The writer in his article does not mention that there is a big difference, a world of difference between anti-semitism and anti-zionism.
Many zionists today, based on a nationalist outlook are shifting ground rapidly, heading to the far right towards fascism and many have landed there. It may sound contradictory after all the horrific experiences including the holocaust but that is the end road or deadend of nationalism. Of course any criticism levelled against zionism they opportunistically decry anti-semitism. Which is not true.
Clearly, in the midst of an economic crisis wracking Germany in the 1930's the extreme right wing elements (grounded in nationalism)in Germany and around the globe scapegoated the jews for all the economic ills of society. As the nazi propaganda minister Goebels explained "you blame your enemy with what you yourself are doing." However, for this case it was the economic system that crashed and still in freefall after the Great Depression, never righting itself, spiralling all the way downwards into World War2.
Many jews were in the leadership of the workers movement in Germany and had an international socialist outlook. To their credit they scorned all forms of nationalism. This is what fueled much of Hitlerite fascism's hatred of jews; which is anti-semitism.

I think the Jews have had it pretty hard since Roman times.

It s such a pity it was out of the frying pan and into (not as bad) fire when they left Europe for Israel.

From my perspective there was always going to be a reaction to the setting up of a Jewish state in Arab land.

You know thats all history now and Israel is here to stay. But what is next?

Surely what is best is to work for peace with all and that means development of all the economies in the region. Especially with regard to fresh water supplies.

Why did the Europeans have such a thing about the Jews I wonder?

There was no instance of violence towards them until the crusades.

Is hatred of Jews is a political tool? Create the demon then "bash" the demon and by this control the people?

To the RACIST author,

You are a pathetic little troll. How can you have the hide to attempt to abject the entirety of Islamic racism onto the West?

If what you say is true, then ask yourself this:
1) Jews are from the Middle East originally (Jerusalim area)
2) Jews prospered in Europe, even though there was lots of anti-Semitism and persecution, on the whole they must have been treated well as how esle could they have achieved such a high level of
education, achievement by way of contributing great thinkers and scientists to the world, and such a high level of economic prosperity?
3) There are no famous Jewish thinkers (comparable to those in Western history) in Arab countries, there is also no sizable portion of Jewish amongst the wealthy and elites of the Arab world.
4) How can one see this obvious evidence and still think that anti-Semitism must have been given to Arabs from the West?

On Mohammed's death bed he asked for there to be no religion other than Islam in Arabia, and that all the Jews should be massacred, as he did of the Jewish tribes in his life.

European history did have lots of anti-Semitism (or anti-Jewishness), probably due to the deicide factor. However, above all it is the tribal (or ethnic) mentality that breeds fear, racism, and vile hatred of the "other", and above all other factors, this is what the Arab Muslim lands are still fully immersed in, whilst the Europeans largely overcame that mindset due to Reason and Rationality, things learnt in the cultural overhaul called the "Enlightenment".

This is why we are able to invite millions of migrants from Arab lands to live here as equals, but not even one church exists in the Gulf Arab states.

Also, I think the worst act of anti-Jewishness in history was when the caliph just after the prophet built a mosque on top of the holiest Jewish site, and to this day they don't remove it out of good faith. This is the source of all their racism, and the proof of it.

XODDAM

well.. we don't need to ask which side of the fence you are on eh....
You nailed your colors pretty well to the forum mast quick smart.

There is only one bad guy "Israel".

There is only one good guy "Palestinians"

Unfortunately, you appear to either condone or be ignorant of the genocidal Hamas Charter, perhaps you should read it..THEN... tell us clearly IF YOU SUPPORT IT.

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

Specially provide us with your opinion on Part III, article 11

1/ Agree ?
2/ Disagree?

Then we will know how to understand you. (so will the AFP)

I think you should connect with this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAc5RPfAfQ&mode=related&search=
Its current, from Sydney.

This one..from New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO74GwUTZj4

Notice the use of the words "Jews..Khaibar" many times... if you doubt there was anti semitism (anti Jew) sentiment among the early Muslims, you need to read up on Khaybar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar

For a full report read:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life4/chap21.htm

You can draw your own conclusions about all this. But I think it is not historically fair to say there was no anti-Jewish sentiment in early Islam, no matter how justified Muslims may suggest it was.
Just SEE the number of video's referencing it here.

Iranian Rifle named after it.
Hezbollah Missile named after it.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Khaibar

Then look at this one particularly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHC-tfOvXGA (it will save you some reading)

FH.. if you come here.. mate..I'm just addressing the topic :)

BB - Part Two

Possibly necessary for protection, but without much global commonsense, was the later US conspiring with Israel to let her go militarily nuclear, which has made long-term peace for an Islamic Middle-East virtually only a Roman-style peace, in which US unilateral power holds sway. Further, to hold Middle East peace, the only Middle East Islamic nation of size, Iran might have to be militarily subdued by the US, to hold a very undemocratic peace, as the US and her allies have done with Iraq, and now onto Iran.

To any qualified historian, Iran itself since Persian times has never attacked another country, yet was occupied by the US after WW2, but with Iran later booting out the puppet Shah. Further, with US backing, Iran was also attacked by Saddam’s Iraq in 1981, Iran without any other nation to back her, was nevertheless victorious after eight years of fighting.

Moreover, while such political problems should be handled by a strong resolute democratic United Nations, the UN these days seems to be mostly represented by Condoleeza Rice, the sitting UN President only a US lackey, chosen deliberately from a Third World nation by means of US pressure.

Finally, it is obvious that the Middle East problem has become a philosophical one rather than a truly political one.

Indeed, it is true that the more fruitful peaceful turnings in history have been brought on by philosophers such as Socrates, St Thomas Aquinas and John Locke of Britain.

Just as Thomas Aquinas lifted Christianity out of the Dark Ages, John Locke carried on the task in 1688 to lift Britain from the clutches of autocratic religious royalty, his democratic doctrine later patterning the US Constitution, but still somewhat weakened more recently by allowing the ridiculous concept of the prerogative, to let President Bush interfere with rules that encourage genuine peaceful democracy rather than all-out war.

Paul L, thankyou for the measured tone of your second post here. I agree with much you say there, specifically about the gradual softening of the official Israeli line.

I do think that, despite compensation payments and rhetoric, the wall is a de facto land grab, and that Israeli soldiers go in for "extreme behaviour" just as vile as that of the Palestinian militants -- taking pot-shots at children and peace activists with rubber (-coated steel) bullets, for instance.

David/Boaz, my colours are indeed nailed to the mast: I think democracies should be held to acount for their crimes of war!

I don't think Israel is the only bad guy or that the Palestinians are all good guys. There are criminals and victims on both sides of the fence. The difference is that Israel's crimes are committed by the soldiers and officials of a democratic state, acting in the name of its citizens.

I do not support the Hamas charter. I *disagree* with Part III, Article 11, of the Hamas charter. I don't submit to Islamic law, nor do I support those who would impose it on non-Muslims. In particular I support the right of Muslims to turn apostate with impunity.

I think Islam is not a peaceful religion, and that it always had some anti-Jewish sentiment. Yet I understand that for most of the period 1000-1945, Jewish people living under Islamic law were less harshly persecuted than the Jews of Christendom. It is obvious and well-documented that European anti-semitic propaganda found fertile soil amongst 20th-century Islamists.

I do not advocate the destruction of the state of Israel, nor the bombing of Israeli residents.

I give no credence to any of the ludicrous anti-semitic "documentaries" or conspiracy theories floating around.

No more do I support those holy fools who blow themselves up on trains beneath London or aeroplanes above New York.

Yet the crimes of the Israeli state speak for themselves.

The acts of the Palestinian militia are no less criminal.

Both are quite well-documented. It irks me, though, that the names of Palestinian victims are rarely mentioned in English.