parties clashed and people on both sides - although, at the time, mostly on the Arab side - were displaced. Later, Jews were displaced in very large numbers from the Arab side and, for the most part, were taken in by Israel but lived in tent cities for a very long time since Israel was very, very poor at the time.

So, the cause of the Palestinian Arab and initial Jewish refugees was the clash between the parties. And the later cause of the more extensive flow of Jewish refugees was the hostility - pogroms, riots, etc., etc. - shown by the various Arab states to their Jewish subjects most particularly because they were accused of showing sympathy toward Jews in Israel.

James Frusetta - 7/22/2006

I'm intrigued by the topic Ms. Muir raises, since as an educator in Europe I've run into the same issue -- students taking poly sci courses on the middle east at my university tend to emerge as "anti-Israeli." (Often rather rabidly so.) In my courses on things like political ideology and genocide, I'm amazed to hear them mutter cheerful quips such as "They should have let Hitler kill them all," etc. Eeeeek.

That said, I'm bothered by this article which does seem to engage in some "slight of hand." My own problem emerges from clicking on link 7, there seems to be some problems with Muir taking the quote out of contest (Gentilli said the *methods* being used were disgusting). Sure, Gentilli may be an anti-Semite -- but we're being given supposition rather than truth here. Which makes me wonder -- how far do I trust the other references here? There seems to be some contextual problems in references to the other articles, complicated by the fact that these are secondary sources.

Which is too bad, since this is a serious issue that deserves attention, and I'll be interested to read the JCR article. Good in raising the question, but again, I'm disquieted by some use of sources that seems disingenous at best. :(

michael Randolph stephenson - 7/22/2006

There can be no doubt that the Jewish people have suffered grave hardships throughout history. Anti-semitism in Europe coupled with 19th and early 20th century positivism led directly to the gates of Auchwitz. Does this mean that the world must always agree with Israeli politics? Of course not. The U.S. support for Israel has generally been unwavering and blindly so at times. The Israeli lobby holds vast power and resourses in Washington D.C. Many of its lobbyists are gentiles many of whom are evangelical Christians. Also it is important to note that not all American Jews support Israeli policies nor did they all support the Zionist theory that led to the creation of Israel. Muir's article makes it sound as though there were no positions other than supporting Zionism and Israeli policy without being a racist. This is terribly unfortunate. Clearly the Israelis have made mistakes (though the present violence I do not consider one of those mistakes). If we have no other alternative than to support Israel then perhaps it is time to re-examine our policies.

Kat A Pacheco - 7/22/2006

not a problem at all! :)

Jon Martens - 7/22/2006

"Do you support Mexico showering Los Angeles with rockets?"

Sure, but not because it was once Mexico. :b

Jim Farm - 7/22/2006

Louis Proyect wrote:

"It is interesting how defenders of Israeli brutality adopt the rhetoric of victimhood to legitimize the very real victimization of the Palestinian people. They make it sound like the Jews are a hounded and persecuted people, whereas in fact it is they who are acting like Nazis today."

Well that sort of thing has been going on for a very long time. The ancient Romans liked to think of themselves as victims too, who were under continous threat by various "barbarians." In fact the Romans were so threatened, they had to conquer most of the known world, just to protect themselves. In fact there seems to be no limit on the abilities of imperialists to convince themselves that they are really just misunderstood victims.

In the case of the Jews, as I am sure Louis is well aware, things are a bit more complicated, since after all, it was just a few decades ago when European Jewry was facing extermination. Jews, until very recent times, were indeed a hounded and persecuted people, which of course hardly justifies their doing the same thing towards others. One of the greatest tricks that Western imperialists have been able to pull off, was their willingness to "make up" for the fact of their having ignored Hitler's attempt at destroying the Jews by granting them their own state in the Middle East asa recompense. The fact that the creation of such a state would require the forced displacement of its Arab inhabitants, helped to guarantee that this state would forever be dependent on the imperialists for its continued existence.

Jim Farm - 7/21/2006

The kinds of Christian Zionists that Jeff refers to are not the only variety of anti-Semites who have supported Zionism. At various times, other varieties of anti-Semites have been convinced to support Zionism, usually because they saw the creation of a Jewish state as a good way for ridding their own countries of Jews. Thus, a century ago,Theodor Herzl was in fact able to win support for his proposal for a Jewish state from some of the leading anti-Semitic agitators in Europe including Edouard Drumont and Alphonse Daudet in France, as well as Ivan von Simonyi, who was an anti-Semitic member of the Hungarian Diet, and an enthusiastic admirer of Herzl. Herzl also attempted to cultivate support from the anti-Semitic Russian interior minister, V.K. Plehve, a move that put Herzl at odd with his Russian Jewish supporters, since this very same interior minister had presided over some of the worst pogroms in Russia.
Later on certain top Nazis including the notorious Adolf Eichmann, professed to be sympathetic towards Zionism for similar reasons as well.

Steve Broce - 7/21/2006

Roger that and a thousand humble pardons.

My mistake, Kat. :)

Kat A Pacheco - 7/21/2006

the thesis belongs to Mrs. Pacheco. ;)

Steve Broce - 7/21/2006

“The Isrealies took "their land" by force and want to keep it.”

And how did this country come by California, Randll?

Do you support Mexico showering Los Angeles with rockets?

Steve Broce - 7/21/2006

While I do not accept Mr. Pacheco’s thesis, he makes a point which I made on another thread.

For those who de-legitimize Israel because it was formed from land that was owned by others, I ask, “what other nations do you de-legitimize for that reason?”

Ultimately, many nations, including our own, were formed, or at least partially formed, from land belonging to others. Do we support terrorism upon the current occupants, by the former owners for all such countries?

Israel’s claim to nationhood is no less than valid than all the other countries that were formed from “land belonging to others”.

Kat A Pacheco - 7/21/2006

how is it anti-semitism when there are more non-jewish zionists than jewish ones?

and when a zionist starts talking about filthy arabs with no conscience, does that not make them anti-semitic?

Paul Noonan - 7/21/2006

That isn't a term of abuse for me, since I discovered what anarchism is as an undergraduate 30 years ago I've often wished that I could be an anarchist, but my experience and reason have always taught me something different.

Your post reminded me that during the Reagan years when bumperstickers reading US OUT OF EL SALVADOR were common some anarchist group decided to up the stakes, as it were, and issued bumperstickers saying US OUT OF NORTH AMERICA. I suspect most people who saw them thought it was just an odd joke.

Jeffery Ewener - 7/21/2006

I think a methodology that finds a "correspondence", even one that is "nearly perfect", between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is grotesquely flawed, unless it can say with some certainty which one is contingent upon the other. Is it that anti-Zionists are necessarily antisemitic, or is it the more reasonable case that antisemites tend to be anti-Zionist? After all, if a person doesn't like Jews, they're not likely to support Israel. That doesn't mean that someone can't disapprove of Israel while having no strong feelings either way about Jews as an ethnic group or a faith community. Such a person could even deeply admire the history, struggles, religion, ethics and theology of Jews and Judaism, even as he or she deplores the current actions of the Israeli government, and even the whole tragic and violent history of modern Zionism. Clearly, the statistical "study" cited in the article is trivial and ignores the complexity of the real world.

However, there's another group that really throws a wrinkle into these speculations -- the so-called Christian Zionists. The people usually grouped under this name are fanatical supporters of the most chauvinistic and expansionist Zionists. They support the settler colonies in the occupied territories and the most extremist of the settlers, and oppose the strategy of withdrawal as well as any suggestion of peace on terms that would stop Israel from expanding eastward right into Iraq. They are considered the most devoted non-Jewish supporters of Zionism in the western world, and they have had great influence over the Bush Administration and its policy of what-Israel-wants-Israel-gets.

And why do they feel this way? Because they believe that it is all in fulfillment of their own tortured interpretation of Biblical prophecy, and the end result of it will be the mass conversion to Christianity of millions of Israeli Jews. Those who do not convert will be annihilated in the time of Tribulation. Generally, people who believe that the Jews must convert to Christianity or be slaughtered en masse are considered antisemitic. Yet these antisemites are among Israel's most devoted supporters. I bet they'd score really high on the test for "traditional" antisemitism cited in this article too.

They are antisemitic pro-Zionists, and they support the current policies of the Israeli government because they believe this will hasten the destruction of world Jewry. And when one looks at the behaviour of the Israeli army in Lebanon and Gaza and considers how far Zionism has fallen away from, and indeed perverted, the dignity and majesty of Jewish thought, it's hard to avoid the cold & sickening impression that, in this expectation, these particular antisemites just might be right.

Charles S Young - 7/21/2006

This article finds a statistical correlation between anti-Zionism and classic anti-Semiticism.

The implication (though not entirely spelled out) is that anti-Zionism is contaminated by anti-Semitism, and therefore is unseemly, and not a garden-variety hostility to nationalism. (Like some on the left like to think.)

First, an obvious truism: it is entirely possible to oppose the actions of a state without being racist towards its people. I can oppose Italy's invasion of Ethiopia without being anti-Italian.

But the article and study it mentions try to undo this. They find that most people who oppose the invasion of Ethiopia also happen to hate Italians. Here's where the slight of hand comes in. Even if that statistical correlation is true, I don't have to be one of those people who opposes the invasion AND hates Italians. I can oppose Mussilini AND marry an Italian.

Now in an answer to this post, someone is going to write, "the article never said it's theoretically impossible to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. We just think it's very interesting that the opponents of Israel so often turn out to hate Jews."

But you see, it is patent that anti-Zionism is not organically the same as anti-semitism. So drawing attention to a misleading statistical correlation is not worth doing, not worth the time of writing an article, unless ones real agenda is guilt by association. Opponents of Israel hate Jews, therefore criticizing the IDF is anti-Semitic.

The study is a smear dressed in tails.

It's purpose is to stigmatize all criticism of Tel Aviv, but without actually saying so.

Louis Nelson Proyect - 7/21/2006

It is interesting how defenders of Israeli brutality adopt the rhetoric of victimhood to legitimize the very real victimization of the Palestinian people. They make it sound like the Jews are a hounded and persecuted people, whereas in fact it is they who are acting like Nazis today.

NY Times, July 20, 2006
United Nations
Attacks Qualify as War Crimes, Officials Say
By WARREN HOGE

UNITED NATIONS, July 19 &#151; The United Nations&#146; top human rights official
said Wednesday that the killing and maiming of civilians under attack in
Lebanon, Israel and Gaza and the West Bank could constitute war crimes.

&#147;The scale of killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control,&#148; said Louise Arbour, the high commissioner for human rights.

Ms. Arbour is a former justice of Canada&#146;s Supreme Court who, as chief
prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the
former Yugoslavia, indicted the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.

&#147;International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligations to
protect civilians during hostilities,&#146;&#146; she said. That same obligation exists, she added, in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity.

&#147;Indiscriminate shelling of cities constitutes a foreseeable and unacceptable targeting of civilians,&#148; she said in a statement released by
her Geneva office. &#147;Similarly, the bombardment of sites with alleged
innocent civilians is unjustifiable.&#148;

The Swiss-based International Red Cross, the recognized guardian of the
Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war, said Wednesday that Israel had
violated the principle of proportionality provided for in the Conventions and their protocols.

Randll Reese Besch - 7/21/2006

Its not just Jews but also Arabs that are of Semitic stock so being for Isreal or the Jews but not the various Arabic peoples, including the Palistinians,are still anti-semitic!
The Isrealies took "their land" by force and want to keep it.
The problem has been a mangled mingling of genetics and occult belief. So there are Jews out there just as anti-semitic as those Arabs with neither being Humanists. With out panhumanism one group of humans can kill another group with ease. If human life isn't equal then we get wars,slavery,torcher and extermination of whole peoples.
The Jews are surrounded by Muslims with greater population densities so they feel constrained to be exclusive. I understand.

Arnold Shcherban - 7/21/2006

One needs little insight to link
REAL anti-semitism with REAL anti-zionism. Plus, it's hardly news to any more or less experienced observer or commentator. They have to follow each other, almost by definition, and the link between them has been widely discussed through major media outlets in this country and abroad for decades.
However, what becomes much more pandemic, but being much less delivered to the mass media consumer is the fact that any attempt to somehow criticize (not mentioning -to condemn) actions of Israeli
governments is labeled by REAL Zionists, as undoubtedly anti-semitic, as if any other reasons, which so freely applied to all other human issues don't exist, as soon, as anti-Israeli one is touched.
One can sometimes account for such
voluntary interpretation by just near-
sightedness, or/and by just poor analytical abilities of the respective author. But more than often very well-experienced political
commentators and observers with well-confirmed excellent analytical skills (when it comes to other issues) make the same conclusion about practically any anti-Israeli statement, even when it comes from Jews themselves.
Then it becomes painfully clear that such accusations of anti-semitism, are nothing more than deliberate ideological and propagandist provocation that, coincidentally (and it seems, as it was intended by the accusers) creates more anti-semits than them were out there before.

Kat A Pacheco - 7/21/2006

As a Native American, I believe that mother earth belongs to us all. All inhabitants have a right to live wherever they have laid down their roots. If they're going to have a "One World Government," it should have no borders. It should have no countries. No country should have the right to exist. That said, of course I believe that the cause of all the problems in the middle east is the displacement of people who have carved out their individual lives and built their homes only to be told they are not worthy to live where they choose. I understand how that must feel.

Growing up, I learned about the plight of the American Indian. Forced relocation, forced religion, forced schooling. It flew in the face of our people's beliefs. Spirituality within the Native Americans dictates that we are all connected to each other and every living and inanimate thing upon our living earth is connected to us. While most of the world might find that “charming” or “naïve,” it really is the only way to look at it.

Not only do I not think that Israel has a right to exist, neither does any country. Very radical, I know, but in these times we must join together and face the real problems instead of creating more to distract from things that threaten our very existence beyond control of military intervention.