The War on Christmas

And it has become pretty general. Last Christmas most people had a hard time finding Christmas cards that indicated in any way that Christmas commemorated Someone's Birth. Easter they will have the same difficulty in finding Easter cards that contain any suggestion that Easter commemorates a certain event. There will be rabbits and eggs and spring flowers, but a hint of the Resurrection will be hard to find. Now, all this begins with the designers of the cards.

Henry Ford
The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem
1921
via NewsHounds

Even Jewish people like Christmas.

Bill O'Reilly
The O'Reilly Factor
Dec 1st, 2004

Well, what I'm tellin' you, [caller], is I think you're takin' it too seriously. You have a predominantly Christian nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And you don't wanna hear about it? Come on, [caller] -- if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then.

Bill O'Reilly, speaking to Jewish caller
The Radio Factor
Dec 7th, 2004

You know it's an amazing thing -- this is a Christian country, it's founded by Christians, Christmas is one of our great celebrations. It's been a time of joy for our people for many years, and not only us, but now they're picking up Christmas in Japan, picking it up in China. It's something that has blessed the world. And if people don't like America and the traditions that made America great, let them go to Saudi Arabia, let them go to Pakistan. Yeah, they can go to the Sudan and find a wonderful Muslim holiday.

Pat Robertson
700 Club
Dec 23, 2004

When we began the Christmas season this year, we were all very much aware that a war was being waged by the Christmas grinches -- the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and other secularists, to steal Christmas from America. To not only take Christ out of Christmas, but to remove Christmas totally from the American scene. I am happy to announce today that we are winning the Christmas war. [...]

We have declared war on the left, and we're going to sue the hide off of everybody, everybody, who tries to inhibit the liberties of our children and our families from worshipping and honoring the Lord, as we in America are constitutionally allowed to do.

Jerry Falwell
televised sermon
Dec 19th, 2004

This case, really, talks about the essence of Christmas. Christmas is still constitutional. What happened in this case, it appears, is that the mayor had absolute hostility toward the religious, specifically the Christian, viewpoint of the nativity scene. In this case, the mayor was persistent over several months. The city council cancelled meetings, walked out when this issue came up, in fact, the mayor-- [(BRIGITTE QUINN): Mat, why was he hostile?]  Well, the mayor is apparently Jewish. Unfortunately, this looks like the mayor's particular vendetta against the nativity scene.

Mathey Staver, Liberty Counsel
Fox News Live
Dec 16th, 2004

Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? [...] Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes.

William Donahue, The Catholic League
Scarborough Country, MSNBC
Dec 8th, 2004

I recently picked up a newspaper and saw George Bush lighting a Jewish Menorah erected in the White House. I stopped for a moment and said to myself, "Somethings wrong with this picture. Isn't this the same White house forbidden to erect a cross or even the traditional manger scene at Christmastime.

[...]

Jewish writers define the Hanukkah celebration as one to encourage resistance to assimilation among Gentiles, a battle as vital today as the one that went on 2000 years ago. The word Hellenization is just a substitute word for Americanization. You see, everyone else in the world that comes to America is supposed to be quote, "Americanized," everyone of course except the Jews. For them we are supposed to say isn't it great that they want to maintain their separateness and not merge into the great melting of races and creeds in America! Of course melting pots aren't always what they are cracked up to be. Problem with melting pots is that the bottom often gets burned and the scum usually rises to the top.

[...]

How are these double standards maintained without any outcry? In truth the double standards that we witness every day in our nation reveal the extent of Jewish power and influence over our media, government and culture. [...] Unless that Jewish-supremacist power over America is broken our heritage and freedom will not survive.

David Duke
Christmas and Hannukkah: Double Standards for America!
Nov. 30, 2004

There is an active campaign to destroy Christianity altogether, along with all its paraphernalia, the most obvious of which is...Christmas, of course. And the campaign is organized, financed and run by...Jews, of course. We all know about the lawsuit to remove 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. Filed by a Jew. Remember the lawsuit to remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse foyer, then to remove the judge who put it there? Filed by Jews. Remember the lawsuit last year to force New York public schools to take down colored lights? Filed by Jews. Remember the huge Jewish uproar about Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ"? That backfired badly for Abe Foxman and company, but was a piece of the overall strategy to deChristianize America. It's a Jewish strategy, of course. That's why the lawsuits are all brought by Jews.

Edgar Steele
Dec 16th, 2004
Vangard News Network

An explanation of our search results:

If you recently used Google to search for the word "Jew," you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We'd like to explain why you're seeing these results when you conduct this search.

A site's ranking in Google's search results is automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for "Jew" brings up one such unexpected result.

If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:

• http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174
  
• http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp

Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like "Judaism," "Jewish people," or "Jews" than the single word "Jew." In fact, prior to this incident, the word "Jew" only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it's likely that the great majority of searches on Google for "Jew" are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.

Our search results are generated completely objectively and are independent of the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google. Some people concerned about this issue have created online petitions to encourage us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Because of our objective and automated ranking system, Google cannot be influenced by these petitions. The only sites we omit are those we are legally compelled to remove or those maliciously attempting to manipulate our results.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.

Sincerely,
 The Google Team

p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to both the Jewish Internet Association, an organization that addresses online anti-semitism, at http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/ and Google's search results on this topic.

•  happy holidays

  hunter.

  by rasbobbo on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 03:26:16 PM PDT

  •  And to you and yours,

    And to everyone here.

    by Hunter on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 04:17:05 PM PDT

    •  tomli

      I am very intersted in your subject, but i'm a beginner. So i hope we can often intercourse. led Be st Regard!! qrst uvwxyz ghffs etey.....

      by gmjacky on Sat Feb 26, 2005 at 07:24:37 AM PDT

  •  You get a 4

    in part for a truly excellent sigline. :)

    by OxyLiberal on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 08:08:15 PM PDT

  •  My favorite seasonal quote

    Christmas Wish

    I have a little vision
    of the world.
    It isn't much.
    But in it, beauty shines
    whenever earth
    and people touch.
    There's laughter,
    and there's music,
    and the trees
    are standing tall,
    and the creatures
    whisper stories
    of the One
    who made us all.
    And no one's lost
    or hungry,
    every life's
    of equal worth,
    and the angels
    scatter snowflakes
    like a dream of
    peace on earth.

    -J. Howard

    This is from a Christmas card I found several years ago. I truly love this wish. It speaks to me as a Buddhist despite its reference to angels and the One. For me the One is simply the ineffably mysterious spark of Life in the universe. Angels are the all-compassionate humans who help those in need and work to make a better world for us all.
    

    by NeoLotus on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 12:11:11 AM PDT

    •  Thank you, I love it!

      by Evie on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 03:53:36 AM PDT

  •  Merry Christmas

    to all

    by ridge on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 09:42:08 AM PDT

•  Outstanding.

  There is very little new under the sun.

  Except, of course, the Bush administration.

  by Omar on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 03:27:37 PM PDT

  •  Fascism isn't new

    I think Mussolini's reign was a template for this administration.

    by colorado thistle on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 05:09:36 PM PDT

    •  Yeah...

      That's why I like to call him "Busholini."

      by Matt Jordan on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 05:12:07 PM PDT

•  THIS is antisemitism

  Too many of my fellow Jews (and many gentiles) waste important political and cultural capital wrongfully accusing those of us who are critical of Israel of being antisemitic on the basis of that criticism.

  The most obvious cost of this nonsense is our country's appalling policy toward Israel/Palestine, which is backed by a bipartisan consensus (there truly wasn't any difference between what Bush and Kerry had to say on this topic).

  But there are other costs as well, among them the fact that charging someone with antisemitism has so totally become coded language for defending Israel no matter what, that our media and our culture at large have stopped recognizing the actual beast when it shows up.  This supposed secularized Jewish conspiracy against Christmas is classic antisemitism.

  by GreenSooner on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 03:34:04 PM PDT

  •  What is anti-semitism?

    There are semitic languages, of which hebrew and arabic are but two. If 'Semitism' refers only to a language group, how can anti-semitism be a force for racism? Could as well be anti-indo-europeanism. As Yassir Araffat himself once said 'How can I be anti-semitic, when I am myself a Semite'

    There is such a thing as hating Jews, I have no doubt, but these people are just aresholes, just like nazis were aresholes, and just like people who now hate palestinians are aresholes. People are people, and all people deserve respect and understanding, irrespective of their faith, ethnicity or political oppinions.

    The real truth is for freedom for Jews and Palestinians, in a secular, undevided, non-religious state. All states based on religion are bad, from Israel to Iran. to the Vatican. as they are all based on exclusion.

    Why can't we have some inclusion instead? A secular state, based on democratic principals, with total religious freedom?

    by parsons on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 04:07:32 PM PDT

    •  A little more than that

      Nazis were aresholes that had the power and the technology to wipe out the Jewish race in Europe, and would have done so if they hadn't been stopped.  As it is, they got about half, including part of our family.  Only the accident of time and distance kept my wife (a Jewish twin) from being one of Mengele's "experiments."  They are not all dead, and some have held influential positions for many years.

      by moltar on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 05:13:38 PM PDT

      •  gonna give you a 4

        just for coining the word "aresholes". assuming you were referring to ares, the god of war here.

        by rasbobbo on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 06:02:18 PM PDT

    •  Israel is Not a Country Based on Religion

      Despite the existence of many religious parties in Israel, most Israeli Jews are not particularly religious. To call Israel a country "based on religion" is incorrect. The Israeli definition of who is a Jew is first and foremost ethnic, though those converted by an Orthodox conversion process (and only an Orthodox conversion process...Israeli religious life is very dominated by the Orthrodox) are also considered Jewish for legal purposes. And the state itself is basically secular, although it has ceded way too much authority over education to the religious parties (which tend to round out Israeli governments in coalition with the larger, secular right or left wing parties).

      A more precise criticism of Israel is that it is a country that in many ways defines the status of one's citizenship by one's membership in a particular ethnic group.  Although I wouldn't want to push this analogy too far (South Africa was much worse), it is more like an apartheid state than it is like Iran.

      I would add that the term "antisemitism" was coined in late 19th-century Germany to refer specifically to refers to hatred of Jews, not hatred of semites, despite its linguistic origins (Arab is indeed a semitic language, and Arabs are thus as much Semites as Jews).  Words reflect their linguistic origins, but can't be reduced to them.  "Idiot" comes from the Greek word for "private person," which is a very interesting linguistic fact, but one cannot argue that anybody who's private is therefore an idiot.

      by GreenSooner on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 07:16:37 PM PDT

      •  Hmmm...

        "Idiot" comes from the Greek word for "private person," which is a very interesting linguistic fact, but one cannot argue that anybody who's private is therefore an idiot.

        However, so-called "privatization" of Social Security sure seems idiotic to me.  (Sorry for the OT, but I felt the need.)

        by Matt Jordan on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 07:24:10 PM PDT

    •  All states -

      were "religious states" at some point in their history.  Granted, with very varied religions - and over a very wide period of time.
      The codification of values in a religious context only becomes a problem if one of those values is used as a pretext to murder those with opposing values.  Ironic huh?

      "Why can't we have some inclusion instead? A secular state, based on democratic principals, with total religious freedom?"

      Well, that was the idea!  It's been 228 years - think it'll happen?
      Think it already has?  

      by b6 on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 01:03:58 AM PDT

  •  VERY ASTUTE COMMENT.

    I would also add that these same right wing idiot "preachers" (such as Pat Robertson) appear to defend Israel tooth and nail, yet often espouse very troubling views on Jews.

    Joseph Massad (an admittedly controversial character) has some very interesting thoughts on these Zionist anti-Semites here:

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mealac/faculty/massad/

    Feel free to disagree with it--I'm not posting it because I agree with everything he has to say, only that it's relevant and there's definitely some value in it.

    p.s. TO HUNTER--you have composed a wonderful piece. Your quote about Hannukah being some sort of a conspiracy against Christmas is DEAD ON. The anti-Semitism in that comment alone is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Great work. If this were a diary, I'd recommend, but you're already on the front page, so all I can say is "thumbs up" ;).

    by kosmologist on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 04:11:16 PM PDT

    •  Robertson, Falwell, etc

      don't particularly care for Jews in this country. What they want is for all Jews to move to Israel. Only when all Jews return to their homeland will the biblical prophecy of the "end times" and the second coming occur. That's why they support Israel so strongly.

      by auapplemac on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 08:46:43 PM PDT

      •  One other thing

        According to the Christian "true believers" when all Jews return to Israel, they will either have accept Jesus or be destroyed. So much for Falwell, etc loving Israel. Their support of  Israel only goes so far. For their purpose it is only to hasten the biblical prophecy calling for the destruction of Israel (as a Jewish state) and the destruction of all Jews and the Jewish religion.

        I can't figure out where Muslims and other non-Jewish religions fit into this picture. Since none were around or know of when the New Testament was written, how do they fit into the Apocalypse story?

        by auapplemac on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 08:58:58 PM PDT

        •  All those that reject Christ as their savior

          will go to Hell, it's pretty black and white in their vision.

          by rafaelh on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 06:08:38 AM PDT

          •  and that's not all

            they believe all who do not accept ... even those for whom the opportunity to accept never arose ... are condemned.

            'tis the cruelest of religions in its fundiest phases, complete with ritualized cannibalism and bloodthirst.

            by BlackSheep1 on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:12:37 AM PDT

  •  I disagree

    Most of the time when Jews criticize anti-Israel sentiment as anti-Semitic, it is legitimate. Of course, it is not anti-Semtitic to oppose particular Israeli policies, but many of Israel's critics go way beyond that. This Falwell/O'Reilly/etc. "Save Chistmas" stuff is scary and definitely anti-Semitic, but not to the exclusion of the very real anti-Semitism that is often aimed at Israel, where the stakes are much higher. In Israel, the ultimate result of anti-Semitism is innocent civilians getting blown up in pizza parlors or toddlers being shot at point-blank range, which is quite a bit worse than being forced to say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays." Yes, the non-Israeli critics of Israel are not necessarily responsible for such terrorism, but in many cases they are encouraging or condoning it, or at least hurting Israel's ability to recuperate from and respond to such acts of terror. In contrast, while the kind of anti-Semitism evidenced in this post is frightening, it does not currently have as great a negative effect as that aimed at Israel does. I think we need to be aware and able to respond effectively to both kinds of anti-Semitism.

    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."-- Martin Luther King Jr. (not a Jew, but the quote fits!)

    by sparklegirl on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 09:16:58 PM PDT

    •  So you mean to say...

      ...it's not fair to talk about Palestinian dispossession.  Sorry, this is standard anti-Arab trope.

      by Mandos on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 09:30:23 PM PDT

      •  No...

        I'm not saying it's not fair to acknowledge the bad conditions the Palestinians are in--most of which their leaders, rather than the people themselves, are to blame for. Personally, I support a two-state solution, and I want to see the Palestinians develop a viable economy and infrastructure. But they've got to stop the terrorist attacks. Hopefully Arafat's death can be something of a turning point.

        by sparklegirl on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 09:50:20 PM PDT

        •  You missed the keyword

          And that is DISPOSSESSION.  I wasn't talking about present conditions.  Present conditions are a result of prior conditions.  The reason why the Palestinians are in the state that they are in is not primarily due to trivial diversions such as Arafat, but the fact of dispossession.  Until Israel and Israeli society acknowledges that its very existence is predicated on that dispossession and on the suffering that extended therefrom, I don't see how any solution can function.  

          I too believe that ultimately a two-state solution will be the answer, but the form of that solution depends on Israel's attitude: if Israeli society acknowledges that a solution primarily involves the restoration of Palestinian rights in the context of dispossession, then a viable two-state solution can exist.  If Israeli society continues to cling to the idea that it is its security that is paramount of Palestinian rights, then no solution can succeed in any form.  Because Israel's lack of security is also predicated on Palestinian dispossession as much as its existence is.

          The solutions proposed so far, including the unacceptable Clinton solution, have never acknowledged that the primary issue is dispossession.  A solution that acknowledges dispossession would also acknowledge that Palestinians sovereignty over the lands that they are finally given must be unqualified: over water resources, airspace, and so on.  And that even major established illegal settlements are subject to uprooting.

          by Mandos on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:29:30 PM PDT

      •  Oh, one more thing

        Were you aware that the Arabs (Palestinians didn't consider themselves a unique nationality at the time) could've had a state in 1948 when they were offered one side by side with a Jewish state, but turned it down because they wanted the whole thing, and attacked Israel instead? The condition that the Palestinians live in is unfortunate, but for the most part it is not Israel's fault. It is the fault of their corrupt leaders who turned down every peace offer Israel made without even making counteroffers and started intifadas rather than trying to improve the conditions of the own people.

        by sparklegirl on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 09:53:55 PM PDT

        •  Not Israel's fault?

          If I steal someone's land (they weren't a "nation", but they lived there for countless generations -- no different than the Native Americans) then say, "well, okay, let's make a deal, I'll give you 10% of it back and everything will be cool", I shouldn't be suprised when the owners of that land reject my offer and instead fight tooth and nail to get it back.

          I guess it all comes down to the question of who's land it was.  All I can say is that the physical reality of thousands and thousands of families being established on their property for generations trumps the fact that people living in other countries (Europe and America) thinking they have a right to live there too because distant relatives of theirs, thousands of years ago, used to live there for a while.

          See, the thing about Israel being attacked from the Left is that Leftists are extremely anti-racist, and Israel is indulging in racism BIG TIME.  The day they stop asking immigrants what their ethnic background or religion are is the day they will start having a chance of gaining support from the Left.  Liberals want to promote democracy more than any political group in the world; after all, they founded America.  Israel, aside from being an insult to the Jews, is an insult to equality and democracy and liberalism in general.  And you wonder why such a tiny proportion of the world's Jews choose to live there?  They're smarter than that -- and more liberal!

          Unfortunately, many Jews are just as racist as the next ethnicity; they want Israel because it's puportedly pro-Jewish (besides being bad for the Jews), and since they're Jewish, they support it.  Kind of like white people and the KKK; it may not be fair what those white-robed assholes are doing (goes many southerners' thoughts), but they're sticking up for me, so it must be good . . .

          Nice to see the human race has not evolved much in the last few hundred thousand years.

          by Tlacolotl on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:06:15 PM PDT

          •  In 1948

            What "theft" had gone on?  The UN offered a solution wherein those people living in a certain portion (which already had a heavy Jewish immigrant quotient - legal Jewish immigrants who had mainly  bought their land from absentee Arab landlords) would be part of Israel, and the other portion would be part of Palestine (portions more heavily inhabited by Arab citizens).  There was no mention of population transfer; if you didn't like living in the state you were in, you could move, but you weren't forced to.

            You can't use the 1948 partition as an example of "stealing land" - the 1948 partition they were offered was prior to any organized warfare in the region.  The only land transfers that had gone on were legitimate immigration - move to the country and buy some property.  After 1948, you can argue about stealing land, but if the Arab countries around Israel had accepted the 1948 agreement, there would have been no dispossession to deal with.

            by sub version on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 12:19:43 AM PDT

            •  1948...

              ...was in the context of an empire that clearly saw Arabs as nonentities.  With alterations of the population balance that we would see as illegitimate now under present-day standards, however, regularly violated.  No, 1948 was a theft from the Arabs as well, and creating a majority-Jewish state would necessarily still have required the dispossession of Arabs.  

              Not to mention the whole historical/national issue of Arab sovereignty as a whole.

              by Mandos on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 12:32:04 AM PDT

              •  Sorry to drag y'all even more off topic...

                1948 was in the context of an empire that clearly saw Arabs as nonentities.

                If they saw Arabs as nonentities, why give them half the land, split the future Jewish state into several disconnected entitites, and deny the Jews Jerusalem, their cultural and religious center? Even the much derired "Bantustans in the West Bank" in some Israeli peace plans are connected together. Also, the 1948 plan came after the League of Nations partition plan of 1922, essentially a British dictate, had already split Palestine into two sectors allocated for future Jewish and Arab states bordering along the Jordan river.

                1948 was a theft from the Arabs as well, and creating a majority-Jewish state would necessarily still have required the dispossession of Arabs.

                One could just as easily say that creating an Arab state is a theft from the Jewish people. The difference is that the Jewish state is a democracy which allows Arabs equal rights and permits Arab residence and involvement in government, this being the alternative to a foreign-run parliamentary monarchy with no Arab representation, and the existing and proposed Arab states forbid Jewish immigration and have laws making it punishable by death to sell land to a Jew. Besides, according to Wikipedia, The population for the proposed Jewish State in 1947/8 would be 498,000 Jews and 325,000 non-Jews.

                Not to mention the whole historical/national issue of Arab sovereignty as a whole.

                The historical/national issue of Arab sovereignty was inflamed by the same people who split Palestine away from the province of Syria and produced the 1922 and 1948 partition plans, the Brits. Before Britain went to war with the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, there were only a few bandits and malcontents on the Arabian peninsula. The Palestinian flag is actually the flag of the short-lived Hejaz kingdom, designed by Sir Mark Sykes.

                
                

                by Cecrops Tangaroa on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 08:28:29 AM PDT

                •  w.t..f.?!?!?!

                  One could just as easily say that creating an Arab state is a theft from the Jewish people.

                  except for the niggling detail that IT WAS THE ARABS' LAND TO BEGIN WITH.  hello!?!!?!

                  !@#%$%&

                  and while we're niggling, the "jewish people" live all over the world.  it is disingenuous to use that term when referring to jews who live in israel, unless you are somehow positing that what hurts israel hurts all jews worldwide.

                  by Cedwyn on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 09:37:18 AM PDT

                  •  Except

                    For that portion which Arabs who owned the land decided to sell to Jews who wanted to move to Israel.

                    And no, it isn't a Native American type issue - they weren't forced to sell, and they received fair value.  This does not apply to those forced out in '48, or those who chose to flee, but a significant amount of land in the current state of Israel was purchased quite legally by Jewish immigrants from Arab landholders.

                    by sub version on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 03:03:12 AM PDT

                    •  did you read

                      the quotes above?  have you studied the writings of early zionist leaders?

                      by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 27, 2004 at 07:12:44 AM PDT

                      •  Yes, I have.

                        Quotes out of context are, much like statistics, pretty much a step away from damn lies.

                        I've read Herzl and Jabotinsky. I've also read Ha'am, who was an early voice pointing out the likelihood of conflict between the Arabs in the vicinity and Zionism, and the labor zionist theorists Borochov and Gordon, who advocated establishment of a state and security through economic power, not through violence.  I've studied Zionism quite thoroughly, between growing up in a Labor Zionist youth movement and especially considering I on-again off-again flirt with moving to Israel, and probably a lot more thoroughly than most posters to this little sub-thread have.

                        Jabotinsky is a poor voice to choose; his ideas are not exactly mainstream, and really never were.  Amongst other things, he advocated Israel occupying the entirety of the British Transjordan Mandate, both the east and west banks of the Jordan, and was an admirer and supplicant to Mussolini.  I don't use David Duke's writings to criticize American political thought, other than the thought of Duke, and using Jabotinsky's writings to criticize modern Israeli political thought is pretty much equivalent.

                        Have you read early Zionist theory?  Have you read current Israeli political theory to see the changes that have occurred?  Do you grasp the concept that people, and even countries, can change?  DO YOU HAVE THUMBS?  SHOW ME YOUR THUMBS!

                        by sub version on Mon Dec 27, 2004 at 09:07:09 PM PDT

                •  Israel is no democracy!

                  The difference is that the Jewish state is a democracy which allows Arabs equal rights and permits Arab residence and involvement in government, this being the alternative to a foreign-run parliamentary monarchy with no Arab representation, and the existing and proposed Arab states forbid Jewish immigration and have laws making it punishable by death to sell land to a Jew.

                  As soon as the Star of David is removed from the Israeli flag and the notion of it being a "Jewish State" is eradicated, I'll accept them as a democracy.  Irael is about as democractic as the Soviet Union was: everyone can vote, as long as they vote for the Communists, right?  

                  Pointing out what kind of democracy Palestinians have in mind is wholly irrelevant; we're talking about Israel, not a bunch of war-torn, scared, paranoid refugees who I'm not suprised feel pretty negative about their oppressors; it's kind of like post-holocaust Jews saying they want a state in which no Aryans could hold land.  A silly notion, but kind of understandable, considering how they've been treated.

                  In fact, the analogy is pretty apt.  Concentration camps and The Ovens aside, Israel is not that different than Nazi-era Germany.  Imagine the Nazis extending an olive branch to the German Jews (prior to Auschwitz, natch) by saying, "Well, okay, we made some mistakes, and we're sorry.  Let's make a deal.  You can live here and own land and join the political process, but you must obey our law saying that we are a Christian Aryan nation.  And for those areas of Germany which are extremely densly-populated with Jews, well, lucky you, they get their own "state" (just don't call it a ghetto anymore, 'kay?).  Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before, 'this is my country, I can be as Jewish as I want' -- listen, we're giving you a good deal here, so shut up, alright?"

                  I mean, Israli law actually states that anyone holding political office must promote Israel as a Jewish State.  This is democracy?  Oy!

                  So, yeah, in the light of the Holocaust, I can see some support for the Jews wanting their own State, but only through that lense does Israel gain any sympathy from me.  The fact that they're turning around and doing to the Arabs what the Germans did to them would be funny if it weren't so unjust.

                  To those who might say that Israel and Nazi Germany are incomparable because the Nazis were genocidiares and obviously the Israelis are not, I have to ask: do you really think the death camps were what was the sourse of the problem in Germany?  That was just one possible outcome of events spurred by the same racial and ethnic nationalism that the two nations share.  Germany was a pretty foul place for Jews prior to the war and Auschwitz; remember the ghettos?  Well, Isral is just still in the ghetto phase with their dirty, ratlike Arab population.  Wait until there's a full-scale war on in that region, then lets see how desperate the Israelis are to get rid of the Palestinians, and I'll bet dollars to donuts were going to see some new Ovens going up.  (Though in this day and age nukes are much more efficient!)

                  Sure, most Israelis have nothing but good in their heart for the world and have no intention of ridding the world of the Palestinians, but the same could be said of 30s-era Germany regarding the Jews.  It's the government, not the people, that I'm talking about here.  I love Israelis themselves and their way of life, their culture, religion, etc.; I'm specifically talking about the actions their government is doing in their name.  Sure, they voted Likud, but I'm aware that they are just as manipulated as our Republicans are here in the States.  And there are a lot of anti-Israel Jews out there; count me in with the guys in the pictures in that link.  They know what's up.

                  by Tlacolotl on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 09:41:43 AM PDT

                  •  Arab voting rights

                    In Israel there are two Arab parties which elect members to the Knesset. The Arab parties have expressed solidarity with the Palestinians in their advertisements. A difference between Nazis and Israeli Jews is that Nazis believed that Jews automatically corrupted everything, therefore they would never have given them a separate land of their own. Most Israelis believe that there can be peace between Israelis and Palestinians, so Palestinians are not a disease, a parasite, or other Nazi metaphors. Israelis find moral justification for Palestinians killed in saying, "We are trying to get the people that attacked us." It would take something spectacular for Israelis to turn against Palestinians who are minding their own business.
                    Tlacolotl also certainly knows that Jewish parties have a wide range of differences about the role of religion in Israel. Shinui or Yahad might be willing to go for a binational state.
                    This reminds me of Marxist logic saying that we are not a democracy because anyone we can logically elect supports capitalism.

                    by 4jkb4ia on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:07:19 PM PDT

                    •  Marxist logic

                      I would agree with that Marxist logic to a certain extent, but on a broader note: we are not a democracy because capitalism and democracy are incompatable.

                      This certainly goes against common wisdom, but common wisdom is usually wrong, so I have no problem with that.  However, I would add that the Soviet Union was not, in fact, Marxist, as the workers didn't own anything: the State did.  And the state and the workers are two different things (thus the different names!).  A properly Communist nation would require that free elections (and other democratic notions) are held; the U.S. could easily become a Communist nation with no change to the Constitution or our basic political process.  Communism only works when it's voted in by a supportive populace, after all; it's merely a matter of the population wanting Communism, as Communism placed upon a population by an authoritarian regime is, of course, not Communism (the regime is dictator, not the proletariat).

                      Not that this is anything new that hasn't been discussed to death already!  But I felt like typing it up here anyway . . .

                      The thing about Israeli democracy is that all democracies, whether capitalist or communist in nature, require freedom of religion, i.e. no "state" religion, no endorsement of one religion over the other by the government.  In Israeli, it is clear that Jewish people are first-class citizens and non-Jews are second-class; if it were otherwise, there would be no Star of David on the flag and no immigration policy favoring Jews over, say, Chinese folk, Aborigines, breakdancers from Brooklyn, or men from the moon.

                      On the other hand, I cannot help but look at it from my rootless American "melting pot" point of view.  In the U.S., plurality comes easy because, well, there are essentially no original inhabitants (Native Americans being largely disenfranchised and invisible, not out of Honkey Malice, but out of sheer numbers).  I suppose living in a place where people like you have lived for centuries is sort of different.  Seeing as the vast, overwhelming majority of Jews in Isreal are recently-arrived Americans and Europeans, however, I don't see much justification in such sentiments by Jews -- but, then, they were there a thousand years ago, so there is that "homeland" sense.  Not that the Palestinians don't have that same sense about their land either, of course.  But consider how many Black Swedes there are in the world today; they are just as Swedish as the Dolph Lundgren types up thar, and rightly so -- imagine if Sweden said Africans could immigrate and join the political proces, but only if they uphold the "Nordic Character" of Sweden.  Israel is doing just that kind of thing.

                      by Tlacolotl on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 04:57:07 PM PDT

                  •  You're wrong.

                    "Israeli law actually states that anyone holding political office must promote Israel as a Jewish State".

                    No.  Israeli law says that political parties may not have the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state as part of their official political platform.  It says nothing about what a politician can attempt to achieve, what they can believe whether elected or not, or even about what they can say while running.  It's an empty formalism, applying solely to political party platforms.

                    by sub version on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 03:01:12 AM PDT

                    •  Okay

                      The key phrase in "destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state" is "as a Jewish state".  From what I understand, the Israeli Constitution holds that Israel is a Jewish state; therefore, it is impossible for anyone to legislate that all references to Judaism be removed from the country's laws.  No Palestinians have a desire to destoy Israel; after all, they want to live there, they want it for themselves, so destroying it is certainly self-defeating.  What they want is for it to not be Jewish in nature; of course, many want it to be Muslim in nature, which is equally anti-democratic.  But I'm sure the vast majority would settle for a secular democracy a la the United States, in which everyone has equal protection under the law.

                      Yes I understand that the Israelis are good-natured in their ideology; that doesn't mean that they're doing the right thing.  Like many people, they need to obtain a little objectivity if they want peace, because if they only look at it from the point of view of the Jews, they will never find the Truth.  Objectivity is key to success in any of life's endeavors, and it is a characteristic sorely lacking from most modern-day nations.

                      by Tlacolotl on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 05:52:30 PM PDT

                      •  The phrase is important.

                        There is no Israeli Constitution, for one thing; there are some Basic Laws that serve some of the same purposes, but no one single document that is the supreme guiding principle.

                        The phrase is important because honestly, the Arab citizens who have accepted that Israel is a majority-Jewish state do acceptably well; they do have equal protection under the law, and while there are issues (the military service link being one of them, though there are numerous Arabs who choose to volunteer for military service - e.g. Bedouin and Druze, so I can't really feel too much sympathy there).  The Arab citizens who have not accepted that it is a majority-Jewish state don't do very well at all.  I've read modern Palestinian politicians, who feel that serving the state of Israel even politically is essentially incompatible with being Arab; if that is true, there is no hope and never will be.  If you can't feel enough loyalty to your country to serve it, I can't feel any sympathy for you complaining that the country doesn't seem to want you.

                        The Israelis aren't good natured at all.  Saying that shows a core misunderstanding.  I's a country  that has been effectively at war for the past 60 years.   Security isn't a joke to them, like it is here in the US.  They want peace, but if it comes down to a choice between a secure intifada and an insecure peace, don't expect them to choose peace.

                        The reason for that language, and the entire definition as a "Jewish state" is quite simple for many Israelis: they watched 6 million of their family die, and said never again, then they built a country where they could make certain that never again would be true, or that if it would they would at least resist.  If the people who live next to you have repeatedly said their goal is the destruction of your state, wouldn't you put in a couple safe-guards against it?  They want peace, but not at the cost of security.

                        Anyway.  The problem is that most Israelis have a genuine (and reasonable) fear that a non-Jewish state will become a de facto Muslim state, which would probably lead quite quickly to the destruction of the Jewish citizens of that state.  That fear is backed by historical events in Europe, by demographics in Israel and the territories, and by most all of the surveys I've seen on the attitude of the Palestinian people.

                        by sub version on Mon Dec 27, 2004 at 09:20:23 PM PDT

                  •  Say what?!

                    "Concentration camps and The Ovens aside, Israel is not that different than Nazi-era Germany."

                    Talking about the Nazis without the death camps is like saying:

                    "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

                    by Horq on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 05:53:14 AM PDT

                    •  The Ovens

                      It should go without saying that the Holocaust was not what made Nazi Germany evil.  It was the fascism; once they've achieved that state (i.e. belligerent nationalism mixed with a coporate dominance of the government . . . hmm, starting to sound familiar, anyone?), the Holocaust was an afterthought.

                      Not that comparing numbers is a cool thing to do when human death is concerned, but consider how many non-Jewish French, British, Polish, American, Russians, et al, were killed by the Nazis.  They could have let the Jews all flee the country and still they would have been the most bad-ass, murderous, evil motherfuckers on the planet, this side of the Imperial Japanese.  Remember, Italy and Spain were equally vile fascists, and nary an Oven dotted their landscapes.  

                      Fascism is evil, regardless of whether were talking about genocide-hungry Aryans or money-crazed Republicans; it's only a matter of scale and how bloodthirsty the fascists happen to be.

                      I don't mean to belittle the Nazis or make the Israelis look vile; I'm merely trying to show that the various sorts of fascism out there all rely on the same base instincts held by the populace.  Whether it results in Ovens or in tax cuts for the rich is a secondary (albeit more important) matter.

                      Though I understand Lincoln was enjoying the play, up until a certain point . . .

                      by Tlacolotl on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 05:46:07 PM PDT

            •  Casinos & Whitey

              Well, hey, all I know is that 100% of North America rightfully belongs to the Native Americans, but we gave them a good deal, right?  They have casinos now!  If they had a problem with the land we gave them for reservations, they should have said something back in the 1800s.

              The thing that bugs me here is that we're talking about land-ownership issues being decided by people other than the land owners.  In North America, of course, Westerners felt that the land wasn't, you know, "owned", because people just wandered around from place to place, hunting and gathering, not dividing it up into portions for agriculture and industry, so we felt they didn't really hold rights to it -- despite the fact that they had lived there literally for tens of thousands of years.  Flash forward to Israel, where Semites have populated the region for thousands of years, predating (of course) both Judaism and Islam.  Look at it through this racial lense, not the (late-appearing) religious and cultural one, and you'll see the kind of bigoted militaristic scheme that has always been perpetrated upon dark people by white people.  No, Israel is not a result of the Jews wanting their land back; it's a result of the Anglo-Americans wanting a big Western establishment in the region -- and despite the differences in religion but similarities of race between Israelis and Palestinians, we know one big difference that is really the underlying force at work here: it's a conflict between Westerners and The Other.

              Israel is ardently against the right of return because giving the land within Israel back to the families who were forcefully evicted in the forties onward the notion of a "Jewish Nation" would be history.  I'm not talking about "Palestinians" taking back their land from Israel; I'm talking about thousands of specific families (who happen to be Arabs, but that is irrelivant to the property rights issue at hand) who had lived in those areas for centuries (and, no, not as "absentees", whatever you mean by that).

              The idea of property rights is basic: if you own land, you own it.  It doesn't matter who comes and draws new borders around you; they lived there, then Whitey showed up and put a border round them calling it Israel, then decided that it would be best if these dark people were moved to a more convenient location.

              The mistake Palestinians made was the same one the Native Americans made: they didn't have a Western-style "nation-state" in place by the time Whitey showed up, so Whitey got to put one in place for them.  Happens all the time, actually.  Fuckin' Whitey!  (Props to Dan Clowes)

              by Tlacolotl on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 09:19:54 AM PDT

              •  Difficult for Palestinians to have nation-state

                The area that is now Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire until the end of WWI; then the British Mandate took over. Palestinian nationalism then became active, as it did in Iraq, for instance.
                Unfortunately for the Palestinians there were already Jews living there and the British could not keep the peace between the two peoples. Palestinian nationalism has been successful in denying Israel legitimacy among a lot of people.  
                Also, all the Jews in Israel are not white or European, and Israelis do not consider Europe to be their friend to say the least. So perhaps Americans consider Israel to be an extension of America, but not "the West" proper.
                This is a marginally better comment than the other two because the "right of return" bothers me somewhat. But if there is a Palestinian state, the Palestinian refugees are citizens of that state and have a right of return there. (Thanks to latest Tikkun)

                by 4jkb4ia on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:30:56 PM PDT

                •  Very interesting

                  This is an interesting way of reframing the history of that area.  It is difficult for the native population to have a nation-state...because foreigners decided they shouldn't?

                  I realize that not all Jews are white.  But Israel is still very much a white European Jewish phenomenon as it was originally constituted.

                  by Mandos on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 12:19:45 AM PDT

                  •  Palestinians vs. Native Americans

                    Native Americans had more opportunity to form a nation-state of their own because they were self-governing. Palestinians have less because they were always ruled by other people. That was what I was trying to get at. If all of Palestine was an Arab state, it would be difficult for Jews to have their own state because "foreigners decided they shouldn't". This is just a longer state of affairs than for the Palestinians.

                    by 4jkb4ia on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 07:43:05 AM PDT

              •  Unlike Native Americans

                There was no threat of force to compel Arab landlords to sell.  And by absentees, I mean that quite a bit of Mandate Palestine was operating in a quasi-feudal system - landholders, living abroad in places like Damascus and Baghdad, had peasant farmers working the land locally.  Those peasant farmers didn't own the land they worked; they were, effectively, sharecroppers.  Many Arab landlords took money (often quite generous amounts, financed by American and European Jews) for land they never set foot on in their lives.

                No threat of force to compel sale, and fair value received for the land sold.  The Peel Commission report noted that the price per acre of land in Palestine was reaching $1000, while an acre of fertile soil in Iowa went for around $100.

                I'm sorry, but if you refuse to acknowledge the legal right to those specific pieces of land, representing a non-trivial portion of the current state of Israel (roughly 7% of total land, and roughly 15% of cultivable land - and remembering the essentially uninhabited 45% of the mandate known as the Negev Desert, those numbers make more sense), by its current owners I can't acknowledge you as someone who wishes to seriously discuss the issue.

                by sub version on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 03:23:27 AM PDT

            •  4325

              which already had a heavy Jewish immigrant quotient - legal Jewish immigrants

              bullshit.  between the signing of the balfourth declaration and the official establisment of the state of israel, tens of thousands of jews migrated illegally to the region - many with the help of irgun, the predecessor of mossad.  whose side hobby, btw, was bombing various establishments in and around palestine, as well as british interests locally and abroad.

              by Cedwyn on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 09:24:57 AM PDT

              •  And illegal Jewish immigrants are a problem why?

                Considering there was nowhere else for them to go?
                The people who smuggled them into Palestine saved lives. My great-grandmother's niece wanted desperately to go to Palestine because her family knew what was coming, but the borders were closed and she died with everyone else.

                by 4jkb4ia on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:34:37 PM PDT

                •  I do not fault...

                  ...people for going where they needed to go to survive.  But I fault those who arranged things such that it is the Arabs who must pay the price for the crimes of Europe and the seed of genocide that lay dormant in European culture.

                  Many Western countries closed their doors to the Jews during those terrible times.  I'm a Canadian.  Canada had a shameful history in this regard too (leaving out its ongoing shameful treatment of other groups, such as native peoples).  

                  At the same time, many Zionist ideologues took advantage of this population transfer to Arab lands to further an ideology that preceded the slaughter in Germany.  These people are also blameworthy. That people arrived as refugees does not mean that they had the right to claim national rights.

                  by Mandos on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 12:16:30 AM PDT

                  •  Zionism in the 1930s

                    Any general response I could make to this is probably within a Zionist framework. Thank you, Mandos, for the fair responses and not shrieking like some posters around here.
                    Zionism is a response to deeply rooted anti-Semitism in Europe that led to genocide. Since we hear this argument ad nauseam now, it would be reasonable to say that some Zionists in the 1930s (they made this argument in 1948?) thought that what Hitler was doing was proof of Zionism, that the Jews needed a state because however integrated they thought they were into society, the people could still turn on them. The whole topic of this board seems to say that people feel comfortable turning on Jews even here in America. They acted out of Zionism instead of exploiting it.
                    I need to learn more about early Zionism. Zionism/Palestinian nationalism can form a good argument that, unlike what Grover Norquist thinks, a state is not a mafia. A state is a chance at recognition.  

                    by 4jkb4ia on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 08:01:08 AM PDT

                    •  huh?

                      i couldn't quite tell if you were being serious or not in stating that zionism is a response to genocide caused by anti-semitism.

                      this is not true.  theodor herzl is widely regarded as the idealogue behind zionism and it is commonly accepted that his impetus in the matter was the dreyfus affair.  of course, the recent pogroms in russia factored into his thinking, but most of those victims fled, i.e., it would not qualify as a genocide. the serious genocidal acitvity didn't happen until a good 30 years after the first zionist congress convened in basel, switzerland (1897), a good 15 or so years after the zionists had wrangled the balfourth agreement out of the brits, etc. etc.

                      it was NOT a response to genocide against the jews.

                      by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 27, 2004 at 07:09:59 AM PDT

                      •  Obviously not

                        There was no genocide when Herzl was alive. I said that Zionism responds to European anti-Semitism. Genocide is a consequence of European anti-Semitism. The Dreyfus Affair is a good cause of Zionism because it showed that some people were out to get the Jews, even if they were theoretically full citizens of European countries.

                        by 4jkb4ia on Mon Dec 27, 2004 at 03:25:50 PM PDT

                •  I do not fault...

                  ...people for going where they needed to go to survive.  But I fault those who arranged things such that it is the Arabs who must pay the price for the crimes of Europe and the seed of genocide that lay dormant in European culture.

                  Many Western countries closed their doors to the Jews during those terrible times.  I'm a Canadian.  Canada had a shameful history in this regard too (leaving out its ongoing shameful treatment of other groups, such as native peoples).  

                  At the same time, many Zionist ideologues took advantage of this population transfer to Arab lands to further an ideology that preceded the slaughter in Germany.  These people are also blameworthy. That people arrived as refugees does not mean that they had the right to claim national rights.

                  by Mandos on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 12:16:45 AM PDT

                  •  oops n/t

                    by Mandos on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 12:17:19 AM PDT

              •  Best estimates I've seen

                Place illegal immigration numbers at roughly 20% of total Jewish immigration.

                And Irgun was by no means the predecessor of Mossad, as Mossad is a state intelligence agency, and Irgun was a militia.  Further, Irgun was later merged directly into the IDF, a totally seperate administrative unit from Mossad.

                by sub version on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 03:32:01 AM PDT

        •  I am very aware

          of this fascinating series of lies and presupposition.  

          The Palestinians lived in the WHOLE AREA.  What right did some foreigners have to come in 1948 and generously offer them a chunk of what was already due to them?  If I were an Arab leader at the time, I'd have rejected this patently unfair denial of sovereignty.

          by Mandos on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:22:19 PM PDT

          •  Actually,

            Palestinians didn't live in the whole area. Most of what is now Israel was uninhabitable swampland until Zionists from Europe came along in the 1800s and started to cultivate it. Many of them died from malaria and other diseases but they just kept planting trees until the land was liveable. Also, the Jews arriving in the area purchased most of the land they began to live on legitimately. There were a few Arabs who were unfairly kicked off their land, but not nearly to the extent that pro-Palestinian advocates would have you believe.

            by sparklegirl on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:49:09 PM PDT

            •  "A Land Without A People"

              This is a plain lie, uttered to make Zionists feel better and give them that pioneer spirit that also allowed the ethnic cleansing of North America.  Parts of Tel Aviv sit on abandoned Palestinian villages.  Jews would still be a minority or very close too it in the land "given" them in the 1948 solution.

              Transferring populations into areas to change their balance in order to force a state is also considered...illegitimate in the strongest terms, for obvious reason.  You're using force to create a state one way or another.  Or getting help from an empire to do so.

              The Arabs were never given a choice to arrange the lands of Arabia, have not been since, and Israel is presently the lynchpin of this whole situation.

              by Mandos on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 12:00:25 AM PDT

            •  still apoplectic

              "We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back."

              Theodor Herzl, 1895

              "...The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement."

              "... Arabs...look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile."

              ".... Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ....a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan 'No, never' lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of civil, and national rights."

              Ze'ev Jobotinsky, circa 1923

              by Cedwyn on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:02:32 AM PDT

              •  Ben-Gurion had a better quote

                Something along the lines of "They have a right to resent us, we have taken their country." To use a vehement nationalist like Jabotinsky to make your point is close to using a settler rabbi today.  

                by 4jkb4ia on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:39:40 PM PDT

            •  This is backed up

              "Palestinians" by Kimmerling and ? stated that many Palestinians moved into what is now Israel because of increased economic activity by Jews. This is not a book unsympathetic to the Palestinians, either.

              by 4jkb4ia on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:41:16 PM PDT

              •  This does not in itself

                ...make the case that the 1948 solution actually had an area that was well-defined majority Jewish.

                by Mandos on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 12:06:33 AM PDT

                •  Maps

                  Cartogram showing population distribution.  The larger the circle, the larger the population it represents; note that the largest circle represents a population 71% Jewish.  The source you would like for the proof of Jewish majority in partition would be Howard Sachar's "A History of Israel", page 292.  Wikipedia claims it to be 500,000 Jews, 325,000 non-Jews, while Sachar claims it to be 540k and 400k respectively, so their numbers appear to differ.  However, both are clear in that the partition of 1948 split the state into a majority Jewish partition and a majority Arab partition (10k Jews and 804k in that portion).

                  Proposed partition map, so you can see how the partition was designed to encompass the Jewish population while minimizing the Arab population inside of it.

                  by sub version on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 03:43:51 AM PDT

        •  She is not a troll

          I'm giving her a 3 because while I vehemently disagree with her, at this point I don't believe she is attempting to be disruptive or arguing in bad faith, so I don't see why the 1 is justified.  Better not to rate at all.

          by Mandos on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:32:46 PM PDT

    •  Into the sea with you!

      The thing is, the Palestinian terrorists are blowing up Israelis, not Jews.  They have no problem with Jews living elsewhere; it's the fact that they stole the land from the Palestinians.  

      Consider Native American resistance to invading Westerners: in today's terms, they were terrorists, killing enemy soldiers as well as settlers.  From their point of view (just as from the Palestinians'), these invaders were all one and the same; the settlers were basically human shields for political land-grabbing (as with the Israeli government, which is probably one of the worst things to ever happen to the Jews).  Yet while many Westerners may have thought their "defense" against the Indians was, in essense, a defense of Christianity, nothing could have been further from the truth; the Native Americans didn't give two shits about Christianity, they really kind of just didn't want their land stolen.

      And so it goes in Isreal and Palestine.  Palestinians don't hate Jews because they're Jewish, but because they're Israeli -- because they're stealing their land (well, because they've stolen thier land, that is).  Certainly many Muslims think they hate Jews because they're Jewish, but they would be wrong in saying so (and no, we don't always hate people for the reasons we think we do).  If the Jews weren't there, the Muslims wouldn't really care about Jewishness or white people in general; they would simply live peacefully in the land God granted them in Palestine.

      For the record, I find Israel itself to be the epitome of anti-Semitism: it's the Ghetto writ large.  "Well, y'all don't seem to fit in in Europe or America, why don't we just send you all the the Middle East so you can live in a cozy little scrap of land surrounded by people who want to kill you.  Don't worry, we'll give you lots of guns".  Sheesh.  Worse than our "Indian Reservations", almost as bad as Hitler's ovens but with a nice sheen of repatriation to make people feel like it's something good for them.  It's the equivalent of telling our African-Americans to go back to Africa.  Not that we're telling Jews to live in Israel, but the general idea is that Israel is "more Jewish" than anywhere else, which is a crock, considering that land has no ethnicity.

      by Tlacolotl on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 10:55:07 PM PDT

      •  People have ethnicity, even if land doesn't

        Because Israel is a "Jewish state", Israel is positive for Jews because Judaism is a normal state of affairs there and Jews can do all the things that anti-Semitism made Jews afraid of in the Diaspora, such as running a government or working the land. Israelis also have Hebrew as a first language, which makes the Jewish tradition more accessible to them. If one reads the actual entry, God forbid, one sees that here Jews are not immune from being bullied because we are 2% of the population. The dispossession of Palestinians perhaps makes all this founded on a lie. But we have aspired for 2000 years to have a land where Jewish values are exalted. Israel is our aspiration, not something that Gentiles foisted on us.  

        by 4jkb4ia on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:49:41 PM PDT

    •  apoplectic

      you seem pretty cool, sparklegirl.  your previous posts lead me to believe you are my kind of glitterbug.  but on this issue, we could not agree less.  please don't take what i'm about to type too personally.

      Most of the time when Jews criticize anti-Israel sentiment as anti-Semitic, it is legitimate.

      poppycock.  pure and utter poppycock.  criticizing isreali policy is in no way tantamount to anti-semitism.  sure, some criticism of israel is thinly-veiled anti-semitism, but to say that most of it is - "wtf?!?!" is really all i can say.

      In Israel, the ultimate result of anti-Semitism is innocent civilians getting blown up in pizza parlors or toddlers being shot at point-blank range

      no.  those actions are the result of anti-israeli (i.e. anti-occupation) sentiment.  it has nothing to do with some vast arab hatred of jews.  as someone else pointed out, there is no worldwide arab conspiracy to exterminate jews.  they just want their land back.  so they attack the occupiers.  

      incidentally, do you have a link for the "toddlers being shot at point-blank range" bit?  because there are numerous accounts of an israeli soldier emptying his magazine into a 13-year old palestinian schoolgirl.

      as to the rest of your post:

      call out anti-semitism wherever it is real, by all means.  but please disabuse yourself of this notion that criticizing israel somehow encourages anti-semitism.  the logical extension of such a thought is that no one should be criticizing israel, which is patently absurd.  

      israel = political construct
      jewish = ethnic and cultural identity.

      criticism of israel != anti-semitism

      learn it, love it, live it.

      by Cedwyn on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 09:00:35 AM PDT

      •  "No Arab conspiracy to eliminate Jews"

        Really! What do you make of the Islamic insurgents in Iraq who conflate Americans and Jews? Did you also hear about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" on Egyptian television? Political Islamic hatemongers (including Osama bin Laden) use the Israeli/Palestinian situation to arouse hatred of Jews in general, using Nazi anti-Semitic metaphors. Palestinian television used to do this, too. A story about the toning down of incitement in Palestinian media in the NYT led with a sermon which was broadcast there that was anti-Semitic by any definition.

        by 4jkb4ia on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:19:12 PM PDT

        •  What is the purpose

          So I think we need to make some distinctions.  Most anti-Semitism in the Arab world has the Israel/Palestine situation as its alpha and its omega.  Most of the anti-Semitic imagery has been borrowed from Europe as the only fast and available language to express the outrage over this situation.  Most of the Arab and Muslim world is continually perplexed by the West's (particularly America's) support of something that is to them so obviously wrong that they turn to "Protocolsian" conspiracy theories.  

          The origin and motives behind this is quite different from a campaign to exterminate Jews or something, and to conflate the two is extremely dishonest.   Indeed, it has motives that are transparent.

          by Mandos on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 12:03:36 AM PDT

          •  I can't believe you're so naive

            that you think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the source of the anti-Semitism in the Arab/Muslim world. It's hard to even know where to begin having a logical discussion with someone who believes that. Militant fundamentalist Islam is a huge force characterized by hatred of the "other," whether American or Jew, which existed before the creation of Israel and will contintue to exist regardless of what Israel does. Yes, some of the terrorists use Israel as a convenient source for their hatred, but I can guarantee you that if the Israelis and Palestinians were to solve their conflicts and begin living peacefully side-by-side tomorrow, it would not go away. It is too deeply entrenched and too far widespread.

            by sparklegirl on Sun Dec 26, 2004 at 02:56:41 PM PDT

    •  Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

      The "Jewish establishment"(Foxman, Dershowitz etc) has delineated two examples of anti-Zionism that amount to anti-Semitism which I think are fair.
      

      1. Every other people in the world deserves a state of their own except for the Jews.
         
      2. Israel's human rights violations are the most awful and heinous in the world, and we will not complain about any others such as what the Sudanese are doing in Darfur, the Russians in Chechnya, the Chinese etc.
         

      Other criticisms of Israel can come from a simple human sense of decency.

      by 4jkb4ia on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 10:12:38 PM PDT

      •  They are strawmen

        Few serious critics of Israel's foundation actually claim 1.  In fact, very few people claim that Every Other People necessarily and unconditionally deserves a state.  I know, actually, of none who claim this.  Rather, the objection is that the conditions under which Israel was created made it specifically in the form in which it was created...less than legitimate.  Also that it is possible that there were no conditions under which the creation of Israel might not have been an unnacceptable breach of Arab rights.

        Few serious critics of Israel's policy actually claim 2.  However, I for one claim that Israel's behaviour is the lynchpin of a whole lot of other pathologies in the area. Not all, but many.  And that if one wants to make the greatest progress towards world peace, then the most useful criticism is that focused towards Israel.

        by Mandos on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 11:06:31 PM PDT

        •  I'd also like to add...

          ...that defenders of Israel create these criteria in order to claim that critics of Israel (who criticize Israel more than cosmetically) actually suffer from these positions 1 and 2.  So this is part of their campaign to discredit Israel's critics and should not be taken seriously.

          by Mandos on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 11:08:04 PM PDT

          •  I haven't seen anyone who claims 1 or 2 either

            But those positions are logically anti-Semitic.

            by 4jkb4ia on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 11:56:45 PM PDT

  •  The problem is

    that in the Arab world there is little distinction made between anti-Israel sentiment and anti-semitism.  "Jew" is synonomous with "Israeli" and the worst anti-semitic stereotypes are being viciously resurrected (e.g., the Protocols of the elders of Zion), in the name of the Palestinian cause.

    As usual, Jews today get it from the left (via the Palestinian issue) and from the right (via the anti-xmas crap). Mel Gibson's film, with its great popularity in the Middle East, was a poisonous fusing of these sources.

    by Upper West on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 10:01:57 PM PDT

    •  In the Arab world

      ...the primary image and relationship of Jews that people have to draw on are either:

      1. Odious Israelis
         
      2. Rich Western Jews.

      Unfortunately, they have not seen normal, day-to-day Jews.  Consequently, it's really easy for them to believe in Jewish conspiracies, since to them America's blind support of Israel is too hard to understand without a conspiracy.

      Also note that WWII is a footnote in the Muslim world as a whole.  WWI is way more important, and that didn't really involve Jews.  The most important fallout of WWII for that part of the world was...the creation of Israel.

      I am beginning to believe that many "ordinary" Jews living in the West are coming to realize the long-term problem that Israel has created.  I think that one day the Muslim world will eventually come to see the Jews as normal people.  But the image of the ordinary Jewish person will have to supplant that of the Israeli as the archetype of the Jew.

      by Mandos on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:38:42 PM PDT

      •  Odious Israelis?

        Give me a break. You're probably referring to the settlers--some of whom are pretty darn wacko--but they are a small minority of Israelis. Most Israelis (about 3/4) support disengagement from the settlements. Not to mention that a vast majority of Israelis live within the borders of the non-disputed part of Israel and lead everyday lives just like Americans do. They're certainly not religious zealots--the majority of Israelis are secular, and the fringe fundies who make up some of the settler population should not be used to smear the rest of them.

        by sparklegirl on Fri Dec 24, 2004 at 11:52:27 PM PDT

        •  First of all...

          ...the disengagement presently proposed by Sharon is in many ways quite fraudulent.  Secondly, the sense of odium originally arises from being, well, Israeli, as in occupying Arab lands.  But naturally no one seriously believes that there won't be an Israel after a solution, no matter what rhetoric they may spout.

          In any case, Israel claims to be a democracy.  I could thus superficially conclude that if a majority of Israelis really wished to TRULY disengage from the settlements, they would vote to dismantle the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank forthwith and not, rather, contribute to the conscript army that occupies these areas.  I realize that this is a superficial reading, but the settlers are necessarily the public face of Israel and Israel is judged by how the settler issue is handled, and at the moment, it is not well.

          by Mandos on Sat Dec 25, 2004 at 12:05:48 AM PDT

          •  Israel is a democracy.

            Israel is the one democracy in the Middle East, surrounded by hostile dictatorships and theocracies. In Israel, Muslims and Christians can be full citizens, whereas in many Muslim countries, a Jew can't even go there without fear of being beheaded. Israel has freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and equal rights for women--try finding that in any other Middle Easter country.

            Saying Israel "claims" to be a democracy is pretty ridiculous. Would you say America only "claims" to be a democracy because Bush and the radical right have currently hijacked our government and are doing things in our name that we would never support? If it helps, look at Sharon and Likud like Bush and Republicans. Unfortunately, the Israeli equivalent of the religious right has a disproportionate amount of political power because the other