“The 2006 Lebanon war was the first battle in Israel's history that it comprehensively lost.”

It was hardly a war, and Israel did not lose against the terrorists. Israel ceased retaliating because of the squeals from the usual anti-Semitic cave dwellers of the left. There is no doubt that Israel could wipe Lebanon out if it was left to defend itself as it is entitled to. Some would liken these Neanderthals of the left to Nazis, a word they are fond of tossing about themselves.

The ‘thinker’ posed adopted by the author for his photograph doesn’t make him the intellectual he thinks he is

Mr Loewenstein is a sad indictment of today's education system. Where are the skills of critical thinking? Where the intellectual fair-mindedness?

This article is the internal posturing of the far left, like unto the pale blue buttocks of a young gibbon aggressively displayed in a sexual competition with adults that don't give a hoot.

This ridiculous article does not even pay lip service to the kidnapping and murder of Israelis; the war crimes of Hezbollah, forcing civilians to hide their rocket launchers in private homes; that the deaths of those civilians are the fault of Hezbollah, the true war criminals, not the ones trying to stop missiles being rained on civilians. It does not point out that the news reports purportedly covering Israeli crimes were in fact fabrications, thoroughly debunked by a cursory examination of the evidence.

Mr Loewenstein is in fact collaborating in information warfare waged by true war criminals and murderers of civilians. He is not worth our spit.

Yes Leigh, sounds like Kevin Kline in "A fish called Wanda" - "we didn't lose Vietnam - it was a tie!"

Point being - what would "wiping Lebanon out" (whatever constitutes that??) actually achieve. Would that extend the hand of friendship to the rest of the region? Much like our own indigenous "sorry" dilemma, Israel has to recognise mistakes and continued tyranny that the Arab population is and has been subjected to (not only in Israel, but in the wider region by colonial powers) and stop giving excuses to radicalise the population. Israel has the strength of arms and as such they have the power. They need to be the ones to build the bridges between the communities. This won't happen while they remain the proxy (whether they admit/recognise it or not) of US interests in the region.

History shows that when it comes to the crunch, the lowest common denominator for the US is their own national interest. Despite rhetoric, the bloody scab that is the Israel/Palestine conflict is one way the US can draw attention of the populations of oil producing states away from actively getting the most benefit for themselves from the massive natural resources they own. The ruling classes are in the pockets of the US so the oil keeps flowing. If the oil ran out, the US would have no further interest in the continuation of the conflagration.

The radicalisation of religion in the region grew out of the power vacuum left when Arab nationalism (which would have threatened US control of resources in the region) was crushed in the 70’s. Maybe the US didn’t predict this outcome, but they continue to manipulate and milk the situation to suit their own purposes. There seems to be too many diversions and too much chest beating from all sides in this conflict to see this aspect and consequently, the sub plots in the conflict become the main themes.

cont...

I believe (some, at least in) Israel know this, but it's actions and policy have been so compromised in the last 40 years, manipulated by the US when it suits, that they themselves are splintered in agreeing on the way forward. Israel is the muppet and the US is the hand. They have to find a way to disassociate their actions from the US, remain powerful and strong to deter other states in the region, and work towards policies that actually improve the Palestinians lot without letting radical Islamists take credit. How they do this when they rely of the US for much of their military might is indeed a stumbling block. Nice trick played by the US however.

The current course of action (more settlements, economic repression etc) will simply continue the situation – anyone can see this, particularly the US, and why wouldn’t they want to keep it that way?

ChrisPer,

If you want fair-mindedness, count the bodies. How many casulties and deaths has Hezbollah caused against Israelis in the past, say, ten years? How many did Israel cause against Lebanon in just the one conflict in 2006? In these same period what percentage were civilians and what percentage were combatants? These numbers are available and you may care to consider them in a non-partisan manner.

What is one to think of the Haim Ramon's comments that "Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah"? What is one supposed to think of Israel's biggest-selling paper, Yedioth Ahronoth, that "a village from which rockets are fired at Israel will simply be destroyed by fire". Yet you try to blame Hezbollah for civilian deaths during the 2006 Lebanese war?

If you want critical thinking, read your history. How was Hezbelloh formed? It was formed after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (Make sure you read this: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060). It probably wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for that invasion. So the wheel turns, eh?

or you could look at how israel was formed, by terror and expropriation of moslem arab land by european jews.

the zionists can't seem to understand that those people, and their children, want their land back. any basic concept of justice will demand that they succeed.

Some basic knowledge of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and US President Truman's diplomatic recognition of the re-born nation of Israel in 1948 should give at least some idea of Israel's legitimacy to exist.

Despite Israel's indiscretion in certain instances , the oveririding Hezbollah ideology is one which can't be tolerated, "Hezbollah's announced long-term objectives—the establishment of an Islamic republic in Lebanon, and the elimination of the State of Israel—have not changed." ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060)

The chief tactic of this group is one of terror, chiefly toward Israel with Western countries far from immunce. Through the political process they are attempting to appease the local Lebanese population , "In view of these attacks [from Hezbollah] , the concerns of the American government are understandable. And Hezbollah's ideology—a fiery mixture of revolutionary Khomeinism, Shiite nationalism, celebration of martyrdom, and militant anti-Zionism, occasionally accompanied by crude, neo-fascist anti-Semitism—only exacerbates concern about the organization's potential for violence." ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060)

This article is a typical example of placing all the blame at Israel's doorstep. It makes no mention of who provoked the 2006 war. Let's recall how things started. Hezbollah decided to mount a cross-border raid into Israel in which it killed several Israeli soldiers and captured 2 more. This came on the back of 6 years of intermittent rocket attacks on the northern part of Israel.

Again, I ask critics of Israel, what would you do in such a situation? Sit back and accept a growing military presence on your northern border OR take an opportunity to remove that threat?

Yes, Hezbollah was formed to resist Israel's presence in Lebanon. But hold on, Israel withdrew in 2000. Mission accomplished for Hezbollah? No, instead it decided to build up its military capability (with Iran's help) and continue to attack Israel. This is the real context in which the 2006 war began. Sadly, the author of the article chooses to ignore all of this.

Lev,

a body count does not necessarily tell the story of who's right and who's wrong. Superior firepower means that Israel will probably end up inflicting more casualties. Human shields used by Hezbollah may have contributed to more deaths in Lebanon. On the other side, every Israeli house or apartment building has a purpose-built shelter for protection against rockets - this saved many lives.

Hezbollah was directly targetting civilians by firing specifically at major population centres in northern Israel, not attacking IDF bases. Of course, the article here chooses to mention Israel's transgressions only

Notice how the author describes the Israelis as being 'killed', whilst the Lebanese are 'murdered'. He seems to have selective memory as well. I remember Condoleezza Rice calling for an end to Israel's campaign within 24 hours of it starting.

He quotes statements by Amnesty International(now a thoroughly discredited and politically biased organisation) that refer to 'indiscriminate bombing'. Contrary to being 'indiscriminate', the bombing was surgical in nature and aimed at infrastructure used by Hezbollah. The fact that Hezbollah operates from civilian enclaves ensures that civilians will be killed.

He also mentions 500,000 Palestinians who had their land 'stolen' in 1948. Prior to 1948 there were a little over 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza. The average birthrate of Gazans is the highest in the world - 5.64 children per woman(they explain; 'each child will be a bomb').

Lastly, the Semitic race has been in Israel/Phoenicia for a lot longer than the so-called 'Palestinians'. Herodotus, writing in 450BC, said the city of Tyre was then 2300 years old.

Israel will never have peace until every so-called 'Palestinian' is repatriated to Egypt/Syria/Jordan, and the land they stole from the Jews returned.

the fact that he can't resist using the codeword "zionist" says it all. lowenstein is an uncle thomastein.

On no other subject are the boundaries of objective reporting more finely drawn than Israel. For thirty-five years at least, Palestinians have been denied a right to return to their homes,in breach of numerous United Nations resolutions and international law.

In demanding Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, the Security Council used words strikingly similar to those that demanded Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait in 1990. When Iraq did not comply, it was attacked by an American-led coalition and Kuwait was liberated.
When Israel did not comply, it has received increased western,
principally American, economic and military support.

With honourable exceptions, events in Palestine are reported in the West in terms of two warring rivals, not as the oppression of an illegal occupier and the resistance of the occupied. The Israeli regime continues to set the international news agenda. Israelis are 'murdered by terrorists,' while Palestinians are 'left dead' after a 'clash with security forces.'

Distinction is rarely made between a huge, nuclear-armed military force with tanks, fighter jets and helicopter gunships, and crowds of youths with slingshots. (The suicide bombers are a relatively recent phenomenon, the product mostly of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which left 17,500 dead).

The BBC refers to Israel's policy of assassination as 'targeted killing,' the euphemism used by Israeli spokesmen. It is rarely reported that of the hundreds killed and thousands wounded --- 90 per cent have been Palestinian civilians, 45 per cent have been under eighteen, and 60 per cent were shot while in their homes, schools and workplaces...

Antony Loewenstein is a board member of Macquarie University's Centre for Middle East and North African Studies. As Dr Ilan Pappe, Senior Lecturer at the University of Haifa, Israel, and autrhor of "A History of Modern Palestine," wrote about the Antony's book, 'My Israel Question,' "... the book will serve as an essential guide for those who dare to criticise Zionist wrong doing in the past and Israeli policies in the present, without being deterred by false allegations of antisemitism."

I agree with Foxy when he/she says "Events in Palestine are not... reported as the oppression of an illegal occupier and the resistance of the occupied." The Jews have suffered oppression for thousands of years and the Palestinians are illegally occupying Jewish land.

Why does no one mention the fact that the so-called 'Palestinians' are only in Palestine because their antecedents murdered the Jewish inhabitants and stole their homes? As I point out above, the Semitic race have been in Phoenicia/Israel since at least 3000BC.

Arabs are marauding cutthroats whose sole occupation was brigandry and the ambuscade of travellers on the ancient trade routes from the East(as did their prophet Mohammad).

In later times they were slave traders, and everywhere they went they interbred with the locals (except in civilised countries like Spain, Austria-Hungary etc.) Winston Churchill describes Arab half-castes as a particularly 'debased and cruel breed'. No wonder they are such lovely, peaceful people nowadays. How lucky we are to be able to experience and enjoy their 'cultural traditions'.

Spy, A body count might not necessarily tell the whole story, but it's a pretty good start. Especially when one is conducting a body count of civilian deaths. Whilst you may be correct about the one-sidedness of the article - and with that I agree - I believe you are incorrect concerning Hezbollah's targets during the war. From what I've read less than 25% of Hezbollah's rockets were fired into civilian areas - and that excludes of course their use of anti-tank rockets. Thus the total number of Israeli dead consisted of 119 soldiers and 44 civilians. Those proportions are not the same on the other side of the conflict, are they?

As for how it started.. Well, you can go back and go back and go back. But a starting point for ending the cycle is not to engage in collective punishment of civilians for the alleged crimes of a militia group.

Bill02... They let some strange people into here, but you're the real door prize. Congratulations.

The UN, in 1948 with its declaration of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, had a basic mandate rising from the ashes of the Holocaust. Since then, the General Assembly has never adopted a single resolution dedicated to "anti-semitism" in its history.

This absurdity has arisen because the Islamic bloc of fifty-six states has waged a steady campaign in key UN bodies to gut anti-Semitism of its meaning, using the ludicrous argument that the term also refers to hatred against Arabs and Muslims. This is a pernicious distortion of language and meaning - designed to prevent the UN from coherently expressing sympathy for Jews as victims, and to create a form of immunity for Arab and Islamic states accused of fostering anti-Semitism.

The grounds for peace simply cannot and do not lie within an organisation such as the UN - certainly it is legitimate for UN bodies to criticize Israel, but not when they do so unfairly, selectively, massively, sometimes exclusively, and always obsessively.

in 2006-07, the Human Rights Council passed one hundred percent of its condemnatory resolutions against Israel, ignoring the other 191 UN member states, including the world’s worst abusers.

Paradoxically, one of the greatest violators of the UN Charter's equality guarantee has been the UN body charged with establishing and enforcing international human rights, the Human Rights Council. The 59th Session of the General Assembly did not pass a single resolution on Sudan's genocide in Darfur - instead valuable time was atrophied by ambassadors enacting the nineteenth anti-Israel resolution of the year.

The U.N. has a lofty charter, with an idealistic blue-print for peace, but a crippling bias has 'buggered' any possible apparatus in its achievement.

Dear Leigh,

What level of education have you achieved?

I'm just curious as to how qualified you are to judge Antony
Loewenstein's intellect...

Antony is a Sydney-based journalist and author. He's written for the Sydney Morning Herald, The Sun-Herald, The Australian, The Bulletin, Crikey, Znet, New Matilda and Counterpunch. He was also a contributor to the 2004 bestseller, Not Happy John!.

He is a board member of Macquarie University's Centre for Middle East and North African Studies.

And what have you done?

Or are you the type of person who labels people and puts them down
simply because they don't agree with your 'intellect?' and or -
political inclinations...

We've got a few of those on this Forum - they can't see further then
the ends of their noses, but unfortunately they have an opinion on everything.

Actually Relda, anti-semitism only refers to hatred of Semites (i.e., Arabs, Hebrews, Maltese, Aramaic etc.

It's usage against Jews was because certain racists, who also considered Jews an enemy religion, also claimed that they were of a different race. ie., that they were Semites, not Indo-Europeans.

As the racist Ernest Renan wrote:

"The Jews are not merely a different religious community, but—and this is to us the most important factor—ethnically an altogether different race. The European feels instinctively that the Jew is a stranger who immigrated from Asia. The so-called prejudice is a natural sentiment"

In other words, the European racists erroneously claimed that because Jews were Semites racial discrimination was justifiable against them (which piggy-backed neatly on the existing religious prejudice).

Of course, it was false as only a minority of Jews can legitimately claim to be Semites, but muck sticks and sadly, some now try to claim "anti-semitism" as only something that can be applied against one religion!

If I am to give an unfortunately grimly ironic application of anti-semitism, I can think of none better than the following.

"'After lunch, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke with great intemperance about the Arabs. When he drew a breath, I was constrained to say, 'Dr Hacohen, I am profoundly shocked that you should preach of other human beings in terms similar to those in which (Nazi) Julius Streicher spoke of the Jews. Have you learned nothing?' I shall remember his reply to my dying day. He smote the table with both hands and said, 'But they are not human beings, they are not people, they are Arabs.'"

Now that is anti-semitism.

Lev,
Whilst it is correct to infer a cultural commonality between modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs by using the word 'Semite', the term 'anti-semite' provides a totally different historical connotation. The word 'Semitic' was originally applied to all descendants of Shem, the eldest son of the biblical patriarch Noah.

The roots of anti-Semitism basically occurred with the rise and eventual domination of Christianity throughout the Western world, discrimination against Jews on religious grounds became universal, and systematic and social anti-Judaism made its appearance. Jews were massacred in great numbers, especially during the Crusades - the roots of modern anti-Semitism came to be firmly imbedded in aspects of Christian theology. Christianity "had polarized the actors of the Bible (original-Old Testament) into bad Jews and good Hebrews and thought of themselves as the descendants of the Hebrews and the true Israel. People as diverse as Martin Luther and Henry Ford have expressed anti-Semitism. The term continues to have specific meaning - anti-semitic propaganda has existed in Russia and the United States. The term distinctly refers to Jews and not Arabs.

Anti-Semitism continues to refer to the political, social, and economic agitation and activities directed against Jews. Its use denotes speech and behavior that is derogatory to people of Jewish origin, whether or not they are religious.

As with the holocaust denial, it is a form of blatant deception to deny the true historical context of 'anti-Semitism' and also its current usage. A politically correct refashioning of its meaning, as the UN appears to attempt, does in no way retract from the intent to wipe Israel off the map.

Arguing about UN Declarations, Balfour declarations, body counts, semantics over Semites and ancient History! What a bunch of rubbish. Fruit for the side board. Who holds real power? The UN matters - but for the big boys it only matters up to a point. History is littered with States breaking conventions or acting unilaterally when it suits their own interests.

People have got to stop carping on about the past. We know what the situation is on the ground, we know what hasn't worked in the past. We know what all these rancid ideologues believe. Now how can we go about changing the situation? Who (outside the Palestinians and Israelis) has a stake and is influencing. What are the roles being played out and why? Regardless of the rhetoric, it is a great game indeed.

Maybe the justification is "we'd rather have thousands of Palestinians and hundreds of Israelis dead over the decades than a hot war taking out millions in half a decade? Maybe those policy makers are right? This is the way it works - Robert Mcnamara explained in "The Fog of War" how Realpolitik works at this level, so why can't we acknowledge the massive role the big geo-political power brokers play in this and cut out all the mindless drivel and petty acusations. If there was 5 years with no violence, you could be sure most people there wouldn't be worried about Caliphates or Ancient prophecies. You're average Joe there now doesn't! The situation would be transformed. Big powers give oxygen to fanatics and perpetuate the situation.

When this is acknowledged properly, the solutions to the problems may actually be alot clearer and simpler than they appear, and the people of the region may be able to get on with what most of them want to do - just living their simple humble lives like the rest of us.

Hotrod,
Understanding the cause of anti-Semitic behaviour within the Middle-East and globally is only small part of the complexity in finding peace. It is a valuable first step, however, as a pending nuclear war in this region will have far reaching effects - beyond most people's comprehension; its effect will render global warming as something of a far lesser consequence.

The UN may give us the most comprehensive body of International Law to date but when viewed with the current aphorism of the sovereign nation principle it becomes, entirely, a toothless tiger. Like it or not, the decisions of a sovereign nation regarding armed conflict trump the decision of the United Nations by far. One must fully appreciate, the Security Council is not an enforcer and protector of international law so much as it is a platform for political bargaining.

The law within any sovereign country has respect only when it can maintain peace and security. At the same time, if the law is merely a reflection of realpolitik, then the law loses its social function, and becomes no more than a non-normative apology, a post hoc justification for any actually effective policy.

Mourning the so called breaking of International law can only be posturing. If the law does not take into account the concerns of the countries it seeks to bind, it is not only a violation of its own inherent charter – the maintenance of peace and security – it will fail to demand any kind of respect or adherence. Considering the cultures represented within the UN, it faces an extremely difficult if not, impossible task.

In considering the Israel's Western sanctioned sovereignty, along with the threats mounted against her, it's unlikely she'll shed anything her arsenal of up to 200 launch ready nukes. Iran's Ahmadinejad picking a war at this stage is like Paris Hilton picking a fight with Mike Tyson - they're probably at least 5 - 10 years away from nuclear capability. We still have time - but not much. Our optimism may be a little blinding, but regardless, the alliance is building.

Relda,

The roots of anti-Semitism did not arise with Christainity in Europe (although anti-Judaism certainly did), but rather by the application of cultural difference to race theory.

The very word "Semitism" was first raised in ethnological and linguistic studies (cf., von Schlüzer and Eichhorn 1787). Sometime afterwards, what had been a linguistic term became a racist term. Lassen (1844-61) begin distinguishing personality characteristics between the Semites and Caucasians. The following clearly shows that anti-Semitism did not only apply to Jews:

"History proves that Semites do not possess the harmony of psychical forces which distinguishes the Aryans. The Semite is selfish and exclusive. He possesses a sharp intellect which enables him to make use of the opportunities created by others, as we find it in the history of the Phenicians and, later on, of the Arabs."

Nobody is suggesting that the Jews did not suffer in the late 19th and 20th century under the name of anti-Semitism, however it seems the branding of Jews as racially incompatiable Semites had some strange effect as some wish to misappropriate the term exclusively - and deny genuine Semites to actually use it to describe racially motivated attacks against them. Such an action is morally repugnant and illogical.

Hotrod,

I do agree with your comments that this is largely "fruit for the sideboard" and the real issue is the distribution and use of power (thus, I approve of your solution as well). However, I also like to be semantically and historically accurate. The problem of Palestine will not be solved until it is genuinely a secular and democratic region with equality embedded in law, regulation and practise. This is not the case and as such, conflict continues.

What you seem to have ignored, Lev, is the progression of thought originating from Schlüzer and Eichhorn. What was originally a merely linguistic term soon became an ethnical designation based on the results of comparative philology.

Christian Lassen (1800-76), professor at Bonn continued, "..History proves that Semites do not possess the harmony of psychical forces which distinguishes the Aryans. The Semite is selfish and exclusive. He possesses a sharp intellect which enables him to make use of the opportunities created by others, as we find it in the history of the Phoenicians and, later on, of the Arabs."

Further to this thinking Ernest Renan (1823-92 )singled out the Jews through asserting the same principle of inferiority , "The Jews are not merely a different religious community, but - and this is to us the most important factor - ethnically an altogether different race. The European feels instinctively that the Jew is a stranger who immigrated from Asia… In eastern Europe the Jew is the cancer slowly eating into the flesh of the other nations. Exploitation of the people is his only aim. Selfishness and lack of personal courage are his chief characteristics; self-sacrifice and patriotism are altogether foreign to him."

While the term Anti-Semitism should be restricted in its use to the modern movements against the Jews, in its wider sense it may be said to include the persecution of the Jews at all times and among all nations as professors of a separate religion or as a people having a distinct nationality.

I really need say no more.

Relda,

Perhaps you should reread my last post. I specifically states that the linguistic term because a racial one. Indeed you have even used the same quote that I have (Lassen), which explicitly shows that from the outset anti-semitism referred to Arabs.

As I mentioned it was the erronous description of Jews as Semites (some are, many aren't) by which the racial theory was applied against them.

Your last paragraph contradicts everything that you had written previously in that post. It is perhaps best then that you do not say anything more until you realise this and understand that anti-Judiasm isn't anti-Semitism and that the latter term should not be misappropriated to represent the former.