Importantly, many anti-Zionists use exactly the same rhetoric and wording as centuries-old anti-Semitic tracts like the Tsarist-era forgery "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Left-wingers, many of whom would like to regard themselves as intellectuals, often don't realise they are not only repeating bigotry from the 19th Century, but are parroting modern right-wing hate groups. All they are doing is substituting the word "Zionist" for "Jew," so are certainly guilty of a lack of originality (perhaps an even greater sin in academic circles?)

I hear straight-faced recitations of how "Zionists" run the Australian media. (Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer are Zionists?)

The canard currently in fashion is the one about Zionists secretly running the US government. Which Zionists are we talking about? George Bush? Donald Rumsfeld? Condoleeza Rice? Colin Powell? (hmm... maybe it's really a black conspiracy; Colin and Condi are both African-Americans, after all). Do they mean the approximately 25% of American Jews who voted for Bush in 2004? Or the American Jews who, in the lead-up to the Iraq War, were more likely than non-Jewish Americans to oppose the invasion? When I ask these questions I don't get answers.

All this might just be another set of amusing little anecdotes about the cute foibles of pseudo-intellectuals in academia, but it is connected to a real issue that requires serious discussion.

It is VERY hard to keep a clear head in the inflammatory rhetorical environment of Mid-East politics. It is increasingly difficult to carry on reasoned debate on this topic. The "Anti-Zionism" Philip Mendes refers to has become quite fashionable in intellectual circles, and has mixed with other political strains to become a truly toxic mixture.

Worst, this cant dilutes the credibility of legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy, with which many Jews agree.

W_Howard, you have told us about a couple of straw men that you say are walking around in academic/intellectual circles. And how cleverly you demolished them. Congratulations. But I wonder how you recognised them, especially as no-one you talk to appears to have seen them. I suppose its just the old canard, "If it walks like a duck....".

W_Howard, you have told us about a couple of straw men that you say are walking around in academic/intellectual circles. And how cleverly you demolished them. Congratulations. But I wonder how you recognised them, especially as no-one you talk to appears to have seen them. I suppose its just the old canard, "If it walks like a duck....".


No "straw men" necessary. These are walking talking people who made these comments to me, openly and with straight faces. Professors. Post-graduates. With names and titles.

At a recent scientific conference (not about politics, but of course the topic came up in post-symposium talk around the pub), when talking about why the US-led Coalition invaded Iraq, a colleague looked straight at me and told me it was "the Jews [who were pushing for the invasion]."

"Which Jews?" I asked. He could name none. (I could name a few, just I could name quite a few non-Jews who supported the invasion.)

"Do you know a lot of Jews?" He said he did.

"Did _they_ support the invasion of Iraq?" No, he answered.

"So where does 'the Jews' come from?" He said he "read it somewhere."

"Where did you read this?" I continued. He didn't remember.

Bear in mind this was a highly-respected scientist who, if writing a paper, would be scrupulous in documenting his citations. I've been confronted with numerous other comments like this, also from academics, whom I could and perhaps should name. But I don't think it's appropriate in the circumstances. I have witnesses to this conversations. They also have names.

Mine's Will Howard, just there's no suspicion I may be a "straw man."

The term 'anti-Semitic'seems to have been so misused that it's now only a useful hate word for vilifying opponents. 'Anti-Zionist' just doesn't have the same ring to it. Lets face it, if you want to stop debate labels such as 'anti-Semitic', 'racist', 'bigot', etc do it.

True, the term "anti-Semitism" has been misused, and Philip Mendes makes a powerful contribution in separating anti-Semitism as one expression of bigotry from other strains of political rhetoric regarding the Mideast, especially Israel/Palestine.

Similarly, terms like "Fascism," "imperialism," and "colonialism" have been overused to the point of meaninglessness.

W_Howard, perhaps this is something akin to what those 'straight-faced' academics, graduates' etc were thinking:

1. It's on record that the Jewish lobby in the US campaigned against George Bush Snr gaining a second term due to his perceived unfair pressure on Israel (how dare he make billions of dollars in loan guarantees contingent on Israel being genuine about peace with the Palestinians!!!!) Remember his remark "Well, they [Jews] don't vote for us anyway [Republicans]" Well, George Bush Jnr, for all his shortcomings, wasn't going to let that lesson pass him by. Moreover, Bush Jnr is a born again Christian and it's also a matter of public record that conservative Christians and Zionists see their interests as convergent. So Bush Jnr for both theological and electoral reasons has led what some call the most pro-Israel government in US history.

This is not canard or secret. It has been born out by the current administration's record on the Mid-East. And for your information, I don't think you have to be Jewish to be pro-Zionist or even a Zionist. There are plenty of nutter Christians who believe in the Zionist dream. I suspect Bush Snr (and so in policy terms many of his cronies) is one them.

2. As for those straight faced people who dare say Zionists were behind the Second Gulf War. Well, perhaps they weren't the only interest at hand but they were certainly up there with the most important of them. As a casual but interested follower of current affairs it seemed to me to play out as follows:

The neoconservative cabal in the White House wanted to make war on Iraq well before 9/11 (plenty of evidence for this). Afghanistan got in the way for short time but 9/11 proved too alluring a pretext for an attack on Iraq.

The initial problem was a lack of evidence, and with the CIA not coming up with the goods, another department, the Office of Special Plans (OSP) had to be created. This group, dominated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, had direct access to raw intelligence and did their own 'analysis'. However, unlike the politically unhelpful CIA, this analysis came up with all the right conclusions. Yes, there was link between Sadaam and Osama and yes Sadaam was hiding a WMD program. Of course, since it all turned out to be neoconservative fantasy, the OSP has been quietly disbanded and the blame very 'unquietly' placed at the feet of the CIA. You have to feel sorry for the 'real' US intelligence community who never went along with the charade and are now paying the price in spades.

Finally, there is the motive for the attack on Iraq. Who could honestly believe that Sadaam posed a threat to the US? Sadaam had been in power for something like 20 or 30 years, and if there's one thing he had consistently shown it was an ability to survive. But you don't have to be a genius to work out that any attack on the US would be suicide. What was he going to do - send a carrier task force to attack New York? Perhaps one of his nuclear submarines would launch an inter-continental ballistic missile from the Pacific? Oh, that's right - he didn't have a carrier task force, or nuclear submarines, or for that matter inter-continental ballistic missiles. In short, only an idiot would have thought he was a threat to the US (yes, there are lots of idiots in this world).

He was however, a threat to Israel. He had shown in the first Gulf War that he could send Scud missiles to Israel (however ineffectually) and had the temerity to support the Palestinians against the occupation. In fact, he openly called for the destruction of Israel and paid the family of each suicide bomber USD25, 000 to compensate them for Israel destroying their family home (which, as a form of collective punishment is illegal under international law; but then, let’s not start talking about Israel and international law).

So, you don't need to be Professor of International Relations to see that Israel had much to gain by the demise of Sadaam. It might have cost 100 000 Iraqi lives but hey, lets keep this in perspective, I'm sure the survival of Israel was at stake.

As for the anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist divide. Unfortunately years of semantic games means any such terms are completely without meaning. Is it a 'fence' or a 'wall'? An 'assassination' or a 'targeted killing'?

Any criticism of Israel results in shrill denunciations of anti-Semitism, and of course all anti-Zionists are really only sophisticated anti-Semites. So who gains from this obfuscation? The Israel first crowd have spent a long time trying to blur the distinction between anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, the Holocaust and the destruction of Israel, so that nowadays, anybody who criticizes Israel can be accused of anything from supporting the Nazi holocaust to backing the Arab millions which are supposedly about to bring about the destruction of Israel at any moment.

Today's SMH is a good example. Astoundingly, the article is titled "Calm Prevails as both Sides Give Peace a Chance"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Middle-East-Conflict/Calm-prevails-as-both-sides-give-peace-a-chance/2005/02/04/1107476804266.html

It then goes on to describe how two Palestinian girls, one of them just 10 years old, have been killed in the past week. Well, peace HASN'T prevailed. One side has stopped killing while the other goes on killing children. It's unbelievable. If two Israeli girls were killed all of Israel would be hysterical. They would launch a full-scale military assault on Palestinian towns and villages. Dozens of Palestinians would be killed. Yet when those killed are only Palestinian, then instead of being called child murderers, it's said there's a period of calm!!

Israel is an openly Jewish state. It's the Israelis themselves who have blurred the distinction between being Israeli/Jewishness and Zionism. Israel is not a totalitarian state where the population has little control over a government’s murderous policies. It is a democracy (if you're Jewish) and its citizens are responsible for voting in governments that carry out murderous and inhumane policies.

And to be honest I really don't care what label people give me for opposing this situation. If it makes me anti-Semitic, then I'm proudly anti-Semitic and think anybody who isn't should take a good look at their sense of morality.

SOLUTION ?

Anti zionist fundamentalists.
----------------------------
Really, none of the others matter anywhere near as much as this one.
Because they are the ones driving the agenda.
So, I'll address my comments questions to it.
They have their corresponding Ultra Zionist Orthodox Jews within Israel. Any person of today, who thinks in their wildest dreams that there will ever be resolution between these groups is truly in need of some serious reflection and dare I say it, on the Old Testament from specially Genesis 11 onward. It is totally impossible to even glimpse an appreciation of what the history of Israel means to firstly the Orthodox but also in a latecomer sense the Palestinians.
The Arabs since rise of Islam, and the associated traditions of war and great victories and expansion are all living in abject humiliation by the very existence of Israel. All of their history, and sentimental attachment are focused on this area. Even the very thought of the Dome of the Rock/Al Aksah mosque being constantly under threat due to Jewish soveriegnty would be like a running festering sore to all Muslims.

INDIGENOUS PALESTINIANS ? err.. is this referring to left over Canaanites and Philistines ? or to migrating Arabs who moved in after the exile/theft of the land by the Romans in AD70 ? If it is the descendants of the Canaanites (if there are any), well, any Jew who knows his Torah will know they were mean't to be final solutioned. That this was not carried out, was the cause of continual problems in the 'promised land'.

LEFT FUNDAMENTALISTs
The anti zionist cause certainly is most vociferiously shouted by the Left, but I'm not sure why ? Is it based on a perception of the "rich Jew" ? as opposed to the 'downtrodden Arab/palestinian' ? Why is the left not more supportive of the Jews and their plight post World WarII ? curious that. We were also deafened by the silence of the Left over the horrific treatment of Iraqis by Sadaam Hussein. Perhaps his standing as 'socialist' was a contributing factor to that silence ?

Can anyone reading this, show me an example anywhere, anytime from all recorded history, where two competing groups with similar but conflicting claims to a chunk of territory, were able to live side by side in peace ? Or, where they were able to do so without a decisive power balance which in turn would have been demonstrated by the last conflict between them ? and which will also contain the seeds of the NEXT conflict ?

THE REAL QUESTION.
I wonder how many people really think that the Radicals among the Palestinians are 'radical' simply because of some lost territory ?
I feel the problem goes MUCH deeper than that and cannot be separated from the spiritual history of the places and their significance to each group. While it is true that most of the extremists appear to arise from among the dispossessed Arabs in the refugee camps, I believe that this dispossession simply highlights and brings to the surface the other previously dormant passions. i.e. If they were allowed to return, the conflict would not dissappear. An examination of the rhetoric of these groups should prove enlightening in this regard.

Does anyone seriously suggest that because we in the west have had relative peace for just over 50 yrs, that we have suddenly achieved a level of social evolution and now are able to solve our conflicts without resorting to violence ? Once again.. 'fantasyland' comes to mind. Periods of peace of much longer have existed only to be smashed asunder by either social revolution or egomaniacal capitalistic greed.

Anti semitism will always exist while Jews remain isolated and an identifiable group within societies. It will become much louder and more visible to the degree that it is perceived that Jews are 'controlling' things. It would exist without any Israel.

Josh.
your grasp of current affairs seems beyond question. Your assumptions about morality and Israel are lacking.
All you have done, is condemn Israel. You have not condemned any Arab actions, like deliberately firing rockets from a populated area which DREW the tank fire which recently killed a number of young palestinians. Are you forgetting the propoganda war ?
Are u suggesting Israel should not exist ? You are long on analysis and short on real solution.
You describe evangelical Christians as 'nutter christians'. Perhaps you should look more closely at what lays behind such views ?
In the light of my own post above, which could be supported by umpteen references to pretty much the whole world for the whole of history, among all competing ethnic groups, I fail to see that you actually said anything. You seem to be focusing on the symptom rather than the cause. You seem surprised that Jews/Zionists in the USA would seek to influence things in favor of the survival of Israel. Well stay tuned. That is the VERY way that the Jews have survived throughout history. Going back to Queen Esther in the Old Testament.

Strange bedfellows, christian fundamentalists and zionists, but when they work so well together in promoting further violence, bloodshed and destruction in the middle east, as they do in the Bush administration, it is worth lifting the blanket to see what they are up to.

The following is an extract from Esther Kaplan's "With God on their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists trampled Science, Policy and Democracy in George W Bush's White House", The New Press 2004:

"While most American Jews and most Israelis support an independent Palestinian state and support some dismantling of Jewish settlements to achieve that end, Christian Zionists believe that all of biblical Palestine - including the West Bank - must be under Jewish control. They donate millions of dollars to projects in Jewish settlements, long recognised by American officials as obstacles to peace.."( p 29)

"Jean Hardisty is the founder of the Massachussetts-based Political Research Associates, a watchdog of the American far right, and she has long tracked conservative Christian fundamentalist thought. 'Throughout US history, conservative Christians who were evangelical or fundamentalist and have taken the word of the Bible literally, have believed that the creation of Israel was a necessity for the fulfillment of Christian prophecy,' she says. 'So its in the interest of Christians focused on the ultimate accomplishment of the Second Coming of Christ that the Jews go back to Israel, and this creates a natural affinity with Jews around the issue of Israel. But the real story is that the Jewish conquest of the land of Israel advances Christian prophecy to the moment when redemption comes. And at that moment, Jews will have converted, or they will be left out. They will not be redeemed.'" (p 27)

"The Christians' Israel Public Action Campaign claims to lobby Capitol Hill daily on behalf of 'policies that support Israel on biblical grounds', putting pressure on the House, the Senate and the White House. When Bush called for Israel to withdraw its tanks from West Bank cities after the army's reoccupation in April 2002, Falwell helped get 100,000 emails to the White House in protest. Bush silenced his criticism, and the Israeli army stayed put. That September, responding to international pressure to intervene in the escalating Israel/Palestine crisis, the United States joined Russia, Europe and the United Nations, a group known as 'the Quartet', in endorsing a road map for a peace agreement and a Palestinian state. Falwell, Robertson, and Christian right groups such as the Christian Coalition responded by turning out thousands to Washington for a Christian Support for Israel Rally to demand 'no negotiations with terrorists', 'no dismantling of Jewish communities in biblical Israel', and 'no to a Palestinian state'..." (p 28)

And mention must be made of the "Cattlemen of the Apocalypse", described as "American livestock breeders shipping herds to the Holy Land to breed the red heifer that would signal Israelis to rebuild the Temple. Of the 145 supposedly illlegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, funds from American evangelicals are said to support a third." (Kevin Phillips, "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush", Viking 2004, p 231)

Grace....continues to be amazing :)
Shock horror.."Christians actually believe the bible".. now this comes as quite a momentus thing... but mild and warm hearted sarcasm aside, Grace, a few things need to be closely analysed in what you brought for our consideration.
1/ PEACE WITH TERRITORY.. the things you quote seem to suggest that as long as Israel crawls back into his pre 6day war borders (which themselves were a result of a previous war) "all will be well" the Palestinian extremists will suddenly demote themselves to 'just passionate', and the Orthodox Jews (who for your information actually SPIT on the evangelical Christians who visit Jerusalem) will also cease their own 3000 yr old belief system about the Temple, the land etc. and all liberals and leftys will be able to pat each other on the back at having now solved probably the oldest crisis in the world.
2/ BIBLE IS WRONG.
Well this is of course a matter for personal struggle, each individual must decide if they believe that the prolific prophecies in the Old Testament which point to Jesus, let alone any future situation in the Biblical lands are true or invalid.

3/ 'CHRISTIANS ARE PROMOTING VIOLENCE'. Hmmm that's a hairy one. There is a slight difference between supporting the re-establishment of Israel and promoting violence. Please see point 1 above. I suggest, that even withOUT the support of Christians, Israel would be re-established. Grace..if u wish to see Biblical/historical precedents for this, u may refer to the Book of Esther, and Daniel among others. There has ALways been some Jewish/Israelite identity in foreign governments who has 'saved the day' for the Jews. Looking at world events, and the recent 2000 yrs, this has appeared to be lacking, but now, the re-establishment of the people in the land is showing that such a thing still prevails.

4/ Red Heiffer.
Grace.. I note you included a reference to that in one of the quotes.. do u know the significance of this ? Here is a link which may shed more light on this matter. As far as I can see, the Red Heifer HAS already been identified, 6 months ago, but it must be 3 yrs old before it can be used as per the Jewish ritual of purification.
http://www.iahushua.com/JQ/prophezi.htm
I have little idea myself as to the veracity of this information, sometimes people become overly zealous and optimistic and embellish a tad.
I do know one thing though, if the Temple is to be re-built, no force on earth will stop it. I cannot see myself from a political point of view how this would occur, but then, If I was living in 1930, I would have had the same view about the re-establishment of Israel.
If I may dabble in some serious statements for a moment. If it DOES begin it will mean the destruction of the Al Aksah mosque and Dome of the Rock, which will inevitably signal the Islamic world into a mother of all Jihads.
The thing to look for next, would be a possible Islamic VICTORY.. yes.. thats what I said, followed by the deliberate defiling of the temple, and all hell breaking loose in the world. If these things happen, the best place for one to be, would be on ones knees in humble repentance

.. and the reason for that, would be that the prophecies about Armageddon, a false prophet (probably Islam in our view) and the return of the Messiah, will be not far off. By the way, Muslims believe very much in the return of Jesus to Judge the world. (sheep and goats)

BOAZ_David,

You made some good comments about my post. I was particularly pleased you felt my sense of morality was lacking. I was pleased because, as a supporter of Israel, you support a state which is one of the worst abusers of human rights on the planet. I don't want to define my sense of morality the same way as you.

You make another good point for me. You're right I didn't condemn the Arabs for firing missiles into Israel (which drew the fire that killed the girls). The difference is, because they target civilians, we call Hamas and Co terrorists. We all know that. But what about the Israelis? How is it that probably the most well trained and effective military (man for man) in the world can constantly kill children? How could you fire a tank shell at girls and not know it was going to blow them up? How is this not targeting civilians? How can you fire a missile from a helicopter gunship into some of the most densely populated areas in the world and not be targeting civilians? When the Israelis are happy to be called terrorists then I'll judge them according to the same standards as Hams.

You mentioned the propaganda war. This was nice. Let's see. Which side has the most lobbyists of any special interest group on Capital Hill? Which side employs 6 of the top PR firms in the US? Which group is highly literate, well organized, politicized, motivated (hysterical at times) and extremely well funded? If you guessed the Israeli lobby then you'd be correct.

Which side has no money, no influence in the US and can't even employ a 'government' spokesperson who speaks English properly? Mmmm. Let me see, the Palestinians??

You write “Are u suggesting Israel should not exist? You are long on analysis and short on real solution."

Are you suggesting I'm calling for the destruction of Israel? O oh, time to break out the hysterics. The only country in the Mid-East with nuclear and biological weapons (remember Sadaam DOESNT have any) is in mortal danger (again)!!

If the truth be known, your claim that I failed to say anything is wrong, the problem is your eyes and ears are closed. And in answer to your claim that I offer no solution, I can but offer a start. When Israelis stop kidding themselves about what they are doing in the occupied territories, then perhaps they will be able to make peace with their neighbors.

JOSH
not an entrirely unexpected response :) no problem. And as far as it goes, I take your points on board humanly speeking.
My main struggle with what you said, is that you appear to be still looking at the symptom, and the 'day to day' issues, rather than at the big picture. You are saying "Israelis are well trained, well armed etc" and.."they kill children" But that sounds too much like simple propoganda mate.. it really does. Children get killed in any war, and not actually being there for each questionable incident and not knowing the facts apart from what is communicated to me via the media its a bit hard to claim "Israelis deliberately target children" Some may, its possible, others may be caught in a moment of uncertainty or fear or knee jerk reaction.
If we just respond to those incidents and attempt to lay blame, we won't get very far except in a rather circular motion.
I still remember when the Israelis stopped completely from actions, and all was quiet.. 'until' the Jihadists blew up a bus. Remember that ? Even so, I wont say 'Therefore the Palestianians are this or that' I just interpret such things in the bigger context.
You seem to be taking a liberal, leftish,humanistic approach to all this. Am I right? I'd like to know your foundation for your morality.

You seem to be neglecting where all this started. Which was around AD 70, and the Romans exiled the Jews from their land, destroyed Jerusalem and indirectly contributed to the Holocaust which would never have occurred had the Jews been left alone. The "H" in turn which gave the final sense of "We must return to our ancestral land" which brings us to the present scene.

Josh. SERIOUS question.... Do u REALLY feel that peace is acheivable based on anything other than one side dissappearing from the area ? Lets explore one scenario.
1/ Israelis give back occupied lands.
They allow Palestinians to use half of Jerusalem as their capital. Peace ? I guess its as likely as their being peace between Serbs and Kosovo Albanians. As Arab birth rates continue to rise, and population grows, do u really think they will be satisfied with just the above mentioned allocation ? Have a read of 2 Kings Chapter 6:8-33 for a historical precedent of such a move in the Old Testament. Its quite instructive about human nature.

2/ ISRAELI SIDE. Based on the above, we should examine what 'seeds' would be present in the Israeli camp, pushing in a different direction.
a) Orthodox/Religious Jews: The likelihood of sacrificing the 'Holy of Holys' to 'pagans' is something comparable to pigs flying. Remember Masada ? Jews can be rather stubborn at times.
b) Islam. One of the fundamental doctrines of this faith is "The world belongs to Allah and his apostle" If u put a) and b) together you get, to put it mildly "problems".
c) The political right. Which would view any compromise as capitulation, and an open door to an unbearable threat.

Josh. Pls refer to my post in response to Grace. But, further, it might be a good idea to gain a sense of the emotional/spiritual forces in play here, by reading both the Old Testament from Genesis 12 up to the end of II kings. Then, read up on the beginnings of Islam and its expansion. Look at Sahih Muslim , book of Jihad and various other collections. . (if u search on Sahih Muslim u will get an english translation avail)Read "Sword of Allah" about the life of "Khaled bin Al Waleed" and the battle of Yarmuk
Its not possible to understand the middle east apart from these histories.

I hope this contributes to a richer discussion of the issue.

LEGALITY OF SETTLEMENTS.

This is an interesting concept :) How 'legal' and by who's standard are OUR settlements in Australia ? aah.. welcome to the world of moral relativity. It's amazing how the White Zimbabwians talk long and hard about 'legality' of Robert Mugabe taking back the 90% of useful land from the 10% of Whites who stole it from the 80%+ of blacks when they settled.
Each time I feel like crying out about some local injustice in Melbourne, I'm forcably reminded that its not about justice, but about law and power. Where do I encounter this ? simple, -the Boys in Blue will hustle me off to jail if I disagree in action to some law made by the oligarchy to maintaim social order while they pillage the country.. okok.. a bit 'rabid' sure :) but u get the point.

Israeli settlements are illegal 'how' ? At which point in history do u want to make your reference point? Err.. lets try AD70.. or.. lets go back furhter to the invasions of the Phoenicians who became the Philistines (some of whom would have a current presence in the Palestinians of the Gaza area), Israels arch enemy.

Israeli settlements are as legal as the power which backs them up. Just like every other 'status quo' in the world which exists today.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ? oh this is a good one. By virtue of WHAT is it 'law' ? only one thing- power. The concept might be useful to give money grubbing lawyers a sense of purpose and destiny, but its interpretation would always boil down to 'vested interests'. When u see how the 'Oil for Food' scandal included funnelling payments to a company controlled by the former UN Sec Gen. Boutros Ghali.. err..c'mon :) the UN is as corrupt as any other well meaning, but impotent human organization.

JOSH..
one more for you. I dont dispute any of the issues u raised about Jewish/rightwing lobby groups etc etc..

Ok... deny and spin this as anti-whatever.

The modern day problems, that we are dealing with here and now, in the Middle East are down to one thing. The creation of a Isreal and the way in which it violently put down and displaced arabs who occuppied land that was 'promised by god' according to some unverifiable text fingered thousands of years ago, when god 'spoke' to some community leader of the time. Sheesh... padded cells and Fruedian Psychoanalysis might have solved this back in the late '40s.

The idea that anyone who critiques Isreal policy is anti-semetic is intellectual dishonesty. Like saying anyone who questions immigration policy is racist. Its just a way of avoiding the issue, twisting the logic and using shame to deflect honest contemplation.

Ok... here's a logical twister for you claimants of anti-semitism. A sizeable proportion of arabs are semites. Does that mean that critiquing Iranian policies is anti-semetic? Or that admonishing islamic terrorists, who are arabs and likely to be semites, is also anti-semitic?

You can only cry wolf so many times before you will be ignored.

Philip Mendes should be congratulated for this propaganda effort. The sterotyping of anti-Zionists and strawman arguments didn't begin until paragraph four: "The radical Left... romance with the PLO began." Romance with terrorists (which is what most people regard the PLO as) is the first slur Mendes brushes Palestinian human rights defenders with.

Of course, Mr Mendes is too clever to make it obvious that this article was just another one of his anti-Palestinian propadanda efforts, so he poses a question instead and leads us to the answer he would like us to adopt. To maintain credibility he reluctantly admits that not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic ("per se" is the term he uses), but it's clear that he wants us to think most of them are. That will no be the impression left with many and Philip Mendes knows it.

PAULx82

If u dont believe there is a place for moral value judgements in Australian social policy (as he argues in a different article) u wont see much in terms of 'right and wrong' in that conflict either.

trade215,

Further to your point about the duplicity of the word 'semite'. The 'ethnic group' of Jews in Israel which has all the wealth and power are the Ashkenazi. These are the Jews from Europe that mostly populate the West (including the loudest of them all, American Jews) and Israel.

But guess what?

They're not even semites. They're actually descended from the Khazars, a turkic tribe from the South of Russia.

So we now have the situation where non-semites accuse real semitic people (the Arabs) of being anti-semetic!!!

Only the Israeli lobby could pull this one off.

P.S. There are semetic Jews still living in Arab countries and that have migrated to Israel but my understanding is that they, with black Jews, are a minority and are disadvantaged in Israel society.

Josh. well observed.
That would not change things. The biblical concept of "Israelite" or "Jew" is one who is in covenant relationship with God. This might be those born fromt he 12 tribes, or gentiles who have entered in.
The great grandfather (BOAZ) of David was a Semite, but his wife was a MOABITE (Ruth) So, even the blood line of the royalty was mixed at that poiint. Rahab was a prostitute and a non Israelite, she is also in that same blood line.
There is one major exception to all this. Jews with the name Cohen, and Levi are the closest to the direct genetical/biological connection to the original triges and of Aaron, brother of MOses. DNA work has been done to verify this, and while it is contended (as most things are in scientific/ethnic circles) it appears on balance the Koheniem marker is real.
So, bottom line, the Ashkenazi Jews will still be 'Israelites' as much as the tribal Jews, because from the beginning it was God's purpose for the 'nations to be blessed' through Abraham.
The anti-semitic label is used clearly as a synonym for anti 'Jewish'.
Tehnically incorrect in some cases as you pointed out.

BOAZ_David,

Your world view is more than a little frightening. I complain about the number of Palestinian children being killed and you call that propaganda? If there were a couple of incidents then ok, but since the last intifada began there have been something like 600 Palestinians under the age of 18 killed by Israel. As we are constantly reminded, Israel relies on its military for its very existence. If these deaths were accidents and the Israeli military were that inept, there would be no Israel. There can be no doubt that the Israelis are more than happy to kill children.

I can also understand why you'd like me to look at the bigger picture. The Israelis are looking at a long time frame. They are willing to wear being pariahs now, if in a hundred years they have what they want. But in the meantime Israel and its proxy, the US, wreak havoc in the region and prove a menace to world peace.

Even more frightening is your use of religion. I will always respect peoples' religion, whatever I may think of their beliefs, so long as they don't harm other people. Unfortunately, I can't respect your religious views because they have proved so destructive.

Let's see. Because some guy reportedly had a vision in which God promised the Jews Israel, millions of Palestinians have been forced off land they occupied for millennia. Why did he have this vision? Perhaps the Jews wanted a homeland and didn't have one? Perhaps he was on acid or magic mushrooms? Perhaps he didn't take drugs at all but was suffering from schizophrenia (we call people who hear voices schizophrenics). There could be many reason why Abraham had this vision. But I just don't accept that because some guy thousands of years ago was on drugs (or needed them), then millions of Palestinians have to suffer now.

But you asked me a serious question,' Do u REALLY feel that peace is achievable based on anything other than one side disappearing from the area?’

This is how frightening the discourse has become. What did you have in mind, a 'final solution'?

Of course the Palestinians could live in peace with Jews. Just look at Arab Israelis. They're second class citizens but they're Israelis. Few have turned against the state that feeds them. Also the demographic argument is a furphy. Personally, I'd like to think its true; that eventually Israel will go the way of South Africa. But it's unlikely to happen. Just look at America. A handful of Jews manage to completely control the political process (in Mid-East policy terms). Even in a one state solution, the same would happen in Israel. You could give every Palestinian Israeli citizenship and they would stay second class and powerless.

You see, I think the religious stuff is fantasy. They even believe in some burning bush talking!! (like I said someone was on drugs or needed them). I don't believe it and so I could never accept Israel was founded legitimately. However, I can accept that it's a reality and not going anywhere soon. And that’s why I concentrate on the day-to-day.

Boaz, it may surprise you to learn that I actually found myself nodding in agreement with something you wrote here. It certainly surprised me, so I had to tell you about it... "Israeli settlements are as legal as the power which backs them up. Just like every other 'status quo' in the world which exists today." I had to look twice at the signature, because this sort of world-weary cynicism is so unlike you.

I still get confused at some of the battles you pick though. Mr Mendes clearly states his parameters on Semitism when he said "anti-Semitism incorporates a solely subjective stereotyping of all Jews", which I think is the context that most of us, without detailed knowledge of the tribes, understand. So to nitpick that definition is in my mind to avoid addressing the real issues, which are to do - as you earlier pointed out - with political power first, religious differences a distant fourth.

I think what has concerned me most when folk here are discussing these issues is how quickly the solution becomes based on "keep them apart, and all will be well". All sorts of weasel words and circumlocutions are used in the phrasing, but that seems to be the limit of our collective imaginations - accept that people don't get on, and separate them as quickly as possible.

Historically, this has never worked. In 1947, 8.6 million Hindus went from the newly-minted Pakistans to India, while 7.2 Muslims fled in the opposite direction - now that's voting with your feet. You might have thought that such a movement might have lessened the likelihood of future conflict, instead conflict was created. The first war over Kashmir came only a year later, and the intervening sixty years hasn't changed a thing.

Unfortunately, we so often allow wishful thinking, in the form of an intellectually-neat idealism, to guide our actions. Whatever the ill - and the later years of Britain's colonial occupation of India were indefensible in terms of governing the people in line with their Indian aspirations - we do no-one a favour by failing to evaluate whether the cure is worse than the disease.

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are both labels-of-convenience that the chattering classes will happily discuss forever. Where courage is needed, and where it is most lacking, is for those who hold the reins of power to avoid any form of categorization when conducting government. Unfortunately, we have as a society become accustomed to labelling everything - left, right, green, fascist, commie, anglican, jew, urban, suburban, country, capitalism, democracy etc. - hoping that by providing a label, we will not be required to think any further.

Where this falls apart, of course, is that for every label we have our own definition and our own prejudices - witness the dicussions on democracy elsewhere in OLO. So instead of becoming a useful shorthand, they become an additional barrier to communication.

Josh.. u first :)
"I complain about palestinian children being killed and u call that propoganda"

Mate !!! *SHAKE* I called it propoganda because (as u accused me) you neglected to mention the ISRAELI children killed in all of this. As I saw written somewhere recently "The politics of the last atrocity".. I distinctly remember a pregnant Israeli woman and some kids deliberately murdered just a while back. Have u forgotten ?
So..until u can say "children and innocent civilians on both sides are being senselessly killed" I'll regard what you say as propoganda.

I see it SO much.. as soon as there is a bomb or attack, all we hear about is "Old people, children, women" it is sooooooo predictable, (for both sides) because those are the categories of people who give the best propoganda jolt. You seem to be favoring just one side in what u present here. I may be old but I ain't a dimwit :))

INTIFADA
Now.. Josh, do u remember 'what' triggered this current intifada ?
We both know it was a visit by Mr Sharon to the Temple Mount, right ?
This shows that the point of volatility is in fact 'religious'. If he had gone for a walk around some other place, it wouldnt have meant squat.
INDEPENDANCE ? Josh, when has palestine EVER been independant ? well surprise x2 .. NEVER. The last mob to rule it b4 the British mandate were the Ottoman Turks. Do u read in history of any anti ottoman rebellion ? nope.. of course not, and the reason is the one given by Palestinians I've spoken with "The Turks were..... yep.. u got it MUSLIMS" :) I've asked them, "why not just be peaceful citizens of Israel"? they duck and weave a bit but it comes out eventually, "Jews are infidels"
DEMOGRAPHICS
http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/palestineisrael/palestineisrael.html
Jews currently make up just over half of the population of the region, but due to high birth rates, Arabs will become a clear majority within twenty years. In 2020, the region will be home to about 6.4 million Jews and 8.5 million Arabs.
Now.. given the source, this may well be an 'OVER' statement. An alternative source the Palestinian Ministry of Health, claims a different outcome. On balance one can easily conclude that it is in the interests of both sides to over and under state the reality. So we are kinda in the dark.
BUT... we can still look at human nature to see how things would pan out. I think its an undeniable observation that when resources are limited, families and ethnic groups compete. Do I really have to develop this out ? or is it plain enuf ? Bottom line, demographics DO count, and very seriously so.

ABRAHAM, MOSES, BURNING BUSHES, MAGIC MUSHROOMS AND LSD.
"I can never accept Israel was founded legitimately" hmmm Josh, u reallllly need (if u haven't) to read the Old Testament Genesis 12 to end of Judges. Then, read up on all the archeology of the period. If u can show me ANY state in that region which by your criteria (which you havent yet explained) is 'legitimate' I'll show you pigs flying :)
The only legitimizing aspect was force. U go where u can, if there are other peoples sheep eating the grass and yours are dying through the lack of it.. u either commit harri kiri or you chase the suckers off that grass and take it ! Grazing rights, Water rights, force of numbers etc.. day to day :) as you said.. those are the elements which determined who ended up where. At first they were nomadic, graduating to more settled lifestyles.
Just because u cannot accept the idea of burning bushes talking, should not prevent you from understanding how people work even without talking bushes.
So, extenting the 'purely human' understanding of how people/families/races function. Even today, the Jews returning, how is that 'less' legitimate that the Philistines of yesteryear slaughtering 1 in 3 men, enslaving their women and forcing the balance of the Jews to pay an oppressive tribute to keep them weak ?
To what 'principle' are u appealing ?

FINAL SOLUTION. pssst.. just between you and me.... The only final solution I see is the return of Christ. OK>>>>> now that secret is out :) But speaking purely in human terms.. I do recall Stalin solved the 'chechen' problem by exiling every last man and goat to Kasakstan.
As soon as they came back.. the problem came with them. So, possibly exile (just as the JEWS were exiled by the Romans) could work. Worked for the Romans. Remember, I'm using your own frame of reference here.
There is no divine mandate to the concept of human rights as expressed by the UN. (There are human rights WITH a divine mandate though)

ARABS CAN LIVE UNDER ISRAELI RULE.
See my point above about the Ottomans. Also, "small" minorities are quite docile. LARGE minorities are more vocifirous and demanding and violent.

I'll leave it at that for now. Plenty to chew on.

Pericles....
World weary ? :) and u AGREE WITH ME ? Myyy goodness. are u trying to destroy my current purpose and meaning of life ???? (disagreeing with u :)
Kidding aside, its not so much 'weary' as realistic. Its how the (natural) world has always functioned. But by now, u may have tweaked to the fact that I view history in 2 major streams.
The Carnal/natural, and Salvation History.
That probably explains why I may speak in 2 different ways. I will interpret events in terms of those 2 views depending on the context and who my reader is. But in this case, your agreement kind of supports my previous (different topic) contention about 'moral relativity' :) as Mao said. "Power comes thru the barrel of a gun".

For a very good commentary on why one would be 'world weary' if u only had unredeemed human beings to work with is found in 2 kings chapter 6. The incident of the Aramean invasion. Have a read :) seriously.. I'd love to know if u observe a classic syndrome that humanity always faces.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&chapter=6&version=31

Verses 8 to 23 (with particular note of the last sentence in v 23)
Then.. read v 24 ... u will see the classic example of human nature in regard to international relations. (The link will take you straight to the chapter)
You will also see the Old Testament precedent for Jesus saying 'If you enemy hungers.. feed him" etc.
Not a bad principle to apply to international relations eh :) (Tsunami aid ?)

BOAZ_David demonstrates why the is a Middle East problem, There are still to many Zealots who look to their holy books for a history lesson rather then reality. Very few a the fairly stories in the torah and the edited versions Qumran and old testament are true. Sure the biblical archeologist find evidence to support the torah fables but funny how the secularists don’t. In fact the actual evidence is that all these people are all the same they simply have different religions. If they stepped into the light and embraced secular world and stripped themselves of this religious mumbo jumbo then they could all live in the same country. The powers that be in both camps don't want this and the simply fact is the Jewish lobby in the US has been very successful in getting the US to veto any international move to put peace keepers in the area.

Kenny.. I detect a mild form of 'narrow mindedness' in your last post.
Mumbo Jumbo... fairy stories. Now this has allll the halmarks of objective analysis :)
Kenny.. whether you accept the Biblical accounts of various things or not, you ARE correct in suggesting that 'I' illustrate why there is a problem in the Middle East. AGREED.. I have a foundation for my life and principles that I live by. You on the other hand.. well.. do I need to say that much used phrase "make it up......".
But I'm not the problem, its the extremes on both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue.(if u want a secular understanding of it)

You need to come to grips with that reality. If u told the Palestinians OR the Religious Jews that all their religious history is mumbo jumbo and fairy tales they would probably strap YOU to the back of the next suicide bomber with the little sign attached to you "So.. u call that mumbo jumbo eh.. try THIS"

"are u trying to destroy my current purpose and meaning of life ???? (disagreeing with u :)"

Boaz, I may have deprived you of some fun, but you are certainly keeping up your end of the bargain by throwing confusion and muddle-headed wombat-isms over the fence. This flummoxed me completely:

"u may have tweaked to the fact that I view history in 2 major streams.
The Carnal/natural, and Salvation History."

So you too have a relativist view of truth? Only yours is extrinsically relative rather than intrinsically relative, right? You too "will interpret events in terms of those 2 views depending on the context and who my reader is." I suspect that you are closer to Lacan than you think.

Have a think about this excerpt below for a moment. It combines a couple of our themes - the relativity of truth, and the use of truth as a weapon. I won't tell you whose quote it is, just in case you haven't come across it before - although there are enough clues scattered about to make it simple to find.

"The important thing ...is that truth isn't outside power, or lacking in power: contrary to a myth whose history and functions would repay further study, truth isn't the reward of free spirits, the child of protracted solitude, nor the privilege of those who have succeeded in liberating themselves. Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint.... In other words, our institutions and schools of thought, our universities and charismatic leaders, our ministers our parents, our teachers, all of these collaborate to create a context in which something is established as "true." And think of truth as that which emerges only within certain sets of rules ... [f]or example, the rules of science say that we should define our concepts operationally, using specific measurement techniques. Studies of bone density, for example, must define it either as measurement of bone density of spine, the femur, the metacarpal or some other boney structure. But, since the density of these various bones is not highly correlated, different studies who use different bones will uncover "different truths." Truth emerges only within a structure of rules that control the language, the discourse. Truth presents itself as the product of discursive practices."

I'd be interested to hear from you which bits you disagree with.

P...
I'll have to work on that one. It will take me an hour to unravel all the gems from it. But at first glance I don't many bones to pick with the main ideas.

2 streams of history.

I 'believe' history is unfolding in a "Salvation" History mode. God is working out his purpose in the World, is sovereign and providential.
There is another way of comprehending history. Observing it as it is, and simply recording it without looking 'behind' the various events and personalities to some 'bigger' scheme.
If talk "only" in terms of the first one, I'll be written off as a loony :) I'd also show that my brain is well and truly loctited closed. I'm not suggestion 'relative' truth. The same truths and events can be seen in different ways. They are still true.
"The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD70" <=== historical fact
"...as Jesus prophesied" <=== salvation history.
"Christ died" <=== historical fact.
... for our sins" <=== salvation history.

Perhaps I should have used the term "2 understandings of history"

I always benefit from your criticisms. This is a good example :)

Regarding Paul's comments: I have supported a two-state solution including an independent state of Palestine alongside Israel for over 23 years. This was well before most of the Left came around to this view. Given this history, I take strong exception to being simplistically labelled as an anti-Palestinian "propagandist".

I am happy to provide a full copy of the conference paper to anyone who is interested. They can email me at Philip.Mendes@med.monash.edu.au

Philip

Phil.. I'd like to see your justification for your other paper

"There is no place for moral judgements in Australian social policy"

I'm afraid I took to that idea like a pitbull on a Chiwawa.
Were u saying 'No place for moral judgements full stop'? or only in Australian social policy ? if they exist outside social policy, why not IN it. ?
If they don't exist outside it .. why condemn the holocaust or the PLO struggle ?

Phil,

I also have some questions. I'd like to know who sponsored, organised and promoted the conference on anti-Semitism. Were the speakers paid, and if so by whom? If I missed any disclosures I'm sorry, but I think it's a bit dishonest to run these types of 'conferences' and not fully disclose these details.

I'd also like to know on what grounds it was deemed necessary. For example, has there been a spate of anti-Jewish violence?

The reason I take exception to the very existence of the conference, is that it gives oxygen to, and hence publicises a problem that largely (relative to other social problems) doesn't exist.

Could you seriously tell me a Jew walking down the street wearing a kippa is in more danger of being assaulted then a Muslim women wearing a hijab or a Muslim man sporting a full beard and Islamic robes?

Of course, we hear statistics about anti-Semitic attacks because the ever vigilant Jewish lobby keeps meticulous records and applies rather dubious definitions of an attack. It is after all, in their interest to do so. But what about other religious or ethnic groups? Do we ever hear about assaults on Aborigines? Would you really like to be a Muslim in the current climate? Muslims don't have the power to publicise their interests so they simply don't have any interests.

Before you jump to conclusions, I&#8217;m not saying anti-Semitic attacks never occur. What I am saying is that there are many pressing issues facing the world, I just believe anti-Semitism isn&#8217;t one of them.

Josh..
Christians are "attacked" every day.. the use of the term "Jesus f******g Christ" is about as low as u can go, and its like breathing to many.

PERICLES.... found it. Michel Foucault

"In other words, our institutions and schools of thought, our universities and charismatic leaders, our ministers our parents, our teachers, all of these collaborate to create a context in which something is established as "true."

With this, I can agree to a point. Culturally, the above would apply beautifully to the various tribal societies which emerge with totally different understandings of such issues as slavery, the taking of life etc. It would also apply to the concept of justice and fair trial of various countries which view differently from our approach of 'innocent till proven guilty'

Because of this, I contend that we need an 'outside' source for abiding moral truth which is applicable to ALL humanity. As per the portion of the definition/statement above, a given truth will be tugged and stretched and pulled this way and that by vested interest. All of which, when subjected to human cross examination, will be shown to be what it is. "Do not steal" ( stretched to =>except if the person is a thief themselves) kind of thing. The exception does not change the easily understood concept of 'do not steal'. We can easily know what Adultery is etc.. same kind of reasoning. But Christ showed that ALL the commandments not referring to our relation to God, are summed up in 'Do for your neighbour what you would wish them to do for you'.

It covers all of life. (It EVEN covers the idea of women and the vote:) 'would you like to have to pay taxes without a say in how they are used' ?

Interpreting this summary of the commandments assumes that 'normal' people will prefer not to be harmed in matters of their person or property, so its pretty safe.

So, in contrast to Foucault, who leaves it at 'truth is relative to our opinion leaders/shapers' (if I understand him correctly) I would say, because GOD has spoken to us on these matters, it is abiding and enduring and ultimately valid. It applies whether or not people 'believe' in God.
Romans chapter 1 suggests that all mankind is aware of this basic truth and therefore are without excuse.

I was actually looking for more info on that Foucault guy, glad u brought him up.

Boaz: I suggest you read my book Australia's Welfare Wars, University of NSW Press, for a broader discussion of my views on social policy.

Philip

Philip
let me guess. In the book I'll find 'vested interest, political spin,greed, denial, and the full gammit of human intrigue. And possibly there will be some suggestion that one side is more correct than the other ?

Personally,I rather find myself attracted to the Israelite concept of social justice. I hope that you as a Jew would include some principles based on that in your work. After all, from what I can see its where recorded 'social policy/welfare' pretty much began. I smile when I see the current world movement about 'Jubilee' (forgiveness of 3rd world debt) because it iis an Israelite concept. Social Justice was very central to the Old Testament. Do you accept your own heritage as having value for today ?

Rather than spend a whole lot of time Phil reading a book which would cost me money, I really would like to know your fundamental position, on the issue of moral judgements and values ? I think one could answer that in one sentence. Would u put yourself in the secular humanist camp or how ?

Josh: There has been an unprecedented revival of Anti-Semitism over the past five years: bombings killing dozens of people in Turkey and Morocco, numerous attacks on Jews in the street in France, Belgium, and other European cities, firebombings of synagogues, desecrations of cemeteries, and widespread expressions of verbal and rhetorical hatred associated with anti-Zionist fundamentalism. This has been documented by numerous anti-racist institutions, researchers, books etc.

To be sure, Australia remains a relative golden land for most Jews. But today nearly all Australian Jewish institutions including particularly Jewish day schools have full-time security guards.

I am frankly amazed that a political activist such as yourself is not aware of the above.

The aim of the Monash Conference was to explore whether the above reflects a revival of traditional anti-Semitism as in Jews as alleged Christ killers, well poisoners, ritual murderers, controllers of Bolshevism etc, or whether given that the latest perpetrators seem to be mainly from sections of the Arab/Muslim communities and sections of the Left as distinct from the traditional anti-Semitic far Right, it is more so a byproduct of events in the Middle East. If the latter, this would mean a possible ebb and flow according to whether Palestinians and Israelis remain trapped in a mutual dance of death, or return seriously to the negotiating table.

The conference has been discussed in a number of articles in the Australian Jewish News - see last week and also this week coming out tomorrow - go to their website www.ajn.com.au. See also the conference details on www.arts.monash.edu.au/jewish_civilisation.

Any more specific questions about Conference speakers should be directed to my personal email.

Philip

Philip.. I found a summary of your book.

~~~
Australia’s Welfare Wars questions many of the values and assumptions that underpin contemporary social welfare policies. In particular, it critically examines the neoliberal or economic rationalist ideas currently dominating the welfare debates both in Australia and internationally, and demonstrates and reaffirms the ongoing relevance of social-democratic and welfare-state ideals.
~~~

I'm glad u question the economic rationalist approach. I dont know about the welfare state ideals. "Who's" ideals ? I don't know why this is such a tough area for governments. Israelite social policy was 'work for the dole' The farmers were expected to leave an amount of the harvest for the poor.. who then had to go and COLLECT it themselves.. quite a good example of mutual obligation I'd say.

Social democratic ideals are something I support totally. I fail to see why we cannot have a good public health system and why the State would abdicate its responsibilties for prisons and the such like.

PHil.... I can't leave your last post alone :)

"Traditional Christ Killers" ???

The degree to which Jews are "blamed" for the death of Christ, is the degree to which any person suggesting such (even the Catholic Church at one stage) is OFF the mark. Evangelical Christians fully understand the biblical teaching that it was SIN which killed Jesus, all of our sin, Christ came "to give His life as a ransom for many"... no one took His life from Him, he freely gave it up. From the moment that Peter understood "You are the Christ" the very next thing in the gospels is:
Mark 8.31
31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Note the word 'MUST'. It matters not that they were Jews who did this, it was mean't to be. Christs death, was our Salvation.
So please don't think of Christians as being 'anti semitic' because of the death of Jesus

Phil,

Thanks for your reply.

I guess its going to be hard for us to see common ground on this. You made quite an impressive list of the attacks on Jews and the Jewish community. The problem is I've heard them all many times over the years. In fact, for as long as I can remember I've heard the shrill cries and read the headlines about anti-Semitism being on the rise. They may even be right but it's hard to take it as objective truth when it all comes from a self-interested lobby group.

And while I hear much about attacks on Jews I hear very little about attacks on Arabs and Palestinians by Jews. I don't hear about the litany of abuses perpetrated by the state of Israel. Did the conference mention Israel's human rights record?

The juxtaposition of traditional anti-Semitism with modern Israeli policies was absurd and disingenuous. In view of Israel's brutal occupation and manipulation of the US in terms of Mid-East policy, if you really think any rise in anti-Semitism is about a perception of 'well poisoners and ritual murders', well, then....

I also noticed you did the same thing in your coining of the term 'anti-Zionist fundamentalists'. This too is disingenuous. You take a completely legitimate position, anti-Zionist, and then use the same term with the additional word 'fundamentalist' to mark an illegitimate position. Hence you have very neatly linked anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. This isn't fair. What you are really describing is an anti-Semite. Anyone who is anti-Semitic is also (surely) anti-Zionist. The reverse is not true and so there is no need to link them in any way. Hence, I feel the new term is unwarranted.

I guess my biggest concern about these conferences is they continue to portray Jews as powerless victims. When of course the opposite is true. Jews are really one of the wealthiest, well connected and powerful minorities in Australia (and throughout the Western world).

I think we need to move on.

Well said radical Phil. Everyday I drive past a jewish school at Pymble. Every time the school bus is driven, it is checked for bombs.
Please Josh, tell me the last time this occurred in a muslim school in Australia.
Yeah, we're just 'imagining' the rise of antisemitism.
The Sayeret Matkayal. The special gentlemen. The tip of the IDF spear.

Sayaret
I'd be interested in your view of inherited wealth which is derived from the Trafficing of Drugs on a huge national scale. As scale which would make Antonium Mochbal in Melbourne look like chicken feed.Said inherited wealth is quite possibly funding some of those children in those schools right now. With backgrounds like that I would not in the slightest be surprised that some chinese person who has a penchant for history and maybe a Grandpa who died of opium related illness put a bomb under such a bus. Let alone some palestinian.

U know what ? from what I can see, there are people in Sydney who are quite possibly connected to this very thing.
Opium trade in China. I feel the Chinese should take these people to task about 'crimes against humanity' and seek MEGA compensation for drug re-habilitation to repair the social damage caused by this 'legal'trade. (i.e. legal.. with British gunboats sitting off the coast)

Can u guess who I'm speaking about ?

Once upon a time…a fable

Once upon a time Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas, and their respective advisers, sat down at the same table with each other. They discussed Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, ending violence, the status of Jerusalem, the setting up of a proper Palestinian state alongside Israel, racist and religious incitement, compensation based on justice, and other matters which I am not at liberty to divulge.

The two teams came out of the conference room smiling and with a workable plan in their hands, but this infuriated some on both sides who wanted to keep on fighting. The word “betrayal” was heard in both Hebrew and Arabic – as well as in many other languages once the news got out.

But look what else happened.

Most Israelis and Palestinians, tired of the bloodshed, gave a sigh of relief. The rest of the world sighed with them.

Those Jews in the Diaspora who until now had said they were unhappy with the way the Israeli government went about things were no longer told by other Jews that they hated themselves for being Jewish, that they were naive traitors and that they were vipers in the bosom of their own people. Perhaps they felt more relieved than anyone.

Quite suddenly, Palestinians and Arabs generally were no longer seen by Jews as treacherous, cruel and warlike, and Jews were no longer seen by Arabs as arrogant, thinskinned, brutal and devious. Each side still saw the other as Enemies of God, but somehow this did not seem to matter so much now.

The supporters of one side or the other were relieved of the wearying task of defending the indefensible, and everyone lived happily ever after.

Stefan
I'm not sure whether to see hyper sarcasm in your post or not :)
The thing I noted out of all that handshaking and smiling of Sharon and Abbass, was that they didnt actually agree to anything except to stop fighting. Then.. out in the wings I heard Islamic Jihad muttering about "But when they get to serious issues like Jerusalem....." etc.. so.. we all know where this 'peace' is going to lead. With Jihad and Orthodox at absolute and eternally separate poles, our best hope is the 2nd coming :)

Josh: I am a pretty sceptical guy. The material I cite on rising Anti-Semitism is almost exclusively from non-Jewish and non-conservative sources.

All ethnic groups and minorities have some self-interest in what they argue. This is just as true for Arab or Palestinian communities, Greek/Turkish, Serbian/Croatian - whatever you want to name. The Jews are no better or worse on this.

You call Jews a powerful and influential group. Most Jews see themselves as historically oppressed victims. The current reality is somewhere in between as we note in our new book, Jews and Australian Politics. I would have thought anyone on the Left would understand only 60 years after the Holocaust that talking about "Jewish power" in less than careful terms and context is only playing into the hands of the far Right.

Philip

What a bleak vision, Boaz, you can only see eternal bloodshed between people, and you cannot see the possibility of peace. Sure, it is unlikely to be forever, but that is our human endeavour, to keep on trying to make a better world. Its all in the journey Boaz. And for the sake of our children, most of us are not prepared to down tools and wait for the second coming...

I wonder if our Josh is the same guy who is advertised in Green Left Weekly as organizing protests against the forthcoming visit of the Israeli President Moshe Katzav.

As an aside, for those who think our Monash Conference was part of some sort of right-wing Zionist conspiracy, think again. One wag has provided strong "evidence" that it was allegedly a plot by "left-wing academics". See below

From: michael burd mburd@bigpond.net.au
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:35:26 +1100
Subject: Was the Anti Semitism Conference Hijacked by the Left?
To: Undisclosed-Recipient


When some people {including International speakers } questioned why
were there were so many speakers at the Anti Semitism conference that were so " anti Zionist "and so unsympathetic to the struggle of the Jews in Israeli it was argued that we must hear all sides and the left and anti Zionists have a right to their views.{regardless if the "anti Semitism conference "was the correct venue for these type of Views to be heard ]

I expect that these same people will have "no objection" to opposing views
and would "encourage "others like my self to also have the same privilege.
{Perhaps a group should be formed called "Jews against Anti Zionist Jews" to offset 'Jews against the occupation" Jews for peace" and AJDS and all the
other "obscure" Jewish groups who align them selves to some of the most
virulent anti Israel organizations in Australia.

In reponse to some people that didn’t attend the conference and
asked what I thought about it..As a supporter of the anti-Semitism conference being held at Monash University Sunday 6 and Monday 7 th I was bitterly disappointed in the" make up" of speakers for this important international conference. I was certainly not expecting so many left wing anti Israel speakers {I was certainly not the only one with that concern including some of the International speakers!}

How ever when I discovered the speakers were selected by "left wing
Jewish Academics ''I could under stand why there were so many left
wing anti Zionist both Jew and none Jews invited. Speakers included self confessed Jewish Anti Zionist Jack Glanz {S 11 fame}, Ian Cohen MP of the" Greens" who described Israel as a "Bully" and stole water from the Palestinians and told us stories about his Palestinian fellow MP,s one of them who claims the IDF killed his sister, stories about how he was in Israel 25 years ago and his mail was opened and all sorts of scary stories about those ugly Israelis. Obviously Mr Cohen had a bad meal in a Tel Aviv cafe 25 years ago and decided to join an anti Israel party and get even![ I Note his foreign affairs spokes man according to today's Australian is
demanding the Government come clean on the Israeli spy affair the
Greens wish to make mileage out of more anti Israel press] That's all
the greens have to worry about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then there was Vivienne Porzsolt {Jews against Occupation} you know
she's the one right now canvassing funds for full pages adds in
the Age and SMH to coincide with the visiting Israeli president next
week to tell Australians how Israel is inhumane ,and the wall doesn't
save lives and the usual anti Israel pro Palestinian stuff just like
that the other anti Israel obscure group affiliated with JCCV normally
come out with OH Vivienne told her audience that Jews were paranoid and Anti Semitism was exaggerated..I.m Surprised the Age didn’t pick up on that they would have loved it....When I approached her to ask her if she
reached her target of $24000 needed to place the two adds in the Age
and SMH she was busy talking to Sol Salbe {editor of Australian Jewish
Democratic society, affiliated with JCCV}{.I guess to them I am
considered the enemy!}

Salbe immediately told me to go away I guess they were both
busy discussing strategy of how to embarrass the visiting Israeli president next week Salbe was in charge of letting those in the Islamic community know that the President was coming { salbe sends out email alerts of visiting Israelis and Jews } in his email he also recommends his followers to
make banners with the words.". Katzav the Butcher""

There were speakers from Socialist Alliance{according to their web
site newspaper Green left weekly they are supported by John Pilger}
advocates of the Muslim community and alledged terrorist and self
confessed anti Semite David Hicks as well as supporters of the
Palestinians. There were ALP MPs..and other assorted anti
Zionists...

{yes this was a anti Semitism conference!}..Representatives of the
Print media were there Age, Herald Sun and SMH. Of course when
asked about their one sided coverage of the Middle east they all said
"who me"" bias never!!! No Andrew Bolt wasn’t there surprise
surprise!!

{ you know there is no media bias, there are no terrorists and
according to Vivienne Porzsolt no anti Semitism..I should have played
golf on Sunday as according some of the speakers there are no problems
at all}

Luckily the International Speakers { who I guess may not have
been invited by our academic Friends } were the High light..
Itamar Marcus from Palestinian media watch was fantastic..
Daniel Pipes was his usual self no holding back tells it as
it is { not scared to offend ,like all others] Dina Porat from Israel was great.. Stanley Waterman {Uk ] confirmed what I thought UK anti Semitism is definitely "underrated" and I believe on a par with France{Only they are much cleverer in hiding it} and Locally Jeremy Jones was very good as usual..

On the last day even after what Itamar Marcus Daniel Pipes ,Dina
Porat and others told us of the hatred and dangers going on in the Palestinian and Arab world and the trouble Muslims are making for Jews world wide ,Our Mark Baker suggested we Jews look at our inner selves
look after refugees and the threats to Jews will all go away.
Thank g-D Nina Bassat had the last say and told Mark Baker to get
real! Colin Rubenstein summed it up and suggested the conference had been hijacked by the left!!!

In my humble opinion I fear many non Jews and the Media would
have walked away totally confused!!

Phil.....quite well put.

2 comments.

Firstly, with regard to the conference, the various antagonistic factions, sound more like the Zealots and the Priestly party who were fighting each other in Jerusalem right up to the moment when the Roman Battering Rams hit the gates in AD70.(Reported by Flavius Josephus ) Certainly not good for Jewish Unity.

Secondly. On the issue of Jewish Influence which came up in some of the posts. I find it a little worrying that of the Victorian Federal Court Judges, some 6 or more of the Judges are Jewish, out of something like 12 all up. It sounds just a bit like over-representation, and if an issue of importance Jewish interest came before the court, one wonders if impartiality could or would be guaranteed. Recent evidence in VCAT suggests that Judges are more prone to do what their political masters (or friends) bid, than interpret the Law as it stands.
But then, we all know that Jewish people are above such things .. right ? (in contrast to every other group on the planet)

When reading debates on Middle East problems I've become weary of the highly developed hysteria presented by Israeli apologists.

My patience with these people has worn thin. I was an ardent supporter of Israel but when I saw that they weren’t returning land captured in 1967 I was quite disappointed. It was then that I started to listen to other's viewpoints. I’ve discovered that Jews have a highly organized propaganda machine. They have considerable influence in the media and the motion picture industry to gain public sypmpathy by ensuring that the history of their persecution is well known throughout the world while glossing over the fact that Palestinians are being persecuted too.

When I see a pro Israeli article I look to see if it’s been submitted by a person with a Jewish name and if this is the case I ignore it. David Boaz is an example of Jewish apologist who cannot see anything but good in Israel’s policies and evil in what Palestine does.

His twenty two posts of the forty seven total are an example of the zeal that Jews demonstrate in spreading their bigoted views to justify Israel’s appalling human rights record and other illegal activities. People like him, through their bigotry have caused many non Jewish people to lose their sympathy for Israel. I wish for peace in the middle-east but I no longer have any sympathy for Israelis when they are killed. My sympathy is for the far greater number of dead Palestinians.

Sandgroper !
did u actually read my last post ?????? I'm critical of the Holywood situation and also of other issues that u may be filtering out in your apparent desire to 'categorize' me.
Did you by any chance note my post about 'Inherited wealth and the opium trade '??? do u have any clue who I was referring to ????

I am fully aware of the issues you raised. And just in case u didn't know I'm NOT Jewish. My heritage is Scottish English.
My support for Israel is not an easy one for a non Christian to understand. Let me make a few points.
1/ I don't get any joy out of people being hurt.
2/ Israel's existence by 'nature' will mean a warlike atmosphere in that area.
3/ The borders you refer to .. WHY should they return any such land lost in a war which was waged AGAINST them ?????
4/ Did u see my 'bleak' post (refer Graces criticism) about why I don't believe peace will come ?
5/ Did u note my comment in that same post about a possible ARAB victory ? (if the Temple is rebuilt)
6/ The return of Israel is something I see as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. (big picture understanding)So no matter how u regard that, its where I stand.
7/ Given 6 and 3 above, I believe the nation of Israel has the right to defend itself and its existence from those who would quite happily fill the Jordan with every drop of Jewish blood.

There is nothing more special about Jews than Arabs, God did not 'choose' the Jews because they were goodie goodies, He chose them to fulfill His purpose of redemption. Thru them the Messiah came

GRACE....
My 'bleak' post.
I don't mean to sound like a pessimist Grace, in fact I'm the opposite. But as I said, my ulitimate optimism is with the coming of the Lord. Its difficult for me to think otherwise, after all, I have feathers, webbed feet and a bill, so..I quack :)

Grace I think you REALLY need to have a good read of the Old Testament. Genesis 11 to end of 2nd Chronicles. And if u can zip over to some country where the culture is similar while u read, u might get a tiny grasp of the way those events have shaped the mind of today's Jews.

Apart from such an understanding of their self perception and how this goes to the very core of their being, its not easy to enter into their mindset.
The same goes for Arabs. The rise of Islam and how that effects their mindset. One needs to read the biography of Mohammed, the 'Companions' etc..
I chat with Jews quite a bit, and with Arabs too, (irc) and I'm always trying to broaden my understanding of this area and its people.
Of all places on earth, reconciling the Arab and Israeli view of Jerusalem (alone) would be the single most impossible task facing humanity. This is most acute in regard to the Temple mount. Ehud Barak tried to persuade the Arabs that the Jews could control UNDER the mosque, and the Arabs the surface. Arafat disagreed because he felt they would undermine the Dome of the Rock and Al Aksah mosque etc. Amazing eh.. a little chunk of land as big as the Westgate maybe.. and it determines so much of the worlds thinking. (hence my suggestion about reading)
I'm optimistic about Aboriginal reconciliation in Australia and many other things where we actually have a chance to fix things. Jerusalem is unfixable in human terms.
Journey. I'm one of those pathetically weak humans who 'needs a crutch' :) I enjoy the journey, doing things along the way to make it more stimulating and thrilling, but I prefer to know that map is reliable.

Sandgroper.

3 three years after they shut down the last oven in Auchwitz. Your Middle Eastern pin up boys invaded this UN CREATION.
What part of "Lest We Forget" are you unfamilliar with. The reason Israel has never shed an ounce of the Occupied Territories rests with the OFTEN REPORTED BUT CONVENIENTLY IGNORED policy of refusing to recognise Israel right to exist.

Sandgroper. I'd be interested to here your view on Native Title in Australia. Remember, the Al Asqa Mosque is built on the remains of the Temple of Jerusalem.
You can't support Native Title legislation in Oz & be pro Palestinian, and Vice Versa...

Sayaret
have u heard anything about the Red Heifer ? I found some info on some sites suggesting it has been identified and within a couple of years it can be determined if it can be used to 'purify' the temple area, paving the way to re-building it.

Boaz, according to your beliefs "Jerusalem is unfixable in human terms". You say that any moves to find peace in the middle east are a complete waste of time, and that we must all sit still and wait for the "second coming". Meanwhile the massacre of the innocents continues.

Your view is in accordance with christian fundamentalists in the USA, who have become a very powerful force in the Bush administration's foreign policy, and who believe that that the zionist cause is god's work in Israel, as it represents the working out of some mystical biblical prophecy. The zionist's cause is the complete destruction of any palestinian claims to settlement in their homeland, by force and bloodshed, because this might interfere with the rebuilding of the temple.

Apparently, any movement toward peace in the middle east is against the wishes of your god and the second coming, and the god of the zionists who wants to build a temple, not to mention the god of the muslim fundamentalists who wants to build a mosque in the same place. What a really stupid bunch of gods.

What is interesting is the political link between the zionists and the christian fundamentalists in the USA and increasingly here in Australia, if your posts are anything to go by Boaz.

Zionists must be well aware that after the christian "end times", when the jewish temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem, then your god will save all the christians and leave all the jews to rot in hell (not to mention the rest of us). I repeat an extract from an earlier posting of mine:

"Throughout US history, conservative Christians who were evangelical or fundamentalist and have taken the word of the Bible literally, have believed that the creation of Israel was a necessity for the fulfillment of Christian prophecy. So its in the interest of Christians focused on the ultimate accomplishment of the Second Coming of Christ that the Jews go back to Israel, and this creates a natural affinity with Jews around the issue of Israel. But the real story is that the Jewish conquest of the land of Israel advances Christian prophecy to the moment when redemption comes. And at that moment, Jews will have converted, or they will be left out. They will not be redeemed." (Esther Kaplan's "With God on their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists trampled Science, Policy and Democracy in George W Bush's White House", The New Press 2004).

This is an extraordinary marriage of convenience, where the zionists appear to be getting the raw end of the pineapple from you christians, in the longer term. It suggests that there is another agenda being worked out here.

That is, the Bush administration is pursuing its real foreign policy objective, which is to control middle east oil reserves with the support of Israel, armed to the teeth by american arms profiteers. As pay back from the Bush administration, the zionists are encouraged to go on killing the palestinians in pursuit of their own religious prophecies about the rebuilding of the temple, so long as they assist in securing american access to the oil fields.

Meanwhile, the christian fundamentalists muster massive electoral support for the Bush administration in its support for Israel and the zionists because this accords with their religious prophecies about the second coming, when the jews will get it in the neck after the temple is built in Jerusalem.

And the massacre of the innocents continues as american military bases continue to proliferate around the major oil reserves in the middle east.

The palestinians are fighting a political war of survival that has less to do with religion than with the rotten colonial deal they got in relation to their historical homeland. But the palestinians can whistle dixie because this does not accord with the Bush administration support for Israel in pursuit of its own geopolitical agenda.

And saudis like Osama are not only religious fundamentalists, they have very clear political objections to american control of the oil fields in the middle east. Hence 9/11 and the flood of muslim fundamentalists into Iraq and Iran in opposition to the american occupation in Iraq and war-mongering in Iran.

And let's not talk about the personal and very profitable connections between the saudis, the bin ladens and the Bush family and business cronies in the energy industries.

Through this tangled web of deceit and lies, of blind relgious fanaticism and the murder of innocents, there is looming another complication. Oil supplies are declining, global warming continues apace, and we are facing global catastrophe unless we can wean ourselves off oil dependency. Perhaps this is the real road to peace in the middle east.

In other words, to (mis)quote the political maxim, its not the temple, stupid, its the oil.

Grace !!!
well done :) man.. u could sit an exam with that.
Now.. ur gonna accuse me of simply 'agreeing with you to slip in those bible verses eh '...
But seriously speaking. Your little essay encompassed quite a bit of truth, and a lot of almost truth (not suggesting u misrepresented, just that the views you expressed are incomplete in some areas and include some 'close but no cigar' implications of the various factions and belief systems at work).
Its difficult to tackle it all, because u said so much.
I'll try to do justice to it though.

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS.
.. are a mixed breed. Pre Millenialists, Post Millenialists, PAN millenialists (It'll all pan out ok in the end) Pre Tribulation Rapturists, Post trib rapture ..etc.
Then u have the Fred Phelps's (who's expression of the faith I find rather questionable to be kind) and all manner of diverse groups.
While they will not differ on the 'Christ died for our sins' fundamental, they often differ on 'last days' issues.

OIL or TEMPLE
U mentioned many competing and conflicting forces and interests in there. So, its better to represent the situation as being a combination of them rather than one or the other. The correct degree of emphasis or weight placed on each one, would require considerable study and research. I'll freely concede that control (at worst) and 'continued access' (at best) would be high on the list of priorities of ANY US administration. (as such things have always been high on the agenda of every 'empire') I'd even concede that there would be those among said administration who would capitalize on the Christian prophetic view as far as it assisted them in fulfilling those goals and conversely so. I should point out though, that administrations are not monolithic, and would include Christians who do not share the particular eschatological view which sees the restoration of Israel as crucial to the 2nd coming. Another point, is that anyone who knows his/her bible and the way God works, will know that we cannot hasten or hinder Gods outworking. Reminder of what Jesus said "If they did not speak, even the rocks would cry out" on his entry to Jerusalem.

ANY MOVE TOWARD PEACE IS AGAINST GOD. (?)
Now, I can't agree with this. Its not what we are saying. We are saying that 'they' will not achieve peace, by their own stubborn self will. We are explaining it in terms of both human nature and religious history. By all means... lets seek peace, lets give it a good shot... see IF it is possible for them to live together in a 2 State solution. My position is that it won't work. Not that I don't WANT it to work, but if it does.. all power to them. It would still not make any difference to the return of Christ.

I point to the red heifer issue as one possible 'fly in the ointment' which would certainly bring on serious disruption, and only time will tell if this direction is persued by the religious right among the Jews.

JEWS WILL GET IT IN THE NECK......
Paul said "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel." (Romans 9:1 ff)

We also share that view. No one wants Jews to 'get it in the neck'.
Bear in mind, please, Paul.. the author of this letter, only needed to deny his own conversion and all would be well. He could go back to the high position of respect and power he previously occupied as a Hebrew of the Hebrews, so.. what stopped him ? (goto ur room and think about this :) Instead, he chose to proclaim Christ, which almost cost him his life on numerous occasions, including being stoned at Lystra. (Perhaps one of those rocks dislodged some grey matter and turned him into a loony ?)

STUPID GODS
It's mine.. NO.. ITS MINE... no no no..its MINE MINE MINE. Well.. I don't quite see the issue of the Temple mount like that but your welcome to. One could say that about any competing religious systems I suppose. But we should take care to understand the issue in better than infantile ways :)

CONCLUSION. Try not to bite off the WHOLE elephant in one mouthfull, its easier if we eat him one mouthful at a time.

No Boaz, I prefer clear eyes, the big picture, and far horizons. And I like elephants, I don't want to eat them bit by bit...

Sayeret,

I haven't heard about any Jewish school in Australia being actually bombed.

Unless you can tell me of an actual example and how that means other Jewish schools are in danger (i.e. an active terrorist organisation in Australia with the intent and capability to attack), I won't see the need for security guards in Jewish schools.

Rather, I see the use of security guards in light of the continuing myth that Jews are targets and hence victims. Being victims is very useful to the Jewish cause because victims are usually seen as powerless. And that is how Jews would like to be seen. In reality the obverse is true. Jews are well educated, organised, politicised, and wealthy. They know how the levers of power work in this country and they're not afraid to use them.

Also, I haven't means to say that anti-Semitism doesn't exist at all, but that the reponse is out of proportion to the threat and that the threat is manipulated for political purposes.

Phil,

You'll be relieved to know I'm not the Green Left guy. In fact I can assure you I'm not a member of any left wing organisation. When I hear unions come out with loony ideas like today's 'women should have menstrual leave'(SMH) rubbish then I'm relieved I'm not even a union member.

Your second post heartened me but I can't say the same about your first.

You're right that all minority groups have some self-interest at heart. But where Jews differ is that their self-interest destabilises an entire region. Look at the US's latest ramblings on Iran's nuclear program. Iran could not possibly be a threat to the US. However as with Iraq, it is a threat to Israel. So Israel, as the only possor of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the region (and also a proven track record of attacking its neighbours) is allowed to keep them while Iran is being persecuted.

Talking about persecution; historically Jews WERE persecuted but that in no way excuses their persecuting another people now.

It was also very disappointing to hear you link discussion of Jewish power 'only 60 years after the holocaust' as playing to far right. I thought this thread has been exemplary because no one resorted to that accusation of last resort. Linking any discussion of Jewish power today to the holocaust and far right groups should be seen for what it is - a dishonest attempt to close down any discussion about Jewish power.

Having said that, I would have to return to your previous point about the Jewish lobby having some self interest at heart just like other lobbies. The Jewish lobby isn't just like another lobby because other lobbies aren't nearly as powerful. They haven't been in violation of UN resolutions for decades. They aren't able to disregard world opinion because they don't have control of US policy in their sphere of influence. In short Jewish power matters; Serbian power doesn't exist.

Moving on to your second post. It did give me heart to read that anti-Zionist views were heard. As Michael Burd seems to suggest, I also assumed it would be seen as the wrong forum for opposing views, which would of course mean there would be no forum, and no opposing views. It seems he was looking for a propaganda fest and didn't get one. You are to be congratulated.

Josh...
track record of attacking its neighbours ?????????
U just about lost any credibility right there.
Under WHAT circumstances did Israel attack Egypt and Syria and Jordan ?

Here's a small part of Israel's track record of attacking its neighbours

Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997

Sandgroper.
You appear to have picked out an instance which suited your purpose.
What u didn't do is give the bigger context.

http://www.ok.org/homemaker/pesach60/golan.html
"The Golan is a relatively small piece of land, but it is vital to Israel´s security. From 1948 until 1967, Syrian shells terrorized the Galilean valley below the Heights."

Now.. you could examine each 'incident' in an attempt to demonstrate "israeli culpability" and there would in each case be the 'other side of the coin' demonstrating the fuller picture.

The simple fact is, the Arab nations have less than zero interest in the existence of Israel, and accept it ONLY due to a power balance.
The Israeli's are aware of this, and you should be also. I fail to see why you would allow yourself to be influenced to become 'pro' or 'con' on the basis of a few isolated specific incidents.

But I suppose you hate yourself also, for the inherited guilt you SHOULD be feeling about the land you are living on which was taken by the same 'greed' from our Aboriginals by 'you and me' (in our ancestors) and if not by our own ancestors, we would easily find some connection with other ancestors who had been involved in similar things, it would just be a matter of looking.

You are trying to separate yourself from the stream of history of which you are an integral part, and attempting to place yourself on some artificial high moral ground that simply does not, by your own presuppositions about life, exist.

Personally, I feel we have to recognize that Israel will do whatever it takes to ensure its security, as will the Arabs. You should not see this in terms of 'moral right/wrong' but rather as survival.
(though, if you refer to God, I would accept a validity of right and wrong, otherwise its meaningless)

I would not assess Israel in any other terms than this. Same for the Palestinians/Arabs. My support for Israel is not support for any act of cruelty or killing. It is support for the 'existence' of Israel.
If it were possible for Israel to exist without any of the sad examples of human cruelty, I would be most happy.

When you condemn Israel you also condemn yourself or your ancestors.

1“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7)

BOAZ,

You answer to Sandgroper was unsatisfactory. You rely on two tried and trusted techniques employed by the Israeli lobby.

First you claim that an accusation is simplistic and doesn't take into account the whole picture. Then you claim blame can be apportioned to either side in different circumstances. This basically admits that Israel attacks its neighbours. But more importantly it allows you to move to the second part of the 'how to deflect an accusation' handbook.

And that is of course, obfuscation. This you do well by making irrelevant comparisons to Australia, broader nebulous historical forces, some bible quotes and the mother of them all, the struggle for very existence of Israel (Mmmmm).

You simply provided an apology for the many aggressive attacks Israel has made on it's neighbours.

And you say I have no credibility&#8230;

David Boaz

It is obvious you want to refute facts by sugesting they aren't conclusive or aren't relevant

I'm tiring of your bigotry, criticism based on assumptions and lack of logic. I don't have time to enter into a prolongued debate with a bigot and don't intend to post anything more in this forum.

If you want a bigger picture here is one of many more I've found that I could present to refute your assertion that Israel hasn't been agressive to its neighbours

Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.

SANDGROPER
don't despair of making valuable progress in this thread. You misquoted me or misattributed that I claim 'Israel never attacked it neighbours' I did not say that. I said.. 'there is another side of the coin' Of COURSE Israel has attacked, and been attacked. That is my point. I can't quite work out how you just want to see it in one direction ? Groper, it seems you have submerged in the quicksand of the 'day to day'. How do u define a starting point for all this ? This is the problem. It all began in not 1948, but in AD70, when the Jews were exiled by the Romans. 1948 was just the 'latest episode'. Each side seems to pick the point in history which most supports its own view. Thats why I keep hammering on the 'big picture'. The starting point for 'really' understanding this conflict goes back to Abraham. (Genesis 11, 12 etc) You can see the beginning of the Arabs and the Jews, and the ultimate source of the conflict.

It seems you want to 'convert' me into believing "The Arabs are the good guys, Israelis are the bad guys" but my position is that they are both good and bad at different times and circumstances.

JOSH

"You simply provided an apology for the many aggressive attacks Israel has made on it's neighbours."

Josh, I don't need to apologise for the IDF actions. They can do it themselves. Its just plain unfair to speak of the 'many aggressive attacks on their neighbours' in isolation from the events leading up to those attacks. I mean..c'mon.. u have done clear thinking... right ? How can u understand ANY event apart from its context ??????
A text without a context is a PRETEXT. Just so with international events.

The assumption behind that statement appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that Israel must just lay down and wait till it is attacked before taking action to defend itself, when it knows full well what is about to happen. (have u heard of intelligence ????? )

But who needs intelligence when the president of Egypt says:

"In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser (Egypt) answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State. Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:

'We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.'

Now..even blind freddie can see where this is heading, but apparently you cannot ?

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_backgd.php

~~~

"From early 1965 to the Six-Day War in June 1967, the PLO through Fatah pursued a consistent policy of border attacks, particularly along the Jordanian and Lebanese borders. Criticism of these activities by the Arab governments and by local public opinion persuaded Fatah leaders to adopt a new approach known as "the entanglement theory." This involved using sabotage to force Israel to adopt an offensive position, which in turn would force the Arabs to step up their military preparedness. This cycle of action-retaliation-reaction would lead to a gradual escalation of tension on the borders, and eventually to the Six Day War in 1967.

In 1965, 35 terrorist raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.

~~~

A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' goal to be:

.".. the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

Now.. lets be fair here, these quotes are WRONG or they are RIGHT.
Dont go anywhere else, dont call me a bigot like sandgroper did, dont rummage around the dictionary or thesaurus for cute words to attack me,

JUST RESPOND TO THIS. and do it FACTUALLY WITH SOURCES.

Otherwise u definitely will not only have zero credibility you will also be the laughing stock of the thread.

EXTERNAL FACTORS.
"On May 13, 1967 a Soviet parliamentary delegation visited Cairo and informed the Egyptian leaders that Israel had concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades along the Syrian border in preparation for an assault within a few days, with the intention of overthrowing the revolutionary Syrian Government. This was a complete fabrication designed by the Soviets to destabilize the Middle East"

Don't forget the Egyptian closing of of the Gulf of Aqaba.

check this ANTI Jewish site, where some of the same quotes (from the same bibliography) are found.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-genocide-middleeast.html

If u can show me the quotes are WRONG. I will apologise unreservedly.

but by this time you probably feel 'obfuscated' so I draw your attention back to the main point I was making. "You cannot JUST look at what Israel did in order to condemn it, u must look at background and both sides"

UNLESS.. u have a specific anti "Israel_can_exist" political agenda u seem to feel will be advanced by your comments here.

David Boaz
"my position is that they are both good and bad at different times and circumstances."

HOO-BLOODY-RAY

Thats the point I've been trying to make all along

You have not been forthcoming with this view point till now. I don't think any of the other people in this forum would argue against you on this point

I said I was on Israel's side till they they took the occupied teritories. Perhaps it may have been necesary. But with the backing of the USA (see previous post) and having the 2nd most powerful airforce in the world Israel was in a position to take the smallest of risks to be conciliatory thus raise the prospects of a peaceful settlement.

Israel's beligerence is akin to belting a hornets nest with a stick to get rid of it.

There are better ways than trying to achieve an end than through military conquest. Nothing has ever been successfully resolved though fighting as any sane person will agree. The human spirit is too resilient to be snuffed out by bombs. Israel is dragging the rest of the world into conflict. Only they are in a position to offer an olive branch as they are the stronger party in the conflict. If the Palestinians were to do that it would be seen as a sign of capitulation.

Aussies used to be able to travel safely thoughout the world Now we are high profile targets for Arabs who simply see themselves as freedom fighters due to clumsy US middle-east policies and John Howards sychophantic groveling to the USA. I've been accused of having the Arabs as pin up boys just because like most I can predict human behaviour and understand & state their point of view. I'm angry that I have to be fearful of travel because of Israels refusal to take a tiny risk and negotiate a resolution. Now that Arafat is out of the way the time is right

Before you accuse me of being a lefty I've been a office bearer of the Liberal party

I've broken my vow not to post again but your statement of blame being attributable to both parties prompted me to endorse that particular view. Its a pity you cant be completely objective and unbiased and see the conflict from the point of view of both sides. Both sides are terribly wrong in my view I'm scared of Arabs and don't support their methods but the same goes for Israelis too

You are right that both sides blame the other for starting the conflict If it started in this day and age a resolution would most likely be negotiated. It's a chicken and egg situation and the world needs to get both sides to negotiate and compromise for the sake of every creature on this earth

Just imagine how different things would be in the middle east if the USA had helped to set up a Palestinian state 50 years ago and had offered Palestinians a substantial sum of money for the land given to the Jews.

In current day values the USA has given Israel 3 billion in economic and military aid annualy since 1948. If half of that had gone to Palestine for hospitals, schools and factories I'm sure any trouble that may exist would be miniscule by comparison to what we see today

BOAZ,

I agree you need to look at the context of Israel attacking its neighbours. I also agree Arab countries would have liked to push Israel into the sea. The speech you quoted by Nasser illustrates that pretty well. Personally, I don't like all the Arab talk about rivers of blood etc. Sadaam also talked like that and it didn't do him much good. It seems to be part of Arab culture and unfortunately to us it just sounds medieval and stupid. But you shouldn't forget it had a propaganda value: to generate hysteria in Israel (its still going) and to sum up his support among the peasant masses in the Arab world - context remember.

I guess the context is where we differ. For each of the many times Israel has attacked and occupied lands from its neighbours you see Arab armies being poised to attack. This may have been confirmed by intelligence. Well, firstly the intelligence could be wrong - just ask the Iraqi's about inaccurate intelligence, it cost them 100000 lives. Secondly, armies poised to attack is not the same as attacking. I was in Rajasthan, India (along the Pakistan boarder) three years ago when the two countries amassed something like a million men along the border. As both are nuclear armed, estimates were that 10 million people would die in the event of war. In the end tensions were diffused and conflict avoided, but of course had either of these countries adopted Israel's 'preemptive doctrine' there would now be ten million people dead. I guess the bottom line is the Arabs didn't invade; Israel did. Justifying attacks after the fact is called propaganda.

More importantly however, in terms of context, it WHY the Arabs called for the destruction of Israel. The Europeans persecute the Jews so that's seen as an excuse to rob the Palestinians of their homes. Why don't you put yourself in the position of a Palestinian? Your forefathers have lived in that land for millennia and then suddenly you lose everything. How would you feel?

As I've said before, in historical terms Israel is illegitimate; it has proved a disaster for regional stability and world peace. Imagine how the world might have looked without Israel (sigh..). However, like I've also said before it's here now and it's not going anywhere. In the early days it was a fight for survival, but even though those times have long passed Israeli rhetoric has stayed the same. You seem to believe they're still under threat; I don't. It's in their interest to appear the underdog, to appear a persecuted victim. But the truth today is much different. It's by far the most powerful nation in the region. It's under no threat by any of its useless neighbours. There's also Israel's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons acting as a strong deterrent. And I bet the existence of these weapons is a lot surer than Sadaam's or Iran's.

To me the only justification you can provide for the existence of Israel is the biblical one. You know I don't believe it. However, perhaps you can clear up a theological point for me anyway. I thought the destruction of the temple was seen as God driving the Israelites out of the holy land for whatever reason (probably sin). But I've heard it asked why, if God kicked them out they should be allowed to return now. Has God asked them back?

Hopefully this wasn't too difficult to understand (I've tried to keep big words down to a minimum).

Here is some information that I’ve found to throw some light on the Arab Israeli war in 67. This is not to say I’m painting the Israelis as the only wrongdoers in the region. I’m only producing them to show the Israelis are not as innocent as they want the world to believe

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

I never cease to be amazed by the ignorance and shallowness of so-called intellectuals and "anti-Zionists" (often Jews themselves):
1. "Zionists" come in all shapes and ideologies. There are socialist Zionists, conservative Zionists, relgious Zionists and secular Zionists. "Zionism" is nothing more - or less - than the movement for national liberation of the Jewish people. Therefore, as in all movements of national liberation - there are all kinds of ideologies.
2. Not all "Zionists", therefore, support wars and conquests.
3. On the other hand - the very idea that of all peoples, the Jews are the only ones who do not have a right to self-determination is in and of itself based on a kind of racism and anti-semitism. It is not a question of whether one can abstractly differentiate between "anti-Jews" and "anti-Zionists" - of course one can, at least subjectively - but rather, whether objectively the denial of self-determination to the Jewish people is racist. It is.
4. It is obvious to any idiot that "anti-Zionism" is a new cover for anti-semitism in many (but not all) anti-Zionists. Anyone who doubts this is kidding himself or lying.
5. Most of the people in the forum who are anti-Israel and deny the "Zionist state's" right to exist - are more anti-Zionist than most Palestinians. Everybody who lives here knows that the Jews have always been an integral part of the Middle East (including, by the way, Ashkenazic Jews) and are going to stay here in a Jewish entity. Even most of the Hamas knows that (maybe some of the Iranians stick to the old doctrine, for their internal reasons ... these are your new allies???)Ask most Palestinian Arabs, they'll tell you that although Zionism created the Naqba - they realize that they have to live with a Jewish state and are even happy to do so. So what the hell are you people in the United States talking about? Silly juvenile posturing?

And one more thing: The Australian and American views about Zionism and Israel and extraorinarily similar - both on the left and the right. Why is that? Could it be because the Left in both countries has a knee-jerk need to find enemies and to dislike groups that are allied with mainstream politicians? Or does it have something to do with guilt about the creation of both countries? Let me know.

JOSH !! progress :) ( didn't think u were a lefty, but I was beginning to think that "Josh" = "disguised arab' :)

Yes, that was a great post. Much less controversial than your previous ones.
You made many pertinant observations, 2 of which I want to address here.

1/ about how would I feel if I was a Palestinian and suddenly lost everything. and
2/ I see the solution in Biblical terms.

I'll try to expand on those.

1/ If I was one..... Sure, I would have exactly the same feelings as the Arabs about the situation. Its not that I 'cannnot' see their feeling, I do see it.
I guess I'm more philosophical about it though.
I see my own surname, 'Ross' and I recall that my ancestors were driven out of Scotland (Rosshire) by the nobility in cahoots with English Lords who wanted more profitable sheep grazing land.
Then, I've been reading about the Viking invasions, the Norman invasions, the 'local' invasions of various try hard kings and nobles among the English, of Cromwell and the roundheads, his rather brutal supression of Catholic identity in Ireland etc. What I see is that nothing has changed. As Pericles has noted, its the ebb and flow of history. If one were to identify with ANY of the 'rough end of the stick' groups in these and all the other uncountable conflicts of the world, we would feel similar feelings of sadness.
But then, I look at me today, at the Brits, (most of whom will have a few red viking or french cells in their blood) and things can be pretty good once all the commotion has settled down. Its always the first generation, the one who 'experienced' the pushing and shoving which is most aggrieved.
Further, in regard to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, there is a deeper issue, and thats the religious aspect. If u recall, Barach offered the PLO pretty much 90% plus of their demands, and if I'm not mistaken, even including East Jerusalem. Arafat rejected it. (Oslo)
I know they justify it by saying that they would have been 'divided' etcetc.. but I believe that was more a smokescreen than anything to provide an 'out' due to the real reason (at that time) of a more sinister agenda.
So, I try not to have emotional feelings on the issue, in the light of the normal flow of history. By that I mean, I prefer not to point to one side or the other and prescribe overall guilt or innocence based on specific incidents. I've been defending Israel yes, but only until we could get to THIS :) I would not defend brutality and when it comes to the various postures and 'who did what first' in the various military engagements, I feel better not trying to make value judgements on them, mainly because I see something bigger happening.

2/ Biblical Picture.
To address your 'theological point' about 'if God kicked them out, would he invite them back'. Exile and restoration have been recurring themes in Israelite history. The Babylonian was the main one and restoration under Cyrus the Persian. The reason Israel was punished was for their national waywardness. Have read of Isaiah 5 it will show God's attitude towards them during a time of national moral decline.
7 The vineyard of the LORD Almighty
is the house of Israel,
and the men of Judah
are the garden of his delight.
And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed;
for righteousness, but heard cries of distress

....13 Therefore my people will go into exile <===== note this.

After that, when they had been punished, thru Isaiah, again, these words:(chapter 40)

1 Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. 2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not trying to 'bible bash' you with this, but I'm trying to show the pattern of 'National decline/ Punishment,Exile/ Restoration.'

Now, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70, was prophesied by Jesus (matthew 24) but which seems to also have futuristic overtones (from that point) and there are some other references in Romans 9-11 about the restoration of the Jews. Not to mention the eternal nature of the covenant with Abraham. (Genesis 12 to 20 ish)

Bottom line, I can't see any reason for a geographical restoration as in 1948 to be out of the question.

At this point, it would be futile to go further, mainly because it would lead into a much broader discussion.
The only thing I would seriously urge, is to try to gain a deeper understanding of the Biblical piccy, (whether u believe it or not) because the Jews (the religious) believe it, and we cannot understand the political dynamics of the region apart from that.
The same goes for the Islamic side.

BUT NOW...its time for Church :) so I better be off.

GROPER...
I was rushed this morning and didn't have time to make a good response to your points then, so I'll try now.

To your relief I guess, I do take your points on board. And I accept their validity. So, I'm not disagreeing with you.

The point I do wish to emphasize though, is the one I shared with Josh, re the Biblical understanding. The pivotal issue is not whether "I" understand the situation in those terms, but that the ISRAELIS do :) If u see where Netanyahu stands on this issue, u might see why. (google Netanyahu).

Here is how I see things panning out:

The more extreme on both sides will see peace as breathing space to consolidate their positions, for the next round. The Islamic understanding of 'treaties' is very much along these lines.

Aspin
u captured some aspects of the issue that have not been expressed much here, specially the various 'types'.. well done.

Are you an Israeli ? welcome to this forum. By the way, most of us here are Australian, not American.

Dear Boaz,
Yes I am an Israeli. As for Austrialia - I wanted to know what your response was to my question: why is the Australian and American "profile" on the Middle East - both on the right and the left - so similar? Don't you think it is a result of ambivilence about the founding of these two nations? After all, they are the two best examples that "conquest" and "occupied territories" are not automatically "unsuccessful"; for better or for worse, all the nations of the world - even the Bantu nation in South Africa! - are results of conquest. The sin is not a moral one of "conquest", but rather whether the "occupation" is demographically and politically viable.

Hi Aspin.

"my question: why is the Australian and American "profile" on the Middle East - both on the right and the left - so similar?"

RESPONSE: My opinion would be that Australia and USA hold similar values. Our backgrounds are not quite the same. USA fought a war of independance against ENGLAND, and a civil war between themselves. But ages of the 2 countries are not that dissimilar. Both countries were founded on a strong Judao Christian thread in their histories.
The Christian understanding, while not unilateral or monotonic, does include a strong belief (even b4 1948) in the return of Jews to Israel. This applies to both countries. Hence the strong conservative evangelical support for Israel.

The "left" and "right" seem to both manifest themselves similarly in such a socio historical condition. Neither of our 2 countries have a strong sense of long standing history .. USA only what 400 yrs ? ours 200 yrs Perhaps there is a sense of identity with a young struggling country like Israel ?

~~~

Don't you think it is a result of ambivilence about the founding of these two nations? After all, they are the two best examples that "conquest" and "occupied territories" are not automatically "unsuccessful";

~~~

In the case of the USA, they were successful because of superior military force and a very harsh approach (sadly) to the indigenous inhabitants. Indians were far greater in population than Australian Aborigines. In Australia's case, (also with the US) there were much fewer actual conflicts of a military nature, more scurmishes etc. The biggest killer was 'unintended biological warfare'.. i.e. our diseases to which the Aborginals were not resistant.
The end result in both the US and Australian cases, is that both now have very small indigenous populations which would never pose a serious military threat. Though, a radicalization of both could be quite a danger.

MORALITY. Speaking just in atheistic human terms, there is no such thing as morality. So, might is always "right". Though few peoples will see it this way in public. If this reasoning was followed through, Israel has as much 'right' to stomp on the Palestinians as they do toward Israel. Unfortunately, this type of view generally leads to a cold and heartless brutality of holocaust proportions. Every empire has taken this approach in the past. The Islamic empires have been slightly different, they justified their brutality by claiming they were bringing peoples willingly or not under submission to 'Allah'. But I, as a Christian see them as a totally false religion having zero divine authority. (2 B blunt but honest.) Islam was Mohammed's way of achieving political,sexual and social power.

VIABILITY OF ISRAEL.
Aspin, any Jew/Israelite who does not 'learn' from the book of Judges and Joshua, needs serious counselling on history and human nature. When the Israelites failed to obey God in that time of totally wiping out the Canaanites, they had ongoing problems which are with us to this day. (Philistines/Palestinians/Gaza etc.)
There is no divine mandate to eliminate Palestinians today, but anyone who believes that a 2 state solution is also viable is living in Disneyland/Fantasyland. It may be in the short term, but the underlying issues of 'biblical covenant' and 'Islamic hostility' (mainly focused on the Temple mount) will always prove the undoing of well intentioned political solutions. Even though 'most' Jews may be secular, and have little interest in the status of the Temple, ENOUGH Jews, who are politically powerful DO believe in the biblical justification for taking back the land.
The ONLY moral justification for taking the land back is the Biblical one. I often point to the Roman Exile of Jews in AD70, but even this is dependant on the Abrahamic covenant for its legitemacy (as a justification for Jews having a claim on the land).

The only solution I can see to the violence, is a clean sweep of relocating Palestinians to other regions. The cities they are occupying now, are to much rooted in Biblical history for the religious right of Israel to accept them living there. I realize this sounds a harsh solution, but considering the long standing running sore of continual homicide bombings etc etc....seems the best solution to avoid bloodshed.

My own ancestors and the ancestors of all people in Australia and the USA were at one time 'ethnically cleansed' by other invading powers. We are doing pretty well now, it could be the same for the Palestinians. But then again, the 'religious' aspect would always see them as hostile to Israel, so, perhaps u can see why my own personal hope is in the coming of the Messiah. For you, first time, for me 2nd time.

It’s interesting to see the directions this thread has taken, and it’s worth exploring some of the points of view expressed here.

Josh, for example, muses about how much nicer the world would be if Israel never existed, and suggests its creation was illegitimate. Let’s go with Josh’s premise for a bit: Israel should never have existed. OK, Josh, are you just idly musing or are you serious about this?

First, we will need to repeal UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which provided for the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into an Arab (what we know call Palestinian) and a Jewish state. As we all know, no Arab state accepted this partition, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea (their words – “Jews,” not “Zionists”) and destroy them. Not exile them, send them back to Europe or North Africa. Kill them. All of them.

Very well, the smoke clears and pretty soon pre-1967 Israel is in place. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees are outside Israel, and hundreds of thousands of Jews have been expelled from their homes in Arab countries. (That’s right – want to talk about Palestinians right of return? OK, then we’ll have to talk about Jews’ right of return to homes they were expelled from, businesses expropriated from them, in Amman, Cairo, Damascus, etc.) So Joshes of the online world, if you really want to see a world without Israel, just what do you propose doing with all the Jews there now? Send them back to Yemen, Iraq, Poland, Hungary…? A big ask, but not impossible.

There are a few other loose ends as well. The matters of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, both of which reaffirm Israel’s right to exist within secure borders. See:

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/

for the texts of these and others.

Then we’ll need to decide what to do with Palestine. Shall we restore the British Mandate? Or do you prefer the Ottoman Empire? I’m sure Turkey would be happy to resume control over most of the Mideast. It’s a question of how much historical toothpaste you want to shove back in the tube. There would be no Palestinian state, though, you should be aware of that. (It’s interesting to note the plain fact that in ~ 19 years of occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, neither Egypt nor Jordan offered the Palestinians their own state in accordance with GA Res. 181.)

OK, now we’ve removed Israel, and the Mideast can go back to its Pre-Zionist peaceful idyll. Let’s explore that Edenic state, in a nice “It’s a Wonderful Life” what-if scenario.

The current slaughter in Sudan, of black Christians and Darfur Muslims, is not occurring. This atrocity is because of Israel, right? Massacres of hundreds of Algerian villagers at a time in Algeria? The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Assad Srs.’s destruction of 20,000 people in the town of Hama because of their opposition to his regime? The attacks by Eqypt on Yemen with chemical weapons in the early ‘60s. The 10-year war between Iraq and Iran and the millions killed (I'm sure the Iranian children sent to clear the mindfields are resting peacefuly knowing they died or lost limbs striking a blow against the "Zionist Entity")?

The stifling of intellectual, political, and economic development in the Arab world, even with all that oil money? “Sorry, people, we’d love to advance your freedoms, educational opportunities, and economic possibilities, but we can’t, you see, because of Israel. Well, our Royal Families’ kids can all go to Harvard and Princeton and ski at Vail and Davos and be corrupted by those evil Western decadent infidels, but you can’t.” I could go on. There are a lot of problems in the Mideast and one of them is related to Israel.

Look, everybody, I don’t seek to justify Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and I am very publicly and passionately committed to seeing the Palestinians have their well-deserved state implemented as soon as possible, for the sake of Israelis, Palestinians, and Jews, Muslims and Christians in general. For examples of organizations committed to ending the occupation and fostering a peaceful solution see:

http://www.btvshalom.org

http://www.tikkun.org

http://www.peacenow.org/

(these will also illustrate just how bloodthirsty and brutal “THE JEWS” are)

You really want to do something for the Palestinians? (Josh? Grace? You listening?) Support these organizations or others like them.

It’s a disservice to the Palestinians to make every problem in the world related to their just cause and legitimate gripe. But just as the road to Jerusalem does not go through Baghdad, neither does the road to Riyadh, Damascus, and Beirut go through Jerusalem. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a problem that deserves to be solved on its own, for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians. Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon, all represent problems that deserve to be solved for their own peoples’ sakes as well, not held hostage to the Israeli-Palestinian entanglement.

But let’s get serious about it.

Now, on to the Israeli-Zionist-Jewish-cabal-has-hijacked-the-US-govt side of the story.

As several posters to this thread have correctly pointed out, there are several well-funded, well-organized lobby groups who advocate their view of Mideast politics and US-Israeli relations. The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC (see http://www.aipac.org) is one of the most prominent of these, and they take a hawkish stance on such issues as territorial compromise by Israel, the US stance toward Iraq, Iran, and Syria, etc. In a democracy this is their right, and there are also Arab lobby groups pushing their agenda, and of course millions of Saudi dollars going to into various Arab and Muslim advocacy organizations in the U.S. But American Jews, like most other ethnic/religious communities are quite diverse, and in a previous post I pointed out all the “peacenik” organizations who advocate for peaceful compromise in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, opposed the invasion of Iraq, etc. For those who missed it, some examples:

http://www.btvshalom.org

http://www.tikkun.org

http://www.peacenow.org/

These groups also lobby, and are entitled to their position too. I happen to agree with them and support them, and that’s my right. Many others disagree with me and that’s their right too.

So this notion of “_the_ Jews…” seems to need re-thinking. Because if you want to take that line there are several issues to consider. Several prominent Jews in the (George W.) Bush Administration have indeed taken a hawkish line on the US stance toward the Mideast, notably Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith (of these only Wolfowitz is still in the Bush Admin.) Is Israel part of the Bush Admin’s motivation? Of course it is.

But if you want to take the Jews-have-taken-over-the-USA line, you will have to explain why the Clinton Administration, which was chockful of Jews in top-ranking Cabinet positions, including Secretary of State Albright, Secy. of Defense Cohen, Secy. of Treasury Rubin, Secy. of Labor Reich, and National Security Advisor Berger, did not invade Iraq, went further than any other recent US administration in pushing for an Israel-Palestine deal (we could get into a pissing contest about whether Arafat was offered 90%, 95%, or 97% of the West Bank and Gaza. Or whether he was offered the bottom half or the top half of the Temple Mount), made PLO Chairman Arafat a frequent guest in the White House, and used US force to try to defend Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia. (The Bush Admin. has no Jews in Cabinet-level positions by the way).

And the Clinton Administration did all this with the support of prominent Jewish Senators and Congressmen as well (want me to start naming them?).

Explain why most Jews (about 75% this time around) overwhelmingly did NOT vote for Bush, as they had not voted for Bush Sr., or Dole. Sure, Bush peeled off a few Jewish votes, but not many and mostly among the Orthodox (they like his religious take on US domestic issues as well as his hawkish stance on Israel). So as Josh points out correctly, Bush did indeed TRY to get the Jewish vote. But it didn’t work, did it? Hmmm… what do we make of that? Could it be that Jews didn’t buy what Bush was selling?

Grace makes a good point about the Christian “Zionists.” Christian evangelist groups put bags of money, and certainly more votes into Bush’s re-election than Jews did. They have a particular apocalyptic view of Israel’s role in the fulfilment of their prophecies, and as she correctly points out, things don’t end well for the Jews in the great Rapture. So I do agree it’s a mistake for any Jews or Israelis to get into bed with these Christian groups.

And let’s talk about that other old chestnut, Jewish money. Jews put a lot of money toward support for the Democrats, who actually raised more money in 2004 than the Republicans. Jewish multibillionaire George Soros put millions into his personal quest to remove George W. Bush from the White House, so vehement was Soros’ opposition to Bush, especially over Iraq.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, though American Jews were nearly as divided over the Iraq war as the nation as a whole, they were more likely than other American groups to identify themselves as against the Iraq invasion (I personally think the invasion was a blunder – there were many other ways to put the squeeze on Saddam short of an outright invasion). Indeed many major Jewish organizations in the US did not take a position on the Iraq war because they could not find consensus among their own members and leaders. (I’m happy come back with sources for these points – they are well-documented enough – lest you think this is another invention of the Jewish-Zionist-controlled media?)

Even Israeli military analysts ranked Iran and Syria higher than Iraq as security threats, because of Iran’s and Syria’s support for Hezbollah and other ambitious groups committed to Israel’s elimination, and Iran’s nuclear weapons program. By the way, Iran is the only nation I’m aware of which has as an explicit policy the eradication of another sovereign nation (you-know-who), and when they rolled out their new medium-range missiles a few years back slogans like “Death to Israel” were emblazoned on the sides. So despite Saddam Hussein’s open and public offer of blood money (I seem to recall it was around $20K, right?) to the families of bombers who were willing to blow themselves up and take some Israelis with them (in such disputed territories as Haifa, Netanya, and Tel Aviv), the Israeli were actually more worried about Iran. Sounds fairly prescient now doesn't it?

Were the Israelis glad to see Saddam knocked over? You bet. Did they support the US-British-Australian military action to do so? Yes (interestingly there was opposition even in Israel). But apparently it was not their highest priority.

Howard....
just a small point.
The conservative evangelical support and its eschatological view, .."does not end well for the Jews". ?????

I think you need to brush up on the view itself as u have obviously gained a comprehensive appreciation of most of the issues.

The Jews will end, as they themselves CHOOSE in the Christian view.

We have no desire to see anyone abandoned by God, our view involves the return of the Messiah. Any Jew who cannot or does not recognize Him THIS...time will have nobody to blame but him/herself.

And one more important thing. In reality, we can do nothing to advance or hinder Christs return, anyone who thinks they can is probably relying on a rather shakey biblical interpretation. Be that as it may, they are entitled to assist the Jews with such a goal in mind if they wish. Evengelicals want a strong secure and stable Israel.

Of FAR greater importance for middle eastern affairs, is this. IF.... the Jews decide (under pressure from their religious right)to rebuild the TEMPLE.. we had all better get up to speed on the prophetic aspect and our relationship with God. But no matter WHAT happens.. 3 things must always be borne in mind.

1/ God is the "inviter" not the "offer u cannot refuse" mafia type.
2/ Whatever 'end' there is, will be one of personal choice.
3/ If the temple is rebuilt, don't ever say "u were not warned".

Aside from the spiritual aspect. I'm surprised you have such a grasp of the issues, yet seem not to offer a solution ??? Or did I miss that.

Boaz_David writes:

"The conservative evangelical support and its eschatological view, .."does not end well for the Jews". ?????
The Jews will end, as they themselves CHOOSE in the Christian view."

Well I don't pretend to be an expert on the prophetic visions of the Christian fundamentalist groups but my understanding is that in their view Jews must either die in the final battle of Armageddon or be converted to Christianity. Choosing conversion to Christianity may be a "good ending" for some Jews, but they could no longer be Jews. That was what I meant by "does not end well...."

I'd be happy to stand corrected on that one.

Howard...
thanx for your response.
The problem with the 'prophetic view' of the battle of Armageddon, is that in entails some symbolic language and can be a little difficult to die down with great certainty, perhaps that's a good thing.
The final end of mankind whether Jew of Gentile, will boil down to the acceptance of the Messiah or His rejection.
Leading up to the final wind up of history, will be momentus events, including a system of commerce which is only accessable to those who are marked by 'the beast' who demands worship. It gets very messy from then on, culminating with the Victory of the Messiah. Sound like something out of Star Wars ? Indeed :) because Revelation is written in apocalyptic style. (which raises issues of interpretation) U could bone up by reading Revelation and some commentaries, perhaps Matthew 24 and Luke 17. Do some research on 'second coming'.

By the way, you still didn't "solve" the middle east.. ur slacking :)

"By the way, you still didn't "solve" the middle east.. ur slacking :) "

You're a tough crowd. But OK, that's a fair enough comment. Indeed I didn't solve it.

I think the best approaches are embodied in two "unofficial" agreements hammered out independently (of their respective governments) by Palestinian and Israeli politicians who were central in the negotiations leading up to the Oslo Agreements, and the "almost" deals negotiated under the auspices of the Clinton Administration between August-September 2000 (at Camp David) and January 2001 (at Taba). THese are the Geneva Accord, led by Yasser Abed Rabbo and Yossi Beilin, and the Peoples' Voice Agreement led by Sari Nusseibeh and Amit Ayalon (forgive my spelling of the names if I got them wrong).

Go to:

http://www.tikkun.org/community/geneva/index.cfm?action=full_text

for the full text of the Geneva Accord and

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/nusseibeh-ayalon.shtml

for text of the Nusseibeh-Ayalon agrgeement.

I believe these represent the outlines of the best possible agreement between Israel and Palestine. A good account of the Camp David and Taba negotiations can be found in Dennis Ross' book "The Missing Peace.' Ross was a Mideast envoy for the first Bush Admin. and both Clinton Admins., and seems to be trusted and respected by both sides. It's worth noting, for those who like to claim that the Palestinians were offered "nothing" or a "Bantustan" at Taba, that both sides in the two non-government accords agree their starting points were where things left off at Camp David and Taba.

The Palestinians were offered a good deal at Taba. Not everything they wanted, and not a perfect deal. I'm not claiming that. But it wasn't "nothing" and it wasn't discontiguous cantons (other than the discontinuity between West Bank and Gaza). If this is another bunch of Zionist progapanda then they've done a damn good job of getting the Palestinians to go along with their story.

See also the "Clinton Framework" and the "EU non-paper" on Taba for perceptions of Pres. Clinton and EU Envoy Miguel Moratinos regarding what was on the table at Taba (and note that the Europeans are not exactly famous for their love of Israel) at http://www.ariga.com/treaties/index.shtml

see finally

http://www.btvshalom.org/resources/

for what I consider reasoned, moderate Jewish voices on a variety of topics ranging from American Jews' role in the US and Israel to the Holocaust and anti-Semitism (this is for you Grace and Josh!)

One more thing. Josh asserts " ...where Jews differ is that their self-interest destabilises an entire region." Aside from my "what-if-Josh-got-his-wish-and-Israel-never-existed" scenario, it's worth noting the Saudis' truly destabilising influence in the US Muslim community via its sponsorship of hate literature. See:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/FINAL%20FINAL%20Saudi.pdf

Note this stuff comes from the Saudi Arabian government and is marked with the seals of Saudi ministries, military branches, and its Washington Embassy. Note also that Freedom House is a multifaith org. that has representatives of a variety of faiths on its board. No particular friend of either side in the Israeli-Palestinian thing, near as I can tell. How widespread this literature is in US mosques is not clear, and I doubt most American muslims are buying into the hate literature disseminated by the Saudi govt., but the Saudis are clearly trying to spread this material. LOTS of money (oil money in this case), and attempts to influence the US from within.

But where are the Jews?

Point: many groups lobby for influence - Jews, Christians, Arabs, potato farmers, labor unions

Howard...
again.. top marks for a secular understanding of the scene over there.
I don't think anyone could better your very balanced and well researched viewpoint. Humanly speaking, I agree.. Most palestinians and a big chunk of Jewish people would agree I'm sure, and if those people were driving the agenda.. there might be hope for an enduring peace.
That's where the prob comes. I've said this quite a bit, but once more won't hurt. The status of Jerusalem and the Temple mount will most probably be the undoing of all well intentioned peace processes.
The more extreme on both ends are driving that agenda. I think you would do well to immerse yourself in the Old Testament, from Genesis 11 up to the end of II Chronicles. The Prophet Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekeiel, perhaps specially from chapter 33 onwards.. its alllll about a) Restoration of Israel and b) the future temple.
Read Lamentations, and meet the soul of the Israelite, pining and mourning for the loss of Jerusalem etc... get a feeeeel for it all... and u will just possibly 'begin' to grasp what that place is all about.
Then, if your really adventurous :) grab hold of some material about the beginnings and expansion of Islam, the life of the Prophet etc.. by the end of about a year of reasonably consistent reading, (of the Old Testament and about Islam) u will start to comprehend the depth and breadth and hight of this special place, with its incomparable history.

W_Howard, since you made reference to me in your last post, let me respond. I think you have misunderstood my position with respect to Israel and zionism, as distinct from the views of moderate american jews, with whom I have little disagreement. Perhaps you might refer back to my earlier posts.

"Read Lamentations, and meet the soul of the Israelite, pining and mourning for the loss of Jerusalem etc... get a feeeeel for it all... and u will just possibly 'begin' to grasp what that place is all about."

I hear ya Boaz - it's a tough nut to crack, the conflict over Jerusalem, esp. the Haram/Temple Mount. Very powerful symbol for Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike. Try to tell Jews they can claim no connection to the place God first made the covenant with Abraham. Or try to tell Muslims the same thing about the place they believe the Prophet ascended to heaven.

The recent moves towards peace are encouraging, and now focus attention on where I think the real conflicts will have to be played out, and that is _among_ Israelis and Jews, and _among_ Palestinians. Abbas will have a tough time establishing authority over Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc., who have only grudgingly agreed to go along with the ceasefire (they are calling a "period of calm" or something like that. Not a ceasefire.

Similarly Sharon will have to face down the zealots for whom the occupied territories are a Biblical birthright. Members of the Knesset and high-ranking officers in the IDF have apparently already gotten death threats.

Howard - I assume this is addressed to me: "Read Lamentations, and meet the soul of the Israelite, pining and mourning for the loss of Jerusalem etc... get a feeeeel for it all... and u will just possibly 'begin' to grasp what that place is all about."

I would be interested to know how you feeeel about the historical dispossession of the aboriginal people here at home in Australia, and their "spiritual" connection to the land

Sorry Howard, you were quoting Boaz, it was not clear as it followed directly on from my post (I should have recognised the "feeel" as classic Boaz). Nevertheless I would still be interested in your response to my question.

Yes Grace.. puh-lease get the feeeel for the 'flow' of convo :)

I can't resist also a dabble in the issue u mentioned.. aboriginals.
But I call you your "comment" and raise you a 'question'.. why not jump on the phone to some aboriginal identity and actually ask what 'they' feel is the solution to their social dilemna ? 03 9712-0563 Mick Woywood,"Warunjiri History"....

Grace, and Boaz,

The dispossession of the Australian aboriginals will remain a serious blight on Australia's history until we acheive some kind of reconciliation. Whether this takes the form of an apology, or an acknowledgment that an historic wrong was done to them, something must happen. I hear politicians say we don't need to apologise to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, because the injustice was done to them by previous generations. Well then they'd better quit marching in Anzac Day parades unless they personally fought at Gallipoli, or the Kokoda Trail, etc. There's no reason for us not be proud of the considerable achievements, bravery, sacrifices, etc. of past and present Australians. But along with that pride comes a responsibility to own some of the things we would not be so proud of today.

Australia does not have to pack up and undo itself, and we all go back to England or Greece or wherever we came from. I don't think this is what most aboriginals want (maybe I'm wrong). My perception is they're looking for some acknowledgement from the rest of us that the founding of our nation involved the dispossession of someone else (them and their ancestors), and it would do us no harm to provide it. It would do us no harm to admit an injustice was done to them and we're going to do our best to do right by them. That could mean helping them acheive the same educational, social welfare, health-care, etc. opportunities the rest of us take for granted. And acknowledging the importance, to them, of their spiritual connection to the land.

You could go back to what I just wrote, substitute "Any-Nation-in-the-Americas and Native Americans (or Africans transported as slaves)", or "Israel and Palestinians" for "Australia and Aboriginals" and I would make a similar argument.

(And Grace, my apologies for misconstruing some of your posts)

Thanks Howard.

Boaz, I don't need to jump on the phone to talk to some "aboriginal identity". There are aboriginals in my family so I can "feeeel" the pain right here at home.

Glad to hear that Grace...
keep up the contributions.
thanx.

Dear All
anyone trying to understand the middle east, should read this article as well as the usual stuff they read.

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher041102.asp

and here is another...

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j041502.html

"and here is another...
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j041502.html"

Yeah I took a look at that and some of Raimondo's other diatribes. All I can say is - Wow. I had no idea this kind of material was out there. I wouldn't know where to start with this idiot.

You are making an important underlying point though, Boaz, which is the more the conflict becomes about competing religious visions, the less it can be solved through compromise and negotiation. If it's about land, or water*, the horse-trading can begin and a deal can be made. But what do you say to someone who sees the birth of a red heifer as the herald of the end of time? You either believe it or you don't.

* It's interesting that throughout the whole conflict, Palestinian-Israeli-Jordanian cooperation on water issues has been _relatively_ sensible and practical.

W_Howard :)
that is exactly my point.. well observed. I wish some others would take the time to explore this issue.
Its not about how 'loony' the issue seems, its about how much of it is believed and held precious by those who are making the decisions in the area. But I agree with your assessment of that one.(Raimondo)
Others are more balanced, and treat the Temple issue in a more reverent way, linking it to the traditions etc.
Water would be most critical in that area.. I was also nothing the 'car park' mentality of the Turks who decided to divert large chunks of the Euphrates into agriculture before it even reaches Norther Iraq.. "its MY water..no.. ITS MINE" :)

Mr. Mendes,

Anti-Zionism is exactly what it is, anti-Zionism. The real question is why some people are constantly trying to rename it (in the U.S. it's a blitzkrieg). Why are you trying to meld it into something it is not? What is your motive? Aren't you appalled by the Likud-Zionist history of treachery, land-theft, human rights atrocities, and mass murder? Can't you see that the suicide bombings are an ugly reflection of a violent and illegal 50-year military land-grab and occupation? Can't you see there is no possible explanation or justification for the Jewish-only settlements which now house 400,000 Jews on Palestinian land? Why are you trying to call it something else? THAT is the question. Don't question our motives, question your own.

Steppenwolf...
u sound so 'righteous'.. I guess your from Australia ? and I guess every single one of your comments could be directed at YOU for the land u are living on, which was once Aboriginal land !! taken by invasion and mass murder by biological warfare (our diseases) so I'm afraid your righteousness is rather shallow and hollow.
The truth is there is NO land which was not formerly inhabited by OTHERs than those who now inhabit it.
In the case of Israel, they are just fixing up a crime of history when the Romans stole it from them, and if you were an aboriginal would YOU not feel like TAKING BACK Australia ? if u had the military means? You are a hypocrite of the highest order. (but arn't we all).. I think though in the light of your EXTREME self righteousness, u need to be told just how u sound.

Bozo,

I am American, which means my tax dollars finance the Israeli military, the occupation, the settlements and the Wall. American citizens--black, white, Native, Arab, and Asian--have sent Israel over $90 billion dollars, obtained through Zionist bribes and coersion of our politicians. It is the largest transfer of money from one state treasury to another in the history of the world. This is happening TODAY, not 200 or 2000 years ago. Your presumptions on who owns what land are ridiculous when placed in historical context. They are also completely off point. As to your accusations of self-righteousness, look in the mirror.

STEPPEN.. good.. nothing like a bit of a 'you self righteous so and so' to get good discussion going.
Historical context my friend is RELATIVE. I fail to see what historical context you are referring to apart from the REAL and ACTUAL one, which is that the Jews lived in Israel until the Romans took it away and trashed the place. You yanks stole the land from the Native Americans, u cheated them, u bribed them, you deceived them just to facilitate capitalist expansion. Do u deny this ? Its appropriate to say also that a lot of those same native amercian races ALSO did the same to their 'enemies' (other tribes), so it becomes a bit nebulous at this point to say who is right and who is wrong. Perhaps its better to say the Israelis are not 'more wrong' than every race like yours and ours who have done similar things. Its just that now with a global village we can all SEE it happening before our eyes.
The Jews have a divine claim on the land, (Mr Netanyahu thinks this way though u may not see it this way, lots of Jews don't also, but they would then point to military viability rather than divine sanction)
The transfer of money as u described, is a 'fact' u can put some moral judgement on it, but I think if u were a Jew (which I'm not.. in fact I'm a wasp) u might be tempted to do the same. Is all about survival.
If u don't like how your leaders are acting in relation to Israel, u have a vote, use it. If ur vote turns out to have little effect.. get over it, we all have to live with things we dont like in democracies.
And its BOAZ not bozo, have a read of the book of Ruth in the Old testament. Its quite romantic (thats where boaz is from)

Boaz,

Claiming land lost 2000 years ago is ludicrous. How did the Jews acquire the land they now claim as their birthright? By force, of course, from the Canaanites. This is 2005, and in 2005 the governing body accepted by the majority of the world is the U.N. (the same body that recognized Israel as a state). Since their inception, however, the U.N. has declared Israel to be in violation of numerous offenses against the Palestinian Arabs, including the massive land grabs, property theft, and Jewish-only settlement building on Palestinian land since 1967. This land was accepted by both parties and the U.N. as Palestinian property prior to 1967. It includes E. Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, all of which are now under Israeli rule. How is this invasion any different from Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait? More to the point, do I have a right to speak about these violations, and the cost of financing them by American taxpayers, without being branded an antisemite? It is becoming increasingly difficult, and articles like Mendes' don't help in the least.

steppen
the thick plottens...
the UN is nothing more than a result of a balance of power, and its structured with the security council so those who have significant power can veto things which are against their interests. But its the first point which is most important. 'balance of power'.
There is no "peace" that was not the result of war.
I have no faith in the UN because I've watched its pathetic impotence in places like Ruanda and Dafor etc. The reason it is not effective is because of the power balance laying at the foundation of its existence.
I see no problem with identifying historical crimes as explanations for present circumstances, nor do I see a problem with those who have the power, to fix them themselves. Speaking purely in human terms of course. There is no 'absoluteness' that anyone can refer to about the morality of it all unless u wish to invoke God, which of course would make me very happy, because then we could speak in a direction rather than in circles.

Are you following the line of reasoning here? You keep jumping to tangents that have little to do with the dialogue. What is in the water over there? Of course the U.N. represents a balance of power. Right now they are trying to balance out American and Israeli hegemony--with limited success. As for allowing those with the power (and the will) to fix things, were you OK with the way Germany and Japan were fixing things in the '40s? How about Stalin and Kruschev? Power has to checked and balanced.

This is getting tiresome...

Steppen, or is it limpin.....
Kruschev, Stalin ? that raises interesting issues. History is a wonderful thing, it 'teaches'. Was Pearl Harbour bombing wrong ?... umm perhaps when Roosevelt was saying "This is a day of infamy" the Japanese were saying "Take THAT" for sending Commodore Perry to FORCE us to open our country when we didn't want to. Perhaps the Japanese Emporer was saying the same speech in the Perry days as Roosevelt was saying after Pearl Harbour.
Step, u seem to be perceiving the world from a very 'you and now' perspective. Rather than looking at the big picture. Power without checks is madness, agreed. But the point I'm trying to make is that you cannot canonize 'your' version of history or justice, unless u u refer to THE ALMIGHTY i.e. point to some source of law which is greater than pure military or economic power. Apart from that, its alllll relative and based purely on the biggest gun.
I'm hopefully causing you to examine your own presuppositions about life here

Boaz,

What you're stating is painfully obvious. Every state and ethnic group has a unique perspective. You want to defer judgement to the biggest guns and the Almighty, but you're ignoring the WILL to exercise power, which is largely determined by public opinion BEFORE the guns start blazing. Every individual should hold themselves partly responsible for the actions of their state leadership--elected or not.

Frankly, I don't think you're capable of intelligent dialogue on this issue. You're all over the map. You're trying to get me to 'examine my presuppositions' because you don't know anything about the subject at hand. This is about Zionism and my right to protest it without being branded an antisemite. If you want to discuss whether Hirohito's perspective was more relevent or righteous than Roosevelt's, bring it up in the appropriate thread.

Steppen
u have a right to protest and not to be branded an anti semite in the process, no argument there, but while I take your point about being 'all over the map' .. I don't accept that as a weakness in my position. You want to criticize Israel/American actions, fine, but my concern is that such criticism appears to lack credibility because you are simple speaking from within your own generation, expressing 'its' values, rather than looking deeper at why such things happen in the first place. I suppose it could be called 'generational blinkers'. Philosophers have always tried to step 'OUT' of the social environment which moulded them. Why not give it a try yourself ? Suggesting I "don't know" about this or that is a pretty feeble defence, when in fact I have quite a broad grasp of the issues, but choose not to become entangled in them because they are circular and for that reason I mentioned the other things which will shed more light on the fundamental historical drives which are shaping the future of the area.

Aspin wrote that: "Zionism" is nothing more - or less - than the movement for national liberation of the Jewish people. ... the very idea that of all peoples, the Jews are the only ones who do not have a right to self-determination is in and of itself based on a kind of racism and anti-semitism.”

Response: There was a faction of the early Zionist movement that did not seek a Jewish State but sought a spiritual and cultural focus for the Jewish people where Jews would be one culture within a multi-cultural Palestine, but from early last century, after the spiritual/cultural Zionists left the movement, Zionism became a movement to create a Jewish nation-state in Palestine. For Political Zionism, the Jewish people throughout the world would be transferred into Palestine and the natives of Palestine (except for Jewish natives) would be transferred (against their will, no doubt) out of Palestine. The spiritual/cultural form of Zionism was not racist. The Zionist movement to create and maintain a Jewish nation-state in Palestine is racist. Anti-Zionism is anti-racist.

There is no right for all peoples or nations to have a nation-state, although it could well be argued that all peoples should have the right to some degree of self-empowerment. Religious groups also seek a degree of self-empowerment – there are synods and congresses of every religion and sect but there is no there is no right for every one of them to have their own nation-state.

Are the Jews of Palestine (or America) entitled to a nation-state separate from other Palestinians (or Americans)? Should the Moslems of India be encouraged to migrate to a Moslem state? India has peoples of 4 different races, 1,652 different languages and dialects, numerous religions and myriad ethnicities – does every ethnic/religious/language/racial group have the right to a separate nation-state? China officially registers 56 ethnic groups – which of these has the right to a separate nation-state and which does not?. British citizenship encompases English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish nationalities - all in one nation-state! Jews and Palestinians will one day have equal rights in one nation-state.

Aspin makes another point:
Ask most Palestinian Arabs, they'll tell you that although Zionism created the Naqba - they realize that they have to live with a Jewish state and are even happy to do so.

RayBer responds:
Has Aspin really asked most Palestinian Arabs this question? Palestinian websites are grappling either with how Palestinians will live besides the State of Israel, which the PLO has recognised as a state in the area (but not as a “Jewish state”), or else how Palestinians can live with together with the descendants of the Zionists in a binational federal state or a unitary democratic secular state. Obviously the descendants of the Zionists are now born in Israel/Palestine and are now natives of geographical Palestine and are not responsible for the crimes of their forebears. I have not seen any Palestinian website that postulates that Israel has some right to be an exclusively Jewish state! What would happen to the Israeli non-Jews? One fifth of Israel’s poplation is non-Jewish! There is no more compulsion for the international community to recognise Israel as a Jewish State than there was for the international community to recognise South Africa as an Apartheid State, to recognise Iran as a Muslim Repubic, or to recognise China as a Communist State.

It is not the fact that there is discrimination that differentiates Israel from other countries. The difference between discrimination found around the world and Israel’s form of racism/apartheid is that in an apartheid/racist state the discrimination is engineered by the state legislature. As Josh succinctly wrote: Zionist Israel has a two tiered society where there is a legal difference between citizenship and nationality rights. All citizens can vote but nationality rights are exclusively for Jews. These provide for better class health care, priority university education, jobs, low rate loans etc and the right to buy land. 93% of Israeli land is reserved for Jews only. See: http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=584

Ray Ber
you touched on a number of important issues, but it became clear that the more you wrote, the more you relied on secular political/humanistic attempts to solve the problem.

One point you made was that Israel has no more right than the other scenarios/groups you mentioned, to be regarded as or have a 'Nation State' but the point you miss in this, is that they have no LESS right. Expanding.. every nation state which exists today, from my observation of history, is one which emerged out of war/conflict/aggression/displacement etc.

It is these nation states which all have the same kind of background which are beyond hypocritical when they accuse Israel or any other emerging power or state of this or that crime/evil/bad behavior etc. They,(the existing nation states) from their peaceful arm chairs in their peaceful lounge rooms, in their advanced economies which were fed by the denial of human rights and basic justice to millions, and which only exist because of others who have been trampled on, have less right than anyone to criticize Israel or Zimbabwe etc for carving out their own niche.

Look at ourselves here in Australia. Look at how the indigenous people were treated so that settlers could transform (and destroy) the land for the sake of sheep and cattle grazing.

Don't let my nick fool you, I'm not Jewish. I tend to take a theological view of the conflict, and I have also a long memory for history. I would take my point of reference to be the Roman destruction of the Jewish State in AD70. One has to reflect on the idea that if ones nation can be stolen by another, is it also not possible to retake it ? Is it less legitimate ? Is restoring stolen property an 'evil' ? Do we not charge people with 'receipt of stolen goods' if they have knowingly accepted them ?