Josh, the whole tone of your posts says it all. You freely admit to being an anti-Semite, and then you back away. Which one is it? Sure you can criticize Israel without hating Jews, but with you Josh, I’m not sure which comes first - your dislike of Jews or your dislike of Jewish actions in the Middle East. I’m sure both feed off the other.

Believe it or not, I’m on the side of the Palestinian people. They were betrayed by all and sundry back in 1947 and were forcibly removed from their homes and herded into camps where many are still living. It was a disgraceful act that all involved should be ashamed of. But any analysis of the events must take into account the Jewish mindset of the time. They had just lived through the horrors of Nazi Germany which was the culmination of literally thousands of years of persecution. The chance to have a homeland where they could control their own destiny, and be safe, especially in the light of recent history, is understandable.

The subsequent action of the Arabs is also understandable but the cycle must be broken if both sides really want peace. Hopefully with the new Palestinian leadership some progress can be made.

You’ve got to make up your mind what is more important Josh – peace in the Middle East, or seeing Israel gets their “come-uppance”. An answer to this question might also answer the question of your anti-Semitism as well.

Josh,

The Jewish relics lie beneath the Arab relics.
How on Earth can you say the Jews have no rights?
I bet you bleat on about how us Aussies invaded in 1788. Use the same logic in the Middle East & you cannot deny Israel.
Or what that just expose your hypocrasy.

I think that Josh should go to Palestinian websites (with no Jewish connection) to find that according to the British census of 1922 there were 700,000 in all of Palestine, including today's Jordan ... ie, even very generously, no more than 250,000 on the other 20%. Again, non-Jewish sources, the UN, and we find that in 1947 local Arabs owned all of 3.9% of the territory. Given that in 1948, and to this day, Arabs own 3.3% of Israel, it takes no more than 2nd grade arithmetic to realise that there was no significant dispossession of "Palestinians". Further, given that 650,000 left in 1948 (820,000 according to Palestinians) using the same level of arithmetic we arrive at the inescapable conclusion that the bulk of what is laughingly called "Palestinians" arrived from surrounding countries during the mandate period looking for work. Further, the arithmetic tells us, the only REAL Palestinians, by and large, stayed to become Israel's current Arab population.

During the British Mandate, Arabs adamently refused to be called "Palestinian" so in ID papers of that period only Jews were inscribed as "Palestinian" with Arab IDs identifying them as "Arab"... so much for the myth of the centuries old Palestinian nation.

I think Josh would do better to consider why "Palestinian refugees" are refugees at all when living amongst their own brethren in what is slated to be their own state. Why would you keep your own people in the squalor of refugee camps in your own country? Israel is now abandoning lots of excellent housing in Gaza, with the suggestion that it be used to house "refugees" and get them out of the squalour of the camps ... does anyone believe that will happen?

cheers,

Mo

Sayeret asks me why "[He] get[s] flamed for stating the obvious.... & Josh gets away with this ANTISEMETIC CRAP."

Well, I agree that the posts are fairly robust, but it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between "robust" and "flaming". I don't think he has said anything that is not mainstream in some parts of our society's discourse. It is not anti-semitic - not as far as I have seen. To be anti-semitic it would have to attribute something bad to Jews per se, not just to the state of Israel.

I can understand why feelings are aroused on this issue, but it is difficult to have a discussion on it without that happening. I've deleted the "FW", and Roberto is suspended for a week.

Graham

robertomelbourne and co,

When I linked Israel to Syria you responded with the usual hysterics about it has nothing to do with Israel. I hope you were watching Lateline last night. I quote an exchange between Martin Indyk, the former US Ambassador to Israel and Tony Jones:

"TONY JONES: But the United States, Washington, has to be extremely careful about Lebanon, doesn't it, because it's here that they could find themselves in a proxy war with Iran and/or Syria?

MARTIN INDYK: Yes, I think that's a very good point. It's very important to connect the dots between Lebanon, Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Israeli-Palestinian issues...."

So the former US Ambassador can admit a link between the issues but Robert from Melbourne and sloppy intellectuals from USyd can't. I wonder who has the most credibility?

bozzie,

I never backed away from anything. Anyone who opposes the Israeli occupation is labelled anti-Semitic so why not recognise that historical anti-semetism has been defeated and the term is now applied to anyone who doesn't have a patheological hatred of the Palestinians?

To be honest, I really don't think I'm anti-Semitic at all but I just refuse to be bludgeoned into silence by its use.

Sayeret,

You must be a comedian. Some examples of hypocrisy:

* Sadaam Hussein invaded for WMDs that don't exist, costing hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, while Israel has known WMD stockpiles.
* Syria expected to withdraw troops from Lebanon while Israel occupies Syrian terrority.
* Palestinians seen as terrorists for targeting civilians while Israel can fire missiles from helicopter gunships into some of the most densely populated areas in the world and then deny it targets civilians.

The list could go on and on.

GrahamY,

Thankyou for not being intimidated by the Israel First crowd.

It's very rare these days...