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 ?)