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.